View Full Version : Photographers (especially Stickman): Cameras?
I'm looking for a "nice" camera. Up to this point, the only cameras I've had have been $200 point-and-shoot digital cameras (Sony, Samsung, etc). They're decent and get the job done, but they lack the clarity and focus of some of the "nicer" cameras I've seen (or at least what I consider "nicer"), such as the Canon EOS'. Plus, it would be nice to get specific lenses for specific uses.
I know you can spend money all day long on technology and theoretical improvements - this I want to avoid. These are my requirements:
1. I'm looking for a camera that offers tangible improvements over the point-and-shoot types. If I can use the manual focus on the the camera better to achieve a better photo than a point-and-shoot, that's important to me. If the camera is significantly faster and results in me capturing photos more efficiently (and not missing "the shot"), that's important to me. If the camera does something like filtering out UVB radiation from photos, I don't care about that. I want tangible, realistic benefits. I'm not a professional photographer, so I don't need to be nickle and dimed for features I'll never use or care about. I do want to be able to take photos that look professional - something I feel like is hard to achieve with point and shoot cameras.
2. I'm looking for a camera that's established and will be supported for some time to come. Having the latest and greatest is nice, but not at the expense of it being unproven and potentially not being supported in 2 years.
3. I want the nicest camera I can get (within reason), but I want to pay for the camera and it's base features, not for the accessories or optional add-ons it comes with. I want a good camera that I can add on accessories to later, maximizing my investment in the camera itself. While extra lenses might be nice, or extra filters, I can always buy them aftermarket. I want to make sure that if I pay $800 for a camera, that the camera itself was worth $800 (instead of being a $500 camera with $300 in accessories).
4. I'm not sure of what I want to spend as I don't know what the ballpark is of what I'm looking for. Let's say... $1000 max, around $500-600 would be ideal. If a good camera can be had that fits my description for much less, then that's great too.
That being said, if any of my requirements are out of line, let me know or feel free to suggest something else. I'm pretty noobish when it comes to cameras.
Thanks in advance!
Any Nikon or Canon DSLR....and knowledge. Think of it from the M4c perspective : training (I.e. knowing how to use it) is key. That's not to say that you need to sign up for a class, just that people with a Nikon D3s and the Trinity can take bad pictures. Low end DSLRs can take great photos.
Bodies are constantly updated but the Nikon / Canon mounts aren't going anywhere...you can be confident in that.
Any Nikon or Canon DSLR....and knowledge. Think of it from the M4c perspective : training (I.e. knowing how to use it) is key. That's not to say that you need to sign up for a class, just that people with a Nikon D3s and the Trinity can take bad pictures. Low end DSLRs can take great photos.
Bodies are constantly updated but the Nikon / Canon mounts aren't going anywhere...you can be confident in that.
The thing is, I've seen Canon DSLRs for $350, all the way up to $1500. I don't know enough about them (yet) to know which model(s) are good vs better vs best. I want the best model I can get (within reason), without paying for needless extras, that can grow with me and my skills as I learn them.
That's a big landscape. The big players in the upper reaches of the camera world are certainly Nikon and Canon, and I'd be looking for an SLR camera and two lenses - a medium telephoto and a medium wide angle.
Cameras are an extremely expensive hobby. I recently bought a Canon T2i, which is their current budget DSLR model. I decided to get it with the kit lens (basically the only option when you buy--kit lens or no kit lens) since it is an OK quality walking around lens with image stabilization (IS in Canon parlance--each manufacturer has a similar technology with a different acronym). Past that lenses are like guns--do you want to take close up shots, pictures of wildlife, portraits, etc? I have a good telephoto lens for long distance shots, my walking around lens that is good for taking hand held shots because of the stabilization, and the "nifty fifty" 50mm fixed inexpensive lens for taking pictures of small things very close up and portraits with out of focus backgrounds. I'm working on more, but boy are they expensive when you try to stick to Canon's Luxury line...
I'm relatively new to high(er) end cameras, so will leave recommendations to others with more knowledge.
CaptainDooley
11-23-10, 12:48
Really, a lot of what you said you're looking for comes from good lenses. Faster auto focus, "faster" aperture (better in low light), sharper picture w better contrast are all functions of the quality of the glass you put on it.
I use Canon's exclusively because I primarily work in video production and the Canon DSLRs produce better video results than any other manufacturer's cameras, so I won't be of much help on Nikons or other brands.
In your price range - I'd go for a Canon Rebel T2i body only and then look for some good deals on used and/or off-brand lenses.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T2i-3-0-Inch-Body-Only/dp/B0035FZJI0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290537536&sr=8-2
A good cheap lens is Canon's 50mm 1.8 (the "nifty fifty"). It's a prime (doesn't zoom) but it's $100 and it's sharper than it has any right to be. It's in a cheap plastic body, so it's more of a "disposable lens", but it's a good start and it's pretty fast, so shooting indoors without lights is easier.
When moving to an SLR it's important to realize that the lenses, not the camera are the investment, so you may wind up with glass that cost more than your camera body...
Also, as has been said, training is probably most important and if you're looking to do studio photography like Stick's, you'll need a healthy investment in lights.
Lenses are, for the most part, more important than the camera. Don't buy cheap lenses, and avoid the kit lenses if you can budget buying the body and then going ahead a buying a good lens.
If you have to, go back a model or two on the Canon Rebel line (like the XSi or something) to increase your lens budget.
I had the nifty fifty, but I now use the 50mm f/1.4 (it pretty much stays on the camera), and I wish I had just bought it first.
Edited to add that you might also want to consider some of the higher-end point-and-shoots, like the Canon G12. They tend to have many features of the DSLRs minus the interchangeable lenses.
I am a photographer for living & used to do commercial a lot and underwater
as I used to say if you have been to Maui chances are you have seen my work !
now also have a post production company just for Pro photographers to do PS work and color and consulting on color (monitors profiling etc..)
as said Lens are critical but then you are talking $1000 and up easy for one lens ? so a kit lens or basic zoom is usually good and decent with a budget
the body dont get used ! why ? well newer technology has made low light better less noise in sensor some have sensor cleaning etc.. so picking up a new body is worth it
more important I would ask you a few questions
what do you want to take pictures of ?
kids ? guns ? landscape when you travel ? everything ?
will these things be closer to you ? or farther away ?
example you want to shoot game you are hunting so that game would require a longer zoom
kids in the park playing and say shooting your guns would not matter as you can control where you are so longer zoom is not as important and with your kids a wider zoom might be better ?
do you like P&S for size ? or do you mind lugging around a large camera ? or would smaller be good to throw in a BOB size bag for daily outings ?
does video matter ?
do you want one package ? or do you mind carrying a extra lens or two and or a zoom ?
how often can you get back to your computer to unload the camera ? this will help with what size card you want and the batteries for your system and how many you might need ?
going on a extended hunting trip and you want to shoot some video and shots you might want a 16GB card and 3 batteries ? (as example)
the eos rebel or the Nikon equiv ? would be a good choice
the idea if you want a tilt out screen ? that with live view can be kinda handy ?
now if the size matters ? and you want smaller ! THEN :)
I would also give a very good hard look at M4/3 systems or Micro 4/3
the reason I say this is lugging around bigger gear is something you might not do as much if it becomes a hassle !
you might love shooting a full size handgun but for daily carry it might be to much ? so many like a medium size is my best analogy
having your camera with you all the time is the first thing in getting photos !!! :)
I have a Olympus pen and love it for my daily shooting rig of kids go to the park that way I am not humping around a $7000 setup if I leave my sub $1000 camera in the car no worries ? I can put it in my cargo pocket to grab the kids load em up its not small enough for my front pocket but goes into a small bag or cargo pant ! no way could my pro gear do that
with that smaller size its lighter etc..
sensors in cameras :) P&S are tiny
then you have pro style full frame stuff
then you have the cheaper DSLR like the rebels that use a APS-C sensor the micro 4/3 is just a touch below that in size so M4/3 stuff you still get nice out of focus type backgrounds if you want and such
to me the Micro 4/3 or 4/3 stuff is very cool for those wanting the next step
this is from the wiki
gives you a idea where 4/3 stuff sits vs APS-c and the tiny ones are P&S cameras
many think when you get a DSLR you are now getting a pro level sensor ? and you are not ! you really have to kick out the close to $2000 or more to get that next size in sensors
so a 4/3 sensor is about 9 times larger than a P&S but only about
read more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg/300px-Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg.png
the down side to these is the focus is not quite as advanced ? so its a tradeoff in some sense ?
but I would look at the Olympus and the Panasonic M 4/3 stuff IF the size of a rebel or something might be to big ?
if the size does not matter stick to the APS-C setups like Canon or Nikon
I completely disagree about lenses. That's an ancient holdover from the days of film- the film was the same in your manual focus Canon, Nikon, or $20 point-and-shoot so lens was the only differentiating factor. Now, it's about the image sensor, not the lens. You can get a competent lens for cheap these days, but the determiner of image quality, the image sensor and associated augmenting electronics (Exspeed, DIGIC, etc) along with accurate autofocus sensing, are more expensive as they get better. Cheap out on those things and your image quality will suffer. The best lens in the world will give you a crappy image if the camera won't color balance well, provide too much noise, and is out of focus.
Get a good camera. Even the crap lenses are generally competent. You'll get far better images with a great dSLR and cheap lens than a great lens and crappy camera.
I completely disagree about lenses. That's an ancient holdover from the days of film- the film was the same in your manual focus Canon, Nikon, or $20 point-and-shoot so lens was the only differentiating factor. Now, it's about the image sensor, not the lens. You can get a competent lens for cheap these days, but the determiner of image quality, the image sensor and associated augmenting electronics (Exspeed, DIGIC, etc) along with accurate autofocus sensing, are more expensive as they get better. Cheap out on those things and your image quality will suffer. The best lens in the world will give you a crappy image if the camera won't color balance well, provide too much noise, and is out of focus.
Get a good camera. Even the crap lenses are generally competent. You'll get far better images with a great dSLR and cheap lens than a great lens and crappy camera.
lets say its a combination ? put a junk lens on a pro body it wont hold a candle to a quality piece of glass
all old cameras did is hold film flat it was still about glass always has been always will be in some sense when you talk to pros !
so lets say any modern DSLR that is also why I say dont buy used :) as old sensors are not as good so yes in some ways its the sensor but thats a part of it and you really have to buy a balanced package
a basic rebel and a 50 1.4 is a killer setup that would be hard to touch as that lens and the 85 1/.8 are both incredible lens that run ? not sure $400 or so ? but they are cheap
forgot when the 1D came out ? 2001 or 2002 ? anyway I made good money on that and it was a junk sensor compared to todays but I can tell you the pics will blow away up to about 14 inches most any modern DSLR APS-C stuff with a sub quality lens !!!!
why cause I had good glass and know what I am doing :) if I had junk glass it would have been not so nice !!!! and would not be as good as they are
so not trying to argue and its true sensors do matter but glass matters more in some ways ? but then in reality if you read my post I said a kit lens will do fine and it will cause the difference is not so huge but its their !!
and the film was not the same in your P&S of past vs what I used in past ? how many P&S film used agfa 25 or in color Lumiere pro from kodak and then controlled the development ?
this is like saying a barrel does not matter ! what matters now is blah blah blah ?
again yes I kinda agree with ya :) and again why I say a kit lens is fine and dont buy a used camera as the sensors are not as good
but glass is what sets apart great images usually in terms of technical quality but thats in a whole other area of funds and what one expects
I have a buddy who says throwing money on a Noveske or LMT or anything other than bushmaster or home made stuff is a huge wast of money cause all that junk does nothing its purely about the ammo and thats it ! the gun just holds the ammo
? is that true ? kinda
but I try to tell him yeah but the barrel matters how accurate the mounting of the barrel the parts to make the gun go boom matters ! a gun does no good if it jams and the barrel wont let it hit the target time and time again ! HIS reply yeah but the other stuff is good enough !
this is my best analogy for guns :) so again its a balance of gear ! no reason to put a $2000 lens on a $500 body ?
IMHO, the thing that will create the most distracting defects in a given image are functions of the body - noise, color, focus, white balance. Those things will ruin an image more thoroughly than softness, aberration, and lack of bokeh.
I agree that there's nothing like a $1500 lens on a $3000 body, but if I had to choose, I'd choose the body. That's me. There are certainly cost-effective sweet spots out there for body/lens combinations, but IMHO those are still biased toward better-quality bodies.
A few of the key points have been hit already, so I will just reiterate;
Lenses are more important than the camera body. Sensor sizes can vary from a 1.5x crop to a full frame D-SLR so you have to know which one you are willing to go with because some lenses may not work with some sensor sizes.
Example: Nikon DX format lenses have an image circle [last piece of glass int he lens before the sensor] and are designed to be used with DX format camera sensors which are roughly 16mm x 24mm instead of 24mm x36mm which 35mm film is. Cameras will a full frame sensor can use a DX format lens with DX crop mode, meaning your 24MP, $7000 D3X is not using all 24MP.
So, if you plan on upgrading to a full frame camera, buy lenses with that in mind.
I use the Nikon DX format and love it. I would never use anything other than Nikon or Canon. Period.
Also, same as with guns, you have to define your use for the camera. Will you be shooting weddings? Auto Racing and out door sporting events? Indoor sporting events? So on and so forth.
A lens may be perfect for one thing, and suck for just about everything else.
My Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 is awesome for portraits and pretty fast in low light, but it cant shoot in very low light, and 55mm is not a lot of zoom. If I want to take a pic of something up close, the min focus distance does not allow for it.
My Nikkor 50mm f1.4 is awesome in low light and takes killer portraits, but its not wide enough for me to be in the same small room with someone if I need to.
My Nikkor 80-400 f4.5-5.6 is kick ass at shooting F1 cars from 25 yards away but when I gave it to my GF to shoot pics of me playing hockey in doors, it just was not fast enough for the low light conditions.
Get the idea?
You have to define the role you want to fill, and buy the lens accordingly. Buy the body alone, dont even bother with the garbage kit lens.
If you are new to photogrophy and want to learn the ins and outs, get a 50mm f1.4 lens. This is what people have been learing on since SLR cameras first came out. It is lighting fast in low light and without zoom will teach you more about the rule of 3rds and good composision that anything else will. It will force you to walk up to and away from your subject/object and truly appreciate what it is to take a good photo.
After that, you will know what you need. This is similar to people saying "go out and shoot it, then see what accesories you need" whens omeone buys a new AR. Go out and shoot with a 50mm prime lens and you will know if you need more zoom or less zoom.
I used to sell cameras and I would love when people came in asking for a 18-200 lens. Sure its an awesome zoom range, but there is so much glass in that lens that by the time the light gets to the sensor, its worthless.
The best photos I have seen have all come from prime lenses.
My two recomendations for cameras are:
Nikon D90 or Canon T2i
The Canon has a higher MP value but honestly, it's negligable.
Buy the body only.
Good accesories would be a good bag to store your gear, batteries, and plenty of memory cards. Don't skimp on memory. Use Sandisk UltraII or ExtremeIII at the least. Dont be afraid to snap more photo's. I can fill up a 4GB card in about 20 min of shooting. I dont review every shot. I review every 15 or so shots to make sure my depth of field and exposure are where I want it to be and go back to shooting. Take more photos that you think you need, you never know which one will be speacial.
Either way, buy a prime 50mm f1.4 lens and learn to "shoot" See what you need, and go from there.
Post production is important as well, I have been using PS since it was on version 4 or 5. Now on CS5 10 years later. Photoshop, to me, is the best. Some like LightRoom and other brands, find what will fit your need and learn it inside and out. It's a more valuable tool than one can imagine. Its not just for getting rid of red eye.
Good luck!
IMHO, the thing that will create the most distracting defects in a given image are functions of the body - noise, color, focus, white balance. Those things will ruin an image more thoroughly than softness, aberration, and lack of bokeh.
I agree that there's nothing like a $1500 lens on a $3000 body, but if I had to choose, I'd choose the body. That's me. There are certainly cost-effective sweet spots out there for body/lens combinations, but IMHO those are still biased toward better-quality bodies.
Noise... sure, but color rendering and focus are more to do with the lens than body.
Think about it, light has to go through a lens first, if the lens is garbage, no body in the world will help that.
If you put the bottom of a coke bottle in front of a Canon D3X, what kind of photo will you get?
I would do the lions share of your research on lenses, not cameras. The glass is a major contributor to the quality of your photos. A great body with poor glass makes poor photos. A mediocre body with great glass will still produce good pictures.
I'm a Nikon guy myself, but would have no problem with a Canon as well. There are some other well known brands around (Sony), but Nikon and Canon will probably always be at the cutting edge of new glass and technology.
Bodies are upgraded almost as often as computers are, but your lenses could very well stay with you a lifetime. Both Nikon and Canon offer 'professional' and 'novice' priced lenses. I would search around and see what you can afford for lenses, as that will provide the most versatility to your shots.
I shoot a Nikon D90, which is at the higher end of their 'novice' cameras. It suits me well, and I haven't yet outgrown its capabilities. I'd like the new D300 for its faster continuous shooting speed, but I'd be throwing a lot of hardware at a software problem. Camera's and firearms have a lot in common.
Here's a shot taken with my D90 and a fast, crisp 50mm prime lens. It's one of my favorites I've taken:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2525/3979090844_bf86034cf6_z.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-23-10, 15:16
A sony NEX-5 with a lens mount adaptor for Leica M-lenses. But seriuosly, my latest disease ain't for general consumption.
Just ask the dealer if the camera lens mount is staked ;)
There is not much bad stuff out there. I am the kind of person that researches things to death before I buy so I'd check out dperview.com for camera reviews and then buy from bhvideo.com.
I run canon gear, since the 80s in highschool art class. I really don't think you can go wrong with any of the brands. Kit lenses, for $100 are good place to start. Lenses are like rifle barrels, you get what you pay for, but there is a diminishing returns law in place.
Cameras are like guns- they earn their keep when things get dark and you have to take the shot! Fast lenses, new sensors cost cash- but you only buy the lens once.
My lens progression went kit 18-55 lens, 50/1.4, 17-40/4L, 70-200/2.8L-IS, upgrade to 5DmkII and a 24-105/4L-IS lens.
Noise... sure, but color rendering and focus are more to do with the lens than body.
Think about it, light has to go through a lens first, if the lens is garbage, no body in the world will help that.
If you put the bottom of a coke bottle in front of a Canon D3X, what kind of photo will you get?
I'm sure you meant Nikon D3X. I have a D3. It's a great camera. And to be honest, the cheapest lens I own is $1500. I've done it both ways over the years-cheap/expensive bodies, cheap/expensive lenses in various combinations. I finally decided that the best option is expensive body, expensive lens...but my second choice would be expensive body, mediocre lens. YMMV. I arrived at that conclusion over 30 years and tens of thousands of images. It's become more and more important as all those body systems have become ever more sophisticated and sensors better and better. Lenses OTOH have changed very little.
My point is that a mediocre lens is pretty good. Kit lenses from Nikon or Canon aren't even remotely garbage, but there are some camera bodies out there with some pretty questionable AF systems. And I don't care how great the glass is, if you've got a cheapo AF sensor, and cheapo in-camera processing, your image is garbage.
I am a Nikon guy myself. Mainly because my father was. But honestly, you can't go wrong with either. For me it makes the most sense because I can use the equipment I already have.
I upgraded from a D70 to a D90 earleir this year and could not be happier. That may be a bit more than you need however so you could also look at the D5000 or the replacement which I believe is the D7000.
I am not as familiar with Cannons line but they are just as good and even do some things better from what I hear.
Others have touched on the Canon side...I think the D90 is the sweet spot in the Nikon lineup right now for the price range being discussed. Pentaprism viewfinder, top LCD, dual control dials, in-body focus motor...the D7000 just came out and prices are pretty good on these right now, either clearing out of remaining stock or good used bodies.
Further definition of the intended use from the OP would be required before I'd recommend any lens.
If you want to really insure that both your #2 and #3 options are covered completely I would suggest that you save up and invest heavily in a Leica 35mm (yes film) camera with a "digital scanning back". This is the best (maybe not the most affordable) way in my opinion to insure that you do not fall victim to the continual "improvements" that Nikon and Cannon tend to offer on an annual basis.
Think of this advice using two analogies:
1. Does Nikon make the best scopes/binoculars or are there better options?
2. Leica is to Nikon and Cannon what Noveske is to S&W.
If you want to really insure that both your #2 and #3 options are covered completely I would suggest that you save up and invest heavily in a Leica 35mm (yes film) camera with a "digital scanning back". This is the best (maybe not the most affordable) way in my opinion to insure that you do not fall victim to the continual "improvements" that Nikon and Cannon tend to offer on an annual basis.
Think of this advice using two analogies:
1. Does Nikon make the best scopes/binoculars or are there better options?
2. Leica is to Nikon and Cannon what Noveske is to S&W.
Plenty of people are shooting D1/D2/D200/D40/D60 and 20D/30D and whatever else those Canon guys have that are several years old. It's a choice to rock with what you have or continually upgrading, and starting with Leica right off the bat isn't going to make someone immune to that.
I am not a photographer. I should not be posting this. But here is a logical answer:
Buy the best body you can afford now and use the kit lenses.
As you get money, start replacing the lenses with the lenses you want to live with for the next 20 years or more.
Once you have that lense or set of lenses, then you can upgrade the body as you see fit of getting new features (which may be never or may be frequent)
---
This gets you a good starting point since you will be living with that body until you have afforded you lense or lense collection, which could be quite a while. Then, as needed, once you have the lense collection, you are no longer saving for lenses and can upgrade to the newest body if needed.
I do want to be able to take photos that look professional - something I feel like is hard to achieve with point and shoot cameras.
I'm not being a smartass when I say check out Photoshop and what it can do for you. Post processing makes a huge difference in what your original photo looks like, the final edited result and often this is what you're seeing when it comes to professional pictures. Google "Photoshop Youtube" and check out some of the crazy results that you can obtain utilizing the program with a bit of training & practice.
Get a good camera. Even the crap lenses are generally competent. You'll get far better images with a great dSLR and cheap lens than a great lens and crappy camera.
I would take my older Canon 20D or 40D with good glass any day of the week over my 1D3 or 1Ds3 with cheap glass.
To say that I disagree with you would be a gross understatement.
Robb Jensen
11-23-10, 18:45
My wife and I use a Canon D50. She was using the Tamron 2.8 17-50mm lenses for this photo on the sports-auto setting at the rifle match in PA I shot this past weekend.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/Robbpixelized.jpg
Same camera same lenses using a flash indoors.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/KACrightsidereceivers.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-23-10, 20:05
If you want to really insure that both your #2 and #3 options are covered completely I would suggest that you save up and invest heavily in a Leica 35mm (yes film) camera with a "digital scanning back". This is the best (maybe not the most affordable) way in my opinion to insure that you do not fall victim to the continual "improvements" that Nikon and Cannon tend to offer on an annual basis.
Think of this advice using two analogies:
1. Does Nikon make the best scopes/binoculars or are there better options?
2. Leica is to Nikon and Cannon what Noveske is to S&W.
Leica is to Canon like Garand to an M4.
I have Leica gear, and I'd love to have an M9, but their 'consumer' models for years have just been rebadged versions of japanese cameras. What kind of back are you referring to?
The Canon rebel line was my gateway of choice - my lesser Rebel XS isn't the greatest or most capable body, and I'd like to have the video capability of newer models, but at $500 paired with two decent lenses it's certainly adequate for unsophisticated photography.
The Rebel T2i seems like the best value running right now.
willowofwisp
11-23-10, 22:51
I think the Nikon d3000 is a great starter camera, a few months back NewEgg had them for like 415$ shipped which included a VR lense.
I have been using it for about 3 months now and it works pretty well, I do wanna pick up a macro lens in the future though.
example of the camera's picture
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5162/5191216564_e0fecff99a_z.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/5146591654_731f99787c_z.jpg
I noticed with DSLR's there is a lot to learn on them and really so many options, I really don't think as a novice i would outgrow the camera i have.
Super cheapo camera with decent glass and decent light... the camera is a P&S worth around $50.
http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/AAC/P1010014%201024%20Stick.jpg
IMHO, the thing that will create the most distracting defects in a given image are functions of the body - noise, color, focus, white balance. Those things will ruin an image more thoroughly than softness, aberration, and lack of bokeh.
I agree that there's nothing like a $1500 lens on a $3000 body, but if I had to choose, I'd choose the body. That's me. There are certainly cost-effective sweet spots out there for body/lens combinations, but IMHO those are still biased toward better-quality bodies.
but most modern DSLR in the last 5 years all do really well ? in the last 3 years amazingly well ? so the body is really out of the question and it comes down to a balanced budget
again why I say for people dont buy used ! I would rather have a modern $900 body than a 5 year old used body for $900 that was 2k ?
buy new in digital its worth it
glass is still on the top of every pros list I know :)
in some situations you might not even notice the body ? could be a $900 or $5000 body but with the same lens you wont be able to really tell in say a normal size print ;)
but again like said a nice prime 50 or 85 are always good to have and reasonable along with a nice travel zoom ?
I pull out my Olympus Pen and might get better shots than someone with $8000 setup cause I know what I am doing and can capture emotion etc..
It's become more and more important as all those body systems have become ever more sophisticated and sensors better and better. Lenses OTOH have changed very little.
My point is that a mediocre lens is pretty good. Kit lenses from Nikon or Canon aren't even remotely garbage, but there are some camera bodies out there with some pretty questionable AF systems. And I don't care how great the glass is, if you've got a cheapo AF sensor, and cheapo in-camera processing, your image is garbage.
HUH
OK not sure are you a full time photographer ? not trying to argue :) but trying to figure out where your info is coming from ?
new glass is incredible with the break throughs in recent years
look at the new Canon lens like the 70-200 L way less flare and controlled light coming in from backlit subjects !
the new zooms from Nikon are BLOWING away most every pro I know with how good they are and really approaching primes
so yes I agree a kit lens is fine for P&S but then you say lens have not changed ???? they have incredibly why are so many upgrading when the results are shown clearly to be sharper edges sharper overall better contrast clarity color rendition everything
I'm sure you meant Nikon D3X. I have a D3. It's a great camera. And to be honest, the cheapest lens I own is $1500. I've done it both ways over the years-cheap/expensive bodies, cheap/expensive lenses in various combinations. I finally decided that the best option is expensive body, expensive lens...but my second choice would be expensive body, mediocre lens. YMMV. I arrived at that conclusion over 30 years and tens of thousands of images. It's become more and more important as all those body systems have become ever more sophisticated and sensors better and better. Lenses OTOH have changed very little.
My point is that a mediocre lens is pretty good. Kit lenses from Nikon or Canon aren't even remotely garbage, but there are some camera bodies out there with some pretty questionable AF systems. And I don't care how great the glass is, if you've got a cheapo AF sensor, and cheapo in-camera processing, your image is garbage.
Yes, I mean Nikon D3x, my bad.
I have to disagree with you. With today's D-SLR bodies and sensors, it is hard to get terrible inc amera processing, and even still, most shoot in RAW with very little compression and effect from the camera's onboard electronics.
Lenses have also changes a lot, new AF motors [Nikon DX format has AF motor in lens] new glass coatings have made huge improvements in image quality.
If you want to really insure that both your #2 and #3 options are covered completely I would suggest that you save up and invest heavily in a Leica 35mm
1. Does Nikon make the best scopes/binoculars or are there better options?
2. Leica is to Nikon and Cannon what Noveske is to S&W.
Then what is a Hasselblad?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/671879-REG/Hasselblad_70480533.html
Plenty of pro's shoot with full and croped format sensors.
If you are going to shoot 35mm and expect great results, you will need to shoot silver-gel film and develop at home. Who wants to setup a dark room now-a-days? I loved it in college, at home, not so much for me.
I would take my older Canon 20D or 40D with good glass any day of the week over my 1D3 or 1Ds3 with cheap glass.
To say that I disagree with you would be a gross understatement.
Thank you sir.
O.P.
When I started I got a inexpencive 35mm Nikon camera because even though D-SLRs were out, the class only allowed 35mm film and we were only allowed to use a 50mm prime lens. I learned more using those two than I could ever using a kit lens and photoshop. Not sure this is the right path anymore, but there is still some value it some of those points.
My first D-SLR setup was a Nikon D70 and a Nikkor 50mmf1.8 because the f1.4 was too much at the time for a broke ass college student.
A year or so later I bought the 50mmf1.4 and a year after that upgraded the body to a D200 which I still have.
My lenses have expanded to also include a 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR, 80-200f4.5-5.6 VR, 28mm f2.8 PC-Nikkor and so on.
Point is, as other have said, each lens surves a specific role and will usualy stay with you for life. As bodies get better and your abilities expand, you will upgrade them over time.
It's a choice to rock with what you have or continually upgrading, and starting with Leica right off the bat isn't going to make someone immune to that.
Agreed, but he asked what Camera I suggested that would be worth the money as a camera vs. as an option that will need accessories ext. While I understand that in the short term many of Cannon's accessories have been backward compatible I do not completely trust them to invest the time and money in the future into making these current cameras backward compatible with whatever neat revolutionary advancement may be right around the corner. Leica however I trust to do this.
I would take my older Canon 20D or 40D with good glass any day of the week over my 1D3 or 1Ds3 with cheap glass.
To say that I disagree with you would be a gross understatement.
Me as well. Buying bad glass is bad advice. I can't believe it would come from someone on this forum regarding something other then firearms.
Leica is to Canon like Garand to an M4.
I have Leica gear, and I'd love to have an M9, but their 'consumer' models for years have just been rebadged versions of japanese cameras. What kind of back are you referring to?
Let me ask if they are still available, I work as a freelancer from time to time (use to be full time before the recession) for a high end photo studio/art reproduction printing studio. I will get model numbers ext in either later tonight, or early tomorrow for everyone. One thing that I have noticed about Leica is that they honor their products, even if you purchase something used. You may have to pay a little bit but getting something fixed has never been a problem.
If you are going to shoot 35mm and expect great results, you will need to shoot silver-gel film and develop at home. Who wants to setup a dark room now-a-days? I loved it in college, at home, not so much for me.
Not true. We are capable of getting the same level of detail in the same aspect ratios, and expanded to the same large formats with our scanning back, good glass, and a good cross compatible body. Minus the aesthetic differences between to the two media, digital and film are the same level of quality with this option. We have a dark room, and color and black and white developing capability, so why would we use this camera if your statement was true? The only film we use is 4x5 larger format that we develop in house.
Where one gets grain with 35mm, one simply gets pixels with digital, that is the only difference.
I have to disagree with you.
And I'm OK with that. The OP asked for opinions, that was mine. My feelings aren't hurt and my ego is intact if you disagree. I realize it's not a mainstream, knee-jerk opinion.
Not true. We are capable of getting the same level of detail in the same aspect ratios, and expanded to the same large formats with our scanning back, good glass, and a good cross compatible body. Minus the aesthetic differences between to the two media, digital and film are the same level of quality with this option. We have a dark room, and color and black and white developing capability, so why would we use this camera if your statement was true? The only film we use is 4x5 larger format that we develop in house.
Where one gets grain with 35mm, one simply gets pixels with digital, that is the only difference.
The difference is you have a studio. Developing color film in one's home is not that easy, yes you can set up a b/w developing "studio" in your bathroom but color... not so much. Personaly, I would be happy to shoot in b/w only, I love it, but people who ask me to shoot their cars or them rarely want b/w. I am no pro by any means. It is simply a hobby that got be published in a couple car magazines and I love shooting my friends' cars at the track and so on. If I had to do that and develop my own color prints, I would never want to do anything lol.
large format film is awesome, and I still think that film can give a better result that digital sometimes, but its just not in the cards for most people who want to get into the hobby.
large format film is awesome, and I still think that film can give a better result that digital sometimes, but its just not in the cards for most people who want to get into the hobby.
Agreed
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-24-10, 16:20
The Canon 5DmkII put the nail in the coffin of film vs digitial for the consumer. Much better high speed/low light capability plus it out resolves a lot of lenses capability, even 'L' level glass.
I have my five roll film developer tank, and my Besselar enlarger. Even went the hybrid film-scan-inkjet print route till the 5DII came around.
I even have an FSU Zorki RF with a collapsible 50 lens, so I have no fear of going "old, old school".
Sure, you can shoot 4x5 bellows camera and calibrate the heck out of it with the zone system. They call that art for chemists.
The only question for me is what is going to win the 'small' market. The Sony NEX APS type or the m43 GF1 types.
Seriously thinking about blowing some Sony Bucks I have left over on the Sony NEX5 for my 'wife' for Christmas and get the adaptor to run some of my M-mount glass.
Really, a lot of what you said you're looking for comes from good lenses. Faster auto focus, "faster" aperture (better in low light), sharper picture w better contrast are all functions of the quality of the glass you put on it.
I use Canon's exclusively because I primarily work in video production and the Canon DSLRs produce better video results than any other manufacturer's cameras, so I won't be of much help on Nikons or other brands.
In your price range - I'd go for a Canon Rebel T2i body only and then look for some good deals on used and/or off-brand lenses.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T2i-3-0-Inch-Body-Only/dp/B0035FZJI0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290537536&sr=8-2
A good cheap lens is Canon's 50mm 1.8 (the "nifty fifty"). It's a prime (doesn't zoom) but it's $100 and it's sharper than it has any right to be. It's in a cheap plastic body, so it's more of a "disposable lens", but it's a good start and it's pretty fast, so shooting indoors without lights is easier.
When moving to an SLR it's important to realize that the lenses, not the camera are the investment, so you may wind up with glass that cost more than your camera body...
Also, as has been said, training is probably most important and if you're looking to do studio photography like Stick's, you'll need a healthy investment in lights.
T2i all the way (if you go canon).
I completely disagree about lenses. That's an ancient holdover from the days of film- the film was the same in your manual focus Canon, Nikon, or $20 point-and-shoot so lens was the only differentiating factor. Now, it's about the image sensor, not the lens. You can get a competent lens for cheap these days, but the determiner of image quality, the image sensor and associated augmenting electronics (Exspeed, DIGIC, etc) along with accurate autofocus sensing, are more expensive as they get better. Cheap out on those things and your image quality will suffer. The best lens in the world will give you a crappy image if the camera won't color balance well, provide too much noise, and is out of focus.
Get a good camera. Even the crap lenses are generally competent. You'll get far better images with a great dSLR and cheap lens than a great lens and crappy camera.
I would argue a decent camera and a good lens. The T2i and a 50mm f1.4 (or 1.8) and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 are what I use now and havent felt limited yet. I may get the T2i for the higher ISO, but it took me a bit to get there and know what I need...
My wife and I use a Canon D50. She was using the Tamron 2.8 17-50mm lenses for this photo on the sports-auto setting at the rifle match in PA I shot this past weekend.
[ IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/Robbpixelized.jpg[/IMG]
Same camera same lenses using a flash indoors.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/KACrightsidereceivers.jpg[/IM G]
I have that lens, it is amazing for the price, certainly better than I am.
This lens took the following shots, not the best, but for what I wanted, they are fine. It is all in knowing what to do, maybe I will figure that part out some day...
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4637299283_45a6b03625_z.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2779173867_336631ee98_z.jpg
Oh Mighty Camera Gods, I have a request.
I have a $400 budget for a digital camera for my work. Since I just use my phone for my personal pictures, I'm coming to the pro's for your opinion.
Primary uses;
Still pictures of outdoor vehicles, buildings and interior work areas.
Must be easy to use (point & shoot).
Low light capable (overcast outdoors, and in medium/low light interior shots).
Good battery life.
Most pictures will be outside, and hand held, so some kind of motion adjust or assist will probably be needed.
I work for a large auto parts salvage yard / full service department / used car dealership. So this camera would be used to take pictures of incoming salvage cars, finished used cars, and random stock pictures from around the business for the websites we're building. The $400 is pretty firm, but this would be used year round outside in the elements and needs to be relatively easy to use, if another $50 gets me to an all around better camera, I could convince the powers that be to bump to $450.
Any help or opinions are welcomed with a big smile, as I don't know much about cameras.
Thanks guys!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.