|
What is a “DSLR”, anyway? Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras are the large, blocky cameras professional photographers use. They have many features and benefits a typical point-and-shoot does not, including:
 When you look through the viewfinder, you see light that travelled through the lens, bounced off a mirror, reflected up into another mirror (or a prism), and out the eyepiece to you. When you press the trigger, the first mirror pivots upward. This allows the light to hit the sensor, capturing the photo itself. Once the capture is complete, the pivoting mirror rotates back down. While the mirror is pivoted upward, you won’t be able to see out the viewfinder. No big deal, typical exposures only last a split second. I’ve heard some DSLRs don’t have mirrors, how do they work? Technically, they aren’t DSLRs. They still take interchangeable lenses, have manual controls, and so on. The main difference is that instead of using a mirror to reflect the image to an optical viewfinder, they use the image sensor to power an electronic viewfinder. Many of these mirrorless cameras are small enough to fit in a pocket, can be adapted to work with almost any lens, and result in just as nice of a final image. They are a viable alternative to the traditional DSLR, especially if size or weight are an issue for you. They’re beyond the scope of this guide, so check out the mirrorless thread for more info. Do I really need a DSLR? It all depends on what you want to shoot. Maybe you want a camera for the occasional picture of your cat, your kid, or your friends at the bar. Maybe you just want a “nice camera” and aren’t sure how often you’re going to use it. DSLR photography is a big investment, and you might be wasting your money on a lot of features you don’t really need. Instead, consider getting one of the high-end point and shoots marketed toward DSLR users as a small, lightweight alternative to their bigger kits. Two popular choices in The Dorkroom include Canon’s S-series and the Sony RX100. They aren’t at the level of a DSLR, but they have manual controls, good image quality, and support a file format (known as RAW) that makes it much easier to edit the photos after the fact. Buy one of these first, use it for a few months, and see if a DSLR really makes sense for you. Head over to the point and shoot thread to find out more. So when do you need a DSLR? They’re great for sports and birding, as you can mount long-range lenses and shoot at fast shutter speeds. If you want to photograph tiny things, a DSLR with a dedicated macro lens will yield better results than any point and shoot’s macro mode. If you want to make large prints (larger than 8x10), the bigger sensor and better lens of a DSLR will make for a much nicer final product. If you want to make money off this hobby, you’ve got to go with a DSLR – the gear is built to last, and the average person may not take a professional with a point and shoot seriously. And hey, if you’re going to ignore the advice above and buy a DSLR for cat pics, it will do a great job of that as well. What brand/model should I buy? That’s a hard question to answer because no single camera is going to be the best option for everyone. We’ll get to brand-specific stuff later in the thread, but in general:
Most cameras come with what’s known as a “kit lens”. Kit lenses tend to be cheap, plastic things, though they do a decent job with simple scenes – a flower in the park, your cat on the couch, and so on. They’re bad for low light work or for freezing fast motion, but as a learning tool, they’re good enough to get you started. In addition, you might want to consider picking up a “nifty 50” 50mm lens. Every manufacturer has a cheap 50mm lens which, unlike that kit lens, will be great for portraits, narrow depth-of-field effects, and low light work. Best of all, they’re cheap - $100, give or take. What’s the catch? Unlike a kit lens, a 50mm lens does not zoom in or out. You trade flexibility for superior optics and image quality. If you’re willing to spend a little more, there are a few commonly-suggested lenses to consider. One is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC lens, which is a good replacement for the kit lens. It has a sturdier build, a faster aperture, and overall better image quality. The second is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which is probably the best 50mm lens on the market from any manufacturer. Finally, if you want to pick up a good long-range zoom lens, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC has great image quality, but costs half as much as the equivalent “good” zooms from Canon/Nikon/Sony. Check out the general lens thread for more information. When it comes to lenses, what does "mm" mean? It’s the focal length of the lens. Explaining exactly what focal length is involves lots of math and diagrams. Instead, I’ll tell you what it means in terms of your lens. Focal length is a quick, easy way to describe how wide or narrow (zoomed-in) of a shot a lens can produce. Large focal lengths, such as 200mm or 300mm, are good for distant subjects, such as birds in a tree or your kids at soccer practice. Small focal lengths, like 10mm or 20mm, are considered wide-angle shots. They’re good for landscapes and architecture, though some lenses are so wide that they lead to comically distorted images. For an entry-level DSLR, a focal length of 28mm to 35mm is a good approximation of a natural field of vision, and 50mm is nice for portraits. Generally speaking, there are two types of lenses – primes and zooms. Prime lenses have a fixed focal length. That nifty fifty mentioned above has a focal length of 50mm, no matter what you say or do. If you want to zoom in, you have to walk closer to your subject. Zoom lenses have a range of focal lengths. So, if you see an 17-50mm lens, you know the lens will have a focal length of 17mm on the wide end and 50mm on the zoomed-in end. Should I buy a UV filter? No, don't buy a UV filter. Most UV filters do one thing, and only one thing – they degrade your image quality. Others cause strange reflections and ghosting. For example, check out these comparison shots of a single light.  Use a lens hood instead. A lens hood will protect against the same casual damage a UV filter would, along with protecting your images from lens flare. If the damage to your lens is so severe that a lens hood won’t protect it, that thin UV filter wouldn’t save your lens either. Are there a few, limited circumstances when you’d want to use a UV filter? Sure. Do you need to worry about it now? No. Save your money, ignore the salesman at your local shop, and don’t buy a UV filter. Are all filters bad? No, just the UV ones the local camera shop is pushing on you. Polarizers are great for enhancing blue skies and reflections on water. ND (Neutral Density) filters are useful for long exposure shots, like when you want to take a photo of a waterfall and nail that hazey, dreamy look:  Untitled by Phil 'the link' Whittaker (gizto29), on Flickr Some lenses or camera bodies feature image stabilization / vibration reduction / vibration compensation / steady shot / etc. What’s that? It’s a system to keep your shaky hands from ruining a shot. When using a DSLR, one of the settings you control is shutter speed, which is the length of time of the exposure. If your shutter speed is too slow, you run the risk of moving your hand just enough to blur the shot. How slow is too slow? It varies from lens to lens, but the general formula is 1 / (focal length * crop factor). So, let’s say you’re using a 50mm lens on a Canon DSLR, which has a crop factor of 1.6. 1 / (50 * 1.6) = 1/80, so you should use a shutter speed no slower than 1/80th of a second in order to keep your shot looking sharp. If you had some sort of image stabilization system, you could get away with a slower shutter speed like 1/50th or 1/40th of a second, and still have a sharp image. Most manufacturers build this technology into specific lenses. Sony and Pentax build image stabilization into the camera bodies themselves by mounting the image sensors on tiny actuators. The general consensus is that in-lens systems do a better job, but only certain lenses have it and they carry a price premium. So, choose your poison – a decent job with every lens, or a great job with a few lenses. I keep seeing “crop factor” or “APS-C” mentioned. What’s that? Most DSLRs have sensors that are smaller than a 35mm film exposure:  There are two reasons for smaller sensors, and they both boil down to cost. First, full-frame sensors as big as a 35mm exposure are very expensive, whereas smaller sensors are much more reasonably priced. Second, if you don’t need to project an image onto as large of an area, you can use smaller (cheaper) optics. When compared to a full-frame or film camera, smaller sensors have an “always on” zoom effect. If you were to shoot side-by-side with someone with a film camera, using the same lenses/settings, your DSLR’s shots will seem as though you were standing closer to the subject. Here is a link that demonstrates this effect, or you can just check out this picture: Wild EEPROM posted:Here is something quick i drew up that would explain it in picture form. Sensor size isn't completely accurate but it should explain it This zoom effect makes a crop-sensor camera nice for shooting distant sports or wildlife, but not as good for wide-angle shots like landscapes and architecture. You can find wide-angle lenses for these smaller sensors, but they result in photos with a lot of distortion, causing straight lines to look curved. You can find long-range lenses for full frame cameras, but nice ones are four-figure purchases. Finally, be aware that this zoom effect makes a lot of the classic lens recommendations hard to use in the same way. It used to be that a 50mm lens was a more-or-less ideal focal length for general walkaround use. Nowadays, 50mm on a crop-sensor is a little tight for casual use, but it makes a great portrait lens. Wow, this looks like an expensive hobby. What are some ways I can save money? The best way is to buy used. Unlike most consumer electronics, DSLR equipment is built to last. The body should last several years, with the only necessary maintenance being to the shutter (after 50,000 – 100,000 shots). If you go used, you might be able to pick up the next higher quality DSLR body for the same price as an entry-level used model, and for the typical improvement in ergonomics and image quality, it’s definitely worth it. As for lenses, a well-built lens can last decades. Some people still use manual-focus m42 lenses, and that’s a standard that dates back to the late 40s. KEH is a very good source for used equipment, with fair prices, a very conservative rating system, and good return policies. KEH’s bargain-quality lenses are what the average person would consider to be used, and an excellent-quality lens will look like it’s fresh out of the box. EBay, Craigslist, and local camera shops are also great sources for used equipment, just make sure you look over everything closely. EBay occasionally has lot sales with lots of great lenses for cheap, or a lot of junky lenses with a missed gem buried in the middle – but still for cheap. Craigslist is nice because a lot of people don’t know the value of the gear they’re selling. They clean out their attics, find a 20 year old camera they forgot about, figure it’s junk, and toss it up on Craigslist for $50. You see that the lens alone is worth $100 and snatch it up in a heartbeat, quick and easy. Just be careful though, make sure what you’re buying is compatible with your camera. Ask in this thread if you’re unsure. Still not convinced? Here’s some examples, just glancing around at prices as of February 2013. Realistic Setup for Nikon, New Equipment Nikon D3200 w/ kit lens - $597, B&H Photo Nikon 35mm f/1.8D lens - $200, B&H Photo Total - $797 Realistic Alternative for Nikon, Used Equipment Nikon D3200 w/kit lens, - $529, KEH Nikon 35mm f/1.8D lens - $175, eBay Total - $704 Realistic Alternative for Nikon #2, Used Equipment Nikon D300 w/out lens - $570, B&H Photo Nikon 35mm f/1.8D lens - $175, eBay Total - $767 You can either buy new, buy used and save $100ish, or buy used and get a much nicer (though older) body. Still hesitant about buying used equipment? If you’re feeling brave, you can try importing your gear. Camera equipment does not have a single uniform price around the globe – it is priced differently for different regions. Many people purchase equipment overseas (usually Hong Kong) and have it shipped to them. Depending on import taxes and shipping, it may or may not be a good deal for you. Buyer beware – many manufacturers frown upon these gray-market imports and refuse to service them outside of their intended country, or they’ll void your warranty and charge full price for repairs. One last cost-saving option is to buy third-party lenses. In most cases, the manufacturer’s own lenses will provide the best performance, but carry a price premium as a result. For example, Nikon’s 70-200mm f/2.8 lens (a popular lens for fast action at a modest distance) costs about $2,400, give or take. Tamron and Sigma, two of the most popular third-party lens manufacturers, have their own versions of that lens which cost anywhere from $750 to $1500, depending on their features. The Sigma won’t be as sharp, but it focuses more quickly. The Tamron has better optics than either the Sigma or the Nikon, but focuses much more slowly. For the casual user (and even some professionals), they’re good enough and a whole lot cheaper. I’d rather buy new. Where should I look? B&H Photo and Adorama are your best bets in the US. They are legitimate, well-established businesses with very competitive prices. Amazon is always a good option. Or hey, throw your local camera shop a bone – it’s nice to be able to handle cameras in person and talk to a real person about their functionality. I found a deal that seems too good to be true. Should I take it? Nope, it’s too good to be true because it’s too good to be true. Your best case scenario is that you’re purchasing stolen equipment. Other times, it’s a scam. Some online camera shops will sucker you in with a very cheap deal. When you go to complete the purchase, you’ll be offered accessories (like UV filters) at ridiculous prices. You’ll say no because you read the thread and know that UV filters are bad. All of a sudden, the camera you wanted to buy will be out of stock! You’ll wait and you’ll wait, but it will never come back in stock. Oh, if only you had just taken the guy up on his offer instead of arguing about UV filters for five minutes, you would have gotten the last one. Fun fact – you were never going to get the last one unless you bought the overpriced UV filter. Want to avoid this trap? Stick with B&H, Adorama, or another big company you’ve heard of. Ok, I bought the camera. I took a picture of, um, my cat. Now what? Let’s learn how to use your camera. A proper exposure has three basic elements:
 Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/8, 1/60s, ISO 320 This tells me that for this subject, in this light, this specific combination of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO is a “proper” exposure. Let’s see what happens if I fiddle with things. I switch my camera to manual mode. I manually select an aperture of f/8, a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second, and an ISO of 320. What to change? All the cool kids on Flickr think that a shallow depth of field is fantastic. Let's see what happens when we open the aperture to its maximum setting of f/1.4, and leave everything else as it is, in order to achieve that shallow depth of field effect.  Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 320 Oops. By opening up the aperture to let in so much additional light (and changing nothing else), I ended up blowing out the image. What do to about all that extra light? I know that low ISO settings require extra light and my ISO is only at 320. Let's try lowering the ISO to 100.  Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 100 That’s a little better, but still too light. I know that shorter exposures require more light, so maybe that will fix things?  Sony a850, Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/640s, ISO 100 There we go, a "proper" exposure. Personally, I'm not crazy about it because the depth of field is a little too narrow. The face is in focus, but what about the ears, or the grass in the foreground? This shallow depth of field might be ok if we had a nice, close up shot of the bunny's face, but here, it's a little distracting. This is an important lesson - a "proper" exposure doesn't always result in a good photo. Understanding the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO is critical to photography. So, go practice! Take a photo in Auto mode. See what settings the camera chose for you. Then, set your camera to manual mode, dial in the same settings as the Auto shot, and then fiddle with them until you understand how the aperture, shutter speed and ISO affect the image. Alternately, try out this simulator that lets you see how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO work together. Are there any books I could read to help me learn more? Sure. Understanding Exposure is a popular choice. It does a good job of explaining photography in easy-to-understand language, and goes beyond basic facts to explain why to do things in a certain way. That being said, it is a little basic. Once you’re ready to learn a little more, The Photographer's Handbook by John Hedgecoe and The Complete Guide To Black & White Digital Photography by Michael Freeman are worth a glance. These books aren’t going to tell you much about how to use a DSLR, but they’ll teach you good things about composition and technique. General info about the major brands: Canon If you go by marketshare, Canon is at the top of the DSLR world. There’s a good reason for this – they make great pro-quality equipment and market it well. Take a look at the photographers at a sidelines of sporting events; the majority of them are Canon shooters. At the other end of the spectrum, you have solid consumer-level cameras and lenses that are attractively priced. The 5DmkII’s video capabilities broke new ground when it came to filmmaking, and Canon’s wide selection of lenses are unrivaled in scope. While the other DSLR manufacturers may have the edge in one aspect or another (such as Nikon's better low-light performance or Sony's better color reproduction), it’s hard to look at Canon’s DSLRs and say they’re doing something wrong. In fact, the worst thing about Canon's lineup is their god-awful naming conventions - seriously, just look at this mess. New Canon users should consider picking up a T3i, a 50D, or a 60D. The T3i is an entry level model with a nice articulating screen and good image quality. Given it’s price point and Canon’s market penetration, it should be very easy to find a T3i in a store to handle in person. The 60D is essentially a nicer T3i – it has two control dials (which makes shooting in manual mode much easier), a nicer grip, and a better viewfinder. The 50D is an older model that you should be able to find used without too much trouble. It doesn’t have video capture or an articulating screen, but its build is much sturdier. A good walkaround lens to pair with these cameras is the Canon 35mm f/2 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Canon’s 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS makes for a good entry-level long-range zoom lens. Nikon Nikon is the other major player in the DSLR market. They have a long history of manufacturing top-of-the-line professional gear, as well as competent entry-level models. One of Nikon’s strongest selling points is its high-ISO (low light) performance, which is at the top of its class at any price point. When coupled with Nikon’s excellent autofocus systems, you have a DSLR that will keep up with almost any subject in all but the darkest of conditions. If you expect to do a lot of low-light work, Nikon may be your best option. Nikon’s biggest flaw is that its entry-level DSLR bodies cannot automatically focus some older Nikon lenses. You can still use these lenses on an entry-level Nikon, you just have to focus them manually. When you couple this with the fact that entry-level DSLRs (regardless of manufacturer) tend to have small, dark viewfinders, it becomes very hard to use these older screw-driven lenses effectively. There are modern equivalents to almost anything you would need, but you won’t get as much out of older glass as the equivalent in other mounts would. Good entry-level Nikon cameras include the D5100, D5200, and D90. The D5100 and D5200 cameras are similar, though the D5200 has a much higher megapixel count and improved autofocus features. The D5200 is very new to the market, so you might have better luck finding a good deal on a D5100. The D90 is an older model, but of a higher quality/feature tier than the other two cameras. You’ll gain two control dials (which make manual shooting easier), a better viewfinder, and the ability to autofocus with older Nikon lenses. Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 is a great walkaround lens, and their 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR is a nice entry-level zoom. Sony DSLR/SLT Sony is a relative newcomer to the DSLR market. Rather than develop a line of DSLRs from scratch, they bought out Minolta's camera division in 2006. They have since evolved their cameras into a hybrid of DSLR and mirrorless technology that they call SLT. Rather than use a traditional mirror/viewfinder design, they use a semi-transparent mirror that constantly reflects light to an autofocus array and the sensor simultaneously. The traditional viewfinder has been replaced by a live-view display. Though pixelated, these viewfinders are much larger and brighter than many pentamirrors/pentaprisms on the market, and overlay useful information such as highlighting what part of the picture is in focus. Plus, the constant light on the autofocus sensor helps Sony cameras track fast moving subjects very well. The downside to this technology is that Sony’s low-light performance is weaker than Canon, Nikon, and Pentax DSLRs. In addition, Sony does not have the market penetration of Canon or Nikon, which makes it harder to find their gear in a store to test out in person, and there will be fewer options when you do find it. The best option for a new Sony shooter is the a57 – it hits the sweet spot of features, price, and usability. If you’d prefer a more traditional DSLR, the a580 and a700 are both widely available on the used market for approximately $500. The a580 has an articulating screen and live view, and is one of the few Sony cameras that performs well in dark situations. The a700 is an older model that lacks a lot of modern features, but is very sturdy and simple to use. The Sony 35mm f/1.8 is one of the best values in Sony’s lineup, and should be either the first or second lens you buy with the system. If you need a zoom lens, both the Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 and the Minolta 70-210mm f/4 “Beercan” deliver great results. Pentax Pentax is the Rodney Dangerfield of DSLRs. They’ve been around for ages and make some really great DSLRs, but their market share doesn’t reflect it. Compare the K-30 to the Nikon 5100. They have the same sensor and comparable price points, but the K-30 is fully weather sealed, has a nicer viewfinder, builds image stabilization into the body, and has two control dials. By any reasonable measure, the K-30 is a better all-around performer than the 5100. But does the K-30 get shelf space at your local Best Buy? Nope. No respect. Part of this may be because Pentax does not have the same upgrade path as the other brands. Canon and Nikon have several full-frame DSLRs and $10,000 lenses to mount on them. Even Sony has a full-frame DSLR and one five-figure lens. Pentax does not. What Pentax does have going for it is the ability to easily use m42 lenses. You know how thrift stores and pawn shops have ancient lenses in display cases for $5, maybe $10? A lot of those are m42 lenses, and they’ll work on modern Pentax bodies. They have also made weather sealing a standard feature in their lineup, which makes them an attractive choice if you know you'll be using your gear in extreme conditions. You can dump a bottle of water on a Pentax DSLR and it will just keep shooting. You can bury a Pentax DSLR, leave it for a day, dig it up the next day, and it will keep shooting. New Pentax users should consider the K-5 or the K-30 with the kit lens, as that helps complete the weather sealing. It’s not the end of the world if you use a non-sealed lens, but keep it in mind if you’re going out in rough conditions. For a zoom lens, pick up a 50-200mm f/4-5.6 lens, which is also conveniently weather-sealed. As for a walkaround prime, the 35mm f/2.4 is a nice performer, or you can bite the bullet and pick up that $5 lens at the pawn shop. And another. And another. Because $5 is basically free when it comes to DSLRs. I want to know more! So ask, that's what the thread is for. This is a good place for general questions, and we aren't brand evangelists here. There are also several threads dedicated to specific topics: Brands/Formats Canon Nikon Sony Pentax Mirrorless Equipment General Lens Discussion Lighting Bags, Cases, etc Tripods Buy/Sell Gear Technique a good essay about composition Bands / Concerts Birds Landscapes Macro Portraits Sports Street Weddings Other Stuff That is Important But Does Not Have Its Own Section Post Processing Photo Business the old My First DSLR thread CREDITS A lot of people helped me write the first edition of this guide, and I built off that work for this second edition. In no particular order, I want to thank Dr. Cogwerks, Fiannaiocht, spf3million, mr. mephistopheles, Casull, AIIAZNSL8ER, SoundMonkey, eviL bunnY, ExecuDork, Momonari kun, Pompous Rhombus, ChiTownEddie, Spog, Krakkles, Shmoogy, and kcncuda71 for their feedback and contributions to this effort. Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Mar 20, 2014 |
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 08:14
|
|
ergonomics and handling are huge
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
The a99 has a mirror, but it is a special mirror that reflects about 1/3rd of the light to the autofocus array. The other 2/3rds of the light passes through the mirror to the sensor, which supplies a video feed to the electronic viewfinder. So, even though it isn't always recording, the a99 and other Sony SLTs are basically in video mode at all times. The other brands use a normal mirror that must be moved out of the way to begin shooting video. I love my a99. 
Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:After posting I decided to do a little digging myself, and apparently the A99 is full frame? I feel so shamed by my mom's camera now Casu Marzu posted:Your link to the "general lens" thread takes me to a thread in the gas chamber. Otherwise looks good. Good catch, thank you. Glad to see folks are happy with the updated thread. My biggest priority was cutting down the size of the last one. Counting hyperlinks, the last one was 26 pages in Word. I managed to cut the new OP down to 13.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
I use mine a few times a year, and would more if I were shooting more events. It's nice for dark venues when you're beyond a point of being able to rely on antishake methods. 200mm, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/50s - something's gotta give there. I'm kind of excited that I get to use mine tomorrow - I found a nice covered bridge over a creek near here, and I'm planning on wading out into the water to get some good scenic angles. If I'm unlucky, I'll get to test out the a99's weathersealing as well, in a nice mountain stream full of snowmelt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
One of the reasons I went with Sony was so that I didn't have to use a tripod all the time - Sony builds stabilization into their bodies, so every lens benefits from it. Between that and keeping my shutter speeds up, I usually don't need a tripod.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
There's something amazing about a nice viewfinder. I just ordered a Sony a850 off eBay, and one of the main reasons was because of its giant viewfinder.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
How much cropping are we talking about, and does the RAW show a lot of distortion? If the RAW is distorted and the crop is slight, it could be Lightroom's attempt at perspective correction.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
adamarama posted:I'm planning to get a zoom lens for my D3100 but I'm a bit lost to be honest. Three options below:
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Carlton Banks Teller posted:Today I bought way more camera than I've ever come close to holding (a used Pentax K100D) for a required class. Thanks for this thread, from its first post down through the subsequent replies. The aperture/ISO/shutter speed breakdown in the OP is one of the most clear and concise on the web that I've found all day and just might get me through my first assignment.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Good enough for  !
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Haven't heard of that site before, thanks for the tip. Would there be any reason to consider a modern crop sensor instead, or does having a full-frame trump feature improvements? Assuming manual controls only.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Honestly, while simplified, the dude who did the drawings probably made the easiest-to-understand version of this always-confusing explanation that I've ever seen. I might add some text to it and throw it in the OP or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Alright, the first post is edited. Thanks, Wild EEPROM, for the image!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I used to have a Tamron 200-400mm. Not the greatest lens, but great for the money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Cool. Worth at least a look, I'd say. I haven't been inside a Costco in years, do they let you get hands-on with any cameras?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Another good option would be a Sony a77. More whistles and bells than the X-E2 and the focus peaking is better, but the JPEGs are worse and Fuji does a much better job of supporting older products with firmware updates.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Nah, it's discontinued, you should be able to find one for less than $800. Regarding ISO - it's a 24mp sensor, downsize to a 16mp image if higher-ISO images are too grainy for you. 24mp gives you a lot of room for both cropping and downsizing, but I found ISO 3200 perfectly usable with good post-processing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 07:04
|
|