• 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.

PHOTOGRAPHY - The official Camera-setup Thread

slr camera suggestions...

im shopping for one. my budget is around 800 to 1300 max. Any suggestions out there? and also what lense's' do you guys reccomend if i like night time pictures as well as some action pix.?
 
if you're interested in digital slr's,try calumet,they have certain models for rent.
good luck....
 
That's a decent amount of money to spend on buying into a dSLR, but on that budget you're likely still better off saving money on the body to spend on lenses. That way, its easy to upgrade the body later on when your needs increase, but you keep all the same lenses.

With the new Canon Digital Rebel XTi, the Rebel XT will likely come down in price. Already you can buy that for around 6-700 with the kit lens (f/3.5-5.6 17-55mm) perhaps cheaper now that the XTi is out. That should take some decent night pictures, and its fairly wide angle.

For sports, look for a second hand Canon 70-200 f/4L telephoto lens. If you're shooting in bright sun most of the time, the f/4 won't be a limitation, and it is a fantastic lens, and is my primary sports workhorse. All the shots in my sig were taken using that lens, some coupled with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter. Secondhand, the 70-200mm f/4L will probably run you around $500.
 
yep w/ any SLR, the lenses are where you want to spend the $ on. and boy will you spend $$!

except me cause i borrow lenses from time to time. :shhh

my next purchase will most likely the the 28-105 for a walking around lens. i find i don't shoot much in wide angle and it's hard to get more candid shots when you're in someone's face.

i may get a cheapie tele for some of the pit-side candid photos. i like joe's (com3) candid shots but it's even more difficult to shoot candid's @ the track than in a enclosed area where people are packed in.
 
Any of the entry-level DSLRs (e.g. Digital Rebel XT) + a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 prime (i.e. non-zoom) will get you in at the under-$1000 mark.

Learning not to rely on a zoom will improve your compositional skills. Of course sometimes a zoom is absolutely necessary. But too many people use it as a crutch.

I've got 2 lenses -- a 50/1.4, a 17-40/4, as well as a 70-200 I borrow on occasion. Not shittin ya, the 50 is on the camera 80% of the time. I love it that much. In fact I may end up selling the 17-40 so I can buy more primes.
 
I have a EF 28-200mm 3.5-5.6 lens I want to sell if you decide on a Canon body.
 
Yes.

2719475-2604339-28-200mm.jpg
 
com3 said:
hrm... i've heard that the 1.4 isn't worth theextra bling. i've got a 50 f/1.8, and it does pretty darn good. what's your thoughts?

this was taken 2 nights ago with the 50 1.8.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of picking up this lense as I'm about through with my 2nd 50mm 1.8. First one and second sucked in so much dust and I got tired of post processing every shot to remove dust spots. Don't get me wrong it is an excellent lens but since I was contemplating getting a third 50/1.8 (total $240) I figure fork out the extra $$ and get the 1.4 as it is better sealed and built better. You can notice the difference if you have both side by side. Can't complain about getting an extra stop too.

The 1.8 is my most used lense. I have this lense on 95% of the time on my camera.
 
i'm thinkin' these primes will suffice for most of the shots i plan on doing till i can afford a 70-200 f/(4 or 2.8) for any future motorsports shots if i ever plan on going that route.

28mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8 (already own)
85mm f/1.8

are there any zooms that are good in low light conditions? i haven't found any.
 
MackeyStingray said:
i'm thinkin' these primes will suffice for most of the shots i plan on doing till i can afford a 70-200 f/(4 or 2.8) for any future motorsports shots if i ever plan on going that route.

28mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8 (already own)
85mm f/1.8

are there any zooms that are good in low light conditions? i haven't found any.
Click to expand...

24-70 f/2.8 is really good... Standard lens for many shooters.

IMG_5415.JPG
 
the whole 50 1.4 vs. 1.8 has been debated to death.

The fact is... the 1.4 has more iris blades.. the biggest difference is in the bokeh. The 1.4 is much more creamy and when you see light artifacts on the bokeh, the 1.4 is much nicer..

Also is the build quality. The 1.8 is a cheaply made lens, with plastic mount and no USM motor - but to the 1.8's credit, the 1.4's motor is not 'true' USM.

I had an '87 built MK1 1.8 with metal mount, but it was considered somewhat rare and image quality was on par with the MK2 lens.
 
bokeh = areas in the picture that is *not* in focus.

bokeh.jpg
 
The camera doesn't really matter. Just about any DSLR is capable of taking very good pics, but you certainly can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. I use Canon for no good reason in particular, other than I have a bit of history with the brand. I think Canon might have a larger selection of very good lenses to choose from.

I have a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS that I am very happy with. It allows me look like I know what I'm doing. The image stabilization is worth its weight in gold; most of my pics shot with that lens come out very well.

On the other hand 24mm on a 1.6x crop is not very wide. I bought a Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-5.6 as well, and even though I have a bit lower success percentage with that lens, I use it about 65% of the time, just due to the amount of information it can see.

My one piece of advice: shoot in full manual mode as often as possible. It forces you to learn how the camera works, and you will eventually be able to identify why things go wrong (when they do) instead of just shrugging your shoulders and deleting. As a result, things will go wrong less often.

I have some pics here if anyone wants to take a look.
 
stan23 said:
I hate to rehash on this subject, but a 1.6 crop _does_not_ mean you're getting 'free' zoom. I see a lot of newbs buy into this hype.

A crop is just that.. A crop. A 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens in 35mm format. It's just with a smaller sensor size, you're getting a crop of the lenses full potential use. (which is really good if you shoot with cheap glass)
Click to expand...

That statement is true in most ways...but not this one: when you crop a photo in Photoshop, you not only reduce the the scope of the scene, you reduce the number of pixels. When you take into account the "crop" of a small sensor, you reduce the scope of the scene, but the number of pixels (the size of the image) remains the same. In other words, a 100% image shot with an 8MP small-sensor camera will be more "zoomed in" than a 100% image shot with an 8MP full-frame-sensor camera, even though the actual image will be the same size.

Now, will the more "zoomed-in" small sensor image actually resolve more detail than the full-frame image? Maybe, maybe not; it depends on the lens and the sensor...but in theory it should.
 
I would like to get the 24-70mm 2.8L but the cost is preventing me from purchasing soon (almost there though). In the meantime I've been reading/looking at the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX Asph. DG DF and it looks to be a good lense at a little less than 1/3 of the 24-70 2.8L by Canon.

So far half the people are complaining about AF issues and issues with softness wide open and the other half are extremely happy. Of course, those that initially got the Sigma were extremely happy when they switch to the Canon 2.8L and those who initially went to the Canon first don't have any complaints. :p

<sigh>

This hobby is just as expensive (if not more) as motorcycles. :laughing
 
Rambeezi said:
I would like to get the 24-70mm 2.8L but the cost is preventing me from purchasing soon (almost there though). In the meantime I've been reading/looking at the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX Asph. DG DF and it looks to be a good lense at a little less than 1/3 of the 24-70 2.8L by Canon.

So far half the people are complaining about AF issues and issues with softness wide open and the other half are extremely happy. Of course, those that initially got the Sigma were extremely happy when they switch to the Canon 2.8L and those who initially went to the Canon first don't have any complaints. :p

<sigh>

This hobby is just as expensive (if not more) as motorcycles. :laughing
Click to expand...

When I stopped shooting professionally, I sold a lens to pay for my first bike.

200 f/1.8L

It bought me an '01 SV650 for $3600!
 
Rambeezi said:
I would like to get the 24-70mm 2.8L but the cost is preventing me from purchasing soon (almost there though). In the meantime I've been reading/looking at the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX Asph. DG DF and it looks to be a good lense at a little less than 1/3 of the 24-70 2.8L by Canon.

So far half the people are complaining about AF issues and issues with softness wide open and the other half are extremely happy. Of course, those that initially got the Sigma were extremely happy when they switch to the Canon 2.8L and those who initially went to the Canon first don't have any complaints. :p

<sigh>

This hobby is just as expensive (if not more) as motorcycles. :laughing
Click to expand...

I owned a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for a few days. It was very soft at wide apertures compared to my 18-55mm kit lens so I promptly returned it. What good is a 2.8 if it cannot be used at that aperture? It was actually so bad that I assume it was defective. It left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, so I replaced it with a Canon 24-105 f/4L IS. It was night-and-day sharper than the Sigma, though many people seem to be able to produce perfectly sharp images with the Sigma. It seems like many sum up Sigma by saying "they're fine if you get a good one."

I can actually say the same about Canon though. For reasons beyond my control, I had to exchange my Canon 24-105 for a different example of the same model, and that was was soft at anything below f/8 or so. I now have another example of the same lens, with which I'm very happy.

You could buy a Sigma and try it out. If you buy from a reputable and local source (like Wolf/Ritz), you can return it if you're not happy.
 
that's what i always hear about sigmas. spotty quality. good if you get a good 1 but it's a crap shoot whether you get it.
 
Did more reading and I'm now definitely going to get the Canon 24-70 2.8L. I heard the same about Sigmas regarding getting a good sample is like a crap shoot. But then again I've heard similar stories about Canon (but not necessarily the L series). If all works well for me the only zooms I'll own will be the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS. Everything else will be primes since after borrowing some of a friend's primes I think I've started to become a prime snob......with exception to the above mentioned zoom lens. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top