The "Which camera is right for me?" thread V2 - Get a used Rebel
1,690 replies, posted
so i looked up stuff about that Nikon mini camera
It's pretty shit, the image sensor is SMALLER than a micro 4/3rds, and the lenses are still expensive as balls.
[url]http://www.indystar.com/usatoday/article/50490880[/url]
why Nikon
I read about those EVIL cameras Nikon just put out on Reddit. They honestly look disappointing as hell, the 2.7x crop is ridiculous.
they are trying to make the lenses smaller with similar focal lengths. Which I guess [I]is[/I] a problem with EVIL cameras such as my nex, where the lenses are practically normal size. But Panasonic solved this issue by making a lens like point and shoots have that changes focal lengths by expanding and such.
But lens size has really never been an issue to me. If i'm going somewhere that i need portability I take my 16mm and just walk. Otherwise I take my 50mm Canon FD and that's pretty small and I still get great shots.
[QUOTE=bopie;32350578]The craziest feature is the 45 point AF system that has a mode which will focus on what you're looking at by tracking eye movement. [/QUOTE]
WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH, i want that on my camera now.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Roswell34;32411478]no, guy, it's a stills camera with some fancy video stuff.
2.7x crop, 10mm = 27mm equiv etc[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/B3Kce.png[/img]
this too
[img]http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nikon_mirrorless.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;29887720]
Nikon D3000, D5000 (D40 is being killed off in retail market)
[/QUOTE]
I have a D40. You mean they're not selling them anymore or WAY too many people are getting them?
The D40 has been replaced so they aren't really being sold anymore. Afaik nikon stopped production of it
Lo' gents of the photography forum, i need a camera.
I've always been interested in taking the highest quality pictures i can and whenever i take a picture of anything i take multiples, taking pictures in different light, angles, zooms and such of the like always with either my cellphone camera or a point and shoot camera i got in 2006.
I Know next to nothing about cameras and I really just want a camera that can take very nice, very crisp shots and has a good zoom feature to it. I'm not sure if i should just buy a higher end point and shoot camera or if i should go up a notch into the mid range level. I tend to always toy around with cameras when im in electronic stores and the mid range levels always catch my fancy, the picture quality is always amazing and the zoom/magnification/ depth of the pictures i take in the store alone look very nice, clean, and sharp. I want that. So i'm leaning more towards the mid range level. I wouldn't take this hobby past anything than just casual photo taking.
I love to see small details in things and i want that in a camera. I've become a quality whore in almost everything which is why i take so many shots of just one thing hoping that on my cellphone's 5mp camera will somehow capture a magic jem of a clear photo.
So there are two things i'm asking here:
1. should i get a mid range camera, from my experience of them in such basic places as stores i love the feel and the pictures i get of my feet turn out glorious and i love the high def aspect. Or should i just get a higher end point and shoot.
2. which one of them should i get? Assuming the price ranges in the op are still valid: If it's a point and click you think i should be getting then price isn't an issue if it's 200 or lower.
If the mid range, then i don't want to pay up to $500 for just a casual thing. I don't really have a problem of paying more than $300 though, just not $500.
[quote=Mysteryman]I wouldn't take this hobby past anything than just casual photo taking.[/quote]
Go with the high-end point and shoot. Lugging around a DSLR (mid-range, as you call it) if all you want is casual photos is not worth the hassle and cost. If you want to take your photography to the next level as an actual hobby and pursue the artistic merits etc. then a DSLR is the way to go, but it looks like you don't need that and furthermore don't want to pay that ($600 is a typical minimum budget for a DSLR.)
That was my main conflict, thanks for clearing that up.
Moving on, WOULD anyone here have any suggestions for a higher end point and shoot?
[QUOTE=NielsGade;32415957]Canon 600D vs Canon 60D, is the price worth it? Main use is filming.[/QUOTE]
I don't know for filming but for photos, 60D. I don't know if I am correct but 550D for filming? Someone correct me if I'm wrong
@MysteryMan: Canon S95 or the newer S100 are pretty highly recommended. You could also look into "Mirrorless" cameras, which are kind of like point and shoots in that they don't have a viewfinder, but they typically have a much larger image sensor (higher quality images) and interchangeable lenses.
[QUOTE=Beafman;32414238]Currently have the 500D, but I am upgrading since I feel limited by the bad quality of pictures at ISO 400 and the crop sensor, that and I am beginning to taking money for pictures.
Will be buying the 5D mark II kit with the 24-105mm L lens, adding the 70-200mm lens later on.[/QUOTE]
You would be better off with a 24-70 and 70-200.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;32422144]You would be better off with a 24-70 and 70-200.[/QUOTE]
Now it may sound like a stupid statement, but what makes 24-70mm 2.8 a good lens, other than the 2.8?
wider than your mums cunt on a full frame
so sharp you can cut your writs with it when you get your bank statement
24mm isn't thaaat wide.
i just love saying that phrase
My sisters passed down her Kodak EasyShare Z195 I have no clue about cameras except more megapixels = better quality, any one tell me if this is a nice entry level camera or so and what it would be capable of as I still need to buy a memory card and batteries yet.
[QUOTE=Beafman;32426298]Now it may sound like a stupid statement, but what makes 24-70mm 2.8 a good lens, other than the 2.8?[/QUOTE]
I'll be the one to give you a serious answer.
1. With the 105, you have to rely on the IS for low-light, which can mean blurring for movement in low-light situations. The 2.8 will let in twice as much as the 4.0, that means a 1/30 shutter speed could have been 1/60. A shot you had to take at ISO 1600 with the 24-105, could have been 800 with the 24-70, and so on.
2. The 70 gets a pretty good boost AF performance, whereas the 105 does not. Again, the 24-70 is going to have twice as much light to work with.
3. You mentioned you plan on getting the 70-200. This negates the extra length you would get from the 24-105.
4. The 2.8 will obviously be much sharper at f/4 (stopped down) than the 24-105 at f/4 (wide open). The 2.8 will have shallower DOF [i]options[/i] and naturally produce a better bokeh. There is also less distortion on the 70 at 24mm than the 105 at 24mm - the 70 doesn't have to 'zoom out as far away' from it's longest length. (70mm vs 105mm)
5. While not a 'hard fact', you hear a lot more people in general leaning towards the 24-70 2.8 than the 105. Our resident event photographer Jaanus swears by his (and his 70-200). A lot of reviews will say the 70 should have been the kit lens, or the 70 'is made for the 5d', 'ultimate walk around lens' and other praises like that.
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flem;32427469]My sisters passed down her Kodak EasyShare Z195 I have no clue about cameras except [b]more megapixels = better quality[/b], any one tell me if this is a nice entry level camera or so and what it would be capable of as I still need to buy a memory card and batteries yet.[/QUOTE]
I'll clear this one up for you before you get chewed out. [url=http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm]Give this a good read.[/url]
[QUOTE=bopie;32427537]I'll be the one to give you a serious answer.
1. With the 105, you have to rely on the IS for low-light, which can mean blurring for movement in low-light situations. The 2.8 will let in twice as much as the 4.0, that means a 1/30 shutter speed could have been 1/60. A shot you had to take at ISO 1600 with the 24-105, could have been 800 with the 24-70, and so on.
2. The 70 gets a pretty good boost AF performance, whereas the 105 does not. Again, the 24-70 is going to have twice as much light to work with.
3. You mentioned you plan on getting the 70-200. This negates the extra length you would get from the 24-105.
4. The 2.8 will obviously be much sharper at f/4 (stopped down) than the 24-105 at f/4 (wide open). The 2.8 will have shallower DOF [i]options[/i] and naturally produce a better bokeh. There is also less distortion on the 70 at 24mm than the 105 at 24mm - the 70 doesn't have to 'zoom out as far away' from it's longest length. (70mm vs 105mm)
5. While not a 'hard fact', you hear a lot more people in general leaning towards the 24-70 2.8 than the 105. Our resident event photographer Jaanus swears by his (and his 70-200). A lot of reviews will say the 70 should have been the kit lens, or the 70 'is made for the 5d', 'ultimate walk around lens' and other praises like that.
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
I'll clear this one up for you before you get chewed out. [url=http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm]Give this a good read.[/url][/QUOTE]
Shows how much I know :( Thanks!
Does anyone here own a Nikon D7000?
And if so, what are your personal opinions? And could you show some pictures you've taken?
I don't own it but I know that most people seem to consider it the best DX* Nikon out there, some even say better than the D300s, though that's a professional body and may have a few superior features. As for image quality etc. the D300s and D7000 are supposedly on par. There are several users on here who will swear by the image quality, build, and feature set of the D7000. If I were to upgrade at this very moment, that's where I'd be going.
*DX means that the image sensor in it is what they call APS-C, the standard for typical DSLRs. It's not the same size as 35mm film (cameras with which Nikon calls FX and others call Full-Frame) but the image sensor is still much larger than any point-and-shoot.
Dai owns a D7k
[QUOTE=booster;32429905]Does anyone here own a Nikon D7000?
And if so, what are your personal opinions? And could you show some pictures you've taken?[/QUOTE]I do, its friggin amazing. My Flickr has a lot of photos I've taken with it, mostly using the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a few with the Nikon 50 1.8. I can't really say anything bad about it, its a brilliant camera and a lot of people say its the best DX camera Nikon have made. High ISO is great, very usable at 6400 (I got that mixed up with 64,000 the other day, maybe in the D8000!)
[QUOTE=MasterG;32430914]Hi, i'm looking for a normal camera in the £100 - £150 price range (not a great big DSLR or anything like that). I have absolutely no clue about what makes a good camera or not. All I want to make sure it has is a decent zoom, decent resolution and lithium-ion Rechargeable batteries.
Anyone got any ideas?[/QUOTE]
What do you want in decent resolution?
Will you be printing them out or just showing them off on a computer/facebook? If the latter, then resolution barely matters.
[QUOTE=Skyhawk;32420780]@MysteryMan: Canon S95 or the newer S100 are pretty highly recommended. You could also look into "Mirrorless" cameras, which are kind of like point and shoots in that they don't have a viewfinder, but they typically have a much larger image sensor (higher quality images) and interchangeable lenses.[/QUOTE]
Much appreciated.
Is it gonna be fair in photography this year when I have a 600D and everyone else has a shitty point and shoot?
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MasterG;32430914]Hi, i'm looking for a normal camera in the £100 - £150 price range (not a great big DSLR or anything like that). I have absolutely no clue about what makes a good camera or not. All I want to make sure it has is a decent zoom, decent resolution and lithium-ion Rechargeable batteries.
Anyone got any ideas?[/QUOTE]
Sony do good point and shoots, so do Canon and Panasonic.
[QUOTE=booster;32429905]Does anyone here own a Nikon D7000?
And if so, what are your personal opinions? And could you show some pictures you've taken?[/QUOTE]
I do.
It's a great camera. You can take [i]almost[/i] as far as you can with a professional body while still retaining a few easy to access auto settings. It's therefore a good camera to own if you're still feeling a little unsure about settings etc. as you can incrementally stop using some automatic options in space for a more manual control as you become more confident.
It handles beautifully in low light with a high iso (Take this shot taken at 1600!):
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5987349969/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6003/5987349969_d2e0e95302_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5987349969/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr
Image quality is lovely + it will fit and meter with most older nikon lenses.
Only thing that gets me is that it isn't a full frame, but hey, it takes photos - and nice ones at that.
How well does the time lapse function work on the D7000?
And does it use up alot of battery?
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9038221/amzn.png[/img]
Best £740 I've ever spent. The blurays aren't included in that because they're not mine.
I laughed at the book.
[editline]23rd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Legend286;32432211]Is it gonna be fair in photography this year when I have a 600D and everyone else has a shitty point and shoot?
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
Sony do good point and shoots, so do Canon and Panasonic.[/QUOTE]
If you earned it yes. But you might get snide comments from jealous people in your class saying that your photos are only good because of your camera or something.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.