|
SoundMonkey posted:Well I guess except the Canon one is poorly built idiot garbage. Canon 35mm f/1.4L then 
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
I've kind of been getting ahead of myself by ordering already but I'm just starting to get into the whole DSLR thing. I'm mostly looking for a good starter one that also runs well in auto for when my wife uses it. I know I'm not really asking a lot of modern cameras but I jumped on 2 deals over the past weekend and wanted opinions on which might suit my needs better. First is a Nikon D3200 with 2 lens and the second is a Canon SL1 with 2 lens. They're both essentially $500 but assuming the SL1 isn't uncomfortably tiny I can't decide if I should cancel one or just let them roll in then return the one I don't like. I can't think of many times I'd use the longer lens and would most likely invest in a macro or 35mm prime after possibly selling the zoom lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Jymmybob posted:I've kind of been getting ahead of myself by ordering already but I'm just starting to get into the whole DSLR thing. I'm mostly looking for a good starter one that also runs well in auto for when my wife uses it. I know I'm not really asking a lot of modern cameras but I jumped on 2 deals over the past weekend and wanted opinions on which might suit my needs better. First is a Nikon D3200 with 2 lens and the second is a Canon SL1 with 2 lens. They're both essentially $500 but assuming the SL1 isn't uncomfortably tiny I can't decide if I should cancel one or just let them roll in then return the one I don't like. I can't think of many times I'd use the longer lens and would most likely invest in a macro or 35mm prime after possibly selling the zoom lens. Get the nikon because the 35mm Prime will cost you 200bux roughtly vs Canon that will charge you 3 asses and a dick for their 1.4 35mm prime. They do not have any budget FIRST PARTY 35mm primes currently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Musket posted:Get the nikon because the 35mm Prime will cost you 200bux roughtly vs Canon that will charge you 3 asses and a dick for their 1.4 35mm prime. They do not have any budget FIRST PARTY 35mm primes currently. The Canon 40/2.8 is pretty fun and cheap?! Especially on the SL1 that would be practically like a little mirrorless. I'm not saying to go for Canon, but it's not quite fair to say there's no options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:The Canon 40/2.8 is pretty fun and cheap?! Especially on the SL1 that would be practically like a little mirrorless. 40mm is not 35mm 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Musket posted:40mm is not 35mm nothing wrong with a 40mm pancake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Sigma 30 1.4 is pretty awesome too. While I'd like a cheaper one, snagged mine for $310 and would have a hard time taking anything comparable over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
3200 crushes the Canon in still image quality, the Canon better at video (maybe). Canon's been putting that same bullshit 18mp sensor into cameras since 2009. Plus with Nikon you can buy the 35F1.8G which is a fantastic value. Canon has no equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:3200 crushes the Canon in still image quality, the Canon better at video (maybe). In before someone corrects you about the Canon 40mm 2.8 shitlens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
The printer adds som value aswell to the package, can not say that much about the Nikon but the SL1 is a good camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Musket posted:In before someone corrects you about the Canon 40mm 2.8 shitlens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Thanks for the help. I'm going to keep the D3200 and probably break up the SL1 bundle and resell it ebay if the prices are still stable when I get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Can you tell us more about these classes? My encounters with descriptions of "Photography for Beginners" classes, never having taken one myself, are mostly about how it was a waste of time and the idiot sitting next to you kept insisting on P-means-Professional while their camera beeps out focus confirmation and other idiocy with every ham-fisted shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
I see the recommendation in the OP for a kit lens replacement is the the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC. Any particular reason the non-VC is favored over the VC model?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I see the recommendation in the OP for a kit lens replacement is the the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC. Any particular reason the non-VC is favored over the VC model? I seem to recall the non-VC has better optics and the VC isn't worth it at those focal lengths for the extra amount they charge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
I have the VC version. Some people say it's image quality is slightly less than the NON-VC version. It worked out fine. To be honest though. Once I got a sigma 30mm 1.4 I don't take that off the camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice. Is there a sort of entry-level wide-angle lens that is recommended for a DX camera (specifically the D5100)? The kits lens (or Tamron upgrade) getting down to 17 is okay, but there have been some times where I would have liked something wider. I've seen favorable reviews of lenses by Sigma (the 10-20), Tokina (11-16 and 12-24), and Tamron (10-24). Anyone have any thoughts on those? Is it not worth worrying too much about wide-angle stuff with the APS-C sensor in the D5100?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Thanks for the advice. The sigma and tokina are good zoom lenses. Another option would be the samyang 14mm f2.8 or their 16mm f2.0 lenses. While they are manual focus, shooting nikon means you have auto-aperture and shooting landscapes doesn't really require auto-focus (put at infinity focus and shoot).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Thanks for the advice. I went with the Tokina 11-16mm after renting it and staring at flickr river and stupid charts and pictures of walls and its a good lens corner to corner. Its a good lens and you can buy it used and resell it for about the same. Musket fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Thanks. Musket -- which Tokina do you use, the 12-24 or the 11-16? I believe the 12-24 has a manual focus version and an AF version, and I'm thinking that for wide-angle stuff, AF probably isn't super important all that often (as Duke suggests), right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Hdip posted:I have the VC version. Some people say it's image quality is slightly less than the NON-VC version. It worked out fine. To be honest though. Once I got a sigma 30mm 1.4 I don't take that off the camera. Me too. I like it - even if the optics aren't as good as the non-VC version, it's still so much better than the kit 18-55 that I don't really care. VC comes in handy once in a blue moon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:Thanks. Musket -- which Tokina do you use, the 12-24 or the 11-16? I believe the 12-24 has a manual focus version and an AF version, and I'm thinking that for wide-angle stuff, AF probably isn't super important all that often (as Duke suggests), right? I went with the 11-16mm. AF isnt super important when you are shooting f11 at 11mm, however I did not just use my 11-16 for landscapes or did I use it at f11 all the time. Its up to you to determine if AF is worth it to you or not. I liked it for the convenience of not having to do it, but had the option if I felt the need to. Also if you are still considering the Sigma, be sure its been "fixed" to function on the D5100. There was an AF issue with them that had firmware fixes issued. Musket fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Don't forget the Sigma 8-16- great as long as you don't need screw-in filters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I see the recommendation in the OP for a kit lens replacement is the the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC. Any particular reason the non-VC is favored over the VC model? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=0&APIComp=0 This link has a pretty good comparison which exhibits the difference. Whether or not paying extra for the VC at the loss of IQ is a worthy trade comes down to the individual though. I personally would go with the Sigma equivalent if you could get a good deal on it and you really wanted VC as that compares better and you end up sacrificing less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Welp, looks like Adorama might have screwed me on the D3200. I ordered Friday morning, then got backordered status on Monday afternoon. I emailed them today to get an estimated date and they said end of December but meanwhile they have the same setup for in stock on their website and Ebay. I asked them about that and they haven't responded so I guess I'll unbox and play around with the SL1 for now until I get the D3200 or give up and cancel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
I'm looking to upgrade an ancient, filthy Nikon D70. I priced out some stuff on KEH and I think I'm about ready to go for it. Thought I'd stop in and ask if everything looked good here:quote:D7000 16.2 MEGAPIXEL WITH BATTERY & CHARGER (SD CARD ) This comes out to about ~$1100. I already have 2 50mm 1.8s from years past. Don't really know how I ended up with 2, but whatever. The 35mm is cheapI also rented a Nikon 10-24 on my last trip and fell in love with the wide angle. I don't want to spend quite that much on the Nikon, and the Tokina 12-24 seems pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Obsolete posted:I'm looking to upgrade an ancient, filthy Nikon D70. I priced out some stuff on KEH and I think I'm about ready to go for it. Thought I'd stop in and ask if everything looked good here: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the choices you have made, if wide-angle is a thing for you. Consider a VR kit lens also, while not that wide, they're a great value for your dollar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
I'm planning on getting my first DSLR, and I've been eyeing the 600D and the D5100. My question is: Coming from other electronics fields, getting a product released in 2011 seems weird, but from what I understand, it's different in cameras? Will it be outdated by the time I plan on buying it (spring 2014)? Should I rather be getting something less powerful but more recent, like the D3200?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
busfahrer posted:I'm planning on getting my first DSLR, and I've been eyeing the 600D and the D5100. Digital cameras don't refresh as quickly as a lot of other things. The sensors generally stay the same for a while, and models come out that have a few extra bells and whistles here and there. My DSLR (K-5) is from 2010 and is still pretty much current. There was a somewhat minor revision (K-5 II) and only recently has a new camera been released (K-3) that has a bigger sensor and a few extra doodads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Digital cameras don't refresh as quickly as a lot of other things. The sensors generally stay the same for a while, and models come out that have a few extra bells and whistles here and there. My DSLR (K-5) is from 2010 and is still pretty much current. There was a somewhat minor revision (K-5 II) and only recently has a new camera been released (K-3) that has a bigger sensor and a few extra doodads. Thanks! That leads me to another question: Seeing as the release of the 600D etc series seems to be on a pretty regular cadence in March every year, what kind of price drop can I expect on the 700D once the 750D comes out? The 700D currently is 620 euros bundled with the kit lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:There is absolutely nothing wrong with the choices you have made, if wide-angle is a thing for you. Consider a VR kit lens also, while not that wide, they're a great value for your dollar. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I placed the order. Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Since I'm tentatively sticking with the SL1 I'm trying to put together a basic lens set. So far I have the 18-55 STM and 75-300/4-5.6 EF that came with the camera, then ordered the 40mm pancake because it seems good for 140 shipped. A day ago a 'Sigma Normal 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro' popped up locally on craigslist for $235. Is this a decent macro lens or is it not much of an improvement over what I already have and/or there are better inexpensive choices? I'm pretty happy with the SL1 so far but it's so far beyond our SX230HS point-and-shot that I'm not sure I could have been disappointed. I still have the D3200 coming in but I really like the touchscreen and I'm not sure I could give it up for marginal performance improvements with the Nikon. Being able to put it liveview on a tripod, adjust the subject then just tapping on the screen where the focus needs to be and having it autofocus and shoot is terrific.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Got baby's first dslr. What's a good tripod for a beginner that won't break the bank?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
GunForumMeme posted:Got baby's first dslr. What's a good tripod for a beginner that won't break the bank? This is not a good investment by any means, and you should treat this thing basically as disposable, and keep a close eye on it so your equipment doesn't topple over. I bought this one for a three day camping trip that worked just fine for the light work I needed it for. It's lightweight and was sturdy enough when the wind wasn't blowing too hard, and it mostly fit into my backpack. We did get some high winds and I didn't trust it to stay stable, so I had to keep hold of it a few times. However, for how much it cost, it did a fine job for my purposes. Vista Explorer 60-Inch Lightweight Tripod with Tripod Bag by Davis & Sanford http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000V7AF8E/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_iFCPsb10CRS7N You should really save up for a nice one as soon as you can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Yeah you can probably get away with that for a little while, but be prepared to upgrade when it falls apart. I had a similar model break clean off at the head with my DSLR attached. Luckily I was still wearing the strap. When you decide to get a real tripod, the Manfrotto 190XPROB with the 496RC2 ballhead are pretty popular around here in the ~$200 range. You should probably just hold out for one of these or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Thanks for the insight. I don't mind laying out some coin (up to about $200) for a decent tripod. I don't mind something with weight to it. My biggest concern is durability. Mostly will be general use type stuff, but I do intend to do a fair amount of landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
The manfrotto is excellent in that regard. Lightyears ahead of the cheap stuff. Designed to be used. I've set up mine in snow, mud, sand, and water with no issues. Knocked it around, loaded it weird, no problem. It's good kit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Benro travel angels are pretty great if you want something lightweight too (their smallest tripod with a manfrotto 496rc2 on it makes for a compact tripod that can still hold a hefty load).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
GunForumMeme posted:Thanks for the insight. http://www.mefoto.com/products/backpacker.aspx my city/travel non CF tripod that i can toss in a bag nbd (fits in a med timbuk2 bag).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Musket posted:http://www.mefoto.com/products/backpacker.aspx my city/travel non CF tripod that i can toss in a bag nbd (fits in a med timbuk2 bag). I got one of these a couple of weeks back, but I got the roadtrip model not the backpacker. It rules. Extremely sturdy, and still small/light enough that it will fit in any reasonably sized backpack. The way it turns into a monopod is really handy too, and the ballhead on it is rock solid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 23:54
|
|
