Choosing a camera... - General

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;29700295]yeah, but it's a damn big part of it. what else is, just so we can all know?[/QUOTE] Dynamic range, contrast, moire patterns, colour balance, etc. Dynamic range is a big one, it's good to be able to fix a botched pic that you wouldn't get a second shot at taking. Like I was able to pull a lot of detail out of 100% white in ACR in the sky in these examples. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/G2VGk.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/DWRLH.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/AqRRV.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/vHeWa.jpg[/img_thumb]

That 40d is going for a great price, I think the OP should get it and a 50 1.8. [url]http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-digital-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-40d-9/[/url]

[QUOTE=B-hazard;29700914]That 40d is going for a great price, I think the OP should get it and a 50 1.8. [url]http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-digital-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-40d-9/[/url][/QUOTE] It's a good camera, but I'd say get an entry level zoom rather than the 50mm f/1.8 while getting to grips with photography, so you can see what different focal length handle like. After that, save for a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, if you decide photography is def your thing. This'll stop you being tied down to 50mm, and will let you explore wider angles for landscapes, architecture, etc, and you'll still have 50mm for portraits and such.

A 17-50 2.8 could used for both landscapes and portraits but it's far more expensive than a 50 1.8, I'm looking at paying £250 for one.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;29700450]Dynamic range, contrast, moire patterns, colour balance, etc. Dynamic range is a big one, it's good to be able to fix a botched pic that you wouldn't get a second shot at taking. Like I was able to pull a lot of detail out of 100% white in ACR in the sky in these examples. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/G2VGk.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/DWRLH.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/AqRRV.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/vHeWa.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Aww man it's like when a magician tells you his secrets. I love your landscapes and it always makes me feel like you live in this amazing place.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;29701555]Aww man it's like when a magician tells you his secrets. I love your landscapes and it always makes me feel like you live in this amazing place.[/QUOTE] I have lots of magic tricks, don't worry <3

Do you use lightroom or photoshop to edit your landscapes? [editline]8th May 2011[/editline] I'm shit at post editing.

ACR then Photoshop.

I must say, his landscapes are brilliant, what lens?

I think he uses a Sigma 10-20mm? Or was that Pickwickian?

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;29703181]I must say, his landscapes are brilliant, what lens?[/QUOTE] Sigma 10-20mm. It's not the sharpest of lenses, but that doesn't really matter, especially since if you use it for landscapes, you stop it down to f/9 or so, and can sharpen further in photoshop, but this is made up for in sheer wideness and flare performance.

Woo I was right.

yeah, i'm thinking of getting a decent wide-mid for gig work

It's slow, meant for landscapes, so you'd probably have to use it in conjunction with a powerful flash.

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;29704034]yeah, i'm thinking of getting a decent wide-mid for gig work[/QUOTE] I think a 17-50 2.8 would be best suited for that.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;29697301]It's true, the in camera image processor removes them, so in the RAW image file there's none, without any cost to image quality, so you don't need to worry if your lens has CA. The D300, D300s, D3, D3s, D3000, D3100, D5000, D5100, D90, D7000 and D700 have this.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I think I'm gonna listen to Roll_Program on this one for the fact that my D5000 will be here tomorrow and the fact that he is probably one of the best photographers on the forum

hes trying to say something that all modern cameras have is Nikon unique. Join the canon legion. I trust bopie, because he is one of the best on here to.

[QUOTE=The Un-Men;29698543]Why the fuck would anyone recomend a d3000 to another human being? That goes beyond cruelty, and if it being known for being Nikon's worst DSLR wasn't bad enough, then you realize you can get much better cameras for the same price. Get a d40, a d50, a d60, a d200 or a Pentax k-x, k100, k10d, or a Sony A200, or Canon 400d or 450d. All those cameras fit in your budget and with some of them you can even afford an extra lens, while being much better bodies in nearly every aspect.[/QUOTE] Best post so far.

Far from it really, this thread got a bit ugly because people starting getting wet over what brand is better. The Un-Men, well I'm quite used to my D7000 now, but my D3000 was great. Worse DSLR ever? U ARE ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT MAD

[QUOTE=The Un-Men;29698543]Why the fuck would anyone recomend a d3000 to another human being? That goes beyond cruelty, and if it being known for being Nikon's worst DSLR wasn't bad enough, then you realize you can get much better cameras for the same price. Get a d40, a d50, a d60, a d200 or a Pentax k-x, k100, k10d, or a Sony A200, or Canon 400d or 450d. All those cameras fit in your budget and with some of them you can even afford an extra lens, while being much better bodies in nearly every aspect.[/QUOTE] 1000D as well, sony A380/320 is also about this price. yes, i recommended a sony. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] but i recommend the canon more, for the flexability in lenses etc [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] same reason why i recommend the nikon range to

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;29715250] yes, i recommended a sony. [/QUOTE] I actually spitted milk over my keyboard.

[QUOTE=MisterM;29714874]Far from it really, this thread got a bit ugly because people starting getting wet over what brand is better. The Un-Men, well I'm quite used to my D7000 now, but my D3000 was great. Worse DSLR ever? U ARE ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT MAD[/QUOTE] Hahaha, I was going to do a google search for the worst DLSR to find some example of a really shitty unknown one, and the first result was a d3000.

Roll, I know there's color fringe reduction in the systems, but even then I've gotten bad fringing once or twice with the D7000 and the kit 18-105. Granted, it was at f/3.5 and 18mm and the fringing was around a bright white spot (worst-case scenario), but it was still noticeable. [QUOTE=The Un-Men;29698543]Why the fuck would anyone recomend a d3000 to another human being? That goes beyond cruelty, and if it being known for being Nikon's worst DSLR wasn't bad enough, then you realize you can get much better cameras for the same price. Get a d40, a d50, a d60, a d200 or a Pentax k-x, k100, k10d, or a Sony A200, or Canon 400d or 450d. All those cameras fit in your budget and with some of them you can even afford an extra lens, while being much better bodies in nearly every aspect.[/QUOTE] I thought you were batshit insane til I googled it, [url=http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm]but even then the article I found was exceedingly whiny.[/url] I know it isn't a professional camera, but I know people who've had it and honestly think that the only people that could truly bitch about it are the ones who already know what they're doing. It's super-entry level, get over it.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;29725449]Roll, I know there's color fringe reduction in the systems, but even then I've gotten bad fringing once or twice with the D7000 and the kit 18-105. Granted, it was at f/3.5 and 18mm and the fringing was around a bright white spot (worst-case scenario), but it was still noticeable. I thought you were batshit insane til I googled it, [url=http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm]but even then the article I found was exceedingly whiny.[/url] I know it isn't a professional camera, but I know people who've had it and honestly think that the only people that could truly bitch about it are the ones who already know what they're doing. It's super-entry level, get over it.[/QUOTE] He says he supports his family on that website. It's a horribly designed website, why would anyone try to support a family on it?

For the extensive reviews and information, now matter how much communities in the web agree he's a bit of a bullshitter at times? He's got a very positive review on the D7000 which I can agree with though. "The D7000 is Nikon's most advanced camera at any price. The fact that it sells for $1,200 make it a no-brainer, which is why it's sold out. The D7000 is Nikon's best DSLR ever." HATERS GONNA HATE So, The Un-Men, what did the D3000 ever do to you?