Which camera do you use and...

I actually agree on the camera not mattering.

 

I mean this was taken on my blackberry pearl camera phone. This was taken with a slim point and shoot. And this was taken with my only camera with manual settings, and a great big breath...

 

And I still think I like the camera phone one best in some ways.

I actually agree on the camera not mattering.

 

I mean this was taken on my blackberry pearl camera phone. This was taken with a slim point and shoot. And this was taken with my only camera with manual settings, and a great big breath...

 

And I still think I like the camera phone one best in some ways.

Camera only matters when you want to go beyond the capabilities of a point n shoot. If you are not feeling the limitation of a phone camera yet, I'm sorry to say, but you are not ready for a DSLR yet.

Camera only matters when you want to go beyond the capabilities of a point n shoot. If you are not feeling the limitation of a phone camera yet, I'm sorry to say, but you are not ready for a DSLR yet.

I disagree with this statement. Yes you can get more control over your photos using a DSLR, but that does not necessarily mean that you can take better photos. Part of photography is the tools and techniques (like painting or even playing instruments) but without the talent (like a painter or a musician) even the very best cameras on the market are a waste in their hands (or full potential cannot be reached)

 

She never said she didn't feel limited by her camera phone - she just said she liked the shot she took with it. All three of the shots are very good, I think this shows her natural talent, regardless of the camera she used she ended up with beautiful photographs.

Camera only matters when you want to go beyond the capabilities of a point n shoot. If you are not feeling the limitation of a phone camera yet, I'm sorry to say, but you are not ready for a DSLR yet.

 

PlasticFantastic is right that I wasn't saying I didn't feel the limitations of the cameras. I certainly have felt them.

 

I just feel that sometimes you get a nicely composed shot, almost by accident, on a camera and it might not be the best camera. Or the best camera may actually not be the RIGHT camera for the shot.

 

I've seen some great shots taken with a Fisher Price 110 from the 1980s with a plastic lens, but there are DEFINITELY situations where that camera won't perform at all.

 

Emotionally the camera phone triggers more memories. I was sitting on a beach, on warm sand in the shade of trees. The sound of waves just in the distance. And it was a shot I got on a dying battery. And that shot allows me to have those strong memories associated with it. That's why I like it the best.

 

Technically, the one in EPCOT was the hardest to get. That camera model has extremely poor performance in low light so I was using a much longer exposure to reduce noise and didn't have a tripod. The rain had just stopped so I took my chance getting a picture of Spaceship Earth at night. I had to hold as still as possible to take the picture, and even then it took me many tries before I got the one I linked.

 

For the record the slim point and shoot is a Lumix DMC-TS2 and the one with the manual settings is a Lumix DMC-FZ7. And no, I wasn't using the OIS.

 

The camera I'm looking at getting down the road is the Lumix LX5 or the Leica Lux5. They're basically the same camera except the Leica comes with Photoshop Elements, a 3 year warranty, and the Leica spot. Which all do account for the 350ish price difference.

Camera only matters when you want to go beyond the capabilities of a point n shoot. If you are not feeling the limitation of a phone camera yet, I'm sorry to say, but you are not ready for a DSLR yet.

I disagree with this statement. Yes you can get more control over your photos using a DSLR, but that does not necessarily mean that you can take better photos. Part of photography is the tools and techniques (like painting or even playing instruments) but without the talent (like a painter or a musician) even the very best cameras on the market are a waste in their hands (or full potential cannot be reached)

 

She never said she didn't feel limited by her camera phone - she just said she liked the shot she took with it. All three of the shots are very good, I think this shows her natural talent, regardless of the camera she used she ended up with beautiful photographs.

 

I never said anything about that. I just said, if you are not feeling the limitation of a phone camera, you are not ready for a DSLR. But I am not talking about Better camera produce picture

 

I'm trying to imply that if you can use a phone camera to take wedding, by all means, go ahead. I don't mind. If you can control your lighting. Oh and of course. I know this is a doll forum so doll photography talk. But I am highlighting the issue that you don't need to go for expensive camera if you are not limited by the current imaging device you are using

 

 

Camera only matters when you want to go beyond the capabilities of a point n shoot. If you are not feeling the limitation of a phone camera yet, I'm sorry to say, but you are not ready for a DSLR yet.

 

PlasticFantastic is right that I wasn't saying I didn't feel the limitations of the cameras. I certainly have felt them.

 

I just feel that sometimes you get a nicely composed shot, almost by accident, on a camera and it might not be the best camera. Or the best camera may actually not be the RIGHT camera for the shot.

 

I've seen some great shots taken with a Fisher Price 110 from the 1980s with a plastic lens, but there are DEFINITELY situations where that camera won't perform at all.

 

Emotionally the camera phone triggers more memories. I was sitting on a beach, on warm sand in the shade of trees. The sound of waves just in the distance. And it was a shot I got on a dying battery. And that shot allows me to have those strong memories associated with it. That's why I like it the best.

 

Technically, the one in EPCOT was the hardest to get. That camera model has extremely poor performance in low light so I was using a much longer exposure to reduce noise and didn't have a tripod. The rain had just stopped so I took my chance getting a picture of Spaceship Earth at night. I had to hold as still as possible to take the picture, and even then it took me many tries before I got the one I linked.

 

For the record the slim point and shoot is a Lumix DMC-TS2 and the one with the manual settings is a Lumix DMC-FZ7. And no, I wasn't using the OIS.

 

The camera I'm looking at getting down the road is the Lumix LX5 or the Leica Lux5. They're basically the same camera except the Leica comes with Photoshop Elements, a 3 year warranty, and the Leica spot. Which all do account for the 350ish price difference.

 

Read above. Camera are just hit and miss. Like you guise said, camera is like a tool. So different painter has different type of brush. If you need a shot that requires the capability of a phone camera, yes you can use it. But if you are trying to do high speed photography. No. A camera with a shutter speed of above 2000 is a must.

 

If you have more budget. Sony NEX is the way to go. I recommend it greatly

We have quite a bit of gear in our collection, though some of it isn't very "traditional" in the modern sense. My primary shooter is a Nikon D7000 with an array of lenses. The most common ones I use are a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I also have a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro that works really well for closeup work (and even portrait if I back up) and a general purpose Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR that almost never gets used.

 

When I don't want to break out the whole camera kit, I reach for a Canon S95 point and shoot. Since it has a larger sensor than a traditional point and shoot (but still smaller than APS-C) and an f/2.0 lens, it cranks out some great results and performs really well in low light. It's probably the best point-and-shoot camera I've ever owned.

 

Here's where things get interesting... I've also been shooting with film on the side. But not just any film camera, I have these in my toolbox:

 

Nikon FE:

Canon AE-1:

 

Both of those cameras are ca. 1980, fully manual, feature a center weighted light meter, and take 35mm film. I'm still working on my first roll of black and white film on the FE, but here's some of what I'd done with the AE-1:

 

The nice thing about the Nikon is that it'll a few of the lenses I have for my digital. Likewise, I can mount the 50mm f/1.4 lens from the FE on my D7000!

 

I've found that shooting film has forced me to be more stingy when pushing the shutter. It's also forced me to tweak with the settings more and ultimately get more shots right "the first time." Sadly, it's also made me want a full frame DSLR, which isn't something I can afford. ;_;

We have quite a bit of gear in our collection, though some of it isn't very "traditional" in the modern sense. My primary shooter is a Nikon D7000 with an array of lenses. The most common ones I use are a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I also have a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro that works really well for closeup work (and even portrait if I back up) and a general purpose Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR that almost never gets used.

 

When I don't want to break out the whole camera kit, I reach for a Canon S95 point and shoot. Since it has a larger sensor than a traditional point and shoot (but still smaller than APS-C) and an f/2.0 lens, it cranks out some great results and performs really well in low light. It's probably the best point-and-shoot camera I've ever owned.

 

Here's where things get interesting... I've also been shooting with film on the side. But not just any film camera, I have these in my toolbox:

 

Nikon FE:

Canon AE-1:

 

Both of those cameras are ca. 1980, fully manual, feature a center weighted light meter, and take 35mm film. I'm still working on my first roll of black and white film on the FE, but here's some of what I'd done with the AE-1:

 

The nice thing about the Nikon is that it'll a few of the lenses I have for my digital. Likewise, I can mount the 50mm f/1.4 lens from the FE on my D7000!

 

I've found that shooting film has forced me to be more stingy when pushing the shutter. It's also forced me to tweak with the settings more and ultimately get more shots right "the first time." Sadly, it's also made me want a full frame DSLR, which isn't something I can afford. ;_;

hey nice to see you here!

 

Well for film, at least you don't have to worry about a lot of things like white balance and etc etc etc... LOL.

 

Sony A850 is a cheap alternative for FF. I still highly recommend that camera if you don't mind it's AF points...

There are a lot of other things to worry about when it comes to film, most notably the film itself. Different types of film have different characteristics, so you have to pick wisely when buying. The off the shelf 35mm color will behave differently from the professional types. Different types of black and white film will have different properties in the grain, contrast, and warmth. Similarly, different types of color slide film will enhance different color ranges, which means you would use different film for portrait versus landscape.

 

I've discovered that shooting with film is far more complicated than digital. XD

 

If I ever go full frame, I'll stick with Nikon just because of the amount of glass I have already. Rebuying most of the catalog is not an appealing thing. >.>

There are a lot of other things to worry about when it comes to film, most notably the film itself. Different types of film have different characteristics, so you have to pick wisely when buying. The off the shelf 35mm color will behave differently from the professional types. Different types of black and white film will have different properties in the grain, contrast, and warmth. Similarly, different types of color slide film will enhance different color ranges, which means you would use different film for portrait versus landscape.

 

I've discovered that shooting with film is far more complicated than digital. XD

 

If I ever go full frame, I'll stick with Nikon just because of the amount of glass I have already. Rebuying most of the catalog is not an appealing thing. >.>

Well that's definitely a problem, but when you start shooting, you worry less than digital shooters.

 

Shooting with film should be easier since you know what film you gonna buy either way. Kodak FTW!

 

Alpha DSLR should be able to use adapter if I remember correctly for mount F-mount lenses

Unfortunately, Kodak is going under. For Black and White, I'm shooting with Ilford film and I'm using Fuji's Provia line for color slides.

 

As for worrying less, I'm not sure if that's true. There still is that one major advancement in digital in that there's instant gratification and results. If you screw up with digital, you delete and retake. If you screw up with film, you don't know until you get it developed. You learn not to screw up because of the much higher cost for failure. A roll of slide film costs around $8. Developing tacks on another $15, all for 36 pictures.

 

Also, if you use slide versus traditional negative, there is far less room for error. You can develop and photoshop your way out of more exposure problems with negative, you have very little wiggle room with slide. Slide is much more "one and done," so you need to make sure you get it right the first time.

 

The digital equivalent would be shooting without preview/delete, in full manual mode, with a 512MB memory card, and then mailing the card to a friend in another country to download the pictures. That's almost what it's like to shoot with film on a cameras like the FE and AE-1.

 

It gives me greater appreciation when I go back to my D7000 and I wind up with far fewer wasted shots. I also crop a lot less since I get the composition right the first time and wind up with a lot fewer duplicates.

Unfortunately, Kodak is going under. For Black and White, I'm shooting with Ilford film and I'm using Fuji's Provia line for color slides.

 

As for worrying less, I'm not sure if that's true. There still is that one major advancement in digital in that there's instant gratification and results. If you screw up with digital, you delete and retake. If you screw up with film, you don't know until you get it developed. You learn not to screw up because of the much higher cost for failure. A roll of slide film costs around $8. Developing tacks on another $15, all for 36 pictures.

 

Also, if you use slide versus traditional negative, there is far less room for error. You can develop and photoshop your way out of more exposure problems with negative, you have very little wiggle room with slide. Slide is much more "one and done," so you need to make sure you get it right the first time.

 

The digital equivalent would be shooting without preview/delete, in full manual mode, with a 512MB memory card, and then mailing the card to a friend in another country to download the pictures. That's almost what it's like to shoot with film on a cameras like the FE and AE-1.

 

It gives me greater appreciation when I go back to my D7000 and I wind up with far fewer wasted shots. I also crop a lot less since I get the composition right the first time and wind up with a lot fewer duplicates.

Amen to that. That's why I deeply feels sad for people who waste shots on digital, and their pictures looks like less than decent. and worse part is insisting on getting a DSLR. orz

The digital equivalent would be shooting without preview/delete, in full manual mode, with a 512MB memory card, and then mailing the card to a friend in another country to download the pictures. That's almost what it's like to shoot with film on a cameras like the FE and AE-1.

 

Been there, done that. Well, almost

Of course, digital sometimes makes You lazy. Like - "I can always retake".

But - at least in my case - my time is worth a lot. Just like the roll of film in $. Every retake takes time.

Every one I have to check on screen, decide to keep/delete, and the ones I keep I have to process in software. Even in the simple Picasa. I don't have that much time to waste, so I try to take it right, even using digital.

And You can retake the shot only, when You're shooting in constant conditions.

There's no retake, when there was a butterfly near Your subject for several seconds, or the sun was just shining through the leaves.

Digicam is a great tool for learning. If one wants to learn. Just because we can "waste" a hundred shots to learn, how to make this one right.

 

As for the DSLR part - there is a HUGE difference between DSLRs and most Point and Shoots.

It's the size of the sensor, and the things connected to it - less noise, higher usable ISO, or things like hot shoe or interchangeable optic. Some cameras like NEX or PEN have similar possibilities.

Getting the DSLR allows You to make photos often almost impossible to get with standard digicam.

And the speed, without the shutter and AF lag. Sometimes You need this speed to take the photo on the right moment, not the second later when the camera finally gets focus

 

As for the DSLR part - there is a HUGE difference between DSLRs and most Point and Shoots.

It's the size of the sensor, and the things connected to it - less noise, higher usable ISO, or things like hot shoe or interchangeable optic. Some cameras like NEX or PEN have similar possibilities.

Getting the DSLR allows You to make photos often almost impossible to get with standard digicam.

And the speed, without the shutter and AF lag. Sometimes You need this speed to take the photo on the right moment, not the second later when the camera finally gets focus

 

The only reason I got a DSLR: For the F stops. LOLLL

Yes, there is a difference in terms of hardware in a standard consumer point and shoot, high end point and shoot, and the various types of SLRs. However, I've never felt that it should be the "make or break" in your photography. A good photographer can take great pictures regardless of the equipment they are using. Sure, there are things that higher end gear can do, but a good photographer will know how to get the most out of what they have.

 

There was a series of videos awhile back on Youtube to support this theory. They got a professional photographer, gave him 3 of the crappiest point and shoot digital cameras they could find, and asked him to take some pictures out at the Buddha in Hong Kong. While the resulting shots weren't of the best quality, he managed a lot of really interesting shots in terms of composition and angle. For one shot, he mounted the camera on a tripod and held it out over a ledge to get a different perspective.

 

The camera is just a tool. The person behind the camera is what creates the results. I think the obligatory "Ansel Adams" reference goes here.

Yes, there is a difference in terms of hardware in a standard consumer point and shoot, high end point and shoot, and the various types of SLRs. However, I've never felt that it should be the "make or break" in your photography. A good photographer can take great pictures regardless of the equipment they are using. Sure, there are things that higher end gear can do, but a good photographer will know how to get the most out of what they have.

 

There was a series of videos awhile back on Youtube to support this theory. They got a professional photographer, gave him 3 of the crappiest point and shoot digital cameras they could find, and asked him to take some pictures out at the Buddha in Hong Kong. While the resulting shots weren't of the best quality, he managed a lot of really interesting shots in terms of composition and angle. For one shot, he mounted the camera on a tripod and held it out over a ledge to get a different perspective.

 

The camera is just a tool. The person behind the camera is what creates the results. I think the obligatory "Ansel Adams" reference goes here.

 

LOLLL That episode with the lego camera was so jokes. Chase did a really good job though. XD

 

Point and shoots are great, I find that they do what they are suppose to. But, there will be times when you want a certain shot that you won't be able to get with a point and shoot. Right when you get a DSLR, there are fewer limits as to what you can get (as long as you know how to use it).

 

My sister got a DSLR but she left it in manual mode -facepalm-

DSLR can indeed gives you different result from what a PnS does. Let's say you can get a creamier DoF that a PnS can't give due to its UWA.

 

But when I see people "Oh I need a DSLR because this (Prosumer) PnS doesn't gives me good shot" and I was like "NOOOOOOOOOOO F*CK YOU YOU DON'T GET A DSLR BECAUSE YOUR CAN GET GOOD SHOT WITH IT!"

 

P1020495 by AntElitist, on Flickr

 

This is from a LX3. Not a DSLR. And I find this highly usable because I can go 0.3m distance between her and the LX3. DSLR focal range is limited by your lens. So sometimes a general purposes lens like the 24-70 f/2.8G isn't good enough when you want to go NEARRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

 

/rant.

 

Btw, Manual Mode is for the win. Because for doll photography, you have all the time to take, and retake. and reset.

 

How many people you see using settings of >ISO100 for Studio? You don't need a fast camera for studio. You can have all the time to shoot. It's not like your subject is going to run away!

 

You only need the P/A/S mode when you are in a tight situation. But for studio, just take your time, and study your shots.

 

 

The only reason I got a DSLR: For the F stops. LOLLL

 

I hope you mean Depth of Field.

 

If not I might want to shoot myself in the head as well.

 

Yes, there is a difference in terms of hardware in a standard consumer point and shoot, high end point and shoot, and the various types of SLRs. However, I've never felt that it should be the "make or break" in your photography. A good photographer can take great pictures regardless of the equipment they are using. Sure, there are things that higher end gear can do, but a good photographer will know how to get the most out of what they have.

 

There was a series of videos awhile back on Youtube to support this theory. They got a professional photographer, gave him 3 of the crappiest point and shoot digital cameras they could find, and asked him to take some pictures out at the Buddha in Hong Kong. While the resulting shots weren't of the best quality, he managed a lot of really interesting shots in terms of composition and angle. For one shot, he mounted the camera on a tripod and held it out over a ledge to get a different perspective.

 

The camera is just a tool. The person behind the camera is what creates the results. I think the obligatory "Ansel Adams" reference goes here.

 

 

You mean this video.

 

The only reason I got a DSLR: For the F stops. LOLLL

 

I hope you mean Depth of Field.

 

If not I might want to shoot myself in the head as well.

 

No I did not mean DoF -trolls-

LOL Just kidding. I did mean DoF and also for low light photography.

 

The only reason I got a DSLR: For the F stops. LOLLL

 

I hope you mean Depth of Field.

 

If not I might want to shoot myself in the head as well.

 

No I did not mean DoF -trolls-

LOL Just kidding. I did mean DoF and also for low light photography.

Now that's so much better haha

New here, so I figured I'd toss in here what I use:

 

Sony A77V w/Vertical grip.

*Update* Minolta Maxxum 9000 film SLR

Lenses:

1- Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM "kit" lens (I put that in parenthesis for a reason, that lens is far better than any basic "kit" lens, but the camera came with it).

2- Sony DT50mm f/1.8 SAM

3- Sony DT55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM

4- Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM G

 

*Update*

5- Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 MACRO SAM

6- Minolta VARISOFT ROKKOR 85mm f/2.8 1978 model manual portrait lens

7- Minolta CELTIC 135mm f/3.5 MC mount manual lens

 

*Update 2*

8- Minolta 35-70mm f/4 w/macro at 70mm

9- Minolta 50mm f/2.8 Macro

10- Minolta 70-210mm f/4 w/macro at 210mm

11- Minolta 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 w/macro

12- Platinum Optics 2x Teleconverter for Minolta AF/Sony A mount

 

Soon I'll be picking up some old Minolta MC/MD mount lenses from the 70s to use with it, along with an adapter ring. One of those lenses being the "legendary" portrait lens: Varisoft Rokkor-X 85mm f/2.8.

 

I also occasionally use my phone's camera. The phone being an HTC Doubleshot aka: T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide.

 

The board won't let me post any pictures atm, so that will have to come later.

 

Edit: I forgot to mention that I do not use Photoshop or perform any other post-processing on pictures I take, unless specified.

 

Edit 2: Added pic of Mio holding the A77 with the DT50 f/1.8. Also, if I had the money, I would absolutely love to add an a900 to my setup. I'd also love to add the NEX-7 to my setup, and I can actually afford that one, but I'm having a hard time justifying it atm.

 

Edit3: Nevermind on the picture, the BBCode doesn't want to work, so here's the link to it on Flickr:

 

http://flic.kr/p/by3xFU

 

Edit4: Added new lenses to the list and corrected some typos.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Guest

I figured I would post my equipment list as well:

 

Nikon D7000 with grip extension.

Nikon D70 (bought for it's 1/500 flash sync speed)

 

Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8G

Nikkor 40mm1:2.8G

Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D

Sigma 18-50mm 1:2.8-4.5

Sigma 70-300mm 1:4-5.6

 

2 Nikon SB-26 flashes

2 Yongnuo YN560 flashes

2 Pro Photo Stud continuous light kits

 

Various light stands, reflectors, and color correction gels.

Manfrotto 190XDB tripod, Gorillapod SLR sized.

 

The Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is my newest lens and it's just amazing how sharp it is. The only problem I have is it's pretty heavy. Between my cameras battery grip and this metal case lens the combo is a good bit over 4 pounds.

 

As for my camera phone I'm using an Android Thunderbolt that has an 8MP camera on it. Its pretty good as long as you have good light. I'm considering moving to an iphone, depending on what the next version is like. They are known for the high quality of their cameras.

hmm, currently still using Canon S90 and my Samsung Galaxy S2.

S90 while it is a gd camera, it fall short when you need to shoot from far (3.8x optical zoom) and cannot get too close due to its minimum focus distance of 5cm.

But it still great for some macro and street photography....

 

Maybe will consider a DSLR or Mirrorless in the future to learn more about photography.

I just ordered a new camera via the internets last week. 0_0 The first point and shoot I've ever purchased for myself. After seeing the performance of the Panasonic Lumix series I decided to try one out - though none of the really nice expensive ones. >_<

 

Once it comes I'll have to take some pics and see how it is for doll photography.. I have a feeling I'll end up liking it more than my SLR just for portability. lol

Thought I would add my own list here to uphold the name of my favorite Camera manufacturer, there is not actually much left as some of it was sold off to fund the purchase of my daughters.

 

I seem to be in the minority here as I do not use either of the main brands being a Pentax fan for many years, anyway here is what I currently use. I have not had as much opportunity to take pictures of my girls recently and I hope this will change soon

 

Pentax ist DL with 18 - 55 mm kit lens (my first DSLR)

Pentax K10d with 18 - 55 kit lens

Pentax Battery Grip

Sigma 70 - 300mm zoom

Sigma 28 - 105 mm manual focus lens

Sigma 28mm f2.8 manual focus lens (allows very close focusing)

Cobra auto/manual flash

Velbon tripod

 

recently bought a Olympus E-PL1 micro 4/3 mirrorless with a 14 - 42 mm lens as I needed something smaller and more compact than my DSLR and got it for about the price I was going to pay for a compact. Not used it much but the pictures I have taken are very high quality and I have to say it is as easy or complex to use as you want to make it.

 

Hope to build on this again once my funds allow though the micro 4/3 system lenses are very expensive

 

Have to say I am sometimes a bit dismayed by the rush that some people seem to be in to spend a lot of money on a camera that may be way more than they will ever need or use before getting the best out of the one they have, I only own 2 of my current cameras because I got them a price I could not pass up and I was into photography way before my interest in Dolls and Figures etc. This Hobby is much to expensive without adding on extra expenses

 

Hope that last bit did not come over as critical or stronger than I intended.

One of my "new" vintage Minolta lenses arrived today, slight change to the previous mention of it, as the one I received is the Japan market version of the lens, not the US market version: "Minolta Varisoft Rokkor 85mm 1:2.8" Produced in 1978 for the Japan market. Now I just need to wait for the lens mount adapter... ;p

 

Edit: I just noticed that the way I typed that looks funny... The US market version has "Rokkor-X" in orange around the lens bezel, the Japan market is "Rokkor" in white.

 

Edit 2: Mio posing with the lens.

 

DSC00214 by zero_the_faerie_believer, on Flickr

 

Edit 3: Attempting to add the pic I tried to add to my previous post:

 

IMAG0512 by zero_the_faerie_believer, on Flickr

I am a total camera noob

 

I have a Canon t2i and I primarily use my 50mm prime lens. I have a kit lens which I'd like to sell, but I need it for my photography class in school next semester or the semester after.

 

It's good enough for me right now :3 I'd like to upgrade by the end of my college years