• the "Which camera is right for me?" Megathread
    3,830 replies, posted
I got that camera mainly for the video features of it, (Which I love by the way, recording everything in slow motion makes everything cooler), whilst the pictures you can take with it are perfectly acceptable (with noise here and there). [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phbRVsG4xzI[/media] (Fucking about with friends in the snow) As you can see, the 210 fps feature in it is acceptable quality, 420 and 1000 fps are kind of a pointless feature, as the quality just gets stupid, and the video gets way too long to be interesting. I bought mine in store for £200 including case, memory card (Be sure you pick up a card of around 4gb at minimum for obvious reasons). Only problem i've really had with the camera is it feels too plasticy, and things like the zoom twisty thing and the battery cover on the bottom feel like they will break when you touch them. Having said this I have the one daijitsu linked too, not the next version up I sent you Teh_cheese. However I have tried that one in store, and it had a better build, a better zoom and great anti shake thing.
seems good, what about this one? [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830124067[/url] I'd prefer to keep it around 250 if you have any suggestions for me.
[QUOTE=Teh_Cheese;20199658]seems good, what about this one? [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830124067[/url] I'd prefer to keep it around 250 if you have any suggestions for me.[/QUOTE] 5-star reviews, but I noticed a few things noted in the cons, such as using 4 AA batteries... Having a rechargeable pack is a godsend, especially as the camera goes on with age; I know it isn't prevalent in EVERY camera, but I've noted a lot of people complain about that. My old Pentax ist*DL ran on 4 batteries, and after two years I couldn't take more than 30 or 40 pictures at best before having to replace the batteries... which meant I literally went to a gas station to pick up a 4-pack of batteries every time I planned on using the damn thing. Hell, when I went to a [url=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2119/3527010295_e08da35fe0_b.jpg]convention[/url] with it last year, I bought a 32-pack and ran out by the end of the second day. Granted I had an itchy trigger finger (due to overage of energy drinks), but still, it gets costly to maintain. BUT, Who knows, maybe the newer cameras these days are doing much better. Still, the Casio you're looking at is more powerful than my old pentax, so I have to wonder how well the power consumption goes...
I use a Sony DSLR a200. It's now discontinued, but it's done me just fine. [img]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3984/camerafront.jpg[/img] My gallery: [url]www.goden.smugmug.com[/url]
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;20198862]I might be getting myself a Canon 7D soon. It's got everything I could possibly need or want out of a camera. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/canon_eos_5d_large.jpg[/img] It's damn sexy too.[/QUOTE] That pic is a 5D, not a 7D :P
[QUOTE=daijitsu;20200519]5-star reviews, but I noticed a few things noted in the cons, such as using 4 AA batteries... Having a rechargeable pack is a godsend, especially as the camera goes on with age; I know it isn't prevalent in EVERY camera, but I've noted a lot of people complain about that. My old Pentax ist*DL ran on 4 batteries, and after two years I couldn't take more than 30 or 40 pictures at best before having to replace the batteries... which meant I literally went to a gas station to pick up a 4-pack of batteries every time I planned on using the damn thing. Hell, when I went to a [url=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2119/3527010295_e08da35fe0_b.jpg]convention[/url] with it last year, I bought a 32-pack and ran out by the end of the second day. Granted I had an itchy trigger finger (due to overage of energy drinks), but still, it gets costly to maintain. BUT, Who knows, maybe the newer cameras these days are doing much better. Still, the Casio you're looking at is more powerful than my old pentax, so I have to wonder how well the power consumption goes...[/QUOTE] Thanks for all the suggestions! I appreciate it, I think I'll get that camera now! Battery life won't be a problem with me, I have a shit ton of rechargeable batteries.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;20200519]5-star reviews, but I noticed a few things noted in the cons, such as using 4 AA batteries... Having a rechargeable pack is a godsend, especially as the camera goes on with age; I know it isn't prevalent in EVERY camera, but I've noted a lot of people complain about that. My old Pentax ist*DL ran on 4 batteries, and after two years I couldn't take more than 30 or 40 pictures at best before having to replace the batteries... which meant I literally went to a gas station to pick up a 4-pack of batteries every time I planned on using the damn thing. Hell, when I went to a [url=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2119/3527010295_e08da35fe0_b.jpg]convention[/url] with it last year, I bought a 32-pack and ran out by the end of the second day. Granted I had an itchy trigger finger (due to overage of energy drinks), but still, it gets costly to maintain. BUT, Who knows, maybe the newer cameras these days are doing much better. Still, the Casio you're looking at is more powerful than my old pentax, so I have to wonder how well the power consumption goes...[/QUOTE] Rechargable batteries problem solved
[QUOTE=DaveP;20207405]Rechargable batteries problem solved[/QUOTE] ninja'd on that, but I have to note that rechargables had a tenancy to not last half as long as normal batteries in that camera. Several brands tried. Man, that thing really hated me by the end of it all. :sigh:
I had a Pentax that had that problem too, even rechargeable batteries couldn't help it, and I ended up just buying batteries where ever I went. Sold it a few months ago for a D5000, life saver.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;20207495]ninja'd on that, but I have to note that rechargables had a tenancy to not last half as long as normal batteries in that camera. Several brands tried. Man, that thing really hated me by the end of it all. :sigh:[/QUOTE] NiMH and Lithium Ion rechargables don't lose capacity over time as easily; Alkalines are crap and NiCD rechargables if not properly discharged will build a memory and lose performance
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;20198862]I might be getting myself a Canon 7D soon. It's got everything I could possibly need or want out of a camera. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/canon_eos_5d_large.jpg[/img] It's damn sexy too.[/QUOTE] But it's not full-frame
[QUOTE=Hammertime;20213907]But it's not full-frame[/QUOTE] Maybe that's not a priority of his? I think my next camera will be full-frame, looking at how nice my old Canon AE-1 film camera is makes me envious of digital full frame.
[QUOTE=Ferosso;20060051]You should post the Canon G-series in the OP. It's the best you can get that isn't a DSLR. Except maybe the Leica cameras which are all about $99999999999999 [img]http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Canon_G11.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Best point and shoots I can think of, I was going to get one a while back jut in case Best Buy didn't replace my broken XS. Luckily they did though. The new Micro thirds cameras are great too, Like the Olympus EP-1. [img]http://www.fotogrijpink.nl/images/olympus-EP-1.jpg[/img]
Considering getting a Rebel Xsi as my first DSLR. Good idea? Speaking of which, I don't actually own a camera right now. Weird I know.
[QUOTE=onox37;20224829]Considering getting a Rebel Xsi as my first DSLR. Good idea? Speaking of which, I don't actually own a camera right now. Weird I know.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's a great camera. I have an XS which is pretty much the same thing and I love it. I don't really think I'd need a better camera anytime soon. And I still use my kit lens.
Would anyone recommend the Pentax k-x? It looks pretty basic and sexy and all. But from the videos and images I've seen, it's sub-par compared to others. Mainly, I want a cheap DSLR (or micro four-thirds) with HD video recording.
Can anyone recommend a good video camera (or camcorder or whatever you call them) for me? I want to start shooting some higher quality stuff, I can spend up to £500, and I'd like it to be able to shoot high fps stuff. I'm sorry I don't know too much about cameras, all I know is I'd like to get serious and my current camera is shit. Or would it be a better idea to get a stills camera that can shoot video do you think?
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;20242456]Can anyone recommend a good video camera (or camcorder or whatever you call them) for me? I want to start shooting some higher quality stuff, I can spend up to £500, and I'd like it to be able to shoot high fps stuff. I'm sorry I don't know too much about cameras, all I know is I'd like to get serious and my current camera is shit. Or would it be a better idea to get a stills camera that can shoot video do you think?[/QUOTE] if you wanna get more serious about shooting then get more serious about knowing what equipment is out there and for what purposes they all serve. go to like amazon or something and read around about the video equipment, look at prices, reviews, see what people have to say about it all, if you see something you can't ascertain the use of then google that item and look for what it's for. I don't know video equipment, but I know with the internet you have all the info at your finger tips, all you need is the desire to search for and learn it. Didn't mean anything bad by that by the way, just trying to help.
You are literally a giant idiot if you care more about the camera than the actual photography [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Read The OP Before Replying" - Perfumly))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=frank_g;20243045]You are literally a giant idiot if you care more about the camera than the actual photography[/QUOTE] Uh. The right camera and the right knowledge of how to use it can make an [B]immense[/B] difference in the quality of photos you shoot. Sure, there has to be a passion for photography, but that will get you nowhere unless you have the equipment to get it done right. If all you did was buy a small point and shoot and try to acheive professional level quality, it'd be like pitting a Toyota Prius against a Rally Car on a dirt track. You can be dedicated to driving, but that will get you nowhere. Cheap/entry level Cameras are good for what they're designed for, snapping photos with friends and keeping in your pocket as backup. They could not possibly hold their own when it comes to the versatility of a DSLR and its components. The quality of the optics in the lenses, the size of the image sensor, the aperture, f-stop, and all those other goodies that can be tuned to exactly what a photographer needs is what makes a higher end camera more desirable. Also, with what DaveP said, a higher end camera will give you the ability to see what you're shooting. That reflex system that is available in higher end cameras can make all of the difference when it comes to getting the perfect shot.
[QUOTE=frank_g;20243045]You are literally a giant idiot if you care more about the camera than the actual photography[/QUOTE] quoted straight from the OP of this thread. Read before you post. [release][quote]it isn't the camera it's the artist [/quote] Artistic talent is necessary for art, yes... but bringing a portfolio of cameraphone or point-and-shooter snapshots to a job interview at the local studio will get you nowhere... likewise, if you take emo self-portraits of yourself in the bathroom mirror or at arm's length NOW, not much will change when you dump the better portion of a thousand dollars on an SLR, except now it's hard to hold it at arm's length and take a picture at the same time.[/release] "You are literally a giant idiot" if you can't take a practical application thread for it's intentions, instead choosing to state blindly of how stupid others are for ever thinking someone would ever need help thinking about whether or not they should make a jump at spending what could be a large chunk of hard earned money. In fact, there is a lot of explaination in the thread to prevent people from stupidly buying a big camera when they don't need it. [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=874501]Pay a visit to the photography thread I put up[/url] for the sake of art instead of equipment, since you [i]obviously[/i] have the talent to pull amazing art off with a cheap camera and should share with the rest of us.
I'm going to be going to the Olympic closing ceremonies and I need a telephoto lens, as my D5000 kit 18-55mm lens just won't cut it. Any suggestions? I'll be sitting about half-way up the upper bowl of a 60,000 seat stadium, so fairly far back. I was thinking of a Nikkor 55-200mm, it doesn't seem to be overkill.
[QUOTE=cmrna;20247134]I'm going to be going to the Olympic closing ceremonies and I need a telephoto lens, as my D5000 kit 18-55mm lens just won't cut it. Any suggestions? I'll be sitting about half-way up the upper bowl of a 60,000 seat stadium, so fairly far back. I was thinking of a Nikkor 55-200mm, it doesn't seem to be overkill.[/QUOTE] I have the nikkor 55-200 VR. Good piece of equipment to have in general, I've needed the extra reach on a number of occasions. This was taken at about 116mm zoom on mine. [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/4047661248_571452eefd.jpg[/img] as opposed to this, which was at 55mm. [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2703/4048551068_2eb648d64d.jpg[/img] All of this was taken from 1/8th of a mile, or about 200 meters away if my horrible math is right. I suppose you can get the idea of how much farther you could zoom in. I wish I had the full 18mm shot I took to show the surrounding area, but I never uploaded it. Given the size of the area you mentioned you'd have to cover, you SHOULD be fine. at full zoom, things tend to get shaky when in-hand, so the VR (vibration reduction) function is very handy on the 55-200. I'm not sure if the model that goes to 300mm has that, but you can check.
OK guys, I'm having some trouble deciding between a Nikon D90 and a D5000. Previously, I owned a Nikon D40 but have decided to pass it on to another family member and personally, I feel it's time to move on to a bigger/better camera. I'm having a pretty hard time deciding on which camera to get (D90 or D5000, even any Canon equivalent), which lenses would be best to get and generally which accessories. Beforehand, with my D40, I used the stock 18-55 lens. It was quite good. With the D90, I think it comes with 18-105, would that be a nice upgrade? I have also used a friends D300 with 18-200mm Lens, that was a great lens and eventually, in the future i could think upon upgrading to that. I have recently also become interested in portraiture shots and love shots from things such as 50mm prime lenses. One or two of these would be a nice add to the collection. So basically I would like to get a prime lens. But I'm unsure on which one to get. Like either 50mm, 32mm etc, you get the picture. Accessories: It would be nice if someone could recommend a good flash that would go with the D90 or D5000. I have no previous experience with one but I can usually adapt to things quickly. Also, Filters, I have a ND-8 filter which I love, a UV/Cir-PL which I love as well, Obviously, I will have to buy new ones if I go the D90 route. RECAP: Basically torn between (D90, D5000 or Canon Equivalent). Lenses - (18-105 stock with D90, would upgrade to 18-200 in a few years, unsure on which prime lenses to go for.). Flash - (Unsure on which flash to get. Money isn't an issue, it just cant really be insanely expensive). Filters - (I'm set). Money isn't too big of an issue on lenses, but Obviously I wouldn't want to have more than 3 from the very start. Please share your views and sorry for the wall of text. EDIT: Also, In the next year I will be traveling to New York, Florida, also Las Vegas for CES in 2011. What would be a good lens for trade show sort of things? Also, for the grand canyon and things like City Scapes in NY. Currently, I live in Scotland. I'm pretty lucky as some of the scenery here is spectacular. Would the 18-55 suffer as an all round lens for things in the Highlands or am I looking at a wide angle for Landscapes? Thanks in advance.
My friend got a 5D Mk.2 today; jealous? Hell yes I'd recommend the D90 myself Just get a mid-zoom and a wide angle prime and you'll be fine
[QUOTE=onox37;20224829]Considering getting a Rebel Xsi as my first DSLR. Good idea? Speaking of which, I don't actually own a camera right now. Weird I know.[/QUOTE] I recommend would wait for the 550D (T2i) comes out so there's price cuts on the older Rebels (Like 450D/XSi which is also being to be the EOL [End of Life/On Clearance] in retail once the T2i comes out), so you can get into this as cheap as possible, really just spend money on the lenses, since you lose almost nothing out of it. If you're actually just starting, get a Ultra Zoom like Powershot S5IS/SX10 IS/SX1 IS, since it's somewhat large bulkly shape is only going to get bigger once you move to a SLR. But really, get a Powershot that has full manual control, like those ultrazooms I listed, since it'll be good learning tool still. [editline]04:13PM[/editline] Also I see a Refub Nikon 55-200mm VR lens for 99 dollars, I'm wondering if I should get it. [editline]04:53PM[/editline] Also, how the heck is the D5000 in the OP frigging so expensive, it's less than 700USD (kit), it's also not pro-consumer camera. SLR are to a entirely different level of photography, since it's not just a friendly as a normal P&S; SLRs tends to rely on your judgement and experience with understanding light with every other setting. Entry Nikon D3000, D5000 (D40 is being killed off in retail market) Canon XS(1000D), XSi(450D), T1i(500D) (1000D is also being killed off) ProConsumers Nikon D90 Canon 40D, 50D ProConsumer+Semi-Professional mixture Nikon D300, D300s, D700 Canon 7D, Canon 5D MK II Professional Nikon D3s Canon 1Ds MK III Canon 1D MK IV (1.3x Crop) Also you're acting like RAW is created strangely. When a picture is taken, the actual datapoints from the sensor is recorded, that is RAW. It can either be sent to memory like that for storage or be converted to a smaller file size, like Jpg. RAW has a problem which is the file size, since you can take so many picture before the memory buffer fills up, memory card speed matters now. DSLRs also have lenses which can start cheap, mid-tier, and it'll be your house expensive, which is also the same for third-party lenses like Sigma. (They have a sexy huge 200-500mm f/2.8 APO lens, that's like 29K, also pictured below) [img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/009475l_01.jpg[/img] Then there's the converts mounts so you can mount lenses from other manufacturers that have no electronics at all, so your camera body might refuse to provide guide settings like light meter or focus confirmation (least from CANON, since their EF lineup has be all electronic mostly). But these mount converters let you use Zeiss, Leica, or Russian lenses from days gone by. Sometimes these are cheap for the quality they give or they might be the radioactive lenses (elements doped into the glass to give it higher optical qualities). --- What this basically I been saying: OP might want to split SLRs into it's own selection, there's SLRs cheaper than 600 dollar, and there are P&S that cost over SLRs. Also since SLRs tend to have other requires with lenses and memory cards costs, there's a very, very, big change in price points. You might spend over a few thousand dollars and still have the same entry level camera you had five years ago.
[QUOTE=M23;20253937]OK guys, I'm having some trouble deciding between a Nikon D90 and a D5000. Previously, I owned a Nikon D40 but have decided to pass it on to another family member and personally, I feel it's time to move on to a bigger/better camera. I'm having a pretty hard time deciding on which camera to get (D90 or D5000, even any Canon equivalent), which lenses would be best to get and generally which accessories.[/quote] on the first page, I had linked for someone else an article with a d5000 comparison sheet; here's the d5000 to d90 thoughts: [release]The Nikon D90 is the next model up from the D5000, and in the general DSLR market represents a step-up in quality and features over many rivals – but by inheriting many key respects of this model, the D5000 becomes a pretty capable alternative. Consider what both cameras have in common: the same 12.3 Megapixel sensor and 12-bit processing, the same 11-point AF system, the same Live View capabilities and the same HD movie mode. Both also share HDMI ports, on-demand LCD grid-lines in the optical viewfinder, and support for Nikon’s optional GPS accessory. In its favour, the new D5000 additionally features a fully-articulated screen, along with more scene presets, interval shooting and a time-lapse movie mode. Nikon’s latest entry-level model is certainly looking very strong, but there are of course advantages to the higher-end D90. In its favour, the D90 features a brighter and much larger penta-prism viewfinder with 0.94x magnification compared to the relatively small 0.78x of the D5000. The screen may not flip-out, but it’s bigger and much more detailed at 3in / 920k. While the D5000 shoots respectably quickly at 4fps, the D90 is a tad faster at 4.5fps and it also features a more powerful battery along with an optional battery grip and a built-in flash with a strobing function. The D90 boasts what most would consider to superior build quality, while additionally featuring an LCD information screen on the upper right surface; the standard kit also has almost twice the reach with the classy Nikkor DX 18-105mm VR lens. Finally, the D90 still houses a motor to auto-focus older lenses that don’t have their own built-in. So while the D90’s lacking the articulated screen of its latest counterpart, it continues to appeal more to photographic enthusiasts who value the benefits listed above.[/release] [quote]Beforehand, with my D40, I used the stock 18-55 lens. It was quite good. With the D90, I think it comes with 18-105, would that be a nice upgrade? I have also used a friends D300 with 18-200mm Lens, that was a great lens and eventually, in the future i could think upon upgrading to that. I have recently also become interested in portraiture shots and love shots from things such as 50mm prime lenses. One or two of these would be a nice add to the collection. So basically I would like to get a prime lens. But I'm unsure on which one to get. Like either 50mm, 32mm etc, you get the picture.[/quote] Personally, I haven't tried out an 18-200 lens, but from what I hear it someone loses a little quality because it's built for such massive ranges. they're great if you absolutely can't swap lenses (I've seen articles with people recommending them for rock climbing and such). I don't think having two lenses (18-55 and 55-200) is much of a setback, it's 2 seconds to swap, and you don't have to have that massive bulky lens on it at all times. I got into portraiture recently as well, and actually have been using a 50mm off of a 30 year old Nikon FE2. Works brilliantly- [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/daijitsu/4356365883/[/url] [/quote]Accessories: It would be nice if someone could recommend a good flash that would go with the D90 or D5000. I have no previous experience with one but I can usually adapt to things quickly. Also, Filters, I have a ND-8 filter which I love, a UV/Cir-PL which I love as well, Obviously, I will have to buy new ones if I go the D90 route.[/quote] Personally, I use the Nikon SB-600. it's $225, which is half the cost of the next model up, and it gets the job done. Only problem is, if you wish to use it as a wireless satellite flash, you'll need the bigger more expensive one to act as a master and trigger it. For that money, I decided to just go out and get a studio umbrella, and saved $200. [quote]EDIT: Also, In the next year I will be traveling to New York, Florida, also Las Vegas for CES in 2011. What would be a good lens for trade show sort of things? Also, for the grand canyon and things like City Scapes in NY. Currently, I live in Scotland. I'm pretty lucky as some of the scenery here is spectacular. Would the 18-55 suffer as an all round lens for things in the Highlands or am I looking at a wide angle for Landscapes? Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE] I'd think an 18-55 would do fine for wider landscape images. I'm personally saving up another $500 for a new tamron wide-angle lens, would be really neat for landscapes, but is also practical for the interior shots I need to do here and there for real estate agents. Any more questions, feel free to ask. My verdict, since I'm always doing strange angles and enjoy the video features, would be the D5000. The minor differences between the two cameras isn't enough to really make me think it's a crazy enough update to merit the large gap in price, and the articulated screen is a godsend. [quote=LeYang]Also, how the heck is the D5000 in the OP frigging so expensive, it's less than 700USD (kit), it's also not pro-consumer camera.[/quote] my apologies, the price was for a particular kit. Thanks for the list of SLR ranges, I'll be sure to add it to the OP for a more in-depth review. also, you noted the D40 was being killed off [in place for the 3000], aren't the D60 and D80 on the chopping block as well, with the 5000 taking place for both? [quote] OP might want to split SLRs into it's own selection, there's SLRs cheaper than 600 dollar, and there are P&S that cost over SLRs. Also since SLRs tend to have other requires with lenses and memory cards costs, there's a very, very, big change in price points.[/quote] I was recently thinking of adding an SLR additional section, or at least an 'accessories' addition to each group, but the SLR section would become rather overwhelming. I wanted to keep this relatively simple, but it's slowly evolving into a bigger and bigger thread anyways. I might not be able to get to it for a while, so if you have the time I might ask you if you could write up a small redux. Thanks for all the info, nonetheless!
[QUOTE=frank_g;20243045]You are literally a giant idiot if you care more about the camera than the actual photography[/QUOTE] My opinion: The point of the camera is to be as invisible and intuitive in the process of taking a photo as possible, so if you care about the photography, you must, by extension, care about your equipment.
daijitsu, thanks for your input. What video features do you think you benefit from on the D5000 compared to the D90? Also, Yeah I wouldn't really want to spend more money on the better speedlight. The SB-600 seems good. The screen on the D5000 flips out doesn't it? Do you often find yourself using that feature a lot? One of my main concerns are lenses though. This is obviously depending on which camera I choose. For the prime lenses, which one would be the right one to go for. I'm looking at the nikkor lens range and see things such as 50mm prime, 32mm prime, 25mm prime etc, I'm also beginning to wonder if the D5000 is a good upgrade from the D40? Basically, If i buy the D90, I will use the 18-105 kit lens for a few years then think about buying the 18-200mm but then this leaves me without a decent zoom lens. If i go the D5000 route, I would probably buy two lenses. Cheers in advance. Edit: For what I'm going to be doing, I'm starting to lean towards the D5000. Also another quick question, do you guys shoot RAW or what? Is there an option to shoot in Raw and JPEG? Effectively giving you two photos or is that pointless? Sorry for the questions
[QUOTE=M23;20260217]daijitsu, thanks for your input. What video features do you think you benefit from on the D5000 compared to the D90?[/quote] I'm not exactly sure, but lots of people seem to say it. I'm still trying to figure out how to get it to bend to my will, even with a nice light setup and recording at the non-HD resolution, it constantly auto-corrected the exposure as I was recording this- [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=895026[/url] Sound is sub-par if you're in a loud environment like a concert, but is very well tuned for normal things like people talking and cars whizzing by, but I plan on picking up a real high quality sound recorder if I intend on getting good audio at a concert again. [quote]The screen on the D5000 flips out doesn't it? Do you often find yourself using that feature a lot?[/quote] HELL yes. it's one of the features that made me giddy when I first saw it, and I use it almost every time I'm shooting. holding a camera above a crowd and keeping your target centered is hard to do without it, and when you're faced with odd situations and such where you can't sit right behind the camera, it's nice to flip it out and point it where you need. For instance: [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4277895506_ee429260c3.jpg[/img] there wasn't much room to maneuver in this room, and getting any closer to the girls against the wall caused an odd perspective issue. So, I had the camera back against the light. I had the screen flipped out so I could line up and focus whilst looking at it from the side. [quote]One of my main concerns are lenses though. This is obviously depending on which camera I choose. For the prime lenses, which one would be the right one to go for. I'm looking at the nikkor lens range and see things such as 50mm prime, 32mm prime, 25mm prime etc,[/quote] Well, for most of the portraiture I've done, I've used a 50mm, which as I mentioned I already had from an old camera. Everything else, though, has been from my 18-55/55-200 range lenses. I'd say figure out your personal preferences and decide on which ones to get from there. [quote]I'm also beginning to wonder if the D5000 is a good upgrade from the D40?[/quote] From what I understand, the D40 is being replaced by the D3000, and the D60/80 is being replaced by the D5000, equivalent feature-wise, though they're definitely being upgraded from their predecessors. [quote]Edit: For what I'm going to be doing, I'm starting to lean towards the D5000. Also another quick question, do you guys shoot RAW or what? Is there an option to shoot in Raw and JPEG? Effectively giving you two photos or is that pointless? Sorry for the questions[/QUOTE] I shoot strictly in RAW when doing photoshoots, and RAW/basic JPG when I'm just kind of tooling around town and the like, since I most likely will just take the snapshots for simple uploads, but could possibly strike gold with a shot and want to edit it in RAW. Cheers :buddy:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.