|
8flood8
Nov 17, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #26 of 41
(3075 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
(3073 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
(3061 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
(3057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
so your suggestion was...?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 17, 2007, 9:27 PM
Post #30 of 41
(3050 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
(2977 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
(2969 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
(2967 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
(2963 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
(2958 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
(2955 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
(2944 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
(2931 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
(2884 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
(2852 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
(2849 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
