slr camera question

[Ika]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I think here are some good choices:

Canon S3 IS
Panasonic DMC-FZ7
Sony H5
Sony H2

The S3 is too much money for too little improvement over the S2. Personally, the S2 is a better choice. I own an S3 myself and I'm quite happy with it; however, I probably would've been happier with $100 and a camera with almost the same quality.

I've heard some really good things about the FZ7, too. Almost picked that up.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

yeah i think that would suffice for my needs. And I'd be teaching my dad and sister how to use it after I figure it out so its best to not go the dslr route cause they'd prolly not use it correctly anyway.

What other good cameras are there like that sony?

I have no idea. Being an SLR user I've kinda gone clueless about the prosumer market. Check places like DPReview and ask questions on their forums.

Or Steves-digicams.com They have a lot of digital camera reviews up from P&S pocket cameras, to dSLR Midlevel and Professional.

The single biggest advantage of dSLRs to me is the replaceable lenses. I just recently bought a KonicaMinolta 5D, and two lenses already ( 18-70mm, and a 75-300mm) I'm still looking for a good wide-angle, a fixed 50mm, and a 500mm or so mirror/reflex lens.

I used to use a prosumer style digital ( Fuji s602 ) but I eventually just felt too limited by it, so I upgraded. ( I still have the S602, if anyone wants to buy it )

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

You're a Pentax/Minolta/Olympus/Sony fanboy.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

You're a Pentax/Minolta/Olympus/Sony fanboy.

That's why I own a Nikon and Canon Film SLR too, and bought a Nikon D50 for my mom?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

You're a Pentax/Minolta/Olympus/Sony fanboy.

That's why I own a Nikon and Canon Film SLR too, and bought a Nikon D50 for my mom?

mom's don't count :|

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

You're a Pentax/Minolta/Olympus/Sony fanboy.

That's why I own a Nikon and Canon Film SLR too, and bought a Nikon D50 for my mom?

mom's don't count :|

and his own Nikon and Canon cameras don't either??

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Aflac

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

You're a Pentax/Minolta/Olympus/Sony fanboy.

That's why I own a Nikon and Canon Film SLR too, and bought a Nikon D50 for my mom?

mom's don't count :|

and his own Nikon and Canon cameras don't either??

check random/sarcasm meter.

 

[JM Aggie08]

get an S2 or an S1 even. Seems like they would fit you just fine. And ill be damned if i'll be told they are cheap and/or suck.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: Staples
DSLRs are not going to improve much. Sure the sensors will get more dense and the MP number will go up but as far as the camera, DSLRs are not going to get much better.

What kind of crack are you on? Ever shoot full-frame? Wouldn't we all like improved AF? How about a 40+ frame buffer on a FF camera? Faster Cfn switching? In-camera image-stabilization? LCDs that are better viewable in the sun? Bigger viewfinders? And the list goes on...

Compare any DSLR today to any DSLR from 5 years ago. They sure didn't improve much, did they? :roll: There's always room for improvement, features, and abilities in anything.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Staples
Close. That is $519.

Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

I have not looked into that camera so I am not sure if it is a performer or not.

I have had a Rebel XT since early last year and I am happy with it (although Canon sucks with their small LCDs). The body is somewhere around $700 now.

No it isn't.

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKISTDL

That's less than $500 even before rebate.

Not what I would pick for a DSLR, but it should be a decent camera, and Pentax has some great glass.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

Saying hello to a fanboy? Look in the mirror Mr. Olympus.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Staples
Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

Hi fanboy, is that you?

Saying hello to a fanboy? Look in the mirror Mr. Olympus.

:roll:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
As for $300 a pop, I got my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII for $35, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300, and my Sigma 10-20mm for $400. The only lens over $500 in my repertoire is my Sigma 50-500mm, which I got for $650.

Used lenses are where it's AT! FredMiranda's Buy/Sell baby!

You spent $650 on a Sigma? And a 10x zoom at that. There has to be a good bit of distortion and vignetting with that lens. I would not trust any zoom that has more than a 3x difference between widest and longest focal length on an SLR. If I'm spending $650, it's going to be on a Zeiss prime, not on a 3rd party zoom.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
hmm...what about camera that are "inbetween" p&s and dslrs...like this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830179057

Eh.... they're probably good for what you're going to use them for. I personally think it's good to first start learning on a prosumer camera like the above. That way you'll get the basics down and hopefully eventually get a solid understanding of what you'd like in a future camera.

For someone like me the camera would be too limited.

1. No RAW mode. Unacceptable.
2. The wide part of the lens is not wide enough (35mm).
3. FPS is too slow.
4. Autofocus is probably too slow for action shots like birds flying.
5. High ISO is probably really noisy.
6. Aperture range is too small.
7. Dynamic Range is probably too limited.
8. MEMORY STICK?!?!

On the plus side, I'm sure the lens is really sharp and has full manual controls. For someone who's a camera noob and who probably doesn't want to (or can't) spend a lot on good glass, a prosumer camera like this one is probably your best bet.

I love my Olympus C-8080 WZ. I keep my SLR shooting to slide film, which looks better than anything I've played with from a digital, but for someone who wants a digicam that is almost as good as a DSLR without having to spend another $1,500 on lenses, a prosumer is a great option for a carry-around camera.

ZV

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
As for $300 a pop, I got my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII for $35, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300, and my Sigma 10-20mm for $400. The only lens over $500 in my repertoire is my Sigma 50-500mm, which I got for $650.

Used lenses are where it's AT! FredMiranda's Buy/Sell baby!

You spent $650 on a Sigma? And a 10x zoom at that. There has to be a good bit of distortion and vignetting with that lens. I would not trust any zoom that has more than a 3x difference between widest and longest focal length on an SLR. If I'm spending $650, it's going to be on a Zeiss prime, not on a 3rd party zoom.

ZV

So I'm so sure that the Canon 100-400mm L IS is a piece of crap? And the Nikon 18-200 VR lens is also junk.

The Sigma 50-500 (or lovingly referred to as the "Bigma") is a very good lens.

Here's a couple shots from one by a guy I know:

http://www.buzzdns.com/lion1.jpg

http://www.buzzdns.com/lion2.jpg

The second shot is a 100% crop. This was a HANDHELD shot.

It's excellent for wildlife, sporting events or airshows. It has an excellent range.

So $650 for that lens I would say is a good deal.

Here's another image:

http://www.pbase.com/image/56617876

So no, it might not be as sharp or as fast as a Canon prime or something, but it is in NO WAY a bad lens.



And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

And if you want a 500mm Prime....that'll be about $5500 TYVM.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
In-camera image-stabilization?

I've already got that one.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
As for $300 a pop, I got my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII for $35, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300, and my Sigma 10-20mm for $400. The only lens over $500 in my repertoire is my Sigma 50-500mm, which I got for $650.

Used lenses are where it's AT! FredMiranda's Buy/Sell baby!

You spent $650 on a Sigma? And a 10x zoom at that. There has to be a good bit of distortion and vignetting with that lens. I would not trust any zoom that has more than a 3x difference between widest and longest focal length on an SLR. If I'm spending $650, it's going to be on a Zeiss prime, not on a 3rd party zoom.

ZV

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1209998/1/56603565

These are all pictures taken with the Sigma 50-500mm, or the "Bigma" in photog circles. Not exactly the best examples of what this lens can do, but hopefully good enough to show that there's NOT a "good bit of distortion and vignetting." Perhaps you've been a bit out of the loop as far as newer lenses are concerned, but the Bigma gets some pretty excellent reviews and has somewhat of a cult following.

As far as spending $650 and getting a Zeiss prime... is that Zeiss 400mm+? If it's not, it's useless to me. I need the telephoto, period, and I don't have $5000 to spend on a 500mm f/4 IS.

Not to mention, what's wrong with Sigma? They make some of the world's best digital medium format backs, and have been a lens maker for a hell of a long time. They provide a much cheaper alternative to Canon brand lenses for 95%+ of the performance.

 

[keeleysam]

Any reccomendations for a nice zoom lens (300mm?) for my Rebel XT?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: keeleysam
Any reccomendations for a nice zoom lens (300mm?) for my Rebel XT?

Price?

 

[OdiN]

Some good shots there fuzzy

Sigma does make some pretty crappy lenses - but not all of them are. There are even Canon lenses that are crappy IMO. The Bigma is just a good deal all around.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: keeleysam
Any reccomendations for a nice zoom lens (300mm?) for my Rebel XT?

Grab the Canon 70-200mm F/4L It's only about $500 (maybe a bit more) and is an awesome piece of glass. It's not 300mm, but on a 1.6X crop body you get a 320mm FOV. That might work for you.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: keeleysam
Any reccomendations for a nice zoom lens (300mm?) for my Rebel XT?

Grab the Canon 70-200mm F/4L It's only about $500 (maybe a bit more) and is an awesome piece of glass. It's not 300mm, but on a 1.6X crop body you get a 320mm FOV. That might work for you.

:thumbsup: if you can afford the $500 price tag. I had it for a while and then sold it. Great little lens, ergonomics and low weight were awesome. Also extremely smooth moving and very well put together. I sold it because I needed more reach, and the Bigma that I bought encompassed its whole range. The only thing the Bigma didn't have on it was low weight. Image quality was actually extremely comparable.

Originally posted by: OdiN
Some good shots there fuzzy

Sigma does make some pretty crappy lenses - but not all of them are. There are even Canon lenses that are crappy IMO. The Bigma is just a good deal all around.

Hanky!

Every manufacturor makes crappy lenses for sure. Even ones in their "professional" lines. You just gotta do your research before hand

 

[OdiN]

Yeah if you can't afford the $500ish price for that - then check this lens out:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...u=169269&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I know that I have heard of problems with the AF in the 75-300 lens when in portrait orientation, but I'm not sure if it's in this one or the IS version, so you might want to research that.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I have owned three Canon lenses (EFS 17-85, EFS 10-22, EF 24-105), one Tamron lens (28-75 F2.8), and one Sigma (30 F1.4). I have sold the Canon 17-85 and Sigma 30. My Tamron is wonderful optically, perhaps the best lens I own, but both Sigma and Tamron fall short of Canon AF. Both the Sigma and Tamron hunt way too much in low light; simply slow and clunky and loud AF compared to Canon's USM. So I would say Tamron and Sigma offer great value but still have a lot to learn...or reverse engineer.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: OdiN
And speaking of Canon, $650 wouldn't be enough to buy the best prime they have. Try $2000.

Which lens did you have in mind? I was thinking of the 200 1.8, which goes for $3600-$4000+, depending on condition. Of course, you can't buy it new anymore, so they're always used prices.