-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
chaostrophy
Member
mrkgoo said:
I use a black canvas Domke F-2:
Jugendstil
Member
Hey folks, does anyone have experience with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens?
I'm looking to pick one up for my Nikon. I have the standard Nikon 1.4, and I really like it and use it as my main lens most of the time, but it would be really nice to have a 1.4 lens with autofocus. It seems like the Sigma is actually better reviewed than the Nikon af version of this lens. Any opinions? I know some people don't necessarily trust Sigma, but I've never had a problem.
I'm looking to pick one up for my Nikon. I have the standard Nikon 1.4, and I really like it and use it as my main lens most of the time, but it would be really nice to have a 1.4 lens with autofocus. It seems like the Sigma is actually better reviewed than the Nikon af version of this lens. Any opinions? I know some people don't necessarily trust Sigma, but I've never had a problem.
mrkgoo said:
If you want something that looks cheap and protects just as well as those bags just use a duffle bag with some sweatshirts. Looks like hell and will just as much protection as most of those bags.
I really dont like backpacks/sling/whatever bags. Especially when you have a lot of money (camera gear, not cash lol) sitting in there. If it falls/is fallen on/crushed/etc then you run the risk of serious damage. Also they only accomidate cameras and a few lenses, the minute you add in lights/modifiers/reflectors all that they become uselesss (reflectors and modifiers are great even if you only shoot with natural light).
I really like hard cases, ie pelican cases. Great for everything and for storage (keeps out dust and sand). Plus theyre actually cheaper for the most part than these $200 backpacks. I know they offer different things, but for me Im packing up, loading up the truck or whatever, unloading and doing my shoot on the set, then pack up and go. So backpacks dont help much.
If I was just on an outdoor trip and wanted to document it, I leave the big cameras at home and go out with a point and shoot, they do plenty for that.
Jugendstil said:Hey folks, does anyone have experience with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens?
I'm looking to pick one up for my Nikon. I have the standard Nikon 1.4, and I really like it and use it as my main lens most of the time, but it would be really nice to have a 1.4 lens with autofocus. It seems like the Sigma is actually better reviewed than the Nikon af version of this lens. Any opinions? I know some people don't necessarily trust Sigma, but I've never had a problem.
There's probably so much more out there that will help you, but for what it's worth I LOVE the image quality of mine (I have the Canon mount). The bokeh is awesome.
A lot of people complain about AF issues on the Canon, not sure if that also applies to the Nikon version. I use manual focus a lot though and haven't really ever had any issues.
It is quite big though for a 50mm, keep that in mind.
radios shipping overview
Member
I use the J-802, the nylon version. It has a few extra pockets in comparison, and it fits all the gear I would care to load myself down with (usually two cameras and a couple of lenses, plus film and accessories).XMonkey said:Domke F-802. It's not very big, I'm considering an upgrade.
I think it depends on what your doing. It sounds like to me you do more shoots where you go and unload and setup and dont move much.zombi said:
I love the backpack i posted for my purposes because i'm usually doing some hiking with my gear. And I usually only take what I'll use, which is my camera 2 lenses and a 2x teleconverter.
Its also weather sealed and has a stiff rigid divider around the compartment for the camera and lenses.
captive said:
Oh absolutely, it definitely depends. Im including lights and all of that side of the equation, which means a lot of planning and sticking to the set for a bit. Ya Im not much of the hiker, haha, so that side of the world is blurry. Cool you have a weather sealed bag, a necessary aspect.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Which Pelican are you using for you lighting? I'm going to get one to use for just the AlienBees and modifiers. Increasingly, I find myself taking them to dirtier and wetter locales.zombi said:
I haven't really looked around yet, however.
Jugendstil said:Hey folks, does anyone have experience with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens?
I'm looking to pick one up for my Nikon. I have the standard Nikon 1.4, and I really like it and use it as my main lens most of the time, but it would be really nice to have a 1.4 lens with autofocus. It seems like the Sigma is actually better reviewed than the Nikon af version of this lens. Any opinions? I know some people don't necessarily trust Sigma, but I've never had a problem.
I have a Nikon 35mm F1.8 and that is really great for the price. But there is a newer version of the 50mm f.14 that will autofocus with the D40/60/3000/5000
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001GCVA0U/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Hey gang, great thread. I've been thinking about getting my first DSLR camera and after doing a bunch of reading and playing around with cameras at the store I've decided on an entry level Nikon. I was about 99% sure I wanted a D3000 until I saw Ken Rockwell's review where he calls it "the worst DSLR Nikon has ever made" and recommends going with the older D40. His major issues with the D3000:
* It's slower than the D40 (flash sync speed is 1/200, D40's is 1/500)
* It's 2x noisier than the D40 ("D3000 is as noisy at ISO 800 as the D40 is at ISO 1,600")
* The LCD is bigger but because it's the same resolution as the D40's it actually looks worse
* Flipping through images on the LCD is a lot slower on the D3000
Advantages of the D3000:
* VR on the kit lens
* Better UI
* 11 point AF on the D3000, 3 point on the D40
* The D3000's light metering is better than the D40's
* 10MP vs 6MP, though his claim is that this doesn't even matter
So I don't know. On the one hand I'm a total noob with DSLRs and I feel like I probably wouldn't even have noticed this stuff if not for Ken pointing it out. So maybe it's no biggie. Just figured I'd throw it out there and see if anyone has used both and can comment on them.
* It's slower than the D40 (flash sync speed is 1/200, D40's is 1/500)
* It's 2x noisier than the D40 ("D3000 is as noisy at ISO 800 as the D40 is at ISO 1,600")
* The LCD is bigger but because it's the same resolution as the D40's it actually looks worse
* Flipping through images on the LCD is a lot slower on the D3000
Advantages of the D3000:
* VR on the kit lens
* Better UI
* 11 point AF on the D3000, 3 point on the D40
* The D3000's light metering is better than the D40's
* 10MP vs 6MP, though his claim is that this doesn't even matter
So I don't know. On the one hand I'm a total noob with DSLRs and I feel like I probably wouldn't even have noticed this stuff if not for Ken pointing it out. So maybe it's no biggie. Just figured I'd throw it out there and see if anyone has used both and can comment on them.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I think if I were to get a new entry level DSLR, I'd probably go with the D5000. The sensor is nice and the articulated screen would be very useful. There's a $200 price difference, though, so for others it would depend on how tight their budget is.
If it came down to it, I'd probably take a d3000 or d40 + the 35mm 1.8 for $700 rather than a D5000 + kit lens only for $700.
I can't really speak for the D3000 since I've never used one, but the D40 has proved quite useful for the past 3 years. It still takes good pictures.
I would definitely recommend the D40 if it were still selling for $400, but it's not anymore, so it's kind of a tossup.
I think the D3000 may have slightly more pros than cons over the D40 at this point, especially since they're only $55 apart.
If it came down to it, I'd probably take a d3000 or d40 + the 35mm 1.8 for $700 rather than a D5000 + kit lens only for $700.
I can't really speak for the D3000 since I've never used one, but the D40 has proved quite useful for the past 3 years. It still takes good pictures.
I would definitely recommend the D40 if it were still selling for $400, but it's not anymore, so it's kind of a tossup.
I think the D3000 may have slightly more pros than cons over the D40 at this point, especially since they're only $55 apart.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I personally find Ken Rockwell to be too hyperbolic for his own good. Detrimental to new photographers who aren't able to separate the truth from his over the top comments.
Well yeah, I wasn't just accepting everything Ken said. The link I provided to his ISO comparison was interesting, I thought. The D40 definitely looked better in those shots. But again, it's hard for me to tell which of the pros and cons are more important. I'm still tempted to just go with the D3000 because of the VR on the kit lens and the nicer UI which I think I'd appreciate more as a noobie. If I stick with it and upgrade in a few years I might care more about the other things.
A couple of you mentioned the D5000 but I'm hesitant to make that leap. Not really because I can't afford it, but mostly because I think I wouldn't even notice the differences between it and a D40/D3000 until I've had the camera for a while and by then I might be thinking about a more serious upgrade, anyway. It seems like the D40 or D3000 is really more than I can handle for now and the tech moves fast.
Yeah, that's definitely me. I don't mind admitting that I'm clueless
Thanks for the input.
A couple of you mentioned the D5000 but I'm hesitant to make that leap. Not really because I can't afford it, but mostly because I think I wouldn't even notice the differences between it and a D40/D3000 until I've had the camera for a while and by then I might be thinking about a more serious upgrade, anyway. It seems like the D40 or D3000 is really more than I can handle for now and the tech moves fast.
BlueTsunami said:
Yeah, that's definitely me. I don't mind admitting that I'm clueless
Thanks for the input.
Cathcart said:
VR on the kit lense isn't that great of a feature IMO. I've done plenty fine on the D40's kit lense without it and I'm pretty sure you will want to move onto other lenses anyway pretty fast.
These days I just stick to my prime 35mm f1.8 and telephoto 55-200mm which I got both for around $200 each.
Soakedjunk
Member
Cathcart said:
Hopefully I can help a little. I recently bought a D3000 and played with it for about a week before returning it to get the D5000.
The D3000 was great, but after doing some research the D5000 made more sense for me:
the image sensor is awesome! Same one as the D90 and the D300 (I believe). It shoots much better at high iso's with less grain than you would get from the D3000.
It has live view mode. It's a little gimpy, but gets the job done if you need to throw a hail mary shot and can't look into the viewfinder, and on this note...
It has an articulated screen, so you can adjust it if you're holding the camera above your head or below you and still see what's going on.
It shoots 720p 24p HD video. The problem is that it doesn't auto focus, but I'm somewhat used to manually focusing video occasionally on my JVC HD110, so it hasn't been a problem for me at all. So far the video quality looks great. The other video drawback is that there is no external mic input, so you're stuck with the built in mic.
So, to me it was worth the extra $200 to switch and get the slightly bigger model.
Cathcart said:
Are you married to getting a Nikon? If not you might consider a Pentax k-x, or it's predecessor, the k2000.
A few advantages of both Pentaxes over the Nikons you're choosing from:
- in-body image stabilization
- compatibility with every Pentax lense ever made
- in-body auto focus motor (both d40 and d3000 lack these, so if your auto focus lens doesn't have a motor in lens, it can only focus manually)
and improvements from k2000 to k-x
- vastly improved low light capabilities
- hd video at 720/24p
- a red version is coming out soon (also white, navy, and black [with 100 kooky color combos in Japan])
- live view mode
You can get the k2000 with 18-55mm kit lens from samsclub.com for $399, or the k-x with 18-55mm for $650. I'm definitely not agin Nikon, just thought you might like to now about other options out there for you.
Sony and Olympus cameras also offer in body image stabilization. Olympus sensors use a 4/3 ratio, which intrigues me because I read somewhere that that is the "perfect" image ratio. Something about DaVinci or something.
I bought the k2000 a month and a half ago and am pleased as punch with it. Older Pentax lenses are prevalent and cheap, allowing you to add new ones and experiment with your shooting. I got a 70-210mm manual focus macro zoom for $44 from a local camera store. I lub it.
But what I quickly learned after finally getting a dslr is this: cameras do not take pictures. You do. In other words, once you make your pick and start shooting, rarely if ever will you stress about equipment, if you made the right choice, should you have gone with another system, etc, because it's you who does the work. A camera is only a tool, and you determine the result. You'll just go out there and shoot, shoot, shoot, and improve by doing.
So get out there, and take tons of photos (I'm already past 5000 shutter actuations - hooah!
)BlueTsunami said:
Agreed. Read his site for the wealth of info he provides. I'm just not to keen on his "you never see pros do this/ my friends who are pros never do that." Seriously, wearing a camera strap around your neck is verboten ?!
Cathcart said:Well yeah, I wasn't just accepting everything Ken said. The link I provided to his ISO comparison was interesting, I thought. The D40 definitely looked better in those shots. But again, it's hard for me to tell which of the pros and cons are more important. I'm still tempted to just go with the D3000 because of the VR on the kit lens and the nicer UI which I think I'd appreciate more as a noobie. If I stick with it and upgrade in a few years I might care more about the other things.
A couple of you mentioned the D5000 but I'm hesitant to make that leap. Not really because I can't afford it, but mostly because I think I wouldn't even notice the differences between it and a D40/D3000 until I've had the camera for a while and by then I might be thinking about a more serious upgrade, anyway. It seems like the D40 or D3000 is really more than I can handle for now and the tech moves fast.
Yeah, that's definitely me. I don't mind admitting that I'm clueless
Thanks for the input.
Well, how about a used d40-X, which is a 10-megapixel version of the d40, and ya can buy that VR kit lens separately. Or you could go with what Rolio suggested. I'm a pentaxian as well, and I've been eyeing the K-X very closely myself for it's low-light performance over my K20d's.
BTW, there's currently a 10% off code for dSLR's on Newegg, but it only gives a maximum of 50$ off. The code's DSLR10B, and I think ya have to be subscribed to their e-mails in order to use it. I'd have already grabbed the K-X, but I got to do Xmas shopping for someone else besides myself.
If you are starting out you might want to consider the entry level Sony Alpha series which provides so many more features than the Nikon D40/D3000.
I played with the Sony A230L and it is nice, I don't know how many auto-focus points it has but I felt its was much better to work with than my D40's 3 point AF.
Also you get in body stabilization so you can autofocus with a bunch of older lenses since Sony is basically just using Minolta's mount you have access to so many old but great Minolta lenses which can be had for really, really cheap if you look around.
I played with the Sony A230L and it is nice, I don't know how many auto-focus points it has but I felt its was much better to work with than my D40's 3 point AF.
Also you get in body stabilization so you can autofocus with a bunch of older lenses since Sony is basically just using Minolta's mount you have access to so many old but great Minolta lenses which can be had for really, really cheap if you look around.
Hey I really am not very knowledgeable about cameras. I'm trying to find one for my girlfriend for christmas. My price range is $200ish. She's never owned her own before, but borrows her mums a sisters point a click digital cameras nearly every time we go out.
Some one once said I should try and get a wide angle camera? What is the general consensus on this camera?
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...124067&cm_sp=DailyDeal-_-30-124-067-_-Product
Some one once said I should try and get a wide angle camera? What is the general consensus on this camera?
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...124067&cm_sp=DailyDeal-_-30-124-067-_-Product
JavaMava said:Hey I really am not very knowledgeable about cameras. I'm trying to find one for my girlfriend for christmas. My price range is $200ish. She's never owned her own before, but borrows her mums a sisters point a click digital cameras nearly every time we go out.
Some one once said I should try and get a wide angle camera? What is the general consensus on this camera?
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...124067&cm_sp=DailyDeal-_-30-124-067-_-Product
this falls into the category of the new class of super zoom point and shoots.
They may not be as convenient or portable as smaller digital cameras but you get great picture quality when zoomed very far out and the ability to take decent 720p videos (some have this feature while some do not)
Zyzyxxz said:
hmm. I guess I'm trying decide if she might be happier with a similarly priced slim point and shoot, or this which simply from outside appearances from a guy who doesn't know camera's I thought might be a really nice camera. If it's not functionally like 10x better than something like this
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830113219
I'll probably just get a slim, similarly priced point and shoot for her.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Hey guys, how are the low-end P&S models nowadays? Can I pretty much pick one based on form factor already, or are there important differences? I have a 40D for "actual photography" (pardon the wording), but I'm looking for something to go in my pocket all the time. Something to go snap-happy with. Low price and small size are the most important factors, but I wouldn't mind paying an extra 20 euros or so for improved IQ or more versatility.
Instigator
Banned
Rolio said:Are you married to getting a Nikon? If not you might consider a Pentax k-x, or it's predecessor, the k2000.
A few advantages of both Pentaxes over the Nikons you're choosing from:
- in-body image stabilization
- compatibility with every Pentax lense ever made
- in-body auto focus motor (both d40 and d3000 lack these, so if your auto focus lens doesn't have a motor in lens, it can only focus manually)
and improvements from k2000 to k-x
- vastly improved low light capabilities
- hd video at 720/24p
- a red version is coming out soon (also white, navy, and black [with 100 kooky color combos in Japan])
- live view mode
You can get the k2000 with 18-55mm kit lens from samsclub.com for $399, or the k-x with 18-55mm for $650. I'm definitely not agin Nikon, just thought you might like to now about other options out there for you.
Sony and Olympus cameras also offer in body image stabilization. Olympus sensors use a 4/3 ratio, which intrigues me because I read somewhere that that is the "perfect" image ratio. Something about DaVinci or something.
I bought the k2000 a month and a half ago and am pleased as punch with it. Older Pentax lenses are prevalent and cheap, allowing you to add new ones and experiment with your shooting. I got a 70-210mm manual focus macro zoom for $44 from a local camera store. I lub it.
But what I quickly learned after finally getting a dslr is this: cameras do not take pictures. You do. In other words, once you make your pick and start shooting, rarely if ever will you stress about equipment, if you made the right choice, should you have gone with another system, etc, because it's you who does the work. A camera is only a tool, and you determine the result. You'll just go out there and shoot, shoot, shoot, and improve by doing.
So get out there, and take tons of photos (I'm already past 5000 shutter actuations - hooah!
Agreed. Read his site for the wealth of info he provides. I'm just not to keen on his "you never see pros do this/ my friends who are pros never do that." Seriously, wearing a camera strap around your neck is verboten ?!
You forgot to mention Pentax has awful retailer presence. You may find a body in a store, but be ready to shop online in order to find optics.
That and the company had financial troubles and is looking for a partner to keep its DSLR division alive.
I'm thinking about buying this flash:
http://www.cameta.com/Precision-Des...4.cfm?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email111209
Since its inexpensive but more versatile than a SB400, any opinions?
Its normally $50 on Amazon so half the price of a SB400 but I don't know much about aftermarket flashes.
http://www.cameta.com/Precision-Des...4.cfm?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email111209
Since its inexpensive but more versatile than a SB400, any opinions?
Its normally $50 on Amazon so half the price of a SB400 but I don't know much about aftermarket flashes.
It may or may not interest you, but check out CHDK. Its a hacked firmware for Canon powershots (mostly) to give you SLR-like control over a P&S. There's a list of compatible cameras on there, so you might want to give it a look.Tf53 said:
---------------------------
Somewhat off-topic, but I guess it is "equipment"...
What do you prefer to use: Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop Elements, or GIMP?
GIMP is obviously nice because its free, but I'm somewhat interested in getting PS Elements 8. I just saw a review for it in Popular Photography and they mentioned a bundle with Premiere Elements for $150. Is it worth it to get a photo processing software such as this for mostly hobbyist use? I tried out Lightroom and liked it a lot, though. Right now, I'm using the included software (DPP) to process my RAW images. Does the trick, but Lightroom had more versatility, and I'm thinking PS Elements would work wonders.
I was also interested in the Elements bundle cause I have a separate HD video camera, and it'd be nice to edit/convert .m2ts easily.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
$35 flash? Damn, that's cheap. I have no idea what the quality is like. I assume it'd be totally manual.Zyzyxxz said:
:lol @ your avatar.
Lightroom.Chairhome said:
I need to purchase a gift for someone, and they've put the 500D and D90 on their wish list. Money isn't too much of any issue, I can get a good discount on both cameras, but I'm curious about how the two compare to the D5000 that some of you mentioned. I've read some of the dpr reviews, but I'm a novice and really don't understand most of this stuff. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Instigator
Banned
LJ11 said:
Can you adopt me?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10397284-1.html?tag=nl.e725
funny video mocking some of the people at DPreview.
funny video mocking some of the people at DPreview.
Why would you do that?
Member
So I finally got my camera, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 (or DMC-T27 some regions). I had it for a while, but I have been a little reluctant to carry it around without a carrying case, but so far I'm loving it. I've been playing around with ISO, apeture, and shutter speed, trying to learn the camera and what makes good pictures.
It also takes very nice quality videos at 720p, but the auto zoom is slow and sometimes fails.
From about 100 posts back:
Columbia Presbyterian Hospital (took it through a chain link fence so it's blurry around the edges)
http://i46.tinypic.com/642ux0.jpg
Highbridge Tower (used to adjust pressure in the city's old aqueduct... Also taken through the chain link fence)
http://i47.tinypic.com/28sxb83.jpg
Some building
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ekhcew.jpg
In full 4000x3000, I like the last one the most, because of the detail in the bricks. I was somewhat surprised to be able to see each one somewhat clearly, even in the white areas not part of the facade.
I also like the way the hospital looks, so I'll want to find a way to take that again without the fence messing up the edges.
It also takes very nice quality videos at 720p, but the auto zoom is slow and sometimes fails.
From about 100 posts back:
Here are a couple I took today, when walking across a bridge from The Bronx to Manhattan. I wouldn't call myself a great photographer by any means (and am slightly embarassed to show these off), and I didn't even keep one of the pics straight, but I think these turned out okay. Click the images/links for 1600x1200. Tinypic resized them, but if you're interested in seeing the full 4000x3000 pictures, I'll upload them.mrklaw said:
Columbia Presbyterian Hospital (took it through a chain link fence so it's blurry around the edges)
http://i46.tinypic.com/642ux0.jpg
Highbridge Tower (used to adjust pressure in the city's old aqueduct... Also taken through the chain link fence)
http://i47.tinypic.com/28sxb83.jpg
Some building
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ekhcew.jpg
In full 4000x3000, I like the last one the most, because of the detail in the bricks. I was somewhat surprised to be able to see each one somewhat clearly, even in the white areas not part of the facade.
I also like the way the hospital looks, so I'll want to find a way to take that again without the fence messing up the edges.
Wow those are some pretty nice shots from a point and shoot.
Personally I wouldn't mind giving one as a gift but I'd rather stick to a DSLR and a more compact point and shoot.
I think for the money and what they can do they are perfect for vacationers who want mobility, decent zoom and video capabilities, and something that won't break the bank but for me I don't see too much of a use.
Either way its a great camera and these new super-zoom compact digitals are nicely filling the gap between normal digital cameras and DSLR's.
Personally I wouldn't mind giving one as a gift but I'd rather stick to a DSLR and a more compact point and shoot.
I think for the money and what they can do they are perfect for vacationers who want mobility, decent zoom and video capabilities, and something that won't break the bank but for me I don't see too much of a use.
Either way its a great camera and these new super-zoom compact digitals are nicely filling the gap between normal digital cameras and DSLR's.
Why would you do that? said:So I finally got my camera, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35 (or DMC-T27 some regions). I had it for a while, but I have been a little reluctant to carry it around without a carrying case, but so far I'm loving it. I've been playing around with ISO, apeture, and shutter speed, trying to learn the camera and what makes good pictures.
It also takes very nice quality videos at 720p, but the auto zoom is slow and sometimes fails.
From about 100 posts back:
Here are a couple I took today, when walking across a bridge from The Bronx to Manhattan. I wouldn't call myself a great photographer by any means (and am slightly embarassed to show these off), and I didn't even keep one of the pics straight, but I think these turned out okay. Click the images/links for 1600x1200. Tinypic resized them, but if you're interested in seeing the full 4000x3000 pictures, I'll upload them.
Columbia Presbyterian Hospital (took it through a chain link fence so it's blurry around the edges)
http://i46.tinypic.com/642ux0.jpg
Highbridge Tower (used to adjust pressure in the city's old aqueduct... Also taken through the chain link fence)
IMGhttp://i47.tinypic.com/28s1mdh.jpgIMG
http://i47.tinypic.com/28sxb83.jpg
Some building
IMGhttp://i47.tinypic.com/178l1y.jpgIMG
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ekhcew.jpg
In full 4000x3000, I like the last one the most, because of the detail in the bricks. I was somewhat surprised to be able to see each one somewhat clearly, even in the white areas not part of the facade.
I also like the way the hospital looks, so I'll want to find a way to take that again without the fence messing up the edges.
That first image has a very weird quality about it. Like some parts of the image are sharp, but others are not. Like only certain areas have been sharpened. Maybe it's just me.
Why would you do that?
Member
Zyzyxxz said:
Sometimes, I wonder if I should have gotten a DSLR instead, but in the end, I still appreciate the features, especially the 720p video and zoom, in my current camera more than I would enjoy having a DSLR, I think. For instance, the hospital and tower were about a mile away, so I really appreciated the zoom.
After a while, when I get used to having a camera and taking pictures and stuff, I may end up getting a DSLR as well. I haven't looked at DSLR example images in a while, but I am pretty sure that they would be much nicer than my camera in indoor situations.
Yeah, it's probably the fence I took it through... Unless you're noticing something else?mrkgoo said:
Thanks for all of the advice. In case anyone is interested, here's what I did.
I decided to stick to the low end Nikons for a couple of reasons. If I don't use it as much as I think I will I won't have wasted a lot of money and also this way if I get a fancier bigger camera later I'll sort of have bought my back up lighter camera first. After some posts here and another forum I was set on a D3000 when I saw Cameta Camera selling a bunch of demo model D40 bodies refurbished by Nikon for about $300 on ebay, so I picked up one of those and the new 35mm Nikon lens.
The camera wasn't actually preowned but used as a sales model. It had about 130 actuations and was in perfect shape, plus Cameta gave me a one year warranty and Nikon had a 90 day warranty on it. The nice thing about getting the camera only is that I kind of wanted to pick up the 18-200mm VR lens as an all purpose walking around/vacation lens and I would have been annoyed replacing the kit lens so early, even if it is relatively cheap.
So anyway, I really like this camera. I went with the 35mm for starters because I figured the combination of normal view and no zoom would be a good way to learn. Hopefully this weekend I'll have a chance to go outside during the day and take some pictures but right now I can tell you that this thing is well equipped to take pictures of a box of raisins and my Vault-Tec bobblehead.
I decided to stick to the low end Nikons for a couple of reasons. If I don't use it as much as I think I will I won't have wasted a lot of money and also this way if I get a fancier bigger camera later I'll sort of have bought my back up lighter camera first. After some posts here and another forum I was set on a D3000 when I saw Cameta Camera selling a bunch of demo model D40 bodies refurbished by Nikon for about $300 on ebay, so I picked up one of those and the new 35mm Nikon lens.
The camera wasn't actually preowned but used as a sales model. It had about 130 actuations and was in perfect shape, plus Cameta gave me a one year warranty and Nikon had a 90 day warranty on it. The nice thing about getting the camera only is that I kind of wanted to pick up the 18-200mm VR lens as an all purpose walking around/vacation lens and I would have been annoyed replacing the kit lens so early, even if it is relatively cheap.
So anyway, I really like this camera. I went with the 35mm for starters because I figured the combination of normal view and no zoom would be a good way to learn. Hopefully this weekend I'll have a chance to go outside during the day and take some pictures but right now I can tell you that this thing is well equipped to take pictures of a box of raisins and my Vault-Tec bobblehead.
nitewulf said:
Lots of impressions as soon as you've had time to play with it properly.
Mainly how is the handling and controls? I sold my 50D and am 'between' DSLRs right now. If I can get something with the responsiveness of a DSLR and good controls, but in a compact package, then that could be a good option for me.
chaostrophy
Member
My latest camera equipment purchase was an Eg-S super precision focusing screen for my 5DII. I like it a lot, it makes manually focusing possible without using magnified Live View. It comes in handy because the 5DII (and all other full frame DSLRs from what I could tell) don't have AF points spread across the entire frame, they're concentrated in the center, so to focus on something toward the edge of the frame you have to use manual focus. The downside is that the screen is darker than the default one. It's officially recommended only for use with f2.8 and faster lenses, but I've found it to be perfectly usable with the 24-105 f4, even though the finder is visibly darker.
I have the following kit for myself at this moment. I'd like a telezoom but the money I have will go to a bag, a battery grip and a couple of UV filters and lens hoods.
Nikon D200
Nikkor 50mm AF f/1.4
Nikkor 35-70mm AF f/2.8
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
SB600 something flash unit (Nikon)
Some Lowepro bag in which my shit doesn't fit but I got it with the (2nd hand) cam.
Nikon D200
Nikkor 50mm AF f/1.4
Nikkor 35-70mm AF f/2.8
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
SB600 something flash unit (Nikon)
Some Lowepro bag in which my shit doesn't fit but I got it with the (2nd hand) cam.
I currently have this bag
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009R6TA/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I like it and is comfortable to walk around in, specially when I walked around DC or hiking.. I don't have a lot of glass right now anyway but seems to have room for plenty when I expand.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009R6TA/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I like it and is comfortable to walk around in, specially when I walked around DC or hiking.. I don't have a lot of glass right now anyway but seems to have room for plenty when I expand.
- Status