Jump to content

Digital SLRs?

nairb49

By nairb49
in superculture

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

joelz
joelz

If you don't have a UV filter, you should buy one: Seriously, buy one.

chantheman
chantheman

if you have a 35 i dont think you need the 50 unless you find that you need more zoom. i sold my 50 because it wasnt wide enough. dont think you need both the 35 and 50 so if you do get the 50 you pro

laxlife1234
laxlife1234

If you want to save $100 get the T3i, otherwise spend the extra $100 on the 60D. But there really isn't a HUGE difference between the two. If you are doing video though and will be keeping the camer

kino

kino

Posted
Posted

canon or nikon... it is just a personal preference...like how it feels in your hand and the placement of the buttons. both have similarly priced lenses, the best value one being the 50 1.8 one i think. though u should also look at pentax kx. I heard it beats all the other big brands in terms of value for money for the quality.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
giuls

giuls

Posted
Posted

i bought my pentax kx around december, amazon was having pretty good deals for it, ended up pulling the trigger for about $600, kit lens, and a 16gb class 6 SD card.

a couple weeks later amazon totally dropped the price, i emailed them and got a 'one time rebate' for $60.

i had been doing my 'research', going the stores to see what felt comfortable, i just couldn't decide between canon or nikon so i went with pentax. ended up getting the pentax smc fa 50mm f/1.4 for $260 off pentaxforums, i could've gotten it for a bit less, but i was anxious.

here's so pictures, both taken with the iphone:

IMG_0191.jpg - kit lens

IMG_0243.jpg - 50mm

here's some pictures taken with the kx equipped with the 50mm, all auto, i'm still trying to figure out manual.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48659887@N05/sets/

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
revoked

revoked

Posted
Posted

i never shoot full manual unless i want to do something out of the ordinary.

aperture priority mode is what i shoot at 90% of the time, and it's fairly straightforward. you pick your f stop to control your depth of field and then the camera chooses your shutter speed (& sometimes ISO depending on settings) in order to expose the image correctly.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soonami

soonami

Posted
Posted
would anyone recommend a nikon or a canon as a person's first dslr in terms of the affordability of quality lenses? I'm not talking about pro-grade sub-$1000, but ones that are good and a step above your simple kit lens

From personal experience shooting Nikon and borrowing Canons, I can say that for the same price/segment, Nikon lenses feel like they are made from higher quality materials. The Nikon zooms seem to turn more smoothly and evenly and the primes handle a little better.

I don't really know exactly what Canon has to offer, but the 35mm/1.8 from Nikon is a great little lens for $200. Other than that, 10-24 DX, 50/1.4 AF-S and maybe a superzoom like the 18-200mm, I don't know that I'd recommend any other mid-range lenses. Nikon pro glass is high-quality and retains its value well in the used market, so I'd save up and get something like that you could use for a while and resell later if needed

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ubiquitous

ubiquitous

Posted
Posted

hey guys right now I shoot with a nikon D60 and the kit 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I've noticed over the last year or so I really don't like carrying multiple lenses and might want to consolidate this into one zoom with a wide range. I'm also going to be in Hong Kong/China/Korea for about 3 months in the summer interning and doing some traveling and I want to be able to shoot around without lugging a bag with me at all times. I think i find myself shooting mostly between 35 and I want to say 135 currently. Would trading both lenses in and paying for an 18-200 be a good move? I've read some mixed reviews so I can't decide if it's worth the cost, or any other lenses you guys can suggest would be great. Thanks!

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soonami

soonami

Posted
Posted
hey guys right now I shoot with a nikon D60 and the kit 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I've noticed over the last year or so I really don't like carrying multiple lenses and might want to consolidate this into one zoom with a wide range. I'm also going to be in Hong Kong/China/Korea for about 3 months in the summer interning and doing some traveling and I want to be able to shoot around without lugging a bag with me at all times. I think i find myself shooting mostly between 35 and I want to say 135 currently. Would trading both lenses in and paying for an 18-200 be a good move? I've read some mixed reviews so I can't decide if it's worth the cost, or any other lenses you guys can suggest would be great. Thanks!

As mentioned, the 35mm would be a great choice to have at night and for maximal portability.

I guess when you say 18-200, you mean the VR because I would only recommend the VR, the non-VR is too slow on the long end for most applications. Overall, it is a very useful lense, but you might feel overwhelmed with it's size and weight on the smaller D40/60 body. If at all possible, try going to a local camera store or Ritz and see if they will let you mount a show lens up to your camera and try it out. See how you like the weight and the zooming--eventhough it is approximately the same dimensions as the 55-200VR, I remember it weighing more than twice as much.

A cheaper option would be the 18-105mm VR, which is the kit lens on the D90. It's a nice lens with a bit of distortion on the wide end, but the zooming and AF-S with manual override are both nice. New ones sells on ebay for ~$250, whereas the 18-200VR retails for over $700 and the used ones on ebay are usually still around $550-600.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aqhong

aqhong

Posted
Posted
I guess when you say 18-200, you mean the VR because I would only recommend the VR, the non-VR is too slow on the long end for most applications.

Don't think Nikon's ever made a non-VR 18-200mm. There's a VR and a VR II, the only significant difference being that the newer one has a zoom lock.

And I agree, the 18-105mm is a solid option if you don't need as much reach.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ubiquitous

ubiquitous

Posted
Posted

^thanks guys I'll probably drop by my local camera shop and try out the 18-200, the D60 body with the 55-200 is already pretty off balance. Anything besides the 18-105 you recommend as an alternative? Doesn't have to be nikon just a good all around shooter for walking.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soonami

soonami

Posted
Posted

I thought there was, maybe it was just 28-200mm

I would say that you should spend your money on Nikon lenses because they retain value and overall are made better than comparable units from 3rd party makers. I think the other options like the 18-135 (too slow, no VR) 16-85 VR (overpriced, same $ as 18-200VR) or any of these mid-range DX zooms don't offer the combination of utility and value that the 18-105VR and 18-200VR have.

I also really like the 18-105VR, but I travel light now and find the 35mm to be pretty good for almost everything I shoot. However, I think that the best thing to do is not listen to us on the interwebs but to go to a store and try it out. And if it's a local mom-and-pop shop, buy it form them if you can spare the extra money because they might have saved you hundreds on a lens you might've regret buying

Don't think Nikon's ever made a non-VR 18-200mm. There's a VR and a VR II, the only significant difference being that the newer one has a zoom lock.

And I agree, the 18-105mm is a solid option if you don't need as much reach.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ubiquitous

ubiquitous

Posted
Posted

thanks again guys I'll go this weekend and try out some lenses. I bought my camera from a small place called Bromfield cameras in downtown boston so I'll probably just go back there they're really helpful and supporting the little guys is always nice.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Osmosis Jones

Osmosis Jones

Posted
Posted
what happened to your d90? there's some rumors of a new d90-successor (http://nikonrumors.com/2010/04/15/rumors-started-flowing-3-new-nikon-dlsr-in-the-pipeline.aspx)

d90-successor sounds perfect.

i sold my d90 with the intent to upgrade to full-frame but the more i think about it, i'd rather go with a medium-format film camera and a aps-c/dx sensor for a dslr.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryan

Ryan

Posted
Posted

Evil: if you plan on staying with DX prices on the 300s have been already going down..

Also ive been seeing the 17-55 af-s go for around 850-900 consistently, everyone going to full frame I guess..still looking out for a 70-200

I just dont see myself going to full frame anytime soon. my 17-55 + fuji S5 have been a great combo for me

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
M4TM

M4TM

Posted
Posted
^I was planning on getting the 35mm prime for the rather rare times I need a faster aperture and want a higher quality image but I'd just use the 18-200 to leave on and carry

I think it'll probably be the opposite - you'll end up leaving the 35mm on most of the time and pull out the bigger lens on those 'other' occasions!

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...
superfuture®
supertravel
products
services

  • follow us
    • superfuture
    © 2003 – 2023 superfuture® All Rights Reserved