The "Which camera is right for me?" thread V2 - Get a used Rebel
1,690 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Blitzkrieg94;32141357]I've got a D7000 which I love and cherish, but being in Kansas with a DSLR is pretty hard as people tend to notice and question you a lot more than they would in other places. I want to be able to take a camera into a lower-key assignment (classrooms, meetings, ceremonies, student life events, etc) and get quality pictures while not being noticed as much as I would with my DSLR. What's a good EVIL camera that has a lot of manual control options?[/QUOTE]
i dont think i would buy any model currently available, personally i would wait for something with a viewfinder, maybe a larger sensor than m4/3 as well, its a shame the x100 doesnt have interchangeable lens or it would be a much better camera than it is
[QUOTE=waylander;32144438]i dont think i would buy any model currently available, personally i would wait for something with a viewfinder, maybe a larger sensor than m4/3 as well, its a shame the x100 doesnt have interchangeable lens or it would be a much better camera than it is[/QUOTE]
You can just get a hotshoe viewfinder, one of my friends has one for his Sigma DP1 (compact with an APS-C sensor and fovean goodness)
[QUOTE=B-hazard;32144020]No it's more that to get a 50mm equivalent you have to use something like 20mm usually producing barrel distortion and you can't get as wide as a 10-20 on APS-C.
Also you may have noticed shallow dof can play an important role, e.g. Bopies work.[/QUOTE]
You do realize the 4/3 lenses are optimized to avoid what you mentioned, right? Also come on I hate using Digital Rev as a source but watch their video on the newest 12mm (?); to notice some distortion you have to pixelpeep to the point where it's irrelevant, considering the equivalent focal lenght.
And for the shallow DoF, if you really are obsessed with using it on every photo you can still easily have it if you know what you're doing.
Seriously this argument is silly.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;32144020]No it's more that to get a 50mm equivalent you have to use something like 20mm usually producing barrel distortion and you can't get as wide as a 10-20 on APS-C.
Also you may have noticed shallow dof can play an important role, e.g. Bopies work.[/QUOTE]
4/3 sensors can get plenty wide, for example : [url]http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1332[/url]
And while a 4/3 sensor can't get as shallow DOF as an APS-C sensor, it can still get shallow DOF.
[QUOTE=waylander;32144438]i dont think i would buy any model currently available, personally i would wait for something with a viewfinder, maybe a larger sensor than m4/3 as well, its a shame the x100 doesnt have interchangeable lens or it would be a much better camera than it is[/QUOTE]
The Olympus Pen cameras have an accessory port that you can attach an electronic viewfinder to (Olympus VF-2 or VF-3). I have the VF-2 and it's honestly as good, and in a lot of cases better than an optical viewfinder. It's big, bright, fullframe, no lag, and no matter how hard you look you can't see the pixels.
[QUOTE=ep9832;32152267]4/3 sensors can get plenty wide, for example : [url]http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1332[/url]
And while a 4/3 sensor can't get as shallow DOF as an APS-C sensor, it can still get shallow DOF.
The Olympus Pen cameras have an accessory port that you can attach an electronic viewfinder to (Olympus VF-2 or VF-3). I have the VF-2 and it's honestly as good, and in a lot of cases better than an optical viewfinder. It's big, bright, fullframe, no lag, and no matter how hard you look you can't see the pixels.[/QUOTE]
I'm wary of electric viewfinders, but haven't seen anything that wasn't strapped to a craptacular bridge camera. I'd actually like to see the quality of these new ones
I use a Nikon D90 and it is great. The price is reasonable and the build quality is far superior to the d3100, 550D, 600D, etc.... The video capture isn't the best, but I am not using the camera for video capture. D90 all the way.
The D90 is great, performs better than the D2 line in terms of image quality.
Yup, the D90 is great. It was a great investment for me. I rather get a good piece of glass :)
Buying my D7000 on the 15th (payday) and should hopefully have some sweet pictures of Okinawa shorty after.
[QUOTE=bopie;32137745]It's commonly accepted that something becomes 'vintage' after 20 years.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't it go Modern - Old - Retro - Vintage - Very old - Antique? That's what I thought anyway.
So retro is like 10-40 years old, vintage is like 40-70 years old, then it's just old until it's around 200 years old. Then it becomes antique.
I guess that's not the american definition though, you guys tear down houses when they're 40 years old because they're old and apparently something from the second world war is considered "antique". What?
I think the definition of 'antique' is 'older than 20 years' around here, at least. We've got houses that are well over 100 years old in my area, not sure where you heard the tearing down thing. Building codes do update, though, and if something is really out of code and would cost too much to update with the risk of it being too run down to maintain for long anyways, yeah I'd see why some things get torn down
"old" is subjective, but currently I'd say it's seen as something that's been obsoleted by newer tech (which is like, 6 months at a time these days)
"retro" is old hipster terminology, no? It's things that are so old that it's uncool to being cool again or something crazy. Late 60's cartoons loved early 50's style because it was retro, [i]especially[/i] the jetsons. I think "retro" still sticks a lot to the 50's and 60's styles these days.
"vintage" used to be "the original item of something very old", like a civil war artifact or a gambling machine from the 20's, now it's the modern equivalent of retro for hipsters where it's cool because it's uncool or disused.
"very old" is subjective again, my girlfriend's laptop is "very old" but runs Windows Vista, that bag of chips is "very old" because it was left open for a week, the cameras in my collection are "very old" because some are from 1910 to 1950, this analogy is getting "very old" because I have too many examples in it, and the pyramids are "very old" because, fuck, they are VERY old
[QUOTE=daijitsu;32164887]I think the definition of 'antique' is 'older than 20 years' around here, at least. We've got houses that are well over 100 years old in my area, not sure where you heard the tearing down thing. Building codes do update, though, and if something is really out of code and would cost too much to update with the risk of it being too run down to maintain for long anyways, yeah I'd see why some things get torn down
"old" is subjective, but currently I'd say it's seen as something that's been obsoleted by newer tech (which is like, 6 months at a time these days)
"retro" is old hipster terminology, no? It's things that are so old that it's uncool to being cool again or something crazy. Late 60's cartoons loved early 50's style because it was retro, [i]especially[/i] the jetsons. I think "retro" still sticks a lot to the 50's and 60's styles these days.
"vintage" used to be "the original item of something very old", like a civil war artifact or a gambling machine from the 20's, now it's the modern equivalent of retro for hipsters where it's cool because it's uncool or disused.
"very old" is subjective again, my girlfriend's laptop is "very old" but runs Windows Vista, that bag of chips is "very old" because it was left open for a week, the cameras in my collection are "very old" because some are from 1910 to 1950, this analogy is getting "very old" because I have too many examples in it, and the pyramids are "very old" because, fuck, they are VERY old[/QUOTE]
yeah I think it completely depends on the item - a 50 year old computer would be called old but a 50 year old house is just meh
Fast and simple question.
For a system camera. Which brand should I go with?
What I know about cameras (not much) so is it canon or nikon to go with or am I wrong?
Not planing to buy one. Just asking.
[editline]7th September 2011[/editline]
What I can see so is canon cheaper...
[QUOTE=notgoodatpc;32166672]Fast and simple question.
For a system camera. Which brand should I go with?
What I know about cameras (not much) so is it canon or nikon to go with or am I wrong?
Not planing to buy one. Just asking.
[editline]7th September 2011[/editline]
What I can see so is canon cheaper...[/QUOTE]
Getting either a Canon or a Nikon will leave you with a great camera, they just have subtle differences which are up to preference. Such as the way they mount and which way you rotate it to zoom, and little features of the camera. Mostly however they are the same, and you will get awesome images out of either provided you know a little bit about what you are doing
[QUOTE=notgoodatpc;32166672]Fast and simple question.
For a system camera. Which brand should I go with?
What I know about cameras (not much) so is it canon or nikon to go with or am I wrong?
Not planing to buy one. Just asking.
[editline]7th September 2011[/editline]
What I can see so is canon cheaper...[/QUOTE]
I agree with the user above me. Both are great cameras, but of course some swear that one is better then the other. Honestly, for average/casual photography both are great. Almost equal, minus the few little differences. Personally I prefer Nikon, but cannon is great also. Just keep in mind that when you buy a camera you are pretty much stuck with that company for the rest of your life. Unless you are willing to spend lots of money on buying lenses for the other camera body.
Keep in mind there are more than Canon and Nikon too. Sony is pretty big now, and Pentax is looking pretty damn good.
[QUOTE=waylander;32144438]i dont think i would buy any model currently available, personally i would wait for something with a viewfinder, maybe a larger sensor than m4/3 as well, its a shame the x100 doesnt have interchangeable lens or it would be a much better camera than it is[/QUOTE]
So like... the Sony NEX line; specifically the 5N or 7.
Pentax is great value but it uses AA batteries. I use a Canon because I prefer the feel
[QUOTE=FalseLogic;32171541]Keep in mind there are more than Canon and Nikon too. Sony is pretty big now, and Pentax is looking pretty damn good.[/QUOTE]
If I heard correctly, Pentax needs saving badly. They aren't doing as well as they used to. Especially compared to Nikon and Canon. I will agree with you on Sony. It's a good choice, but still not as good as Nikon or Canon.
[QUOTE=GraniteMouse;32177075]So like... the Sony NEX line; specifically the 5N or 7.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if the 5n comes with the electronic viewfinder, i just know the attachment is different from the current 5. But the electronic viewfinder on that is the same as the nex 7, an OLED screen that is higher pixel density than the actual camera screen.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;32177140]Pentax is great value but it uses AA batteries. I use a Canon because I prefer the feel[/QUOTE]
Only the k-x uses AA batteries. Anything above the k-x uses battery packs. The k-r can use AA batteries as well as a battery pack.
[QUOTE=Cp.Legacy;32181493]If I heard correctly, Pentax needs saving badly. They aren't doing as well as they used to. Especially compared to Nikon and Canon. I will agree with you on Sony. It's a good choice, but still not as good as Nikon or Canon.[/QUOTE]
They don't seem to be doing well in recognition, but their cameras are top quality.
My dad has a Pentax camera, I'm not sure the exact model but it takes really nice pictures.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;32181722]I'm not sure if the 5n comes with the electronic viewfinder, i just know the attachment is different from the current 5. But the electronic viewfinder on that is the same as the nex 7, an OLED screen that is higher pixel density than the actual camera screen.[/QUOTE]
no, it doesn't come with the OLED, but the attachment is the same one as the NEX-7, and I think the A77.
I would totally go for the 5N or 7 if I wasn't planning on the A65. the only reason the a65 is above it is because I can't afford Leica glass (and won't for like... 10 years) and the E-mount lineup is still too small to be worth it.
I've only been at photography for a very short time, using a borrowed camera and lenses, and now I'm looking into buying a DSLR of my own. I'm looking at Canon, mostly because the vast majority of my experience is on a 450d. I'm looking at the 550d and the 600d. Is there an appreciable difference between the two? Should I just get a 550d and put the $100 savings toward a lense?
I'll need a lense no matter which one i choose, since I never really got much use out of the 18-55mm, which is bundled with the 600d. I mostly use a Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS right now, but I have to return my borrowed 450d and the lenses. What lens would be similar to and/or better than what I currently use? I'm looking at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
I would say get the unbundled 550, I think the only real difference between the two is the flippy-outy screen, and you're used to not having those so you might as well just keep living without it. I would say move up to the 70-300 (if you find yourself using the 200mm focal length) and buy the 50mm f1.8.
I dunno, I like shooting wide, so I'd say your next investment should be a mid-range zoom. But if you don't like the 18-55 much, then that's probably not what you need. maybe start with what I already mentioned and see if you can find a used 18-55 once you can afford it. even if you don't care for it, it's an important zoom range to have as an option.
I went to a local store and the 550d was $660 and the 70-300 was also around $660
:saddowns:
Well, for the 550, that's pretty much the price. I just realized I looked at the price for the Tamron 70-300 (which is like... $120). Honestly though, the Tamron has been known for being great for the price, and you would have a decent kit for >$1000.
[QUOTE=iFail;32208479]I've only been at photography for a very short time, using a borrowed camera and lenses, and now I'm looking into buying a DSLR of my own. I'm looking at Canon, mostly because the vast majority of my experience is on a 450d. I'm looking at the 550d and the 600d. Is there an appreciable difference between the two? Should I just get a 550d and put the $100 savings toward a lense?
I'll need a lense no matter which one i choose, since I never really got much use out of the 18-55mm, which is bundled with the 600d. I mostly use a Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS right now, but I have to return my borrowed 450d and the lenses. What lens would be similar to and/or better than what I currently use? I'm looking at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.[/QUOTE]
Get the Tamron 70-300 SP VC USD instead of the Canon. It is better optically and mechanically, better IS and AF.
or a 55-250, they're beast
Out of curiosity, how big are your SD cards guys? I feel my 4gb isn't much because I've started to shoot in RAW format.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.