Digital SLRs?

[borkborkbork]

anyone with any opinions about the canon t3i as Baby's First DSLR?

[chantheman]

cant go wrong with a rebel. if you dont really care about the swivel lcd screen you can prob get the t2i for less and its just as good of a camera.

[reallypeacedoff]

the picture looks pretty crisp, thank you! do you by any chance know what kind of lens was used?

From memory, 50mm and 24-105mm...

[bentobox]

cant go wrong with a rebel. if you dont really care about the swivel lcd screen you can prob get the t2i for less and its just as good of a camera.

This. 10char.

[borkborkbork]

Thx, Chan (must spread).

I have a Canon P&S that has the swivel LCD right now, and use it a surprising amount -- particularly for things like taking shots over my head in crowds, or taking shots at ground level.

I'll have to have a think, though, over whether that swivel screen is worth the extra $100. (the body for the t2i on B&H is $699, vs. $799 for the t3i).

[chantheman]

i heard target had the t3i for 599 or 699 (whatever the price it was less than the t2i surprisingly) not sure if this is true as i never went to verify it or it was a typo but it might be worth checking out

[k1d.]

I know this is mainly for dSLRs.. but anyone got suggestions on a pretty good entry level camcorder? I would like to start filming/editing. Not necessarily looking to make any full length movies or anything, just to record for trips/family events/every day stuff/training/etc.

Also if you know any sites/blogs/forums where I can pick up good info it'll be great!

[reallypeacedoff]

The original Rebel (300D in Australia) was my first camera and I used it for a lot of weddings. Great to learn on and relatively inexpensive. If you have a little bit more money though, I'd recommend a second hand 1D Mark II. It isn't much more expensive than a brand new Rebel and everything about it is better. Just my two cents...

[fade to black2]

Thank you!! I will definitely look more into it. I'm surprised the autofocus isn't good on the 5D since the camera costs a ridiculous amount. That really blows. Do you use a 7d?

for digital i shoot with the 5D MKII and the autofocus is practically worthless. whatever's closest is what gets focused. Only go MF on it.

[Becks23]

Why wouldn't you use center focus and then recompose to take shots?

[reallypeacedoff]

Why wouldn't you use center focus and then recompose to take shots?

You don't get it. As with the 1Ds Mark III, they were plagued with autofocus problems. Such as the autofocus ONLY focusing on the closest subject not matter what you focused on (and then recomposed). In addition is was as slow as fuck so any wildlife/action sports photography was rendered useless. A LOT of Canon uses switched to Nikon after that. The Mark IV is what the III should have been...

[kromophobic]

What focus mode is it on?

[ayn]

Why wouldn't you use center focus and then recompose to take shots?

because:

[source]

[kromophobic]

Have you tested it out to see if it actually makes a difference? I always focus and recompose(focussing on the eyes), even using MF gear, and always get super sharp results.

On another topic, anyone have/used an original 1Ds? Found one on CL for cheap. Cheapest full frame camera out there I think? Most of my work is shot on Hassy/Phase, but it would be nice to have something a bit less cumbersome/doesn't require tethering sometimes...

[jbphoto23]

focus and recompose= don't do it

[ThinFinn]

can someone help me out on a wireless remote for shooting!I want to get me one but cuz there's way too many on the market,it would be nice if someone could name a few good and not too expensive ones!

also what tripod to get?

Thanks in advance y'all!

[zeen]

I'm thinking of getting a either a canon 600D or nikon d7000 as my first dslr. Which would be a better choice?

[Ryan]

can someone help me out on a wireless remote for shooting!I want to get me one but cuz there's way too many on the market,it would be nice if someone could name a few good and not too expensive ones!

also what tripod to get?

Thanks in advance y'all!

Thinn you use a nikon yes? well the lower end ones can use the nikon ml ml3 and thats like under 20 usd. its infrared. i use it for my d40 but i know it works with d80s and d90s etc..

[chantheman]

I'm thinking of getting a either a canon 600D or nikon d7000 as my first dslr. Which would be a better choice?

canon people will tell you canon nikon people will tell you nikon. what do you plan to shoot?

[zeen]

nature photography, family pictures and travel.

I had a feel of the 600d and the d7000. The 600d feels very light whereas the d7000 weight is substantial.

Personally, i am leaning more towards the d7000 as i like the feel and the first time i held a dslr was a d5100.

What lenses should i get? I was going for the kit lens which is the 18-105 but decided that maybe i should the get 18-200mm f3.5 together with a 50mm f1.8

Sorry i'm a total newbie at this.

[ThinFinn]

Thinn you use a nikon yes? well the lower end ones can use the nikon ml ml3 and thats like under 20 usd. its infrared. i use it for my d40 but i know it works with d80s and d90s etc..

Yap using Nikon D5000...Think i'll have to check the market a bit then...

[reallypeacedoff]

nature photography, family pictures and travel.

I had a feel of the 600d and the d7000. The 600d feels very light whereas the d7000 weight is substantial.

Personally, i am leaning more towards the d7000 as i like the feel and the first time i held a dslr was a d5100.

What lenses should i get? I was going for the kit lens which is the 18-105 but decided that maybe i should the get 18-200mm f3.5 together with a 50mm f1.8

Sorry i'm a total newbie at this.

I'm a Canon man and like chantheman said, I'm partial to Canon but I usually do sport photography so my 9.8FPS Mark II is the bomb. I think Nikon glass quality is slightly better but you wouldn't notice it when both are not full frames. I would say go with the Nikon as it has awesome reviews and is semi pro really, good quality ISO too.

I prefer weight myself, adds stability and usually, heaviness = better build quality.

As far as glass is concerned, never skimp out, always go for (try to) 2.8 or less (The Canon L series are amazing and some are F4, not sure what the Nikon equivalent is). Trust me, you'll need it and honestly, you save money (at the time) when you buy shit glass but in 2 years down the track, you'll be buying a 2.8 anyway and wishing you had it got the 2.8 in the first place so then it ends up being way more expensive. If you don't like it you can usually get most of your money back on the god lenses. Also, better to buy one good glass then 3 crappy ones, you can always make a picture work with just one glass (actually it makes a good challenge). My first 3 lenses were similar. 24-105 4, 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8. 15 2.8 fisheye was next and lastly was 16-35 2.8. That rounds out the collection which is not too heavy if you need it all in ya backback...

Good luck.

[alimenator]

^good advice but your first 3 lenses have combined total of over +$3000, since zeen is a "newbie" , I think that for him a normal lens and kit lens is all he really needs (at this point), the nikon 35 1.8 DX is great and for canon the 35 or 28, but if he really wants to spend the $$$, then yeah, go 2.8 or less, as it will save him in the long run if he ends up really getting into it

[reallypeacedoff]

^^ totally but what I missed was buy a good general range lens of 2.8 or better, something around the 20-100 range for starters. Good general purpose lens. A 50mm is useless unless you do wedding photography or you have a full frame as a 50 will equal ~65 (with the presumption that both said cameras are 1.3x crop factor) and the whole point of a 50 is that it is the equivalent of the human eyes perception at a full frame length not a cropped sensor...

Also, in my opinion, buy the frame only, save the couple hundred dollars from the kit price and put it towards a better lens. The kit lens are always shit BUT only you know whether you truly want to get into it so if theres doubt then stay with the kit... If you know you'll like it then go with quality over quantity!

[laxlife1234]

^couldnt agree more.

Now as I was unable to but the 85mm 1.2L, I amlooking into a cheaper lens. I am thinking of getting the 24-70 2.8L or the 135 2L. If anyone has any of these any opinions? I am thinking of leaning more towards the. 135 right now.

[reallypeacedoff]

What you already got lax? Whenever I am looking at buying a fixie, I shoot entirely for a week on the said length and see how much I like it. If you already have a 70-200 2.8L (which you should as it is the best lens out there ) then shoot with that and see how much you want/need it. If you don't have a wide angle to medium zoom, then I'd go the 24-70 over the 135. It was hard to choose between the 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105 4L, sometimes I wish I got the 2.8 but there has been so many times that I would have had to swap out a lens and miss the action, thus the extra 35mm really helps even though it is a slower lens. ISO nowadays has progressed so not such a problem...

[laxlife1234]

I wish I could have so many nice lens but I'm going from the kit lens. I think I am sold on the 135 though because it will do everything I need it to. It is a good portrait lens, cheap, fast, sharp, great for indoor photography, sports... etc..

If the 24-70 is worth the extra money I will get that over but what I like about the 135 is the larger aperture. I originally was going to get the 85 1 .2L but my mom wasn't going to let me spendmy money on it so I'm opting out for a cheaper option (50mm isn't in the budget either ). But I would really love to hear from someone if they own the 24-70 causethat may make all the difference to me.

[reallypeacedoff]

I wish I could have so many nice lens but I'm going from the kit lens. I think I am sold on the 135 though because it will do everything I need it to. It is a good portrait lens, cheap, fast, sharp, great for indoor photography, sports... etc..

If the 24-70 is worth the extra money I will get that over but what I like about the 135 is the larger aperture. I originally was going to get the 85 1 .2L but my mom wasn't going to let me spendmy money on it so I'm opting out for a cheaper option (50mm isn't in the budget either ). But I would really love to hear from someone if they own the 24-70 causethat may make all the difference to me.

What camera are you using? The semi pro are often 1.6x FOVCP so your lens will be the equivalent of a 216 which is very useless in close quarters when doing portraits etc. If I were you, I'd go the 24-70. Or the 24-105 for a few hundred dollars cheaper... To me 135 is extremely limiting...

[Solix]

It is a good portrait lens, cheap, fast, sharp, great for indoor photography

In most indoor settings, 135 is much too long. Just my $0.02.

[Solix]

Edit: DP...