• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

entry level DSLRs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ZippyDan said:
a DSLR with a kit lens is basically the maximum bulk I will tolerate. I won't carry around an external flash. So it will be useful. Harsh lighting here I come
Click to expand...

FYI, Nikon makes a small external flash - SB400 that works very well. I do not mind carrying it around with my D40 and the kit lens.
 
LR6 said:
FYI, Nikon makes a small external flash - SB400 that works very well. I do not mind carrying it around with my D40 and the kit lens.
Click to expand...

+1 on the SB-400. Small, light and very usefull. I never even noticed it on the D40. Batteries last forever.

JR
 
My camera doesn't have a built-in flash (and is big & bulky), so I often take a similar small Canon flash with me - the 270EX. If I was the OP, I wouldn't bother with that small of a flash because it mostly replicates the built-in functionality, and costs a lot in his budget and starting point. I'd get a used or off-brand "real" flash instead in order to fit the budget if need be, but would put that lower in the priority than getting a fast prime lens.

ZippyDan, I suggest you deal with the lighting separately -- use daytime and natural light as much as possible. Use the built-in for daylight fill flash and when you must. Save your money for a 50 f/1.8 or better lenses or flashes down the road. A 50 f/1.8 would be like a standard "portrait" lens on a crop DSLR, and would, in addition to being optically better than the kit lens, give you the ability to blur the background and focus more on the subject. A 50 f/1.8 could be cheaper and lighter than the flash, though it would be maybe a bit bulkier than the smallest flashes due to the shape, but would make up for that with pictures you otherwise wouldn't get or be as good, and also give you much better low-light capability.
 
Throckmorton said:
Cover the flash with masking tape to diffuse the light a bit.
Click to expand...


This is pretty much a myth. Since the surface area of the tape is no larger than the surface area of the flash itself, there is no real diffusion going on that will give us any practical improvement in light quality. All you are doing is forcing your strobe to work harder to produce the same amount of light, and maybe changing the color temperature of the light a little.

The same goes for an omni-bounce or plastic dome over a flash head. You may be simulating a bare bulb and sending light in all directions, but if you don't have a surface to bounce that light back onto your subject then it is being wasted. I giggle whenever I see someone using flash outside with it tilted up and a dome on it. I hope they brought extra batteries.

Back before modern TTL flashes when we were using manual strobes that didn't dial down the output well, the tape or handkerchief trick sometimes seemed to worked simply because it cut the output from the primitive flash units enough to balance it better with the lower available light.

My solution to the harshness of direct popup strobe, assuming you can't bounce it off a larger surface, is to slow my shutter speed and shoot closer to the level of the ambient light. You have to be careful because that can introduces a whole new set of problems including camera shake, subject movement and the mixing two different color temperature light sources. Still, I think the most common mistake made with direct flash is shooting too far above the available light. I try to shoot my popup flash no more than one f-stop above the available light unless that available light is really ugly.
 
If you do get the SB-400, here's a 1 Cent diffuser...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/sb-400/sb-400-diffuser.pdf

bounce-construx-DSC_2322.jpg
 
Last edited:
are there any entry level dslr's that record video? What is the cheapest one that records video if not?
 
JSt0rm said:
are there any entry level dslr's that record video?
Click to expand...

Most modern DSLRs have video capability, but they're not as easy to use for video as dedicated camcorders. Look into the Sony SLTs - e.g. A35 and A65 for something more functional for video than most.
 
I know some guys that do some serious video work with dslr. I dont think they would work with a camcorder. I dont know what model they have but I'm sure its extreme and beyond what I would want.
 
Madwand1 said:
Most modern DSLRs have video capability, but they're not as easy to use for video as dedicated camcorders. Look into the Sony SLTs - e.g. A35 and A65 for something more functional for video than most.
Click to expand...

I would think that most have video these days. Understand that there are limits to how long you can record a single video on a DSLR. 12 minutes for a lot of Canons. 20 minutes on the D7000 and D5100. I think 10 minutes on the D3100. I don't know why, I've read about file limits and about sensors overheating.

Only the Nikons AF during video recording.

My sony handicam can record an hour per clip, and automaticall ystarts another clip as needed. When stiched together, you can't tell they were seperate clips.

JR
 
JohnnyRebel said:
I would think that most have video these days. Understand that there are limits to how long you can record a single video on a DSLR. 12 minutes for a lot of Canons. 20 minutes on the D7000 and D5100. I think 10 minutes on the D3100. I don't know why, I've read about file limits and about sensors overheating.

Only the Nikons AF during video recording.

My sony handicam can record an hour per clip, and automaticall ystarts another clip as needed. When stiched together, you can't tell they were seperate clips.

JR
Click to expand...

Actually I believe the Sonys are much superior to the Canons when it comes to continuous autofocusing while shooting video.
 
Paladin3 said:
This is pretty much a myth. Since the surface area of the tape is no larger than the surface area of the flash itself, there is no real diffusion going on that will give us any practical improvement in light quality. All you are doing is forcing your strobe to work harder to produce the same amount of light, and maybe changing the color temperature of the light a little.

The same goes for an omni-bounce or plastic dome over a flash head. You may be simulating a bare bulb and sending light in all directions, but if you don't have a surface to bounce that light back onto your subject then it is being wasted. I giggle whenever I see someone using flash outside with it tilted up and a dome on it. I hope they brought extra batteries.

Back before modern TTL flashes when we were using manual strobes that didn't dial down the output well, the tape or handkerchief trick sometimes seemed to worked simply because it cut the output from the primitive flash units enough to balance it better with the lower available light.

My solution to the harshness of direct popup strobe, assuming you can't bounce it off a larger surface, is to slow my shutter speed and shoot closer to the level of the ambient light. You have to be careful because that can introduces a whole new set of problems including camera shake, subject movement and the mixing two different color temperature light sources. Still, I think the most common mistake made with direct flash is shooting too far above the available light. I try to shoot my popup flash no more than one f-stop above the available light unless that available light is really ugly.
Click to expand...


There is some diffusion with masking tape because the actual bulb of the flash is much smaller than the whole reflector.
 
All I can tell you is I got my Nikon D60 about the same time my wife got her Canon SD790 P&S. the Canon takes great pics if all you do is leave it on Auto; trying to use it on manual is a royal PITA. My D60, however, is a breeze to use in any mode you choose, but requires a bit more knowledge and understanding of exposure. The only features lacking that I wish it had are mirror lockup and built-in bracketing. Other than that, it has proven to be an excellent dSLR. Need video? The newer models are all ga-ga for that, so look there.
 
Gintaras said:
Built-in flash on DSLR is almost useless - it can be used just in emergency cases - when low light and no external flash, but don't expect much of it.
Click to expand...

The built in flash is great for fill lighting during the day, provided you're not too far away from the subject. It's good for snapshots of family at the park, for example. I use the built in flash on my D700 almost as much as I use my SB-900.

I also use it as a remote trigger for off-camera lights. I'm a huge advocate of having one on the camera if you can. Might as well and why not. 🙂
 
JSt0rm said:
are there any entry level dslr's that record video? What is the cheapest one that records video if not?
Click to expand...

If you're looking for basic video capability, maybe a used D90 would be a good option. It's not full HD, but it's adequate and pretty decent low-light performance.

Making a decision about the brand is a big one when you get your first DSLR, because you will find yourself tied to that brand forever, due to lenses and accessories.
 
Throckmorton said:
There is some diffusion with masking tape because the actual bulb of the flash is much smaller than the whole reflector.
Click to expand...

I've done some real-world tests on this and the answer is pretty much zero. You simply can't see a difference. Modern flashes don't use a bare bulb, they use a multi-level refraction lens that is almost perfectly evenly lit when flashed.

Putting something over it just risks overheating your equipment, using more batteries or changing the color of the light to something crappy and yellow, please don't do it. 🙂
 
SecurityTheatre said:
I've done some real-world tests on this and the answer is pretty much zero. You simply can't see a difference. Modern flashes don't use a bare bulb, they use a multi-level refraction lens that is almost perfectly evenly lit when flashed.

Putting something over it just risks overheating your equipment, using more batteries or changing the color of the light to something crappy and yellow, please don't do it. 🙂
Click to expand...

But I like the yellower light
 
Paladin3 said:
The same goes for an omni-bounce or plastic dome over a flash head. You may be simulating a bare bulb and sending light in all directions, but if you don't have a surface to bounce that light back onto your subject then it is being wasted. I giggle whenever I see someone using flash outside with it tilted up and a dome on it. I hope they brought extra batteries.
Click to expand...

I have a Gary Fong lightsphere and it seems to make a huge difference over just pointing the flash head, even outdoors. The area the light is coming from is much bigger than the regular flash. Indoor obviously it works much better though.
 
I suggest staying away from the larger bridge cameras. They have almost all the downsides of an SLR, and still lack the image quality and flexibility of an SLR.

I have SLRs and the S100. The pictures on the SLR are simply better. The S100 is for when I am either 1) out drinking 2) in semi-formal social situations 3) not expecting to take pictures.
 
actuarial said:
I have a Gary Fong lightsphere and it seems to make a huge difference over just pointing the flash head, even outdoors. The area the light is coming from is much bigger than the regular flash. Indoor obviously it works much better though.
Click to expand...

There are two things at play.

One is that it's slightly larger, but at least as important, it nearly doubles the distance of the light from the lens.

That distance and the angle of incidence really increases the quality of the light and probably has a lot to do with that. It's also the reason many wedding pros use a "stroboframe" to hold the lens and additional few inches from the lens.
 
Superzoom or bridge camera is no replacement for a DSLR, it's basically a P&S sensor combined with a mega-zoom lens (not the same lens as a DSLR). It has all the same limitations that any other P&S will have, like slower focusing, less captured detail, and sub-par low light performance.

The skill and creativity of the photographer matters a lot more than the camera, I've gotten some nice vacation shots using just my phone. Don't worry if your DSLR is not the latest and greatest - the D3100 or its Canon equivalent, combined with the basic kit lens is a good choice. Once you've advanced your skills, you can better decide what additional equipment you need.
 
SecurityTheatre said:
The built in flash is great for fill lighting during the day, provided you're not too far away from the subject. It's good for snapshots of family at the park, for example. I use the built in flash on my D700 almost as much as I use my SB-900.

I also use it as a remote trigger for off-camera lights. I'm a huge advocate of having one on the camera if you can. Might as well and why not. 🙂
Click to expand...

I do agree with you...I've used flash all the time with my Olympus C5050Z - it's good in the summer, at beach, when object against the light-sun...

With DSLR, I've tried always to take photos of good lit objects...But...you have a good point: Close Object....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top