Posted by TheVicariousVadder MC Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 Lens $300* thoughts?

Yeah.. you get what you pay for (with the exception of Samyang).

The Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 is absolute shit and/or plagued with severe sample variation. Stay away from it, find something better.

If you want a good fish, look for a Nikon 16mm f/3.5 (via adapter, you would need to do this with the Zenitar anyway) or a few of the Sigmas (just watch out for sample variation).

I know I'd be better off just getting a decent DSLR from the start, but I simply haven't got the budget for that kind of equipment. So, until I'm done with college, it looks like I'm gonna be stuck with a point and shoot in the $200-$250 range. I know it's ridiculous to expect anything great within this price range, so I don't, but I need something and I would like to know if any of you have any experience with cheap P&S cameras that were decent in low-light conditions.


edit: changed price range. Damn car, always needing fixin'.

Canon g10 or g11 if you can pay a bit more.

Posted by ch0psuey4290 I know I'd be better off just getting a decent DSLR from the start, but I simply haven't got the budget for that kind of equipment. So, until I'm done with college, it looks like I'm gonna be stuck with a point and shoot in the $200-$250 range. I know it's ridiculous to expect anything great within this price range, so I don't, but I need something and I would like to know if any of you have any experience with cheap P&S cameras that were decent in low-light conditions. edit: changed price range. Damn car, always needing fixin'.

You can get a rebel xt with a kit lens for $250-$300 off ebay.

Even the original digital rebel (300D) + kit lens will produce better results than a cheap PnS camera.

Posted by ch0psuey4290 I know I'd be better off just getting a decent DSLR from the start, but I simply haven't got the budget for that kind of equipment. So, until I'm done with college, it looks like I'm gonna be stuck with a point and shoot in the $200-$250 range. I know it's ridiculous to expect anything great within this price range, so I don't, but I need something and I would like to know if any of you have any experience with cheap P&S cameras that were decent in low-light conditions. edit: changed price range. Damn car, always needing fixin'.

Fuji Finepix S1500.
It's a bridge camera, meaning a point-n-shoot with a more capable lens, and allowing full manual exposure control.
I've been using one (borrowed from a friend) to take all my shots. Take a look at my urban photography + urbex blog to see what you can do with this little gem if you know what you're doing. It really is not about the camera, it's about how well you use it.

The essential drawback to this camera is that it only allows a maximum of 8 seconds of exposure - and at that point, it already begins to show some noticable color banding in the sky.
But if you only plan to shoot in the daytime, or using your own illumination, it is an amazing little camera for its price - provided, of course, that you do your best to get the most out of it. Far, FAR better than even a more expensive P&S.
Brand new, it cost the equivalent of 185 USD. There might even be more capable upgrades from it in your price range, but I'd be wary of the maximum exposure. (A friend of mine has the S1500's bigger brother, an all-around more capable camera, that is limited to FOUR seconds of exposure maximum)


That said, Canon Powershots have the unofficial advantage of the CHDK firmware hack, which is beyond excellent. I would seriously take that into consideration if you are into programming/tech to any degree, because if you are, you will be able to take advantage of the extra features, such as being able to actually program your own camera (motion detection, timelapse recording, custom exposure control etc), and do bracketed exposures on cameras that wouldn't allow it - you can even do DoF bracketing, and using the custom menu, you even get a limited amount of manual focus.


Just my 0.02€.

Posted by TurboZutek High ISO is for wimps; a real man punches himself in the dick. Chris...

1.

ISO 5000 hand held- Why? Just because I can.

Not to advocate high ISO shooting. I agree lower is better. This was just to show it IS still possible to get a pretty useable (even though this one is a bit soft) high iso image.

The "which camera is better" argument can continue for another 4 million posts but what it comes down to is this, to a certain degree anyway.

Get something you can afford and feel comfortable with.

Make it a DSLR - it gives you more options down the track.

Nikon VS Canon - Who gives a toss. You can take good pictures on either and you can get adapters anyway. I know a few religious canon shooters who have purchased the nikkor 14-24mm / 2.8 because the LENS was high quality.

It comes down to the glass more than anything else. The body plays a part but you would be better off getting a mid range body (like a d90 or something similar) and getting good lenses.

Get good lenses, get good lenses, get good lenses. Most of the problems I have seen people having have nothing to do with the body they use, they have come from using shit glass.

Get good lenses.

Shoot to the point that you know it inside out and back to front THEN maybe if you really must, upgrade to a full frame body (with the added costs)

If all that fails, take up chess or something.

Posted by Sledgy 1. ISO 5000 hand held- Why? Just because I can.

You might have missed the sarcasm in my post, but that's a fucking nice pic anyway matey!

Chris...

No no, sarcasm definitely picked up on and appreciated.

Perhaps I should have included "" at the end of my opening statement to include my own lol

Posted by Sledgy Get good lenses, get good lenses, get good lenses. Most of the problems I have seen people having have nothing to do with the body they use, they have come from using shit glass. Get good lenses. If all that fails, take up chess or something.

The glass is most important for a sharp image, and depth of field, but the body is where the other 80% of the image is made. With digital, it is mostly about the sensor. You can put "L" glass on a cheap camera, and it will look good, but could look so much better. I have a $100 Tamron lens that shoots pics with comparable sharpness and color to high end Nikkor and Canon L lenses. I have the 7D, and have used old, scratched film camera lenses on it and still taken amazing pictures. Plus you always have to think about things like FPS and ISO (controlled by the body). If you need rapid shooting, (sometimes a factor in UE photography) or high ISO's not any body will do.

Are you serious about photography!?

My experience has seriously been in stages and my cameras in steps. I started ten years ago with a film vacation camera and now I'm a few hundred dollars away from a 7D. Does that sound too slow for you? When I pull my camera out I am able to set everything to near perfect for the conditions before taking a shot.

If you are using a vacation camera then save up for a DSLR that will allow you to switch from auto settings to manual ones at your leisure. I find the Canon EOS Rebels to be great starters. I'm sure Nikon would be too. This is my favorite site to learn about cameras. make sure to book-mark it because you will want to read it every day...if your "serious".

http://www.dprevie...ews/canoneos1000d/

After that it takes lots of practice. If you are serious about it then one day you will realize that you have outgrown what your camera can do.

Books are good too and I have so many on the subject, but only two of them have been really "good" to me. The Basic Book of Photography (4th edition) by Tom and Michele Grimm has been with me for eight years now and I still reference to this day. (I'm sure there are newer editions with better information)

http://www.amazon....urth/dp/0452278252

The other one is called The Right Picture by Ken Heyman and John Durniak. This book was written by a photographer and an editor in sections. In this way it demonstrates how in the industry these two people will choose which photographs to shoot and which ones will be used.

http://www.amazon....yman/dp/0817457259

As far as lenses are concerned, just save it for later. Learn your camera first because the standard lens for a DSLR of the Nikon/Canon influence will be fine for a long time. Those super kick-ass shots that you can't wait to get will require you to know your numbers and where to set them first. Some good candy to feed the cravings can be found in filters. They are pretty cheap and fun to use.

I hope I could be of some help.

I'm put off by the sigma 30mm for some reason.


How about the Tokina 35mm f/2.8 ?

I've read the tokina focus motor is better than the ugly duckling arc drives but not as good as USM and it's $200 cheaper than the Canon 28mm f/1.8.

Posted by TheVicariousVadder I'm put off by the sigma 30mm for some reason.

Blatantly soft edges and corners? High levels of sample variation? The fact that it's a Sigma? Take your pick...

How about the Tokina 35mm f/2.8? I've read the tokina focus motor is better than the ugly duckling arc drives but not as good as USM and it's $200 cheaper than the Canon 28mm f/1.8.

The Tokina 35mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1, keep in mind) is largely underrated. However, it can also be found under the Pentax label. It's a relatively decent lens.

Posted by Byberrian Fanman Blatantly soft edges and corners? High levels of sample variation? The fact that it's a Sigma? Take your pick... The Tokina 35mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1, keep in mind) is largely underrated. However, it can also be found under the Pentax label. It's a relatively decent lens.

<sub>I believe sample variation is a myth, every lens has some variation but primes and short zooms should have the least, I'd chalk it up the the lens/body not being properly adjusted for one another. If I had the 7D, with microadjust, I might be more inclined to give the sigma 30mm a shot, but I don't feel like sending my camera out to sigma to get them to fix the thing.


The fact that I dropped my 70-210 on little more than carpeted concrete and caused absolutely zero damage to it (it did roll on impact)

The fact that I fell through a boarded up window and damaged the lens mount on my sigma even though it was in a padded case (may not have been properly secured) the zoom isn't quite as smooth and autofocus slightly worse than it was. Optically still perfect.

The fact that the nifty fifty broke into two pieces falling less than three feet onto a linoleum floor. The focus motor now gets stuck whenever it focuses past infinity and needs to be put into mf and turned back to where it should be. (This only happens on my Rebel, my EOS-3 focuses it so fast it doesn't get stuck)</sub>

tl;dr

it's down to the EF 28mm f/1.8 for $475 or tokina 35mm for $275. As far as I can see, there's nothing that suggests canon lens will produce a better image: full frame compatibility and better focusing. The EF 24mm/28mm 2.8 got cut out because of that shitty AFD they use. Canon, it's about time you guys made an EF-S 30mm f/2.8 USM for <500 that's on par with the 60mm.

The tokina 35mm was released the same time as the 11-16mm, and is about the same price (comparatively speaking), not that that guarantees anything (I read it's a pentax/tokina co release and the 11/16 was branded tokina only) but I'd imagine the build and focus quality would be the same.


The AFD/"micromotor usm" sucks.

Tokina focus motor @ 00:25, I can live with that.

Posted by TheVicariousVadder it's down to the EF 28mm f/1.8 for $475 or tokina 35mm for $275.

Too late for deliberation! Just ordered the Tokina! If my paychecks would deposit on Thursday's like most everyone else's it would have been here for Christmas ... have to wait till Monday, oh well.

For a long time I have been a Canon only user, until I tried the sigma 50mm 1.4 on for size. After my Canon 28-135 USM motor went out, I was sold on sigma. I sold nearly all of my Canon lenses and got sigma and Tamron.

Unless you are constantly going to blow your pictures up to 200% and compare the individual pixels, some Sigma EX's are right up there with the "L"'s, and usually much cheaper, and equally as ruggedly built.

Thought I would put this here: http://www.uer.ca/...id=1&catid=1000593

I started a private board for camera talk. Noobs to photography and first time camera buyers are welcome to join and post questions.

I thought maybe it would make things easier if your questions have their own thread and don't get lost in other questions and discussions that go on here.

Also reviews (personal experience not web copy/paste stuff) of lenses, bodies or other gear are welcome there too.

http://www.ddltd.co.uk/ge/DV1.html

Scroll down to the bottom and examine the last feature that this camera has.

PERFECT FOR UER'ERZ!

Chris...

Posted by TurboZutek http://www.ddltd.co.uk/ge/DV1.html Scroll down to the bottom and examine the last feature that this camera has. PERFECT FOR UER'ERZ! Chris...

And it doesnt look too much like Clown Vomit! I wonder if that is an actual picture they took with it, or a "simulated" one....


EDIT
I know that some of these cameras that claim HDR actually do more of a DRI or DRM (Dynamic Range Manipulation Image) by not taking several exposures, but instead doing one, and then saturating it with color,low contrast, and auto brightness. It comes out looking a lot different.

EXCELLENT news, it looks like I might be on my way to getting my first ever DSLR!!!!! FUUCK YEAAAAAH!

I'm pretty sure I'll go for a Canon 500D (refurbished), with the 18-55mm kit lens for starters.

Because I am on an extremely limited budget, and I want a wide lens with a larger aperture - both of these attributes tend to add up to lenses that are worth about as much or more than the 500D itself - I devised the following plan.

I'm going to buy an M42-to-EF-mount adapter, and get myself one of these:



35mm (on an APS-C body this would amount to a nifty-fifty, 56mm) f/2.8, manual focus (and manual aperture setting), all for the equivalent of about 75 USD, adapter included

or

Get an Adaptall2 adapter and this:



28mm (on an APS-C, 44mm), and a somewhat odd maximum aperture of f/2.5, for only a tiny bit more.


I know I'm being a ridiculous cheapskate, but if you know what I've been using so far, you'll see that I tend to try and bring the absolute maximum out of the most inadequate equipment possible. (as BOX once told me on IRC: "You do amazing things with low-end cameras!" <3)

So, instead of being stuck with only the kit zoom and yearning for one of those expensive lenses, I figured it'd be great to sacrifice a bit of convenience in order to get the best optical quality I can out of the little money I've got. Plus, I always use fully manual mode, so I don't care about poor metering at all, and I love the freedom of manual focus.


So what do you guys think?

I also have until Monday to decide on a body. I was eyeing the Olympus E-520 earlier, because it seems to give the most amount of control for the buck, but 90% of my photography is low-light, so I was put off by its smaller sensor.

My vote is get a Pentax of some sort (similar pricing with more features), and enjoy perfect compatability with all manual focus lenses dating all the way back to the Pentax-a mount from 1980. I shoot all manual focus and get my lenses for CHEAP.

Or you could go with nikon, but for pretty much all the cameras around the price range of a used Rebel, you attach any old mf lens that's not a CPU lens, your camera will read "lens not attached." and will not meter at all.


Or get an FD-EF adapter. Canon had some pretty spectacular glass back in the day, but once again you're only going to be able to meter in stop down mode. Nikon and Canon seem to not give that much of a shit about backwards compatibility.