Looking to buy a New Camera

[Jackel]

Recently borrowed a DSLR from a relative....loved being able to control everything again and the quality that it brought (reminded me of my old old pentax).

Anyways, because of this I'm looking into getting a DSLR (preferably a kit....unless some great savings come up). Right now I'm currently looking at the Canon 1000D XS...but if anyone has any other suggestions for me?

edit: Price wise I'm looking at around 500 - 700...but if the price/value on something is ridiculous I'd be willing to go up to around 1000.

How are the canon lenses vs others like Nikon ?

What are the best places to buy them from? So far Ebay seems to have the best kits..but I'm a little sketched out buying something that expensive off of ebay...especially warranty isssues.

[LiquidRain]

Go into a store and try the camera interfaces for yourselves. Consider lenses from both companies to be equal. You have to go with the camera brand (Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony) that YOU'RE comfortable with holding in your hands.

I'm a Canon user so that's all I'm capable of recommending, and I'd say either get an XSi ($600ish), a refurb XTi ($300-$400), or take a gander at the TSi if you're willing to spend ~$900-$1000. The TSi can take 1080p 24fps movies, though I don't believe it's actually out yet.

I wouldn't get the cheap XS. You'd get more out of an XTi.

[biosc1]

I have the Canon XSi which I bought in December. It's a great camera (especially for my first SLR) for the price. Never had an issue with it and it's taken some great shots. I'm constantly surprised by the quality of shots it takes even in my inexperienced hands.

[LiquidRain]

I have the Canon XSi which I bought in December. It's a great camera (especially for my first SLR) for the price. Never had an issue with it and it's taken some great shots. I'm constantly surprised by the quality of shots it takes even in my inexperienced hands.
You should get something other than the stock lens if you think it might be worth it. :) (a decent lens is at least $500, though you can get some fun ones to toy with for much cheaper)

[Jackel]

Go into a store and try the camera interfaces for yourselves. Consider lenses from both companies to be equal. You have to go with the camera brand (Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony) that YOU'RE comfortable with holding in your hands.

I'm a Canon user so that's all I'm capable of recommending, and I'd say either get an XSi ($600ish), a refurb XTi ($300-$400), or take a gander at the TSi if you're willing to spend ~$900-$1000. The TSi can take 1080p 24fps movies, though I don't believe it's actually out yet.

I wouldn't get the cheap XS. You'd get more out of an XTi.

Sadly....we don't exactly have stores here for me to test out....and I really want to take advantage of having a great camera this summer as SE Alaska is beautiful.

I'll look into the XTi...ebay seems to have some good deals on them...any reason I should be worried about grabbing it from one of the ebay resellers?

[spcialk]

I'm a photographer (not professional, but published and in galleries), I prefer the new Sony Alpha series. You can get a Sony Alpha 300 or 350 (and you'll want a nice lens) for about that price range and they take phenomenal pictures. They are built from Konica Minolta tech (so their glass is the best) and have outstanding low light functionality.

[BlackPete]

Just gonna do a drive-by post and say do NOT get the 1000D (well, not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's not the most up to date model...)

The 500D has just been announced, so if you can wait a bit... it's got full 1080p video as well.

[LiquidRain]

Sadly....we don't exactly have stores here for me to test out....and I really want to take advantage of having a great camera this summer as SE Alaska is beautiful.

I'll look into the XTi...ebay seems to have some good deals on them...any reason I should be worried about grabbing it from one of the ebay resellers?
As long as you know the shutter actuation count (# of photos taken) and there's a possibility to give it back if it's defective, an XTi would be fine. I wouldn't buy an XTi with an actuation count above 20,000. At that point the camera has already reached nearly half its life expectancy.

[Jackel]

As long as you know the shutter actuation count (# of photos taken) and there's a possibility to give it back if it's defective, an XTi would be fine. I wouldn't buy an XTi with an actuation count above 20,000. At that point the camera has already reached nearly half its life expectancy.

Since I plan on doing some climbing with the models...would it be worth it for me to go for either the 30D or 40D instead?

[itchyeyes]

Canon and Nikon are far and away the two most popular choices, mostly because they have much larger lens selections compared to other manufacturers. But when it comes down to it all the Nikon vs. Canon vs. etc. talk has about as much weight to it as a Sony vs. Msft discussion on the GameFAQs forums. At $500+ for a camera, they're all good and you're getting pretty much what you pay for. If you've never used a DSLR before you can be pretty much assured that the limiting factor is going to be the photographer, not the camera.

It's all besides the point anyways, because when it comes to photography the real investment is the lenses, not the bodies.

My advice would be to skew towards the cheaper end for the body (Rebel XS/Nikon D60) and spend a little bit more on some extra lenses, in particular a good, cheap, low aperture prime like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 and something with a little bit of zoom (say 200mm). If you can swing it, it's worth picking up a decent photo editor, like Lightroom, as well.

As for where to buy from, I'd stick with Amazon and B&H. Prices don't stray much from MSRP on photo equipment, and if it looks like you're getting something for a steal, it's likely to be a shady reseller.

[LiquidRain]

Amazon frequently has the best prices on camera equipment, I find.

itchyeyes is correct that you're going to be spending a lot more on bags, lenses, and filters (learn how to use a polarizer!) than you will on a body in the end.

Climbing won't matter or not - if you drop a 40D you're going to hate life just the same as if you drop an XSi. :)

[Jackel]

Amazon frequently has the best prices on camera equipment, I find.

itchyeyes is correct that you're going to be spending a lot more on bags, lenses, and filters (learn how to use a polarizer!) than you will on a body in the end.

Climbing won't matter or not - if you drop a 40D you're going to hate life just the same as if you drop an XSi. :)

Very very true. I guess I'll wait until I can grab a sale on the body only XSi, then find myself some decent lenses.

[LiquidRain]

If you've owned an SLR before and know what you're looking for, go for it. If you've never tried anything but a point and shoot, the kit lens might be perfectly fine: I found it helpful to use the kit lens until I starting feeling limited and knew what I needed in a different lens.

[Serapth]

When I went shopping for an SLR, after talking to various people, camera stores, magazine articles, etc... Well, I ended up with two choices.

1 - Buy a Canon Rebel
2 - Be an idiot


I choose one, and a bit of two, and I have no regrets. It might just be in Canada, but spec to price wise, it was no contest. Then, when it came down to lens popularity/availability, Canon SMOKED the competition. Never before, in the CE market, have I ever seen such a clear cut winner.

[LiquidRain]

Canon is the most popular, but that's no reason to dismiss the others, especially if he's shopping online.

[Serapth]

Canon is the most popular, but that's no reason to dismiss the others, especially if he's shopping online.

No, the biggest reason to dismiss the others was
- price
- resale
- aftermarket support
- lens availability

Seriously, at the entry level for SLRs, Canon really seems to own the market, or atleast a year and a bit ago, they sure did.

[Jboy001]

I picked up a Nikon d40 w/ the 18-55 kit lens as well as a 55-200 VR lens for just over $500 last fall.
It's great to learn on and you get some stunning shots for an older 6 megapixel body and a minimal investment. Go with Canon or Nikon and you won't be disappointed

[biosc1]

If you've owned an SLR before and know what you're looking for, go for it. If you've never tried anything but a point and shoot, the kit lens might be perfectly fine: I found it helpful to use the kit lens until I starting feeling limited and knew what I needed in a different lens.

Yah, I've only really used it on a few outings so far. Some other lenses are definitely in the plans. A telescopic lens and a tripod along with a macro lens are being budgeted for. :)

[Cactaur]

Given that Canon refreshes its consumer lineup almost annually, you could probably get a good deal on 2nd hand equipment from others who are trading up. I was a Nikon shooter (film, digital) for a long time until they dropped the ball for a full frame sensor in an affordable body 3 years ago.

It really comes down to the sensor, Fuji had a great sensor but the S3pro and S4pro have been somewhat underwhelming. I have no faith in 4/3 (Olympus, panasonic) despite their marketing of smaller lighter cameras. With a crop factor of 2 the marketing geniuses sell you a 300mm lens at 600mm price. Smaller cheaper lenses my ass. And now they stir in a Micro 4/3 in the mix. Feh.

[civil]

Nikon and Canon have the big names, but IMO (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?p=194975#post194975) Pentax kicks their ass at the lower ends. Plenty of lenses, solid build (my Pentax would rape similar-priced Nikons and Canons) and built-in image stabilization where enough for me to buy without regret.

[rifter]

If you look at the Photography thread, you can see the pictures I have taken with my XSi. I am upwards of 11,000 photographs, so far, and I will have had it a year, in 2 weeks.

The XS is good, but a bit lower end. You may want to check out Craigslist, and see if you can find a good deal there. Over the past year, I have seen people dump them, relatively new.

So, on the low end, as others have said, a camera is a camera. If you think there is a chance you want to move up quality, Canon makes some VERY fine high-end lenses. A guy mentioned a few weeks ago, look at sports games, and pay attention to the photographers on the sidelines... how many WHITE (Canon) lenses, do you see vs Black (Nikon) lenses?

Canon (and Nikon) cameras have the best high-end glass, best/most 3rd party hardware...etc... what others have said.

Someone in the Photography thread, mentioned that their Nikon doesn't have Auto Exposure Bracketing which sucks if you want to do HDR. My XSi does have it. I don't know for sure, if the XS does.

[LiquidRain]

So, on the low end, as others have said, a camera is a camera. If you think there is a chance you want to move up quality, Canon makes some VERY fine high-end lenses. A guy mentioned a few weeks ago, look at sports games, and pay attention to the photographers on the sidelines... how many WHITE (Canon) lenses, do you see vs Black (Nikon) lenses?
Have you ever looked? The split is, really, about 50/50 in most scenarios. Nikon has some white/beige lenses as well.

(I could be wrong, but I've seen it debated to death elsewhere)

[mightbe]

My professional photographer friend says:

"Does he want cheap or shitty?"

And suggests a Nikkon. Specifically a gently used D50 for about the cheapest and decent quality DSLR.

EDIT: The connotation there was to stay away from Cannons unless you have a reason for getting one, ie. you already have Cannon Lenses.

[rifter]

Have you ever looked? The split is, really, about 50/50 in most scenarios. Nikon has some white/beige lenses as well.

(I could be wrong, but I've seen it debated to death elsewhere)

Actually, a few years ago, the Canon had the VAST majority of high-end shooters on the field. The Nikon has been catching up, FAST.

Actually, I think the OP said they wanted to take it climbing... the NICE thing about the XS and XSi (vs 40d/50d) is that it is LIGHT. It CAN take a beating, too. Though, that being said... the 40d is sturdier.

[Bingley Joe]

The materials and build quality on the low-end Nikons is in a whole different league than the Canons. You might pay more for the Nikon, but with camera equipment, you generally get what you pay for.

[Jackel]

So I'll probably grab either a Nikon D80, Canon XSi, or a Pentax K200D

So are the Nikons a bit more weather resistant? I live in SE Alaska where it is very rainy most of the year...so having something that won't kill me if it gets wet is important, which is why the Pentax is on the list.

[LiquidRain]

I wouldn't trust any camera to be able to get wet and survive.

[Jboy001]

So I'll probably grab either a Nikon N80, Canon XSi, or a Pentax K200D

So are the Nikons a bit more weather resistant? I live in SE Alaska where it is very rainy most of the year...so having something that won't kill me if it gets wet is important, which is why the Pentax is on the list.

the N80 is a film camera, maybe you mean the d80?

[Jackel]

the N80 is a film camera, maybe you mean the d80?

durrr...yes, the D80 lol. thanks

[civil]

I wouldn't trust any camera to be able to get wet and survive.
If you're referencing the Pentax, it's not waterproof. The body is weather-sealed though, meaning it can withstand some conditions without much fuss. Personally I don't take out my DSLR in any extreme weather, but it apprently can handle dirt, etc.

To the OP: You've gotten a lot of opinions here, but I would really recommend Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/). IMO, they provide the best forums, reviews and updates of any site out there. They also have an amazing buying guide that I would heartily recommend. I lurked, posted and read there for months before settling on my camera.

[Bingley Joe]

So I'll probably grab either a Nikon D80, Canon XSi, or a Pentax K200D

So are the Nikons a bit more weather resistant? I live in SE Alaska where it is very rainy most of the year...so having something that won't kill me if it gets wet is important, which is why the Pentax is on the list.


You might want to take advantage of the sale Best Buy is having on the D200 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7633313&productCategoryId=abcat0401005&type=product&id=1130987191339&AID=10597222&PID=889052&SID=ds18u&URL=http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7633313&productCategoryId=abcat0401005&type=product&id=1130987191339&ref=39&loc=01)

$599 is an excellent price, and even though it's discontinued, the D200 is a very very well built camera, sharing the same build-quality/sealing as the D2X, which was their flagship at the time the D200 was released.

The body is completely magnesium alloy, so it will take some knocks, and it features extensive rubber gasketing around body seams, controls, and compartment doors.. it's not waterproof, but it's still very well sealed compared to most cameras out there (including the D80). It'd be totally fine in a light misty rain/heavy fog, and no biggie to use in worse weather if you can at least protect it between shots.

In terms of stats/capabilities, it's identical to the D80 except it has a faster shutter and a flash-sync terminal (in addition to a hotshoe), both good things. The only feature it's missing is the nifty auto-ISO feature the new Nikons have, but that's not really a huge issue.

You'll need to supply your own lens, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the kit lenses are never all that wonderful anyway.

Just some food for thought.. I'd certainly be pulling out my card if that deal was available in Canada :mad:

[rifter]

In terms of stats/capabilities, it's identical to the D80 except it has a faster shutter and a flash-sync terminal (in addition to a hotshoe), both good things. The only feature it's missing is the nifty auto-ISO feature the new Nikons have, but that's not really a huge issue.

You know, I never run auto-ISO. I won't say I will never run auto-ISO... but after 11k+ pictures... the chance of running auto-ISO diminishes. :-) ISO is something I want control over.


You'll need to supply your own lens, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as the kit lenses are never all that wonderful anyway.

The XSi's kit lens, has been considered pretty damn good. It was supposed to set a new bar in kit lenses, last year. I would also recommend a fast, 1.8 "nifty fifty) (50mm). I never saw the need for one, but my girlfriend REALLY wanted one... Now, I steal hers ALL the time. It is just that awesome of a lens. Now, I want an 85mm version!

[Xerxes]

I wish I had someone to show my how to use my fucking cybershot. I'll never graduate. But I also don't have anything to take pictures of. <shrug>

[LiquidRain]

I wish I had someone to show my how to use my fucking cybershot. I'll never graduate. But I also don't have anything to take pictures of. <shrug>
Some people would argue the whole point of photography is to take "nothing to take pictures of" and make it look interesting. :) (I don't have the creativity to do this, though I've tried and will continue to)

[Cactaur]

Looks like ritz camera is having liquidation sales. Possibly a good time to go bargain hunting!

[civil]

Looks like ritz camera is having liquidation sales. Possibly a good time to go bargain hunting!
Oh shit, really? Fuck, thanks for the heads up. I'm pulling out the wallet now...

[Bingley Joe]

You know, I never run auto-ISO. I won't say I will never run auto-ISO... but after 11k+ pictures... the chance of running auto-ISO diminishes. :-) ISO is something I want control over.

I'm pretty much the same. Back in my day we called picking a different ISO "push-processing" ;)

But the neat thing about Nikon's auto-ISO is that you can think of it as a sort of smart ISO-limiter mode; you set the maximum ISO you want the camera to use, and it will then pick the lowest possible ISO under that limit that suits the exposure you're aiming for.

If it hits your ISO limit, then it will start picking different shutter-speeds (if you're in aperture priority mode, for example). It sounds kinda pointless and gimmicky, but it actually really works well, and it's a nice bonus on a features-tally.. Not essential by any means though.

The XSi's kit lens, has been considered pretty damn good. It was supposed to set a new bar in kit lenses, last year. I would also recommend a fast, 1.8 "nifty fifty) (50mm). I never saw the need for one, but my girlfriend REALLY wanted one... Now, I steal hers ALL the time. It is just that awesome of a lens. Now, I want an 85mm version!

The kit lenses aren't all universally bad, it's true, but there's usually more plastic on them than I like to see.. I'm rough on my gear though. Probably the best thing about kit lenses, IMO, is that you can always find great deals on used ones in mint condition. :)

I completely agree about grabbing a fixed 50mm. One of those little guys on the body can almost turn these SLRs into something discreet for street-shooting, and there's just no substitute for a nice wide aperture in those situations -- great suggestion there.

Another great one to own is a fast (say f2) 105mm macro. They're usually not all that tiny, which actually gives most cameras a really nice balance, and just unbelievably sharp, even wide open.

Macro is always a ton of fun, but I've always thought these were the absolute ultimate portrait lens -- gives you a comfortable distance from your subject, and the wide aperture/longish focal-length combination lets you completely isolate them from the background. I have an old manual-focus version of one of these that is just an utterly astounding lens in the right situations. The bokeh it makes is just so pretty you want to cry :D

[biosc1]

The 1.8" (50mm), is this what you mean (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10082166&catid=)? For the XSi? What does this get me over the "18-55mm IS lens" that came with the camera?

(complete noob)

[rifter]

The 1.8" (50mm), is this what you mean (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10082166&catid=)? For the XSi? What does this get me over the "18-55mm IS lens" that came with the camera?

(complete noob)

That is it.

At 50mm, the kit lens has a minimum aperature of 5.0 . The 50mm goes down to 1.8. That is 9 stops. That means that you can shoot in much, MUCH less light, than the kit lens.

From an artistic side, 1.8 means you have a very shallow depth of field. If you are taking a picture of someone fairly up close, it throws the background WAY out of focus, which creates some very cool bookah.

The price is also pretty damn cheap.

Oh yea, it is REALLY light, too.

The 50mm makes for a GREAT portrait lens. Here are a couple of other good portrait lenses:
The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503) makes for an awesome portrait lens, as well. The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=7311) Is also awesome. Primes (the 50mm, and 85mm) are cheaper, since they have fixed elements.

If you price them all out, the 50mm probably has THE BEST price vs performance, though.

[BlackPete]

If you've owned an SLR before and know what you're looking for, go for it. If you've never tried anything but a point and shoot, the kit lens might be perfectly fine: I found it helpful to use the kit lens until I starting feeling limited and knew what I needed in a different lens.

This was the same for me. When I first got it, I _thought_ I'd be a major zoom nut, and was drooling over the 100-400L lenses. However, since I do a lot of hiking and urban crawling, I find myself taking a lot of wide angle shots so at least I know where my preferences lie.

[LiquidRain]

What you have to pay attention to is the f-stop, also known as the aperture size, also known as how "closed" or "open" the camera is.

The wider the aperture (more open, a low-number f-stop like 1.8), the narrower your depth of field is. (the blurrier the foreground/background around your subject will be) The narrower the aperture (closed, a high number like 8) the deeper your depth of field. (an f-stop of 8 is considered the minimum you want when shooting landscape) Take note: the wider the aperture, the lower the f-stop. The narrower the aperture, the higher the f-stop. F-stop is denoted as f/[X] or f/[X]-[Y]. f/[X] means the X aperture opening is kept throughout its whole zoom range, and X-Y means the X f-stop applies at the widest angle, and the Y f-stop applies at the narrow (zoom) angle. Zoom levels inbetween have an maximum aperture opening between those values.

When you widen the aperture, more light is let in to the camera, and thus you do not need to expose the photo as long. You also get more blur from the narrower depth of field. (some people use the term "bokeh") You do, though, open yourself to vignetting - the picture gets darker at the edges.

The [X]mm is the zoom. <15mm is generally considered ultra wide angle, < 30mm is wide angle, 30-50mm is somewhere in the middle. Anything above 50mm and you'll need a fair amount of distance to your subject.

The majority of variable-zoom lens (eg: 18-55mm) have a lower f-stop at their wide angle and a higher f-stop at their maximum zoom.

The 50mm f/1.8 has a really, really wide aperture for a very low price - generally, if you want any aperture under an f-stop of 3, you'll be paying a premium. The 50mm 1.8 just happens to be an easy lens to make, so it's available really cheap. It's called a "prime" lens because there's no zoom - you're stuck at 50mm. Prime lenses produce sharper photos because the lens glass can be tailor made to that specific level of zoom, there's no distortion of the image as it passes through various glass pieces on its way to the camera. That said - you're stuck at a specific zoom.

This has been Photography 101.

Now for advice: do not buy only the 50mm f/1.8. You WILL want the kit lens for wide angle photos, such as anything indoors in an informal environment like family gatherings, etc. In such cases you may find you will not be able to effectively get far enough away from your subject to get the photo you want.

I'll repeat my advice: kit lenses are fantastic for learning what you like to photograph. I'm no expert photographer, but between:
- a 17-55mm f/3.8-5.5 kit lens (or 3.5 i forget)
- a 70-300mm f/3.5-5.5 telephoto lens
- a 50mm f/1.8 prime (the very one you linked)
- a 17-50mm f/2.8

You might ask why I picked something so seemingly similar to a kit lens with the 17-50mm f/2.8. Hopefully I can enlighten you here.

1. 17-50mm is a great zoom range. Sometimes I wish it went to 70mm, but these times are few and far between.
2. It keeps its f/2.8 (wide open aperture) throughout the whole 17-50mm range, which was very important to me. I can zoom in up close on a subject and keep the f/2.8 open, the background blur is perfect and I don't have to worry about long exposure times making my photos blurry from my hand shaking. A kit lens can't do anything near that - you'll get very little background blur when zoomed and much longer exposure times.
3. It's not as wide open as the f/1.8 but since it has a 17mm wide angle, it's FAR more useful for landscape photography and city sightseeing.

The 17-50mm f/2.8 lens gets the most use by far - I rarely reach into my bag to use anything else. It also cost me $430, which for a lens is really cheap. (it's a Tamron)

I learned what I wanted to photograph by using the kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8. The kit lens restricted my night and indoor photography because of the narrow aperture, and with the 50mm I had trouble getting distance to any of my subjects. I needed something that was a) wide angle b) adjustable zoom c) wide aperture. I settled on the 17-50mm f/2.8.

As a final note - some Canon lenses have "USM" in the name. That just means they focus faster.

If you'd like I can post some quick photos taken at home using my four different lenses to show you the difference. Often, people might refer to a lens as a "beginner" lens, but just because it is good for beginners doesn't mean it's bad for experts. All my lenses are "beginner" ones that were cheap, but I just have no reason to get anything else!

[biosc1]

Thanks for all the info. I already have the kit lens and I find it suits it's purpose, but I want to have more options. I also realize that I'm inexperienced, but I am working on getting experience and I want the lenses that I buy now to be the right lenses for future-me.

[rifter]

I'll repeat my advice: kit lenses are fantastic for learning what you like to photograph. I'm no expert photographer, but between:
- a 17-55mm f/3.8-5.5 kit lens (or 3.5 i forget)
- a 70-300mm f/3.5-5.5 telephoto lens
- a 50mm f/1.8 prime (the very one you linked)
- a 17-50mm f/2.8 (f/2.8 through the whole zoom range, much more versatile in low light and narrow DOF shots than the kit lens, and has a wide angle unlike the 50mm)

The 17-50mm f/2.8 is my walking around lens that's always in the camera. It's a great zoom range.

I like the 55-250 IS lens. The IS helps quite a bit.

This is an awesome lens (http://www.tamron.com/B003special/index.html) if you can budget for it. Remember, good image stabilization is worth probably 2 stops... (for sturdiness factor). If you are really good, the Tamron lens says 4 stops.

[rifter]

Thanks for all the info. I already have the kit lens and I find it suits it's purpose, but I want to have more options. I also realize that I'm inexperienced, but I am working on getting experience and I want the lenses that I buy now to be the right lenses for future-me.

So, something about the 18-55, and the 55-250 IS lenses... they are EF-S lenses, which means they are only good for XSi/XS and 40d/50d style cameras. They are not "full frame" so they don't work on the 5d/1d class cameras. Though, I am pretty sure that by the time you are ready to move to the full-frame cameras, you will probably have some good lenses. :-)

[civil]

FUCK. ALL. OF. YOU.

All this talk about cameras, lenses, depth of field...you and your damned shop talk left me with no alternative but to buy the new lens I had promised myself I wouldn't buy until the summer. Why? Because I've got no money. And now I'm broke.

Fuckers. I hate this goddamned website. All it does is cost me money. :mad:

[Xerxes]

FUCK. ALL. OF. YOU.

All this talk about cameras, lenses, depth of field...you and your damned shop talk left me with no alternative but to buy the new lens I had promised myself I wouldn't buy until the summer. Why? Because I've got no money. And now I'm broke.

Fuckers. I hate this goddamned website. All it does is cost me money. :mad:

Remember that time we convinced you to buy both a DS AND a PSP? :D

[LiquidRain]

What lens did you get? :)

[civil]

Remember that time we convinced you to buy both a DS AND a PSP? :D
Yes. Yes I do. :(

What lens did you get? :)
It was going to be this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441869-REG/Pentax_21590_SMCP_DA_21mm_f_3_2_AL.html), but it's now this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/366728-USA/Pentax_21550_40mm_f_2_8_Limited_Autofocus.html).

[Brady]

Yes. Yes I do. :(


It was going to be this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441869-REG/Pentax_21590_SMCP_DA_21mm_f_3_2_AL.html), but it's now this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/366728-USA/Pentax_21550_40mm_f_2_8_Limited_Autofocus.html).

It was worth it to buy the faster lens. I have a Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime that I'm in love with for low light photography. I recently shot my friends concert (pop piano music) at a venue where I've always failed completely at getting any worthy shots because the lighting is terrible (The only parts of the stage that are well lit are where nobody is standing)

HERE (http://brady.ocelot3.com/?p=1)were some of the results (more on my flickr).

Sadly my next lens I've got my eye on is a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L which will cost me $1,200 (tear).


On a side note, anybody else looking for a cheap way to get a digital SLR for cheap? I just recently made the upgrade to a Canon 5D from my Rebel XT, so I've got a great condition Rebel XT w/ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens that needs a home ;)

[LiquidRain]

The 5D or a 5D Mk2? Either way, that's a hell of a camera. :P

e: Canon just announced the successor to the XSi. (http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3547) For a consumer entry level DSLR, that is mighty, mighty sexy.

[rifter]

The 5D or a 5D Mk2? Either way, that's a hell of a camera. :P

e: Canon just announced the successor to the XSi. (http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3547) For a consumer entry level DSLR, that is mighty, mighty sexy.

I know. I love my XSi... but at 12,000 pictures... it is starting to get a little old... :-)

The problem, is that I want the 5D MKII. :-) I got to hand a 1D the other day... holy crap, that is an awesome camera.

[Aggort]

FUCK. ALL. OF. YOU.

All this talk about cameras, lenses, depth of field...you and your damned shop talk left me with no alternative but to buy the new lens I had promised myself I wouldn't buy until the summer. Why? Because I've got no money. And now I'm broke.

Fuckers. I hate this goddamned website. All it does is cost me money. :mad:

This thread makes me crave a new camera, that I know I do not need.

[Johan]

I bought the Pentax K20D. Very nice camera. (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK20D/)

I'm picking up a Pentax SMC DA* Series 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL IF SDM Wide Angle Zoom Lens shortly, and possibly a Pentax SMC DA* Series 50-135mm f/2.8 ED IF SDM Telephoto Zoom Lens as well. I want to stick with the DA* (Star) lineup because they are weather-sealed, as the K20D is. Having a weather-sealed body with a lens that isn't doesn't make too much sense.

It is a good time to purchase cameras and camera accessories, as sales have fallen about 30% in the industry, and prices are lower as a result.

[Brady]

The 5D or a 5D Mk2? Either way, that's a hell of a camera. :P

I've got the 5D, boy I wish I could afford the mkII. I used the release of the mkII to drive down the price on the original 5D. Which sadly still set me back $1,600. Though the mkII is $2,700 just for the body right now so I can't complain. Full Frame is amazing, Bokeh galore!

I want to keep my old camera as a backup, but sadly now I've got $1,550 of tuition due in 2 weeks. You may notice the 5D = Tuition. Yes.... I may have spent the money I saved for school on a new camera. I'm just that awesome with money.

[Brady]

Now for advice: do not buy only the 50mm f/1.8. You WILL want the kit lens for wide angle photos, such as anything indoors in an informal environment like family gatherings, etc. In such cases you may find you will not be able to effectively get far enough away from your subject to get the photo you want.

Quoted for truth!

I just want to say I completely agree with this. Often I see everyone trying to get away from a kit lens as fast as they can or skip it all together. Just like LiquidRain said, use this inexpensive lens for two purposes. Use this lens to learn how you will be using your camera. Do you find that your range is within the typical 18-55 range of a typical kit lens? (upgrade to a faster lens) Do you find that you typically need a longer/tele lens? Or do you shoot mainly wide angle? You'll learn not only a lot about photography with the lens, but also about where your money will best be spent as you move forward in your photography endeavors.

Trust me, spending a lot of money on a lens only to realize you wish you would have gone another route hurts.

I'm currently rebuilding my lens kit from the ground up after moving to a full frame body. I started out with just a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. Its decent lens. Decently sharp, decent colors, only minor vignetting. My second lens was a 50mm f/1.4 prime. My logic for this is because I'm often in situations where I'm shooting in low light without a flash (5D doesn't have a flash, haven't got around to buying my 580exII). I absolutely love my 50mm prime and it has given me many great pictures. Still though I usually keep my 28-135 kit lens on the camera because I never know what I'm going to be shooting.

I had always planned on buying a 70-200 after the kit lens, but after using the kit lens for a while I discovered that was definitely not the lens I needed to buy next. I needed something really fast for low light. So instead of spending $1,200 on the next lens I was going to buy (Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L), I spent $350 on the one that has covered me for 80% of the shots I can't use my kit lens on. Best decision I could have made.

[rifter]

For Canon and Nikon shooters, there is also the 18-270mm (http://www.tamron.com/B003special/index.html) lens. It has been getting some phenomenal reviews. Generally, where you get fall-off is in the 200+mm range. This, plus a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 prime would be a great combo, in and of itself. My PERSONAL set up, is the kit lens, that I take probably 70% of my pictures with (18-55 IS), a 55-250mm IS, and a 50mm Macro lens. I also borrow my girlfriend's 50mm 1.8 quite a bit. I also have a 70-300 non IS that I use from time to time. I WANT to get a 100mm macro, that 18-270 mentioned above, and probably a 400mm or so with a 1.4 converter, for shooting very long range animal shots.

[Jackel]

Finally went and bought the Nikon D90.

I know it is a bit pricey (I just heard a thousand screams coming from my credit card lol)...but it'll be worth it if I get good pictures of my daughter growing up.

Now I wait for the damn thing to ship to me lol.

[Brady]

Finally went and bought the Nikon D90.

I know it is a bit pricey (I just heard a thousand screams coming from my credit card lol)...but it'll be worth it if I get good pictures of my daughter growing up.

Now I wait for the damn thing to ship to me lol.

I nearly bought a D90 a while back, fantastic camera. Now Canon has just released their answer to the D90 (the TSi/500D (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001XURPQS/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=photo)) which looks mighty sexy.

I'm a Canon guy.

[Bingley Joe]

Finally went and bought the Nikon D90.

I know it is a bit pricey (I just heard a thousand screams coming from my credit card lol)...but it'll be worth it if I get good pictures of my daughter growing up.

Now I wait for the damn thing to ship to me lol.

You'll definitely be happy with that, it's a great piece of kit.