• 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

VeloceMoto said:
Well, even though it sounds as though you have your heart already set on a price range, I will offer you my $0.02.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not set on a price range at all. I'd love to get a 1d mk3 or a d3 for about $50, but I am realistic about prices. I've mentioned these particular bodies because they have a higher burst speed. The D70 is perfectly capable camera. In fact, I think the D40 is capable of producing beautiful images. It's just that at 2.5-3 FPS, you miss some things in sports/action. I think that timing is more about understanding the sport than just holding down the button and lettin it rip, but a faster burst speed gives you things you can't get with a slower burst rate. For example, I have a very nice sequence of shots of my son hitting a dinger in a tournament game. It starts with him in the box, the eyes getting bigger, the load, the bat moving, the tongue sticking out as the bat connects, and the eyes getting even bigger as he realizes it might go. The shots were done by a professional, not me, but the fact remains, that the sequence wouldn't be captured on a 2.5 fps body. As another example, I have a nice sequence captured on a digital rebel (xti I think) where he was reaching over the shoulder for a would-be interception that just falls off his fingertips. Though one of them is a great picture, the sequence misses some things that would have been nice to capture, such as the read, the reaction, the defensive pass interference he committed to get some separation, and then the fingertips. :)

I guess over the last few weeks, I really have come to appreciate the "it's the glass, not the body" mantra I have read many times on other forums. If your budget is $2,000+, I bet you could make a pretty compelling case for buying a cheap/used body and buying a few excellent lenses that match your shooting style.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I'm not looking to get a complete kit today, so the budget question is hard to answer. I'm looking to get a body that has the features I want, then add a few lenses over time; probably a couple of fast primes and an intermediate zoom. I also think it's arguable that that some bodies are better suited to certain things than others. I've used a D40 with nice results, I've used a 30D and a 40D with nice results, but for a few hundred dollars difference, I'd take a 40D over a D40 8 days a week. The bodies just aren't in the same league, and the price difference is small. Do I need 6FPS? No, not really. But I've used it, and I'm spoiled by it.

Thanks for the input. It helps.
 
radvas said:
How do tools like Lightroom and Aperture compare to photoshop or ACR? What are they good and not good at compared to photoshop, ACR, or iPhoto? I tried aperture before version 2.0, and didn't like that I had to put my photos in an Aperture library, I think that's no longer the case though.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for aperture, but the mac shooters I know speak quite highly of it. As for lightroom, it uses the same RAW processing engine as photoshop, ACR, but with a much more refined user interface. While I think Capture One edges out Lightroom just slightly in image quality, Capture One's interface and workflow are appalling, which is where Lightroom really shines. Very easy to organize a large volume of work, apply settings quickly, with very high quality output.
 
Gonna bounce off of a few high points here:

Lightroom = awesome, especially if you're going to be shooting any kind of volume. It's image processing is very good, there is better out there but I don't find it limiting. It truly shines at organization and handling of your entire collection, and I'd be utterly lost without it.

It sounds like you have a good idea as to what you want in a camera body, and I think you're on the right track with the D300 idea. It's a semi-pro body, and has some definite advantages over the D90 for some types of shooting. Sports is definitely one of those areas, where the higher frame rate and the better AF system will be to your advantage.

My suggestion would be to look for a used D200 or D300, you should be able to pick one up fairly cheaply. D200 should be around $750-800 and a D300 should be maybe $1100-$1200 in good condition.

Edit: 40d vs D40 is definitely not a fair comparison. The Canon 40d is in the same ballpark with the Nikon D200/D300. I wouldn't compare an Xti to my D700 and expect too much either :laughing

Add a lens or two and you're on your way!
 
Last edited:
cycle61 said:
Edit: 40d vs D40 is definitely not a fair comparison. The Canon 40d is in the same ballpark with the Nikon D200/D300. I wouldn't compare an Xti to my D700 and expect too much either :laughing
Click to expand...

I know. :teeth
I was really trying to say to VeloceMoto's point that both can produce great pictures, but they are in different leagues. And of course that the 40D seems a great bargain considering the modest price of them now. $830 new, a hundred or two less used. I was actually trying to show how different they are for a marginal difference in price, not at all trying to suggest that they were similar.

Thanks (and thanks TylerW) for the comments about lightroom. I think I'll give it a look.
 
VeloceMotos comment about being "wholly disappointed" with the quality of P&S cameras reminded me of something else. My first camera was a kodak instamatic 110 when I was about 8 or 9 years old. :laughing I'm astounded at the quality of my P&S. It's totally impressive what that thing can do and still comfortable fit in my pocket. I've got a 4GB SD card in it, and I think it can take 1000 pix before it gets full. I take it everywhere I go. :thumbup

I know your point is that one can easily bang against the limitations of a P&S, but it's hard not to be impressed by the technology and what it is capable of compared to where I started with photography.
 
FWIW: Canon lenses are easier to come by and are generally cheaper.
 
Ritz said:
FWIW: Canon lenses are easier to come by and are generally cheaper.
Click to expand...

Do you mean on the used market? new, or both?

I'm kinda thinking that if I go with the 40D, the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8, that would give me excellent coverage. The only thing that would be a bummer is that apparently the 17-55 is for crop sensor cameras only, so it wouldn't be useful if I upgrade to a full size sensor camera later on. There is a similar 24-70 f2.8L, but I'm not sure the 24-70 would be as useful a range on a crop sensor camera as the 17-55. eh, I'd probably rent both first to see what I like better before I buy anyhow.
 
radvas said:
Do you mean on the used market? new, or both?

I'm kinda thinking that if I go with the 40D, the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8, that would give me excellent coverage. The only thing that would be a bummer is that apparently the 17-55 is for crop sensor cameras only, so it wouldn't be useful if I upgrade to a full size sensor camera later on. There is a similar 24-70 f2.8L, but I'm not sure the 24-70 would be as useful a range on a crop sensor camera as the 17-55. eh, I'd probably rent both first to see what I like better before I buy anyhow.
Click to expand...

As an alternative to the EF-S 17-55mm lens, you could try the EF 17-40mm F4 L lens. You'd get L-glass quality at a lower price than the EF-S lens, and wouldn't have to worry about not being able to use that lens on a full-frame camera. However, you do give up Image Stabilization, 15mm of range, and one F-stop.
 
Can someone please clue me in as to what makes a macro lens different than another lens?

Is it the focal length? The f-stop? Neither? Both?

Confusing matters further, I have also noticed there are filters or some kind of add-on dealios that let you shoot in the macro style.
 
Minimum focal distance is what makes macro lenses the hot hotness. Ideally, a macro lens should be able to render an object with a 1:1 magnification ratio with relation to the sensor - or rather, since a sensor on a Canon consumer dSLR is about as tall as a penny, a macro lens should be able to fill the image frame with a penny in sharp focus.
 
TylerW said:
Minimum focal distance is what makes macro lenses the hot hotness. Ideally, a macro lens should be able to render an object with a 1:1 magnification ratio with relation to the sensor - or rather, since a sensor on a Canon consumer dSLR is about as tall as a penny, a macro lens should be able to fill the image frame with a penny in sharp focus.
Click to expand...

All the above = macro lens can focus on an abject that's really, really close to the front of the lens. Like a few inches.
 
The 24mm macro lens will be able to focus on an object about an inch in front of the lens. A regular 24mm will not be able to focus as closely.
 
VeloceMoto said:
but for example, why is a 24mm f/2.8 lens a "MACRO" lens when another 24mm f/2.8 is just a normal lens.
Click to expand...


Bear in mind, lots of lenses (especially third party lenses) will claim to be macro lenses. They aren't, they just have a smaller-than-usual close focusing distance. if you care about macrophotography, do your homework.
 
Thanks guys. What about those macro filters?

And while I'm on it, what do you all think about those Gary Fong light diffusers? The results look amazing!

I was looking at a $100 on-camera flash unit, but maybe all I need is this little $20 thing, then down the road get a real flash like an SB-400/600/800.

2eowvx3.gif


Sure seems like it would work. The results don't look as good as, say, the bigger LightSphere unit with a real flash unit.

Thoughts?
 
VeloceMoto said:
Thanks guys. What about those macro filters?

And while I'm on it, what do you all think about those Gary Fong light diffusers? The results look amazing!

I was looking at a $100 on-camera flash unit, but maybe all I need is this little $20 thing, then down the road get a real flash like an SB-400/600/800.

2eowvx3.gif


Sure seems like it would work. The results don't look as good as, say, the bigger LightSphere unit with a real flash unit. I recommend buying a external flash

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The only problem with the pop up flash is that you get a shadow cast on your pictures. If you have a big lens or a lens hood the flash doesn't sit high enough to clear the lens and will cast a shadow on your picture. I've tried almost every diffuser/bounce card out there. You will find certain ones work better than others depending on the situation. The lightspheres work good when you have a ceiling to bounce the light off of. They come clear and frosted. I highly recommend buying a external flash
 
pitslave said:
The only problem with the pop up flash is that you get a shadow cast on your pictures. If you have a big lens or a lens hood the flash doesn't sit high enough to clear the lens and will cast a shadow on your picture. I've tried almost every diffuser/bounce card out there. You will find certain ones work better than others depending on the situation. The lightspheres work good when you have a ceiling to bounce the light off of. They come clear and frosted. I highly recommend buying a external flash
Click to expand...

What do you think of something like this? Maybe this is all I really need on a tight budget. It does bounce and has a diffuser built in.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/531665081.htm

Quantaray by Sunpak XLF-50 Flash for Nikon
im2bgn.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top