Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by CarreraGtRacer, Sep 18, 2007.
"the expert for pro's"
Yeah I just checked the photozone review and it's pretty awful. I had always heard good things about it besides the fact that it has terrible build quality.
You win the thread.
There are maybe a few applications for which one is better suited than the other (Hassleblad for studio portraits, Canon for sports, Nikon for birding, etc.), but really it's a six-to-one-half-dozen-to-the-other proposition (especially when you take Hassleblad out of the equation).
edit: that said, if I hadn't already invested quite a bit in Canon lenses, I'd probably get a Nikon.
To be honest, either cameras pros and cons balance out in the end. Head on down to your local camera store and see which one feels better in your hands and has the more logical control layouts for you. Both of these are probably the most important thing when choosing an entry level DSLR.
Yup. I think the most constantly overlooked feature is a camera's feel. People get too wrapped up in megapixels and incremental differences in noise.
Not to toot my own horn, but I shot with nothing but the kit lens for at least two years and a lot of people enjoyed my stuff. The kit lens isn't so bad that it hinders the photographer's creativity.
People shouldn't be allowed to buy good cameras until they've put 10 rolls of film through a Holga/Pinhole.
I wish I bought a Nikon.
Buying a crap product when people have told you otherwise is stupid though. Its not completely useless but theres no reason to buy it when there are better products around.
He stated hes just going to use the kit lens.
Could all the people who suggested canon please finish this sentence: He should buy the camera with the worst lens because ______
buy the canon and instead of a kit lens, get the 50mm f/1.8 II instead.
N00bs never do it, I suggest it to almost every person I sell a 400d to and they always end up buying the twin lens kit. The tamron 17-50 2.8 is the best n00b friendly option if they don't mind spending a little more.
My buddy has a Tamron and an XTi, ironically. He built it up way too much, thought it was optically super-superior to the 17-40 f4 L, and even though I told him it wasn't really, he still got it and was a little disappointed.
btw do you think getting a 5D now would be a bad idea? I hear there's a replacement coming sometime next year.
The bad thing with the 5d is you need to spend almost 2x as much as the body to get good lenses. I think I would mainly get one if I was planning on doing portraits and weddings with the 85mm 1.2 or something.
The 5dII or whatever will get the 16 mp sensor out of the 1dsII I guess.
The XTi is better than the D40. Body focus motor, better focusing system, more megapixels, not any smaller...It's also considerably more expensive, which makes this a random comparison.
What do you call a Nikon without Grain?
You should go in a shop and see the one you feel more confortable with.
It is not like you'll see any difference in the picture quality. The nikon has a better lens kit but thats all.
Their just #$%#ing entry level DSLR
Don't even talk about those shitty camera
It costed me 18 to make my roll of fuji nps develloped and scanned.
And there only was 2 "good" pictures off the 12.
It was no holga but just some 50s 120 camera called Hexi.
edit : See avatar
you don't even know what you are talking about GTFO
You paid 18 euros to get a roll of film developed and scanned(?), and then complained that a sixth of your pictures came out ok.
Find cheaper places to develop and scan 6*6 negative for less than that.
the XTi is also MUCH more expensive. if you want more megapixels, get the D40X, which is the D40 except w/ a 10MP sensor, and some other minor improvements. the D40 is much better w/ it's default kit, and i've heard this from MANY people, including professional photographers.
When I was at St Andrews, which is supposed to be one of the most expensive places in the UK, I paid 4 or 5 pounds per roll to develop 120 film. And scanning is silly.
This is a good point, but I never thought I would have any lenses but the kit when I got my Rebel too. The beauty of DSLRs is that they show you pretty quickly that that is a retarded mindset. He'll upgrade to a better lens someday, most likely. Until then, the kit lens is more than enough glass to get his feet wet.
That's a pretty bad idea. Great lens, but worthless for what he'll be using it for (automotive) with a 1.6 crop. If he's going the prime route, the 35mm f/2.0 is only $200 and I couldn't recommend it enough.