|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
budda
Location: Cincinnati Gender: Male Total Likes: 181 likes
I love it when you call me Big Poppa
| | | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread < Reply # 120 on 7/30/2010 3:37 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Whootsinator
Alright now you're mixing stories. First you said the D3000 and D5000 are "both shit". Now you're saying that the D50, that is MORE obsolete than the 'shitty' D3000, is 'still one hell of a camera'. I would think that if you believed the D3000 and D5000 are both shit, then you wouldn't even want to touch a D50.
Now if we're talking FOR THE PRICE, a D50 or similar outdated camera would be an excellent jumping-on point to see if you're interested in photography, without investing a small relative fortune on a new entrylevel camera. But saying two new cameras are shit then coming back and saying an even more obsolete camera is 'one hell of a camera' is, well... Shit.
edit - Format tweak and grammar.
| I'm not judging the D40x and D5000 as shit because they're outdated or anything like that. I'm judging them as shit because I've used them all and they are indeed shit. Awful autofocus, shitty pentamirror viewfinders, and a user interface that can best be described as mediocre. The D40x's auto color balance can't seem to get it right, The D5000 has the added bonus of the screen appearing sideways for no reason. Also with the attached Sb-900 speedlite, the auto exposure has no idea what the fuck it's doing. I assume the D3000 is shit because i've heard nothing but bad things about it, and it's a tier under the already established as shit D5000, so i can't assume it's better. I'm judging the D50 as one hell of a camera because i've used it and it is indeed a genuinely impressive camera. Awesomely fast Autofocus, a better viewinder. I could give a fuck that it's only 6.1 megapixels. I don't print bigger than 8x10 right now. It's not worth having 12.2 megapixels if you're using a piece of garbage that frustrates you at every turn. I don't judge gear based on the cutting edge. That's why 90% percent of my lenses were made in the early 80s. That and i'm cheap.
[last edit 7/30/2010 3:47 AM by budda - edited 1 times]
| Awesome Music Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box? - Nicholas Cage |
| Ogre Battle
Location: Chicago IL Gender: Male Total Likes: 5 likes
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread < Reply # 126 on 7/31/2010 2:41 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Byberrian Fanman They're "shit" because they don't have a built-in AF motor. The D50 has one, therefore it is not "shit."
| I don't know why such a big deal is made about the lack of a built-in focus motor in certain models. Remember, those models are bought primarily by beginners who are getting a kit lens along with the camera, and for the most part are unlikely to have a collection of non-AFS lenses already. All the kit lenses and almost all of the higher-end Nikkor lenses have been AFS for quite some time now. I'm not saying the D3000 and D5000 aren't "shit" (actually I've never used either of them), but I feel their REAL shortcomings are the lack of actual usable features (the aforementioned depth-of-field preview, auto-bracketing, etc), not the lack of a built-in focusing motor. I'm also not comfortable with their fold-out monitors (I'd break that thing off by accident the first time I took it on an intensive explore!). Your mileage may vary. If you've got a lot of "regular" AF and AF-D lenses, it might be a deal breaker for you.
| |
| Byberrian Fanman
Location: Fuck You Gender: Male Total Likes: 6 likes
| | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread < Reply # 129 on 7/31/2010 5:21 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by budda Yes it does. There are several times a day at my green screen zoo photo job where the family i'm shooting is nothing but a total blur and the D5000 swears it's in focus. I always try 5-8 times to refocus before eventually giving up. Seriously i'm all for a stripped down amateur camera but compared to arebel these cameras are a bad joke. |
Yes, this is why so many people bitch and complain about the motor-less bodies. The AF motor is in the lens and if the lens is shit, a bad sample or both, your AF is shit (or.. shittier, depending on the body). With the older screw-drive AF lenses, the camera is driving the AF and is usually always more accurate. But of course, some sample variation can also affect the AF performance of screw-drive lenses, but AF errors are more common with lenses with built-in AF motors. With screw-drive lenses, the AF speed varies between the pro and lower end bodies. However, it's almost ALWAYS faster than the AF-S lenses, which have the same AF speed no matter what body you use.
| |
| Lars
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Gender: Male Total Likes: 13 likes
| | | | | Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread < Reply # 133 on 8/1/2010 4:56 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | I guess I'll add my experience here: I first had a crappy, digital point and shoot that I got for free. It sucked, but I got some decent stuff from it, mostly thanks to great locations. I soon discovered that flashes are useless, and determined to never use one again.I discovered the whole point a flashlight at it while exposing method to highlight my subject. Thing is that it only took 3s max exposures, had no zoom, and had no manual control. So I bought a Canon S3 for $175. It had a ton of features, and could run hacked firmware for even more, like focus bracketing which even SLRs don't have. Thing is that the sensor was still a tiny point and shoot sensor, so it sucked at low light: It had bad noise at ISO200, and horrific noise at ISO400. I had to use a tripod for everything, so I couldn't get in many shots. However, it shot video, had a 12x zoom, live view, image stabilization, histogram, shutter speeds of up to 1/50,000 with flash sync, 1/90,000 without, and could do awesome macro shots. Again, it sucked at low light, and since that is all I do, I needed a bigger sensor...
So I got an SLR. I'm poor and cheap, so I did a lot of hunting around for the best to buy for cheap. I went with the Canon 300D, cost me $180 with the kit lens. I wouldn't have minded spending ~$300 on a 10D or one of the newer rebels, but they offered no real from what I read: More MP, and that's basically it. I read that the 10D had a prism instead of a mirror, but was told that there was no real difference. Now though, I'm thinking it has one of those nifty focusing helpers in it like my dad's old Pentax cameras, I DO want that. The sensor is about 20x bigger then that of the S3, and it shows: Exposures that took 5 minutes take 30s. Five second tripod shots are now point and shoot. This is also thanks to a faster lens, but the sensor is a big part of it. I can now shoot at ISO 400 and it looks great. A firmware hack allows ISO3200 and some other stuff, but I don't really use it. There is no video, no live view, no image stabilization (didn't seem to make a difference though), much less automatic modes, the autofocus does not seem as good in low light, but it takes much better pictures. Sure I'd really like video, and the light meter is not as good as live view, I have to switch lenses all the time, but I like it more. Currently, I'm thinking of getting an EF 50mm lens for it and using a wide adapter. I've not tried out external flashes for it so far, maybe they can redeem themselves.
[last edit 8/1/2010 5:23 PM by Lars - edited 1 times]
| Canon 500D | Canon 18-55mm | Rikenon 55mm 1.4 | Sigma 20mm 1.8 |
| |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 202 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739320918 pages have been generated.
|
|