|
Holy bejesus, that is a nice OP. The one thing that I don't entirely agree with is the importance of the feel of a camera. I prioritized performance/price when I got my first DSLR. It was a 40D. The 60D I got a year and a half later feels much nicer, but I don't appreciate it as much when shooting. However I'm sure a lot of you disagree with me. I'm open to a friendly discussion about why it matters/doesn't matter so much if it'll provide more perspective on the matter and doesn't devolve into angry internet slap fights. Also, for what it is worth, I went with a route that saved me a lot of money on my path down obtaining photo gear when I started. I would recommend it to others if possible. I basically got a Tamron 17-50, became comfortable using my camera, then sold that and got a 70-200L F4 and 24-70L F2.8 They are expensive lenses but I saved a ton of money by not buying and selling lenses in little steps toward them, taking a loss every time through depreciating costs. I'm at about a year without needing a new lens now and as a result, I'm saving money. Moral of the story, don't hesitate to buy the best glass if you can afford it.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:So I really was planning on saving up for the 70-200 F4L IS, but that Tamron 70-300 in the OP is kinda tempting..anyone have first-hand experience with it able to share a shot or two from it? How is the VC compared to Canon's IS? The USD vs. USM? As far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the 70-200 F4L IS is the bees knees. It doesn't get much sharper in the category of medium zoom lens. However, from my understanding the Tamron is very well priced and a competitive lens when you consider everything. USD and USM have a negligible difference unless you are trying to video focus with it on a T4i, in which case the USM comes out slightly ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
What are you guys doing that you never use tripods? I use mine when I go past 200mm, when I do macro, when I do self portraits, when I set up my studio, when I shoot at night, when I do panoramas, when I shoot video, and when I make time lapses. There are a million and a half reasons to use them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
I should probably note that none of my glass has IS.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Hughmoris posted:I'm looking at traveling to Colorado this summer for vacation. I'd like to purchase my first DSLR and build up some time with it before I go. I'd like to get a setup for shooting landscapes. Ideally I can purchase a Canon or Nikon body, refurbished. Any recommendation on lens or setups? First choice is going to be the manufacturer. If your friends have any DSLRs, find out which brand and go with those. It's pretty nice to be able to bum lenses off of your buddies once in a while. My circle are all Canon users. So, as far as Canon goes, I would personally go with what I started with. A used Canon 40D and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens. The 40D is a large bodied (not to be mistaken with a full body with a vertical grip, though you can buy them), magnesium built camera with fantastic ergonomics and was designed to be in the "prosumer" line of cameras. They go for under $200 these days which is fantastic for what they are. In comparison with modern cameras, the only thing they lack is low light capability. A tripod is a quick fix for that when it comes to landscapes. Costs much less than the difference in price to some cameras with fantastic low light capability (See Canon 6D at $1700 or 5D at $3000). The 40D also boasts some professional features like a 6.3 frame per second burst and professional user interface. As far as the Tamron goes, they are very good as well. Landscapes definitely require wider angle lenses. The 17-50 is very wide at 17mm, you'll rarely find yourself needing more. It is stupidly sharp at F5.6ish and has pretty good low light capability at f2.8. I kept it for nearly 3 years before replacing it with something that costs 3x more. Don't get the VC version. They use different optics (less sharp) and have overall higher failure rates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
I never understood choosing based on ergonomics. Modern DSLR bodies have decent ergonomics regardless of brand. I have pretty small hands, started with a 40D which is a huge camera. Despite shooting Canon, Nikon bodies feel better in my hands. But I don't care because having expensive lenses to borrow from friends has helped me way more than a camera that feels nice in my hands. I know it's not a popular opinion here, but choosing a camera manufacturer based on how a camera feels is a silly thing. But the spend more on the lens than the body is solid advice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Less than that. My 40D with the Canon grip and two batteries blah blah blah sold for $187 with only 18k shutter actuations. They're cheap as dirt now. That being said, the repair very well may cost more than the camera, depending on what that is. Mirror/shutter replacements are like $300, from what I've heard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I really need to put "Seriously, buy used gear" somewhere in the thread title. KEH LN and EX+ grade stuff is effectively the same as buying it new, even down to manuals and poo poo often. I have never bought any gear new. There is simply no reason to. The only thing you get is to be able to say that no one else has taken a photo using your camera. Best part is selling glass for the same price you bought it for. It's like a free rental.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
sign me up for the 40D package. Much larger body with a magnesium frame and 6.3 fps continuous, as well as Canon's "professional" UI. The Tammy is awesome besides it sounding like angry bees. This is actually the first DSLR combo I started with. Absolutely no regrets at all. It's much cheaper now than it was when I got it too. Seems like a no brainer to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
I don't know about the T3i, but the 40D is good at 800, bad at 1600. I never relied on it to shoot low light, to be fair. Being my first DSLR, I wasn't concerned about low light capability more than how to become a better photographer and get comfortable with DSLR controls. ISO performance is a slippery slope. Before you know it you own a 5DIII.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 15:20
|
|