|
8flood8
Nov 8, 2007, 12:22 AM
Post #1 of 41
(12309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
I'd like something that i can change lenses on, looking for digital as well.
would like to eventually be able to sell a few shots here or there (call me an interested hobbyist)
what are people thinking right now.
not looking for a pro camera, but something that would approximate a magazine quality shot.
any advice? I'm coming here because i don't know where to start researching and my wife won't look at it until i've got some ideas.
thanks in advance!
ps i did a search on only came up with stuff relevant to 2005
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Nov 8, 2007, 12:38 AM
Post #2 of 41
(12305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Magazine quality? Magazines print so much shit these days that that's really not saying much.
Let's start with price bracket and the types of things you plan to shoot and work from there. Also useful; do you plan to stay at a certain level with your photography, or do you plan to get progressively more serious with it? I ask this because I don't know a single professional photographer shooting small format digital that doesn't use either Nikon or Canon lens mounts. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Leica won't be up your alley.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Nov 8, 2007, 12:43 AM
Post #3 of 41
(12305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
You have posted this in the wrong section but I am sure someone will move it soon 
BUT.... The type of camera you can buy depends on the amount of money you are willing to spend Just like all things in life
you pay for what you get
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Nov 8, 2007, 3:03 AM
Post #4 of 41
(12295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Myxomatosis wrote: You have posted this in the wrong section but I am sure someone will move it soon BUT.... The type of camera you can buy depends on the amount of money you are willing to spend Just like all things in life you pay for what you get
Post moved from photo critique forum to this one.
|
|
|
|
|
king_rat
Nov 8, 2007, 5:40 PM
Post #5 of 41
(12260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365
|
personaly id go for either a canon or nikon(you cant go wrong with either) then decide how much you want to spend
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Nov 9, 2007, 8:02 PM
Post #6 of 41
(12196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
Some good entry level dlsr's are the Nikon D40 and Canon xt and xti. I just picked up the D40 kit (usa model) for under $400 from Adorama. Christmas specials will be hitting the market soon so this is the time of year to be buying.
You can always upgrade to your D2x when you learn how to photograph. You will also find the price of the camera is a starting point to buying all the extras, i.e. lenses, filters, flashes, etc. You can always upgrade the body down the line and keep you bag of extras.
Check out the review sources on the web. This place has a good layout and can side by side compare the items you narrow down.
http://dpreview.com/
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Nov 10, 2007, 1:12 AM
Post #7 of 41
(12173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
uptick wrote: Some good entry level dlsr's are the Nikon D40 and Canon xt and xti. I just picked up the D40 kit (usa model) for under $400 from Adorama. Christmas specials will be hitting the market soon so this is the time of year to be buying. You can always upgrade to your D2x when you learn how to photograph. You will also find the price of the camera is a starting point to buying all the extras, i.e. lenses, filters, flashes, etc. You can always upgrade the body down the line and keep you bag of extras. Check out the review sources on the web. This place has a good layout and can side by side compare the items you narrow down. http://dpreview.com/
Actually, lenses is something you have to be careful with since Nikon has fallen in line and gone full frame with the D3. While I don't imagine most cameras in either the Nikon or Canon lines going full frame in the next few years, I do imagine it will become the standard once again somewhere down the line.
The DX lenses, for example, are great for Nikon and Fuji digital slrs... except the D3 in which case using them will more than halve the resolution. I'm not sure about compatability issues with Canon, but given that they produce digital cameras with three different sensor sizes, it's pretty much impossible that the same lens could work perfectly on all three sensors without drawbacks somewhere.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Nov 10, 2007, 2:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Nov 10, 2007, 1:26 AM
Post #8 of 41
(12168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
I just bought my wife a Canon XTi and she loves it! It's a very impressive camera, it's not too difficult to use, and it wasn't a million dollars. Now she's looking at which lenses she wants...
hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
dominic7
Nov 10, 2007, 1:45 AM
Post #9 of 41
(12163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 18646
|
8flood8 wrote: I'd like something that i can change lenses on, looking for digital as well. would like to eventually be able to sell a few shots here or there (call me an interested hobbyist) what are people thinking right now. not looking for a pro camera, but something that would approximate a magazine quality shot. any advice? I'm coming here because i don't know where to start researching and my wife won't look at it until i've got some ideas. thanks in advance! ps i did a search on only came up with stuff relevant to 2005
I got a Rebel DLSR and I really like it. I don't use the stock lense, but got a wide-angle zoom for walking around and a telephoto for longer applications. I'm very happy with it - but am far from a professional so don't take my word.
|
|
|
|
|
littlebilly
Nov 10, 2007, 1:52 AM
Post #10 of 41
(12160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 69
|
My experience only extends to Canon, but I would warn you away from the digital rebels. at least the two that i have had experience with have a limited dynamic range, and do especially poorly with blue skys. I have a (now old) 20d, very much like the newer 30d and 40d. It's a solid camera, big enough to get a good grip and room for a good control layout. little cameras are just too crowded and are like a small crimp to hold onto. I also have a 5D, if you want to go more professional without shelling out 8 grand, that's the camera.
As mentioned in a previous post, lenses and accessories are part of the added cost. the better the camera, the better the lenses have to be. Canon has two lens lines: good, and outrageously expensive.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
A good site for canon camera and lens reviews. I strongly urge you to read-up before you purchase.
hope that helps
-V
|
|
|
|
|
atlnq9
Nov 11, 2007, 2:49 AM
Post #11 of 41
(12103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 111
|
Medium format all the way, not digital but much better than digital unless you have $50,000. You have to love pro slide film, especially fujichrome velvia!
|
|
|
|
|
therelic
Nov 11, 2007, 3:47 AM
Post #12 of 41
(12092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 136
|
Hey 8flood8,
This is the camera I've got ordered. It's a noticeable upgrade from the D200 and does everything I need to have a camera do. If we climb together again sometime I'll let you play with it.
Bill
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Nov 11, 2007, 6:00 AM
Post #13 of 41
(12080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
Maybe I'm taking this out of context but the guy is looking for something a step up from a point and shoot, i.e. "a hobbyist..."
Finding a good "mom and pop" local camera shop can be of great assistance. May not be the best price in the world but surprisingly, they may be competitive on the whole package of getting what you need.
Also helps to put the bodies in your hand and see the layout. The Canon seemed a bit small for my mitts and went with a Nikon. Dont think you would be dissatisfied with either one.
Instead of spending too much on a camera, the first investment should be in developing the craft.
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Nov 11, 2007, 10:08 AM
Post #14 of 41
(12065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Yeah I argee... something like the new Canon S5IS or a top of the range "snap shooter" will deliver some awesome results.
If you want to just take photo's of you and your buddies climbing, just pull it out of its bag and its ready to roll... then save a few dollars and hours of "what am I doing wrong? HMMM" moments and get yourself a good digital camera...
If you want to learn the craft of photography and put in some quality time learning the camera, the art and even post editing, then get a DSLR by all means. 
I've got a Canon 400D *I think its the Rebel XTi?*. If I had had the choice again, I would have gone for a 30D (as it was quite cheap when I brought mine, around the time the 40D came out) but I do no regret it at all
|
|
|
|
|
kevinheiss
Nov 12, 2007, 9:51 PM
Post #15 of 41
(12004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 272
|
The only problem with the Nikon D40 is that you are limited on the type of lens you can buy since the camera doesn't have an autofocus motor built in it. That means you need to buy lenses that have the motor built in it.
For most people the Nikon D80 is more than enough. As for Canon I don't have any experience with then so I can't comment but both company are very good.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 14, 2007, 9:13 PM
Post #16 of 41
(11942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
Nikon D200, Digital Camera Body 10.2 megapixels
Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens
Nikon 70-300mm Auto Focus Lens
Canon EOS 30D,Camera Body 8.2 megapixels
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Zoom Super Wide Angle Autofocus Lens
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Zoom Telephoto Autofocus Lens
both are roughly $850.00 from what i have seen online.
What do you all think about these?
is that gonna be more than enough to get some good action up close and far farther out?
|
|
|
|
|
Myxomatosis
Nov 14, 2007, 10:36 PM
Post #17 of 41
(11918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 1063
|
Can't go wrong with those camera's, altho the 30D has been upgraded to the 40D now.
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Nov 15, 2007, 6:45 AM
Post #18 of 41
(11881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
D200 is a respectable unit. Not sure where you are getting the whole kit for $850 as the bodies alone are $1400 from a reputable dealer.
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 15, 2007, 7:07 AM
Post #19 of 41
(11877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
http://www.usaphotonation.com/...gine=shopcartusa#acc
1.Nikon D200, Digital Camera Body
2.Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens
3.Nikon 70-300mm Auto Focus Lens
4.2GB Memory Card
5.LCD Screen Protectors
6.Lens Cleaning Kit
7.Hard Case
8.Card Reader
9.Full Size Tripod
10.Memory Card Case
11.Lens Pouch
12.Cap Keeper
13.Wrist Strap
pretty much the same deal on the canon. with all the extras.
not sure why it is so cheap, but many searches showed similar results.
what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 15, 2007, 7:14 PM
Post #22 of 41
(11834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
thank you for saving me.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Nov 15, 2007, 7:34 PM
Post #23 of 41
(11826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
8flood8 wrote: thank you for saving me.
No worries. It is wise to stick to the list posted above, though I think I would add http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx as well, if you can't find a good price locally. Personally, my local store in lexington has prices that are as good as, or better then most of the trustworthy internet sites.
And, as a recommendation, either will be great. If you are looking to save some cash, you can probably find a good used 20d/30d for around $500, and then you can buy a good lens for it. The 40d is quite a bit better then the 30d/20d, but it is also several hundred more.
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Nov 15, 2007, 9:24 PM
Post #24 of 41
(11808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
8flood8 wrote: http://www.usaphotonation.com/...gine=shopcartusa#acc 1.Nikon D200, Digital Camera Body 2.Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens 3.Nikon 70-300mm Auto Focus Lens 4.2GB Memory Card 5.LCD Screen Protectors 6.Lens Cleaning Kit 7.Hard Case 8.Card Reader 9.Full Size Tripod 10.Memory Card Case 11.Lens Pouch 12.Cap Keeper 13.Wrist Strap pretty much the same deal on the canon. with all the extras. not sure why it is so cheap, but many searches showed similar results. what do you think?
Other scam places like that will try ,
"they need to call you to conform address"
then they will inform you ,you need to buy a battery for a camera, and battery is $100+ ( you can get it for $20 other places).
Then you'll find out a battery charger is not in a deal nether...
and couple other things.....and if you say" HOLD ON!!!!"
you will be informed " YOU AREN'T DOIN ME A FAVOR IF YOU BUY FROM US......."
At the end your total will be same or more than a reputable place.....
(This post was edited by Basta916 on Nov 16, 2007, 5:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 17, 2007, 12:58 AM
Post #25 of 41
(11702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
One thing about this board is NEVER EVER EVER ask a photo gear question unless you have $5000-10,000 to spend now or within 6mos, or have access and desire to endebt yourself to credit cards for that type of money.
Most of the prolific posters on this board truly believe you cannot take a printable image with less than a $2000 body and at least a $2000 lens mounted to it. And if you ever dare question that theory you will be sent to your room promptly with absolutely no desert.
I've seen many post where the guy states a very reasonable $500 lens budget and the first post is for a $1200 lens recomendation.
I know with micro stock and just internet publishing and really just ease of access almost anyone can make some money off photography but honestly, a lot of people don't want to make money off of it.
As sad as it sounds they are OK with dropping 2K on a body and a few lenses for a hobby, and making nothing in return, but not OK on dropping 10K with the idea that they now have to make a return on that "investment".
For my own perspective, I could not be happier pushing paper for a living. And when I get tired of that, I'll go into health care but I never ever ever ever hope to have to pay an essential bill through photography.
And quite frankly if that doesn't make sense, think about guys getting paid $10 mil a year to play a sport and not having any fun, while I go out and enjoy every moment. Heck, I pay to have a ball pitched to me...and leave with a f'ing smile on my face. I see a lot of major leaguers smile 1 time every 3 years and thats when they sign the next contract.
As far as approximating a magazing quality shot...any digital camera produced since 2003 will fill a 2 page magazine bleed. sad but true. and the reason why you only came up with stuff relevant to 2005 was because the size we could print to pretty much ended for all reasonable purposes way back in 2003 with the 5-6MP DSLR cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 17, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #26 of 41
(3034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
dude, do you see all the responses above yours?
none of them read like what you wrote.
please don't bring the bitter negativity to this thread!
if you have a suggestion, i'm all ears. As it is i'm searching for a 30s or a d200 that might be a little bit under retail with some good lenses. we'll see what i find.
|
|
|
|
|
weatherm
Nov 17, 2007, 5:37 PM
Post #27 of 41
(3032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Posts: 89
|
I have gone through this. This is what i recommend. After about 2 months I decided on this and I LOVE IT. It has the super 16:9 aspect ratio and the built in wide angle lens for the sick belay photos... its light small... 10mega pixels... you can change the aspect ratio by the flip of a switch.. if you want a narrower picture. the picture quality is great! and it takes some amazing pics because it has the lieca lens on it! I used to have canon but this is just superb... you can get it at bhphotovideo.com for about 380 including shipping. Just a all around great camera.. i didn't get a SLR because I basically don't need it now.. it takes great telephoto shots too if you zoom in some. Hope this helps you make a decision.
http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Cameras/model.DMC-LX2K_11002_7000000000000005702
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 17, 2007, 7:37 PM
Post #28 of 41
(3020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
ha, i don't even read the responses anymore...so this would be the first thread that deviated from norm.
i don't think my post was negative at all. quite opposite. you missed the entire point of it.
now i'll be negative. you obviously didn't do all that well on the reading comprehension section of all those standardized test we took in school. 
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 17, 2007, 8:15 PM
Post #29 of 41
(3016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
so your suggestion was...?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 17, 2007, 9:27 PM
Post #30 of 41
(3009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: As far as approximating a magazine quality shot...any digital camera produced since 2003 will fill a 2 page magazine bleed. sad but true. and the reason why you only came up with stuff relevant to 2005 was because the size we could print to pretty much ended for all reasonable purposes way back in 2003 with the 5-6MP DSLR cameras.
That was my advice...from the original, minus at least one typo. The jist was all cameras are good, photographers make images, photograpers are good or bad.
Thus my point was buy whatever is within your price range.
If I was buying I'd look at my spec sheet (not the cameras, but what I need now, and maybe in the near future) of things I need. Write those down. Then find the camera that fits best. Keep in mind whatever camera you buy will be worth 20% of it's new value within 2-3 years. Thus, it's not a long term investment.
Also, keep in mind the image quality of the camera you buy today won't be any worse in 2-3 years, only the new cameras might be better. Generally, in the last few years IQ hasn't been the upgrade reason, it's been features.
Truthfully, other than the fact I have a somewhat photographic memory, I sometimes forget which images I shot on my c. 2003 6MP DSLR, or my 2006 10MP. Even blown up there isn't much difference.
But keep in mind that since probably 2004 the IQ (image quality) at ISO100-400 hasn't really done a whole lot of improving. All improvements in this range have been very subtle. The real improvements (and slidebacks) have been at higher ISO.
The D200 isn't great (nor are any of the Sony sensored 10MP cameras of any brand but I think the D80 might be the best at 1600) at ISO 1600. It's partially because of the 4 channel converter that gives it the 5fps vs the 2 channel found in it's competition. Also, that Sony sensor, while being excellent at ISO 800 and below just isn't great above that. That said, most people with a film background still find ISO 800+ a treat to use, and not a god given right.
If you only have a digital background your expections of clean high ISO will be significantly different. I've personally found that the Sony 10MP sensor is completely usable at 1600 after some trial and error. Turns out, at least in the Pentax, it's not that it's inherently noisy but that it has VERY little exposure latitude. Basically at 1600 count on 1/3 stop accuracy or noise. And if you error on exposure, i've learned it's better to overexpose. But in constant lighting it's pretty good.
On the flip side the D300 is "Supposed" to have exceptional high ISO capability. But the D3 shots I've seen so far, have all been strobed so I'm curious what these high ISO look like when mortals are using them in exhisting light. Not exactly fair way to represent images. We won't really know just how good the 12MP CMOS is till it is out.
If it were me, I'd opt for the weather sealing of the D200 over the D80, and the lower price over the D300. And put the extra $300 towards some glass, a SB-800, or a good tripod. Afterall, the glass will still be around in 10 years but your camera will probably be at best a backup, at worst a paperweight.
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 20, 2007, 5:51 PM
Post #31 of 41
(2936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
any naysayers on the Nikon D40x?
|
|
|
|
|
uptick
Nov 21, 2007, 5:09 AM
Post #32 of 41
(2928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2006
Posts: 78
|
I just purchased a D40 for my son. After tinkering with it, for sure a step up from a point and shoot. Wouldnt say it's gimmicky but you have to go into the menu to make most of the changes. Not a good thing in action photography. It's a nice little unit but you have to decide what it is you want.
$ wise, it's not much less than a good used D70s but harder to work in my opinion. But, it is small and very light.
Wes is a Canon man. See what he said. Some people would never buy used. Are you strictly looking new? How much are you looking to spend?
|
|
|
|
|
lextalion
Nov 21, 2007, 5:42 AM
Post #33 of 41
(2926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 216
|
uptick wrote: Some good entry level dlsr's are the Nikon D40 and Canon xt and xti. I just picked up the D40 kit (usa model) for under $400 from Adorama. Christmas specials will be hitting the market soon so this is the time of year to be buying. You can always upgrade to your D2x when you learn how to photograph. You will also find the price of the camera is a starting point to buying all the extras, i.e. lenses, filters, flashes, etc. You can always upgrade the body down the line and keep you bag of extras. Check out the review sources on the web. This place has a good layout and can side by side compare the items you narrow down. http://dpreview.com/
If you are going for a nikon I'd go for the D-80. It has a better processor and a shoots 3 frames/second. It is not super expensive ($1400.00 for the body and two lens and a card& battery.) And it's something you'll be comfortable using for a while before moving up to something like the D-200/300. It also shoots 10 megapixals.
But keep in mind that Nikon & Cannon are like Ford versa Chevy. Look at both and decide what you personally prefer. They are both good and both have dislikes as well.
Nikon Lens are more than that of Cannon, but I like like Nikon better for my own use.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Nov 21, 2007, 5:54 AM
Post #34 of 41
(2922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
After a lot of shopping, I just purchased a D80. I seriously considered the D200, but decided the D80 was fine and met all my standarts.
I upgraded from a Nikon D70, so I needed to replace my existing memory card, but I am happy with the purchase.
On a side not, I am looking for the CS2 plug-in to convert my D80 NEF files. Any one know where it is?
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
ak_powder_monkey
Nov 21, 2007, 6:51 AM
Post #35 of 41
(2917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2006
Posts: 37
|
you can get a used canon 20d for the price of a d40 which is nowhere near as good, plus canon glass is better
|
|
|
|
|
limberlinne
Nov 21, 2007, 8:41 AM
Post #36 of 41
(2914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 3
|
littlebilly wrote: My experience only extends to Canon, but I would warn you away from the digital rebels. at least the two that i have had experience with have a limited dynamic range, and do especially poorly with blue skys. I have a (now old) 20d, very much like the newer 30d and 40d. It's a solid camera, big enough to get a good grip and room for a good control layout. little cameras are just too crowded and are like a small crimp to hold onto. I also have a 5D, if you want to go more professional without shelling out 8 grand, that's the camera. As mentioned in a previous post, lenses and accessories are part of the added cost. the better the camera, the better the lenses have to be. Canon has two lens lines: good, and outrageously expensive. http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ A good site for canon camera and lens reviews. I strongly urge you to read-up before you purchase. hope that helps -V
i hear ya, littlebilly. it's hard to get a lens from a different brand for your camera because they can affect the processor
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Nov 21, 2007, 2:40 PM
Post #37 of 41
(2903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
lextalion wrote: If you are going for a nikon I'd go for the D-80. It has a better processor and a shoots 3 frames/second.
look that info up.....D40x and D80 use same processor, D80 have more functions, but is a bigger camera....if you really looking for a positive thing about D80 vs D40x, it would be lens selection ( only S lens work auto on D40x )...
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 21, 2007, 4:47 PM
Post #38 of 41
(2890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
8flood8 wrote: any naysayers on the Nikon D40x?
lens selection is limited...menu changes for everything...I'd go D80 if the D200 was out of your price range.
the main advantage of the d200 is it takes most nikon lenses, and it's weather sealed.
As far as canon having better glass, grow up (i do realize you were probably joking but it comes up enough). It's 2007, Nikon, Canon, et al all have the same computer programs to design these lenses. They might optimize them for different FL's or apertures but they are essentially the same. Honestly without the exif I'd be surprised if anyone could tell me the difference between a Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Oly, Sony, Tokina, Tamron lens shot from f/4 up, and probably not too many shot wide open either.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Nov 21, 2007, 4:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Nov 24, 2007, 5:29 AM
Post #39 of 41
(2843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
So i ended up buying a canon 30d with the kit lens 18-55.
another question i have is about lenses. I have been looking around at what is available and some of the lenses have a title such as wide angle / super wide angle. but i haven't seen much with a setting smaller than 18mm. (sometimes a 10-22mm) Is 18mm a wide angle? or is there going to be a special designation of "wide angle" that gives a larger width of images while still at the 18mm setting?
also i have seen some items that look a little gimicky, namely a small package that comes with a
"macro" "fisheye" and "2x telephoto converter." are these little attachments worth $50.00??? Anyone have any experience with these type of units?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 24, 2007, 9:41 PM
Post #40 of 41
(2811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
The 30D is a good camera.
AVOID the converters like a plague. And avoid the 2x Teles like a case of importence...they are super soft unless matched to a high quality prime.
18mm is equiv to 30mm on your 30D, it's wide normal in my opinion, some also call it semi wide. Normal is 42mm on a 35mm (film or full frame) camera.
If you are going wide, the Sigma 10-20 is a nice lens. I paid, $425 for it and I love it. Very sharp. Distortion is well controlled, and actually it's optimized for the 10mm where distortion is extremely low, gets a bit more a some of the longer lengths. It's also very sharp. And it close focuses uniformly to 9in.
A few examples taken this summer with the lens.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 24, 2007, 9:43 PM
Post #41 of 41
(2808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Oh, and the images shouldn't be all conpressed looking, it's the RC.com formating. Which is bizare because they are clearly small enough to fit on a regular page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
