So maybe 11 PM isn't the best time for painting your toenails.

[ase]

Tomorrow I'm doing the restaurant week thing and going to Poste with Perky K. I am wearing a skirt and strappy black sandals, so someone better appreciate the non-denim lengths I've gone to. (Things I love about my job #57: "well, you're cleaning your workspace with bleach solution" dress code! This leaves me with very little motivation to upgrade my clothes.)

Pursuant to shirts, this weekend I walked into Macy's looking for a camisole-type thingie and walked out with... a blue v-neck t-shirt. Yes, I know: you are all shocked by this break from tradition.

Also, shopping appeal: I'm breaking down and buying a digital camera. I'm soliciting opinions. HOWEVER, comma, I am on a budget. I'm looking in the $200 - $250 range, with an absolute limit of three hundred fifty dollars ($350) for the camera and basic accessories (second battery, larger memory card, etc). I really would like a digital SLR, but it's not happening this year. CNET has a real crush on the Canon Powershot series; does anyone else have nice or nasty things to say as I reach for the sales papers? I want instant gratification at high resolution, but I'll settle for decent warmup and shot-to-shot time, good picture quality, 7+ mpix, and an optical viewfinder.

Comments

[yi-sen.livejournal.com]

You might be able to get a used Nikon D50 (what I shoot with) for $300-$350.

[ase.livejournal.com]

Ebay says maaaaayyyybe. Am I going to be okay with just 6 mpix? My last camera, may it rest in peace (in someone else's hands, ngh) was a point and shoot but had eight.

[yi-sen.livejournal.com]

6MP is plenty for me. I regularly print up 8x10's and according to Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d50.htm) (his reviews are pretty good) he's seen 4ftx5ft prints from the d50.

Remember, megapixels only determine how large you can blow up the image. It's kind of a false premise with the idea that more mp = better camera.

Also remember, with DSLRs, the lens makes more of a difference than the camera itself. My favorite lens is a 50mm f/1.4 (what I shoot my portrait shots with) and it was $300. You can get a 50mm f/1.8 for about $120 and it's damn near as good. As for my zoom shots, I use a crappier 70-300mm lens that I think is around $150. So it's not all that expensive to expand lenses.

And if you get nikon lenses, then they will be compatible with future nikon bodies if/when you decide to get a new camera.

If you haven't seen. Examples of my work:
1. My store (http://backprint.com/storefront.asp?PID=bp%18yCp)
2. My flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordtennisanyone/)
3. My Model Mayhem page (http://www.modelmayhem.com/514861)

[ase.livejournal.com]

I know from mpix. I'm also used to cheaper digital cameras whose lousy jpeg algothims don't take well to cropping out areas of disinterest. Sounds like the real killer wouldn't be the cheap body, but the money I'd drop on lenses 30 seconds later.

Also? Super-jealous of your camera, which has, like, actual depth of field. Try that on a $200 p&s.

[yi-sen.livejournal.com]

That's why you start out with the kit lens (which is actually a pretty good lens) and save up for the other lenses. That's the brilliant thing about Nikon lenses. They're all compatible so if/when you buy new bodies in the future, the lenses carry over.

So few things in this world aren't made with planned obsolescence anymore.

The depth of field was done in 2 ways. One was the 50mm lens set at around f/2.8 for most portraits. The other was the 70-300mm lens focusing on something far away. It's all about the lenses.