• Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
    2,522 replies, posted
I'm being offered a Canon D30 kit for $30. I'm excited to finally be rid of my ancient(er) Olympus C-2100UZ and Smart Media cards.
[QUOTE=MIPS;37118134]I'm being offered a Canon D30 kit for $30.[/QUOTE] That's 1% of it's original value in y2k. Crazy shit.
Wow I didn't realize canon actually made a D30, I just thought it was 30D with the D in the wrong place. But wow reading the dpreview of that was pretty crazy, we have come a long way since then. Nice to see canon's ambitious roots in the dslr business, the first one to use a CMOS sensor in fact. Though this part in the article I found very interesting [quote]Sub-note: there was a suggestion / question to the manufacturers from our discussion forum: Wouldn't it be possible to make the whole of the mirror semitransparent and replace the AF sensor with a cheap CMOS / CCD unit (say 850 K pixels) which could provide AF information and the ability to have a live preview on the rear LCD?[/quote] Looks like we had creative forum goers back in 2000
Can you guys recommend any f1.8 50mm lens for my 600D? it doesn't have to be Canon.
[QUOTE=GuruLongie;37123635]Can you guys recommend any f1.8 50mm lens for my 600D? it doesn't have to be Canon.[/QUOTE] Canons is really quite excellent optically, as Im sure you know though its a really cheap feeling thing. If you can drop the extra 60 dollars or so, I'd highly suggest the 50 1.8 MK 1.
I have a Canon EOS D30. Still a very nice camera just to use sometimes because I personally really like the output colours of the camera's RAW files. It's slow to use though (only 3 AF points, slow startup time and awefully slow file processing/small image buffer), but considering it's age I take it for granted.
[QUOTE=donhonk;37124003]Canons is really quite excellent optically, as Im sure you know though its a really cheap feeling thing. If you can drop the extra 60 dollars or so, I'd highly suggest the 50 1.8 MK 1.[/QUOTE] I'm having trouble finding a I, how is II? (I might be completely lost in these definitions(!))
The mk1 is the film version of the lens. It has a metal mount and a larger focusing ring, but I wouldn't recommend it simply because the new version of the lens has modern coatings which are more suited for digital photography. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] Actually disregard the coatings, it's the same design since 1990. But I would still go for the cheaper model as they are optically exactly the same.
Well yeah I should clarify, MK 1 is better build quality but more expensive, and MK 2 is the one they currently make, cheaper, but also cheaper feeling. comma,comma.
The big thing for me regarding the mk1 is that all the lenses are all 20+ years old, so much more likely to come into problems. The mk2s, while not modern optically, are newly manufactured and come with a warranty. I would probably flip my opinion if the mk1 was the cheaper lens and say that it's worth it because I shoot on a lot of 80's era lenses, but the likelihood of running into problems is greater than with new lenses.
You make a good point with the warranty and such. I suppose Im just a sucker for having a manual focus ring that isnt on the end of the barrel. Speaking of Legacy lenses, I've been looking for a decent telephoto M42 lens for use on my Canon. Any suggestions?
I'm looking to get into film, and I just bought one of these for $30: [img]http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Files.ashx?link_id=42f48343-09be-e5dd-210d-80db220069e1[/img]
Some local guy is selling a 5D mkii for 1200 (body only) can't decide whether I should do it or not. I really want to save up for the mkiii
It probably has a buttload of acutations or something. You would need to thoroughly check it, because that is really cheap for that camera. And I wouldn't get the mk3 over the 2. For the $2300 difference you are currently looking at you aren't getting much. Maybe 2 stops better ISO (which can be made up for with processing anyways), better AF (biggest difference IMO, mk2 has been criticized for auto focus speed), and 100% viewfinder are the only real photo benefits of the camera. The biggest thing it added was manual audio level and monitoring, which just buy a zoom for $100 and splice audio together. The mark 2 is a killer camera, and I'm sure there would be few times you would clamor for the mark 3 while using it. You could spend the extra money on some absolutely killer glass.
I did some research on the 18-135, it's said to be a killer lens. weather sealing is a major plus especially when paired with the body, and as far as kit style zooms go its among the best. The 35mm f2.4 is another great one though, it's one of pentax's easy choice primes. Nothing bad about it at all
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37133242]It probably has a buttload of acutations or something. You would need to thoroughly check it, because that is really cheap for that camera. And I wouldn't get the mk3 over the 2. For the $2300 difference you are currently looking at you aren't getting much. Maybe 2 stops better ISO (which can be made up for with processing anyways), better AF (biggest difference IMO, mk2 has been criticized for auto focus speed), and 100% viewfinder are the only real photo benefits of the camera. The biggest thing it added was manual audio level and monitoring, which just buy a zoom for $100 and splice audio together. The mark 2 is a killer camera, and I'm sure there would be few times you would clamor for the mark 3 while using it. You could spend the extra money on some absolutely killer glass.[/QUOTE] I'll take this information into consideration. I think I am gonna wait it out and wait for the price to drop even further. The future can only hold much more ideal scenarios.
I mean it's not going to replace a bag of primes, but for a big zoom range like that it's a wonderful performer. Those type of lenses usually surpass 18-55's in every way.
My friend is looking for a camera in the $300 dollar range. Any ideas? I don't know much about little point and shoots anymore, and there aren't too many dslrs that go for $300 with a lens.
Used Sony a330's go for around that with a kit lens. Not a bad camera.
Has anyone bought the Canon 40 f2.8 pancake? Any thoughts on it?
How bad does the 1.6x crop factor mess with wide angle lens? I know there is a EF-S version of wide angle, but I still wonder. Does it make turn into a nifty fifty without the low light performance? (Aperture)
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;37155781]Has anyone bought the Canon 40 f2.8 pancake? Any thoughts on it?[/QUOTE] It's a good lens, no real faults. If the focal length interests you then go for it pretty much. Vignettes a bit on full frame, but overall a very good optical performer if not too quick.
I don't really see lens vignetting as such a bad thing. It looks a lot better than adding vignette in post.
its dead simple to remove in post
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;37158013]I don't really see lens vignetting as such a bad thing. It looks a lot better than adding vignette in post.[/QUOTE] Maybe not bad, but worth pointing out. Kind of shows how good the lens is if that's the main issue. But if you don't need the focal length, the 50mm is probably a better option at half the price, same weight, and stop and a half faster. So if you don't mind losing the wider angle, I'd say it's an overall better purchase.
With the way Photoshop and other programs have evolved, lens vignetting is a non-issue. Photoshop and Lightroom even have presets for most lenses that correct lens distortion and vignetting in a single click.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37161214]Maybe not bad, but worth pointing out. Kind of shows how good the lens is if that's the main issue. But if you don't need the focal length, the 50mm is probably a better option at half the price, same weight, and stop and a half faster. So if you don't mind losing the wider angle, I'd say it's an overall better purchase.[/QUOTE] Good points, but the 40mm has better bokeh, is more constantly sharp across the frame even at 2.8 and is much better built. Still, no idea what I'm going to choose. I was wondering if anyone had some raw pics from either lens?
I have some 40mm pictures for you, but no raws unfortunately. Anyway, i'll still post them here for you as they might still be interesting: [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622444148/"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7622444148_fec5499134_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622444148/"]IMG_9367.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622449274/"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7137/7622449274_bdf9b639e7_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622449274/"]IMG_9381.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622472228/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8007/7622472228_30c71bd038_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622472228/"]IMG_9444.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622479164/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7622479164_437ba0066f_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622479164/"]IMG_9446.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622487750/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8144/7622487750_ecfb8b489c_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7622487750/"]IMG_9451.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7443130712/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8004/7443130712_7d6046d4d7_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7443130712/"]IMG_7970.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr And this last one is taken at f/2.8. Unfortunately the person on the left is slight out of focus, but in my opinion it shows how sharp it can be wide open as you can see looking at the other 2 persons in the picture. [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7501384676/"][IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8024/7501384676_aa76513c2b_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/7501384676/"]IMG_9333.jpg[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/"]Leevmeister[/URL], on Flickr Link to this picture in full size: [url]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8024/7501384676_f4c58e33e0_o.jpg[/url] All other pictures are watchable in 2048 size. I have both the 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8, and I never used the 50mm anymore after buying this lens. As other people already said, it's better built than the 50mm 1.8, the focusing is faster, more silent and the bokeh of this lens is better than the 50mm 1.8.
There's a guy on craigslist who listed a nikon D50 with its kit lens for $100, also said he was willing to negotiate. Supposedly only a scratch on it. I'm wondering if 1) would it be a good first camera? and 2) is this too good to be true? comes with battery and charger. I think I need to go for this [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] ehhh I don't know
frag4life is [I]the man[/I], thanks bud. [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=altern;37174800]There's a guy on craigslist who listed a nikon D50 with its kit lens for $100, also said he was willing to negotiate. Supposedly only a scratch on it. I'm wondering if 1) would it be a good first camera? and 2) is this too good to be true? comes with battery and charger. I think I need to go for this [editline]10th August 2012[/editline] ehhh I don't know[/QUOTE] If it's complete and in good condition it's a steal, and would make an excellent first camera. Try and get pictures of it though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.