• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

vman said:
Once you have a camera, learn how to travel and you'll be all set. If Ansel Adams was able to take good pictures in 1942, then it is clear that technology is just a variable; and an insignificant one.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was wondering if someone would comment on that.

I was at the SF Public Library last weekend and was checking out the Afghanistan photo exhibit on the top floor. The photos were taken in the 1970s with, of course, 70s technology. I wondered to myself how much better (or worse) the technology is today for a given price range, or how many of the technological advancements of today really apply to me.

If a Canon d40 or a Rebel with a few of the right lenses give me the same options and opportunities for success as, say, a photojournalist from the 70s, then HEY!

Yeah?





EDIT: Here are a few of the images I am referring to:



Blacksmith.jpg


Brassieres.jpg


BadakhshanMarket%20copy%20.jpg


http://www.imagesofafghanistan.com/images/Blacksmith.jpg
http://www.imagesofafghanistan.com/images/Brassieres.jpg
http://www.imagesofafghanistan.com/images/BadakhshanMarket copy .jpg
 
Last edited:
TylerW said:
I'm going to have do agree to disagree with you here, at least voicing from the Canon camp. When you're at the very end of your exposure limit, 2/3 of a stop counts for quite a lot. The 50mm f/1.4 is built a lot more robustly and will likely outlast three or four fantastic plastics, which is enough to justify the price, provided that its a lens you use a lot, which I do. More accurate AF, better optics, and much, much nicer bokeh are all icing on the cake.

Sure, if its not a lens you use much, stick with the cheap one. But is the higher price tag of the f/1.4 worth it? abso-fuckin-lutely.

Just don't get me started on the 50mm f/1.2. Too rich for my blood.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm lying a little bit about the above picture. It's not taken with a Nikon lens at all, but rather with a Pentax Takumar 50/1.4 on an M42 to Nikon adapter. (PS, canon can't do this :p) The lens is literally the size of a walnut, and had a beautiful rich brown coloring to the glass that I'm told was doped with thorium or something back in the fifties when it was made. It's like a permanent warming filter on the lens, and it costs me about 3/4 stop of light compared to clear glass.

And my shutter speed was something like 1/2 second. I can hold dead still when I've got something to brace on (a camp chair, in this picture.) :laughing
 
cycle61 said:
It's not taken with a Nikon lens at all, but rather with a Pentax Takumar 50/1.4 on an M42 to Nikon adapter. (PS, canon can't do this :p)
Click to expand...

Really? I'll have to tell my coworker that he needs to stop shooting with his Pentacon 50mm f/4 adapted to his 5d via an adapter with tilt-shift functionality, since you said it can't be done.
 
TylerW said:
Really? I'll have to tell my coworker that he needs to stop shooting with his Pentacon 50mm f/4 adapted to his 5d via an adapter with tilt-shift functionality, since you said it can't be done.
Click to expand...



Maybe he's saying that the Nikon adapter won't work on the canon. :teeth
 
VeloceMoto said:
Exactly. I was wondering if someone would comment on that.
The photos were taken in the 1970s with, of course, 70s technology. I wondered to myself how much better (or worse) the technology is today for a given price range, or how many of the technological advancements of today really apply to me.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges, my friend.

Those pictures were taken on B&W film which produces highly detailed pictures. Anyone remember the awesomness of Tri-X :teeth
The camera you are looking to buy is a DSLR that takes images on via its CMOS sensor.

However many of these pictures must have been taken using very good optics. Optics make a big difference.
 
TylerW said:
Really? I'll have to tell my coworker that he needs to stop shooting with his Pentacon 50mm f/4 adapted to his 5d via an adapter with tilt-shift functionality, since you said it can't be done.
Click to expand...

Oh. Oops, nevermind. Is it the old Canon lenses you guys can't use? Ancient glass on digital bodies ftw! :banana
 
We can't use the old FD mount glass on modern bodies, at least not without adapters, but I think there are adapters that will let you mound just about anything to anything, provided the cash and the patience to work will fully manual focusing, aperture and metering.
 
Shit, I'm still confused. I'd like to go DSLR for similar reasons to Faz, new baby, want to record the memories. I don't like the look of flash photos on point and shoots, and would like to capture more natural looking pics. What's the best bang for the buck, and what lenses will I need at a minimum?
 
Baptistro said:
Shit, I'm still confused. I'd like to go DSLR for similar reasons to Faz, new baby, want to record the memories. I don't like the look of flash photos on point and shoots, and would like to capture more natural looking pics. What's the best bang for the buck, and what lenses will I need at a minimum?
Click to expand...

John, first, do NOT delay the purchase... buy a SLR as soon as possible. SERIOUSLY. The longer you wait, the more disappointed you will be with yourself for missing the opportunity.

(And frankly, you can't go wrong with a Canon.)
 
m_asim said:
Apples and Oranges, my friend.

Those pictures were taken on B&W film which produces highly detailed pictures. Anyone remember the awesomness of Tri-X :teeth
The camera you are looking to buy is a DSLR that takes images on via its CMOS sensor.

However many of these pictures must have been taken using very good optics. Optics make a big difference.
Click to expand...

Really? Because I was going to say the photos don't look nearly as sharp or detailed as some photos I have seen from a d40 with a $600 lens. What gives. But then, I am a noob.
 
Last edited:
what canon body do you guys recommend? And am I better off buying the kit with the 18-55 mm lens and adding the 50 mm lens, or just getting the body and the 50mm?
 
Baptistro said:
what canon body do you guys recommend? And am I better off buying the kit with the 18-55 mm lens and adding the 50 mm lens, or just getting the body and the 50mm?
Click to expand...



Just go to Costco and buy whatever kit they have on sale there. I believe that they have the Xsi on sale with the 18-55 lens. You can always buy the 50mm lens later.

Like Faz says, just suck it up and go get it today. You will not regret it. Every day that you wait trying to figure out the 'best' camera to get is just another day that you miss out on great shots of the munchkin doing stuff.

I have a Canon Xti with a bunch of lenses. I am one of the people that thinks that you can't go wrong either way with a Canon or Nikon. You can always upgrade later, but you can't go back and take pics of stuff that happened before you got the camera.

edit: By the way, this is the highlight of my portfolio right now. :teeth

n605697482_1385603_7308.jpg
 
Last edited:
i have an XT and it does a fine job, if ur not super serious about the hobby id go with that or a XTi. used they can be had for 300-400. if u wanna get serious and have a great starting point get a 40d canon :) or if u wanna save a lil a xsi.

thats just my opinion though

i never had a kit lens but i did buy the 50mm right away and love it.
 
John, for shooting kids, if you have the money to drop on it I'd highly recommend one of the #0D bodies. (50D, 40D they're robust enough that you can even buy used ones with confidence) They're built more sturdily, and the Auto Focus is a lot faster than the digital rebel bodies. Kids move pretty quick, especially once they begin walking.

I was having a bit of trouble nailing the focus on my step-neice pictured above with my 40D. I think a digital rebel would be lost, but then, the last one I used was a Rebel XT. They may have gotten better.
 
wannabe said:
You can always upgrade later, but you can't go back and take pics of stuff that happened before you got the camera.
Click to expand...

+1

Here is a point and shoot picture of my daughter, with a low quality 75-200 lens that I bought used for about $120 or so.

No touch ups or anything afterwards, other than a crop to 8x10 size. Taken at about 8 am in our patio, the dark background is the bar-b-que cover. :laughing

n561540228_1487116_1622.jpg
 
Figure I want to spend no more than 1k for the entire kit.

Which is the better value?

A fully kitted Nikon D40 and save 30% ($700 for the body and three lenses, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR Lens, 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR Lens, Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens)?

Or a fully kitted Nikon D60 (around 1k for the body and three lenses, # 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Zoom NIKKOR Lens, # 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom NIKKOR Lens, Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens)?

Or a fully kitted Canon XSi (around 1k for the body and three lenses, Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens, Canon EF 75-300mm Lens, Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens)?
 
Bap,
one thing I like about the Canon is that it puts all of the info on the LCD screen itself (see pic below), so you can view the settings right there, instead of looking at the small top side window. Costco's deal looks good to me... actually, if someone would buy my XTi body/kit lens/orig accessories for $500, I would buy the XSi or a 40D from Costco myself. :thumbup


(picture from costco)

331281.jpg
 
I pulled the trigger on the XSi, with all three lenses, the 2GB SD card, a soft lens case, and a GB2400 camera bag for a whopping total of $1,031.84, including tax and shipping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top