|
casa de mi padre posted:I had the chance to handle somebody's fancy prosumer Nikon the other day and was amazed at how bright the viewfinder was. I'm using a Canon 450D and it feels all murky and poo poo now. Do newer models in that line have brighter viewfinders or would I want something like a 60D? Newer models have slightly better viewfinders, but they still have pentamirrors. The 60D and every camera above it have pentaprisms, which are inherently brighter (as well as heavier and more expensive). By far the biggest jump, though, is the jump to full‐frame. There’s more than twice as much light to work with. If the prosumer Nikon you handled was a D600, D700, or D800, that’s what you experienced.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
That Nikon might of had a pentaprism viewfinder, while yours has a pentamirror. The prism viewfinders are brighter. Edit: beaten, and with more info!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:I had the chance to handle somebody's fancy prosumer Nikon the other day and was amazed at how bright the viewfinder was. I'm using a Canon 450D and it feels all murky and poo poo now. Do newer models in that line have brighter viewfinders or would I want something like a 60D? For brighter viewfinders you'd want anything with a pentaprism in the viewfinder, as opposed to pentamirrors, which is what they use in consumer level dslrs (the rebel series, etc). Pentamirrors are cheaper to make but reflect less light than pentaprisms. For larger viewfinders you usually gotta buy a full frame dslr. e:fb X2 Iced fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
CrushedWill posted:That was going to be on the list of my follow up questions, i.e. what kind of reputation does the Canon refurbs have? Sounds like they are a good bet
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Anecdotal, but my XTi and later my 40D were both Canon refurbs bought off of ebay, and if it hadn't been for the auctions saying they were refurbs I'd have thought they were brand new. I think the only way you can get a bum deal on a Canon refurb is through outright fraud, i.e. someone's selling one with the Canon stamp that wasn't actually refurbished. Which I've never heard of happening, but I'm sure it's possible. I'm probably going to be buying my 7d refurb via Canon direct, so the fraud thing won't be an issue. Thank you for the validation that the refurb equipment is worth owning. They are running a 20% sale now and with that discount the refurb is less than what a *decent* 7d is going for used from local camera dealers. I hope to god they have another one soon as I dont have the cash to spend on it just this moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
If anything you're less likely to get a bum body when buying refurb. They must test them more thoroughly than even the new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If anything you're less likely to get a bum body when buying refurb. They must test them more thoroughly than even the new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Does anyone recommend online photography courses and if so, which ones? I've read "Understanding Exposure" and sort of looking for support to get better as I take more photographs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
beergod posted:Does anyone recommend online photography courses and if so, which ones? I've read "Understanding Exposure" and sort of looking for support to get better as I take more photographs. I've enjoyed the ones at KelbyTraining.com, though they're not free. I find the content is engaging and entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
From reading the OP and always loathing the fact my camera would pop up the flash and drown a subject in light, if I wanted to take a picture of a naturally lit scene would lowering the shutter speed be the way? e: Presuming, of course, the naturally lit scene is dark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Yes, but shutter speed is only one point on the triangle of exposure. You could also increase the aperture (but will also decrease depth of field) or increase the ISO, aka film sensitivity (but will also increase grain and/or noise.) But long shutter speeds is the best way to go if you're talking about really dark scenes and you're willing to use a tripod. And the best way to be absolutely sure that you're camera won't go rogue and use the popup flash is to use a non-automatic shooting mode (e.g., AV, TV, M)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Cheers for the tips, I shall give it a go, my DSLR is currently on holiday round a friends house so I'll have to go pick it up and experiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
gredgie posted:Cheers for the tips, I shall give it a go, my DSLR is currently on holiday round a friends house so I'll have to go pick it up and experiment. Try and snag yourself a copy of "Understanding Exposure". It's a really excellent book that I found helpful when I was baffled by all this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Headhunter posted:Try and snag yourself a copy of "Understanding Exposure". It's a really excellent book that I found helpful when I was baffled by all this stuff. Can't be said enough. After reading this the most auto you'll ever need is Av, and unless you need quick shots manual gets pretty easy. Best $17 you will ever spend. I hear the layout of the electronic version is terrible, so go with the paperback. *edit* Make that $15. No excuse. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...anding+exposure Bob Mundon fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Mar 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
I bought the iBook version of UE and I was very happy with it. I think it is the Kindle version that is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I checked out samples of it for Kindle, Nook, and Google Play, they were all bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
So the wife and I have decided it's time to invest in a good camera. This is my first foray into the camera world other than crappy point and shoots and cell phone cameras. Of course, like everyone else, I'd like the best compromise between price and features. I'm not looking to become a professional photographer, but I do have an appreciation for good high quality pictures. We have a kid on the way, so that is the driving factor behind this purchase, but I'd also like to have my wife take pictures while I'm driving my car around the track. So far I've been looking at the Canon EOS T3i, Nikon D5200, and the Sony A57. These seem like good entry level cameras, and I probably couldn't go wrong with any of these. Something that will last me 5-10 years would be nice as well. I'm still not sure if I should get a kit like this for the T3i that comes with the extra lens, or just buy another lens later. My budget is probably somewhere around $600-$1000 from what I've seen on the prices for the aforementioned cameras/lenses. The main usage of the camera would be: - Pictures of the kid crawling around or something - Sweet action shots of me driving a car - A picture of a cat - Occasional nature picture - Vacation pictures Anyone have any recommendations? Keep using my iPhone camera?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
I own the Canon EOS T4i (650D) and I love it. It is a great entry level DSLR. I picked it up with the 18-55mm kit lens and purchased the 55-250mm telephoto you linked and they both served me very well. You'd probably want to get a 50mm f/1.8 for the shitload of portraits I'm sure you're going to be doing. I don't have any experience with the Nikon or Sony. My recommendation is the T4i (over the T3i. It's worth the small diff in price). You could probably get the body and all three of those lenses I mentioned above for not much off $1000 and be pretty well set.  Except for the part where this is the most addicting, biggest money-pit of a hobby and you probably won't be able to stop at just a body and three lenses unless you have more control than I. (entirely possible :P) All of the pictures on my Flickr page are using this camera with various lenses. The earlier pictures use the kit 18-55 and 55-250. http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinclifford/ Edit: And if you're getting either the T3i or T4i, pick up a couple of these batteries for $15 a pop. They last far longer than the Canon, and it's always nice to have a back up battery around. http://www.amazon.com/Photive-Origi...photive+battery mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Go to a store and try out all three bodies to see which one feels better. Try out the mirrorless options as well. The nikon will have a newer, nicer sensor than the t3i, which might have better video. Otherwise they'll probably all work for what you want, it's all a matter of preference when you get down to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
I just recently bought a t4i and am loving it so far. Best Buy still has them on sale for $650, which is what I was finding most t3i's going for new. I also just found some photography classes that work out with my messed up schedule that I'm going to sign up for so I can actually get better at using it too! edit: rakuten has the 55-250 for $179 right now. That seems like a really good deal? fknlo fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
I'd also recommend skipping the 55-250 and saving up for a tamron 70-300 VC if you think you're going to use that focal length a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Thanks for the recommendation on the T4i. I went to BB tonight and checked out the Nikon d5100, Canon T4i, and the Sony a57. I think I've narrowed it down to the T4i and a57. The a57 seemed to have a bit better feel to it. At this point I'm guessing it just comes down to preference? I'm also still trying to figure out what lenses to get. I was going to get the 50mm f/1.8 that was recommended earlier, but I'm not sure if the 18-55 or 18-135 kit would be better? About $150 difference. Should I save that $150 and put it towards a Tamron 70-300 VC or something as recommended by Mr. Despair and skip the 55-250?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:Thanks for the recommendation on the T4i. I went to BB tonight and checked out the Nikon d5100, Canon T4i, and the Sony a57. I think I've narrowed it down to the T4i and a57. The a57 seemed to have a bit better feel to it. At this point I'm guessing it just comes down to preference? Generally (and I say generally), the picture quality is going to be better if you use a 'prime' lens like a 50mm/1.8 than with any kit lenses. Of course, you sacrifice zoom capability. When I bought my Nikon D70 many moons ago, I bought it with a kit lens (35-85 I think) and shot that for a long time. I then bought a 50mm/1.8, and never went back to the kit lens afterwards due to the better PQ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:I'm also still trying to figure out what lenses to get. I was going to get the 50mm f/1.8 that was recommended earlier, but I'm not sure if the 18-55 or 18-135 kit would be better? About $150 difference. Should I save that $150 and put it towards a Tamron 70-300 VC or something as recommended by Mr. Despair and skip the 55-250? I believe the 18-55 kit lens is pretty lovely, but I can't say whether it's worth it or not to get the 18-135 kit. I've got it, but it's because Best Buy screwed up and gave me the wrong one. Seems to be a decent lens so far. I do plan on getting the 50mm f/1.8 in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I believe the 18-55 kit lens is pretty lovely, but I can't say whether it's worth it or not to get the 18-135 kit. I've got it, but it's because Best Buy screwed up and gave me the wrong one. Seems to be a decent lens so far. I do plan on getting the 50mm f/1.8 in the near future. It's not "lovely". It takes good pictures, but it's slow, meaning it's difficult to take pictures in low light. For most people, the Canon 18-55 (new version with IS) is perfectly fine. At least start with it until you learn its limitations and know what else you want out of a lens. It's especially not lovely if you consider the 18-135 to be decent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
blk96gt posted:Thanks for the recommendation on the T4i. I went to BB tonight and checked out the Nikon d5100, Canon T4i, and the Sony a57. I think I've narrowed it down to the T4i and a57. The a57 seemed to have a bit better feel to it. At this point I'm guessing it just comes down to preference? If you do go the Sony route, you'll be able to use a lot of good Minolta lenses from the 80s and 90s that are pretty cheap, so you can easily expand your lens collection while sticking to your budget. The Minolta 70-210mm f/4 Beercan won't have the reach of the Tamron 70-300mm, but the wider aperture will help with racing photos as it will let you maintain a faster shutter speed. It's also much cheaper, at $165. The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is good for cat and babby portraits, and you can pick up a copy for $69. If you want a walkaround prime that has better image quality than your kit zoom, check out the Minolta 24mm f/2.8 ($200), Minolta 28mm f/2.8 ($94), or the Sony 35mm f/1.8 ($218 new, not seeing any used on KEH/BHPhoto/Adorama at the moment); the Sony has the fastest aperture and best image quality, whereas the Minoltas have a wider field of view, a much sturdier build, and are cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I believe the 18-55 kit lens is pretty lovely I think a fast 30 or 35, the 18-55 kit (regardless of brand) and a tamron 70-300 VC is a great bunch of glass to start with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yo people need to stop repeating this with no actual experience. It's not the greatest feat of optical engineering (except when you take price into account it kinda is) but it's plenty decent, just slow. I've gotten plenty of great shots with my 18-55 kit and the inexpensive 55-250mm as well. It's not the best, but it's far from the worst, especially considering the price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yo people need to stop repeating this with no actual experience. I apologize. Was just going with what I'd heard. lovely was probably the wrong weird to use anyway. fknlo fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Mar 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
I heard some rumors that Canon 70D is probably gonna be released by the end of March. Hopefully this will fulfill my wish to skip entry level DSLR and go for a decent pro-sumer model directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I apologize. Was just going with what I'd heard. lovely was probably the wrong weird to use anyway. In the photo world, hearing something sucks vs actually using it and then being able to say it sucks, is bad. Dont assume Krock or DPreview are the word of god. Kit lenses are fine for what they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Musket posted:In the photo world, hearing something sucks vs actually using it and then being able to say it sucks, is bad. Dont assume Krock or DPreview are the word of god. Kit lenses are fine for what they are. Hey, be fair. Krock loves the 18-55.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Hey, be fair. I thought he was all over the superzooms like the 18-200 now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I thought he was all over the superzooms like the 18-200 now. Yeah, but canon doesn't have an 18-200 like nikon does. He made a point about that in his 18-55 review.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
But Canon does have an EF-S 18-200. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:But Canon does have an EF-S 18-200. He probably found it to be markedly inferior because Reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:But Canon does have an EF-S 18-200. Well they must not have when krock wrote his review. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Sony Stuff I won't pretend to know more than Bob Socko about Sony gear becuase he's one of the big Sony guys(is there more than one Sony user on here?) to listen to around here. But I will say that you probably won't find another lens like the beercan in the Canon camp. They pop up regularly on craigslist for closer to $100(I got one for $85), and really are untouchable for the price. You could realistically pick up a 35mm sony f/1.8, 50mm minolta f/1.7 and 70-210mm Minolta f/4 for ~$400 total, possibly less if you find some good deals on craigslist/dyxum. Those three lenses can cover just about any photo needs you have, and honestly they all take fantastic pictures(I own all three of them). Another advantage the A57 will have on the Sony is it's burst speed. The A57 will do 12 frames per second(8.4MP) or 10 frames per second at full resolution. It may have been mentioned previously but the reason the Sony can do this is because of it's translucent mirror. That was a major selling point for me as I will be trying to do some sports photography this summer, and if you want 10 fps on a Canon you are looking at their pro-level bodies which are $3,000+ or something. This may not be something you even care about, but it's a huge advantage that the Sony lineup has over Canon/Nikon, all the way from their entry level bodies to their top of the line bodies. Of course Canon and Nikon have their own advantages over Sony, low light performance being perhaps at the top of the list, but it all comes down to what's more important to you. I think you will be very happy with either body, image quality differences will be negligible and lord knows you'll be impressed with the performance of either camera compared to any point and shoot you are used to using. Don't underestimate the importance of ergonomics though, hopefully you'll be holding the camera a lot, do you want it to be a comfortable experience?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:I won't pretend to know more than Bob Socko about Sony gear becuase he's one of the big Sony guys(is there more than one Sony user on here?) to listen to around here.  Edit - and you're absolutely right, <$400 for those three lenses is realistic, even with shipping. The Sony 35mm f/1.8 typically goes for $175ish used, and a Beercan goes for closer to $100 if it's in rougher shape and/or it's someone on Craigslist who doesn't know the value. You can also find cheaper Beercans on KEH, but you might need to supply your own front/rear caps - typically $5 or less apiece on eBay, or $5ish at your local camera shop. Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Mar 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
blk96gt posted:I'm not sure if the 18-55 or 18-135 kit would be better? About $150 difference. The 18-135 has a faster and pretty much silent autofocus. You can also override the autofocus at any time by moving the focus ring. The downside is that the focus ring isn't mechanically hooked to anything, so it has a sloppy feel to it. I'm really happy with it now that I know how to turn on back button focusing. I can leave the auto focus on, hit the button on the back to focus, make adjustments manually, then take a shot and the shutter button won't try and refocus. All in all, I would say that the 18-135 is a little more jack-of-all-trades than the 18-55, having more zoom and the autofocus override.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 22:24
|
|