Recommendations for Digital SLR Camera? (1 Viewer)

[Jenn]

I carry a point and shoot for simple stuff, but you really can't beat a DSLR for speed.

I clicked the shutter in this picture the instant I saw the flash of yellow.. I could not have gotten this picture with a point and shoot.

I like how fast I can click the pictures off with the XTi

 

[club]

Nikon D3

Okay back to reality...

Joe's advise is good as always. For most a P&S or any DSLR would probably be fine.

Good podcast for photography an related technology is photogeek.tv Podcast for the geek photographer professional prosumer or keen beginner

 

[meathead]

We have all see Joes pictures and to shoot at that level and clarity the equipment he uses ( if you want results like joes) should be what your looking for. Another thought is how much discretionary$$$$ are you willing to part with just to take pictures. Myself I have the Canon D20 with the 70-210 2.8 zoom. This has been a work horse for me, the ability to shoot close up and far away, My lens was about 1200 bucks ( non image stabilazation) wasnt out when I bought it, and the D20 was about 1100 for the body... below is a link to some of my Drag Racng Photos

RichB55 : photos : NHRA 2006- powered by SmugMug

if the link does not work cut and paste it... some pretty good shots
from Englishtown
once you have the picture displayed you can double click on it and view it
as a small, large or O for original size 8.2 megapixels depending on your computer this may take a minute to load, but when you see the benefits of shooting with a High Megapixel you will be hooked.
forgot to mention the CF cards which store the pictures, I like the Extreme Sandisk 2.0Gb and a 4.0Gb if you shoot JPEG only you will have plenty of pictures, if you shot JPEG/RAW for editing and photoshop purposes figure you will lose about a third of the volume, hope this helps...

RichB
RichB

 

[meathead]

These pictures were on Film, as opposed to Digital, you can see there is a bit of a difference they have been resized to fit in the

story.Zoomster.com


nothing beats a good digital with a 5 FPS burst mode

 

[.]

Joe, how are the Tamron lenses? I have a Nikon N60 right now w/a 28-200lens and am thinking about a Nikon D80. However, the local camera shop says that the optics in a digital are very different than my N60 film camera. They claim that my 28-200 lens will work like a 56-400 lens on a digital SLR. Not sure if they're just trying to sell me a new lens or what? If I do need a new lens, the Tamrons seem to be priced the most competitively. Thoughts?

Almost all DSLR's use a sensor that's smaller than the normal 36 x 24mm frame of 35mm film. On the Nikon's it's a 1.5x factor so a 50mm will act like a 75mm. Most of the Canon's are a 1.6x crop factor so on them a 50mm would be like an 80mm. Canon and Nikon both make bodies with full-frame sensors but they're usually a few thousand dollars.

Nikon's DX series lenses are made specifically for the DSLR's with the smaller sensors. They have smaller optics which should make them a little more inexpensive. The drawback is that if you try to use them on a body with a full frame sensor or a film body is that the image circle will not fill the frame. it will look like you're looking through a round tube and the corners will be dark. If you use lenses that were designed for use with film bodies or full-frame sensors on a camera like a D80 with the smaller sensor you actually gain a slight advantage in sharpness since you're using the center of the optics, the sharpest area. All you have to do is look at most of the Canon's with large sensors vs. the Nikons with the DX size sensor, the Nikon's have better edge sharpness.

 

[twok4hd]

I just purchased an Olympus E-510 that came with a 14-42 mm and 40-150 mm lenses for $700.00 Still in learning mode, but really like it so far.

 

[Toejam]

Joe, how are the Tamron lenses? I have a Nikon N60 right now w/a 28-200lens and am thinking about a Nikon D80. However, the local camera shop says that the optics in a digital are very different than my N60 film camera. They claim that my 28-200 lens will work like a 56-400 lens on a digital SLR. Not sure if they're just trying to sell me a new lens or what? If I do need a new lens, the Tamrons seem to be priced the most competitively. Thoughts?

Lenses on Digital SLR's are increased by a factor of 1.5X. Which means a 28-300 on a film camera focals out on a Digital at 42-450! Which is why you see all the 18m lenses now, an 18m focals out at 28m like the Film cameras did.

Charles, Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses aren't bad for the Budget minded, but they aren't Nikon or Canon quality! Nikon and Canon VR lenses are made of Metal, not Plastic. Very Pricey, but worth it in the long run. VR (Vibration reduction) lenses are a Godsend for todays phtographers! You can shoot at 1/8 or 1/15 of a sec. and it looks like 1/60 or 1/125! The Blur factor is just about eliminated. Hope that helps!

 

[Jenn]

One more thing, ALWAYS FILTER YOUR LENSES! I was told that back in 1986 when I first went 35m, replacing a scratched $30 Skylight or UV filter is FAR cheaper than replacing a scratched $350 lense! My Brother in law found that out the hard way!

I have two UV filters, and I can't really see the difference in the two shots. UV vs. Non-UV so I was just leaving the UV on. The picture on the box showed two shots with and without UV but I've never experienced that in any of my photos.

I was considering getting a 'hood' for the glass. Somebody told me about them but I haven't been able to find them. I have just been looking at Circuit City and places like that but might stop by Kurt's Camera Coral one of these days.

 

[HEMI6point1]

Charles, Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses aren't bad for the Budget minded, but they aren't Nikon or Canon quality!

Tokina sucks, only lens they make that's decent is the 12-24mm F/4. Tamron makes some good ones, the two that are excellent are the 28-75mm F/2.8 and the 17-35mm F/2.8-4. Both are around $700-$800 cheaper than the Canon versions.

If you need a prime, Sigma's 30mm F/1.4 EX has about 98% of the image quality of Canon's 35mm F/1.4L but is $800 cheaper.

Sure you don't get the Canon "L" build quality but they are pretty solid still and can save quite a few bucks.

 

[Smiley]

Tokina sucks, only lens they make that's decent is the 12-24mm F/4. Tamron makes some good ones, the two that are excellent are the 28-75mm F/2.8 and the 17-35mm F/2.8-4. Both are around $700-$800 cheaper than the Canon versions.

If you need a prime, Sigma's 30mm F/1.4 EX has about 98% of the image quality of Canon's 35mm F/1.4L but is $800 cheaper.

Sure you don't get the Canon "L" build quality but they are pretty solid still and can save quite a few bucks.

I'll second the Sigma suggestion, their "DC" lenses are nice for the money. I have a couple of Tamron lenses and while the photos are fairly good, I feel the focus is a bit slow for my liking. The Sigma snaps to focus very quickly.

 

[Jenn]

Tokina sucks, only lens they make that's decent is the 12-24mm F/4. Tamron makes some good ones, the two that are excellent are the 28-75mm F/2.8 and the 17-35mm F/2.8-4. Both are around $700-$800 cheaper than the Canon versions.

If you need a prime, Sigma's 30mm F/1.4 EX has about 98% of the image quality of Canon's 35mm F/1.4L but is $800 cheaper.

Sure you don't get the Canon "L" build quality but they are pretty solid still and can save quite a few bucks.

Hey Samual, were are you getting your information from? Do you or had you owned those lenses?

 

[Dago]

Thanks everyone for your input. I just want to continue getting the good shots I get in the stands. I like to shoot the car in motion and "blur" the background to show how fast the car is moving.
Regarding the CF cards, Jenn, about how many pictures can you store on them.
Joe, do you load your pictures in JPEG form? Regarding what I believe Rich said, is RAW the same as if the picture were shot on 35 mm film? Do I need to be concerned with RAW format and whether a camera has that capability? Thanks for your input.

 

[.]

Regarding the CF cards, Jenn, about how many pictures can you store on them.

I'm not Jenn, but...it depends on the particular camera and what file format you're using (RAW or jpeg), how many megapixels, amount of compression and even each individual picture. Go over to dpreview.com and other review sites and read up, they'll usually give a ballpark figure.

Joe, do you load your pictures in JPEG form? Regarding what I believe Rich said, is RAW the same as if the picture were shot on 35 mm film? Do I need to be concerned with RAW format and whether a camera has that capability? Thanks for your input.

And I'm not Joe either, but...RAW files (.crw, .cr2,. nef, etc.) are images that haven't been processed before saving them to the card. It stores data in the header of the file that can be changed later. With jpeg's the picture is taken, it's processed in-camera and then saved to the card which means you can't change it later. With RAW files you can change white balance, sharpening, exposure, color mode, etc. all after the fact. I use a Nikon D70 and I shoot 99% of shots in RAW. It takes more time but the ability to tweak images how I want without degradation is worth the extra time to me.

 

[Jenn]

Regarding the CF cards, Jenn, about how many pictures can you store on them.
.

Around 850 Large resolution or so on my 4GB card. The XTi is over 10 megapixels. You can do Large resolution alone and L+RAW but I've never done that.

Joe Sherwood told me over and over again, take as many pictures as I could to practice as after the initial investment, it costs nothing to snap the pictures! So that's what I did, and have well over 7K pictures since Easter weekend when I bought it.

A few people recommended NOT using the body as a reader and to invest in a card reader. Apparently, that helps waste the battery life of those battery packs, so using a card reader helps to maintain your battery pack life and rather than using an 800 dollar camera to do the readers job with the supplied firewire, you are using a 40 dollar reader.

I also love how fast it is to change from color to black and white in the Rebel.

 

[HEMI6point1]

Hey Samual, were are you getting your information from? Do you or had you owned those lenses?

I don't own any of those, BUT I have done research due to lots of time spent on Dpreview's forums and have looked at photos from all those lenses from people who DO own them, and I like what I see out of those I mentioned. Many of the $1000+ lenses that are part of Canon's "L" line produce images that are only a tiny bit better than the Sigma/Tamron's, but is an average consumer going to really notice?

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

Buzzz and Paul shoot with a Canon EOS 1D. They cost as much as an automobile but they sure produce the quality in my opinion. Check out their latest trip to the boat races:
2007 IHBA World Finals

 

[Jenn]

I don't own any of those, BUT I have done research due to lots of time spent on Dpreview's forums and have looked at photos from all those lenses from people who DO own them, and I like what I see out of those I mentioned. Many of the $1000+ lenses that are part of Canon's "L" line produce images that are only a tiny bit better than the Sigma/Tamron's, but is an average consumer going to really notice?

Just curious. I've spend some time on the miranda forums, and considered getting a subscription to Digital Photography magazine to keep abreast of new tips and gadgets but since I have a hard time finding time to read the Wall Street Journal which gets delivered every day, I'm not so sure I'd have time to read another when I barely get to read the ND.

Informative articles I'd rather read in print anyway over the computer.

 

[meathead]

[ With RAW files you can change white balance, sharpening, exposure, color mode, etc. all after the fact. I use a Nikon D70 and I shoot 99% of shots in RAW. It takes more time but the ability to tweak images how I want without degradation is worth the extra time to me.[/QUOTE]

Basically when you shoot Raw/JPeg you are essentially storing 2 pictures on the CF card at one time, this is what takes up the space. The Jpeg is ready to post or print right away... where as the Raw file can be "massaged" thru photo shop.....

ps... it gets better, if you are going to print your own photos get you monitor
calibrated first, that way, what you see on the monitor should be what you print ... good luck

dont forget to post up some "test photos"......... Richb

 

[Toejam]

Buzzz and Paul shoot with a Canon EOS 1D. They cost as much as an automobile but they sure produce the quality in my opinion. Check out their latest trip to the boat races:
2007 IHBA World Finals

I've seen Buzz's images so I can Attest! If I had the Ca$h I'd make the investment on Nikon VR lenses, but since I blow my load going to these races. Sigma and Tamron lenses will have to do!

 

[.]

Basically when you shoot Raw/JPeg you are essentially storing 2 pictures on the CF card at one time, this is what takes up the space. The Jpeg is ready to post or print right away... where as the Raw file can be "massaged" thru photo shop.....

I don't use RAW/jpeg mode, one or the other and 99% or more of what I shoot is in RAW. The jpeg's filesize is small compared to the raw .nef files so it's not much of a factor anyway.

ps... it gets better, if you are going to print your own photos get you monitor
calibrated first, that way, what you see on the monitor should be what you print ... good luck

dont forget to post up some "test photos"......... Richb

I already calibrate my monitor using a ColorPlus device. Many photo places allow you to download the color profile of the printer(s) they have so you have consistency. I don't print my own.