forums
new posts
donate
UER Store
events
location db
db map
search
members
faq
terms of service
privacy policy
register
login




 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21-40  
UER Forum > UE Photography > The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread (Viewed 336886 times)
budda 


Location: Cincinnati
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 180 likes


I love it when you call me Big Poppa

 |  |  | Up Here
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 120 on 7/30/2010 3:37 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
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Now if we're talking FOR THE PRICE, a D50 or similar outdated camera would be an excellent jumping-on point to see if you're interested in photography, without investing a small relative fortune on a new entrylevel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I'm not judging the D40x and D5000 as shit because they're outdated or anything like that.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
JaneDoe 


Location: Manhattan
Gender: Female
Total Likes: 37 likes




 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 121 on 7/30/2010 3:44 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by TurboZutek


Get the Canon.


I should go with the Canon? Is there a reason for it's superiority over the Nikon?




cryogenic 


Location: Sydney
Total Likes: 0 likes




 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 122 on 7/30/2010 5:01 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Not sure if this has been posted, but I found it to be pretty spot on...

http://theonlineph...ter-to-george.html




http://www.flickr....os/disinteresting/
Mr. Fuzzy 


Location: GTA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 3 likes


Machine Gun Bunnies!

 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 123 on 7/30/2010 5:25 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by misstinavicious


I should go with the Canon? Is there a reason for it's superiority over the Nikon?


Nobody is complaining about it yet?

You might be able to get a closeout XSi for the price of an XS.




Keep it fuzzy.
\/adder 


Location: DunkarooLand
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 24 likes


I'm the worst of the best but I'm in this race.

 |  |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 124 on 7/30/2010 6:13 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by cryogenic
Not sure if this has been posted, but I found it to be pretty spot on...

http://theonlineph...ter-to-george.html


That's what I'm sayin' with the not upgrading until something breaks dies or I get the money for a 5d.

However I still want a nice compact point and shoot.
"The best camera is the one that's with you" which enables me to keep a camera at hand when lugging a backpack may be suspicious or difficult.

LX3 unless I find something better, which is what I'm asking, is there something better?



[last edit 7/30/2010 6:16 AM by \/adder - edited 1 times]

"No risk, no reward, no fun."
"Go all the way or walk away"
escensi omnis...
TurboZutek 

King Dick


Location: Scotland
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 6 likes


Giant octo-penised rapephant

 |  |  | Yahoo! IM | Urban Exploration in Scotland
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 125 on 7/30/2010 9:13 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
I had a D50 once!!

It was exactly one quarter the camera that the 450d that replaced it is. No DOF preview and bracketing options hidden under a ton of menus was SO annoying... Also the AF wasn't the best in low light (and it couldn't use the built in flash for focus assist because of hobbled firmware).

The kit lens with it, however, was one of the best I've ever had with a camera.

Posted by misstinavicious
I should go with the Canon? Is there a reason for it's superiority over the Nikon?


Yeah, it's better! At least D3000 Vs XS/i anyway.

Chris...



[last edit 7/30/2010 9:19 AM by TurboZutek - edited 1 times]

We all had ostriches. My dad had an ostrich farm! I remember one day someone came in and said the high altitude bombing of Kosovo had been a limited success, so we all went out and celebrated… by killing an ostrich and boiling it in kiwi fruit.
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 on Forum: UER Forum
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 # 127 on 7/31/2010 3:00 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by Ogre Battle

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.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe...oh, I don't know...that the AF-S in everything but the pro (expensive) lenses fucking SUCKS?





budda 


Location: Cincinnati
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 180 likes


I love it when you call me Big Poppa

 |  |  | Up Here
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 128 on 7/31/2010 5:05 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
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.




Awesome Music

Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box? - Nicholas Cage
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 on Forum: UER Forum
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.





Ogre Battle 


Location: Chicago IL
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 5 likes




 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 130 on 7/31/2010 2:04 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by Byberrian Fanman

Did it ever occur to you that maybe...oh, I don't know...that the AF-S in everything but the pro (expensive) lenses fucking SUCKS?



It hasn't, because I don't own any kit lenses. But I sure do see a lot of people using them; can they ALL be bad?





Byberrian Fanman 


Location: Fuck You
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 6 likes




 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 131 on 7/31/2010 5:21 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by Ogre Battle

It hasn't, because I don't own any kit lenses. But I sure do see a lot of people using them; can they ALL be bad?

Can they "ALL" be bad? No. Can "a LOT more than you think" be bad? Absofuckinglutely. Inaccurate and/or slow AF-S doesn't apply to just kit lenses. The new-ish AF-S 50mm f/1.4G has the SLOWEST autofocus of any of Nikon's AF 50mm lenses.. on any camera. The AF-S 24mm f/1.4 isn't very fast, either.. and it's 'pro' and $2200.. otherwise known as expensive as fuck.





JaneDoe 


Location: Manhattan
Gender: Female
Total Likes: 37 likes




 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 132 on 8/1/2010 4:42 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by TurboZutek
I had a D50 once!!

It was exactly one quarter the camera that the 450d that replaced it is. No DOF preview and bracketing options hidden under a ton of menus was SO annoying... Also the AF wasn't the best in low light (and it couldn't use the built in flash for focus assist because of hobbled firmware).

The kit lens with it, however, was one of the best I've ever had with a camera.



Yeah, it's better! At least D3000 Vs XS/i anyway.

Chris...


Cool, thanks!




Lars 


Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 13 likes




 |  |  | AIM Message | See My Picasa Account
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 133 on 8/1/2010 4:56 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
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
NotBatman 


Location: MSP
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 435 likes


Secret Cult Member

 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 134 on 8/3/2010 3:45 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Where is the Official "What lens to buy?" thread, anyway?

I'm currently shooting on a Canon 450D, but I'm still using the aging 18-55mm kit lens from my 300D (purchased in 2003-ish) and I want to upgrade.

I don't want to go any higher than 18mm on the low end, because there are enough instances already where I want a little more than I can catch.

I'm specifically interested in a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($230 new after rebate). (I've found a similarly spec'd Sigma for a comparable price (new) but while I've never had issue with my other Sigmas, my understanding is Tamron is better.)

The price is perfect and the range seems awesome, so I guess I'm paranoid that there's a catch, you know? Anyone have any experience or recommendations? I need to keep it at or below $300 which is limiting, but even at $300 we're entering the range where I'll have to... gloss over some details with my wife.




I'm a "Leave only footprints, take only pornography" kind of guy, myself.
robtastic 


Location: central colorado
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 4 likes


Friends don't let friends HDR

 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 135 on 8/3/2010 3:48 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by NotBatman
Where is the Official "What lens to buy?" thread, anyway?

I'm currently shooting on a Canon 450D, but I'm still using the aging 18-55mm kit lens from my 300D (purchased in 2003-ish) and I want to upgrade.

I don't want to go any higher than 18mm on the low end, because there are enough instances already where I want a little more than I can catch.

I'm specifically interested in a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($230 new after rebate). (I've found a similarly spec'd Sigma for a comparable price (new) but while I've never had issue with my other Sigmas, my understanding is Tamron is better.)

The price is perfect and the range seems awesome, so I guess I'm paranoid that there's a catch, you know? Anyone have any experience or recommendations? I need to keep it at or below $300 which is limiting, but even at $300 we're entering the range where I'll have to... gloss over some details with my wife.


generally from my research i've found that the lenses with a lot of range aren't worth much over the range. they are usually pretty soft.

start a lens thread




My Flickr: http://www.flickr....enericprofilename/
Mr. Fuzzy 


Location: GTA
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 3 likes


Machine Gun Bunnies!

 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 136 on 8/5/2010 12:11 AM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by robtastic


generally from my research i've found that the lenses with a lot of range aren't worth much over the range. they are usually pretty soft.

start a lens thread


That's the compromise with a "Super Zoom" lens. It's more versatile but you loose some quality.




Keep it fuzzy.
Papadupulous 


Location: Burlington, ON
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 137 on 8/16/2010 6:33 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Anything below $900 that's decent? And has night vision?




"Most people think time is a strict progression of chords to effect, when really it's more a big ball of timey wimey... stuff..."
bouncewiggle 


Location: Johnson City, TN
Gender: Female
Total Likes: 20 likes




 |  |  | AIM Message | HijackedMind's MySpace
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 138 on 8/18/2010 3:46 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Posted by Papadupulous
Anything below $900 that's decent? And has night vision?


do you mean a video camera? i don't know of any DSLR that has night vision.




"bouncewiggle, now more entertaining than Jell-O"
Papadupulous 


Location: Burlington, ON
Gender: Male
Total Likes: 0 likes


Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

 |  | 
Re: The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread
< Reply # 139 on 8/18/2010 10:33 PM >
Reply with Quote
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
Not a videocamera. I guess not necessarily night vision, just something that takes good pictures at night. I was looking at a Canon XSI, but I don't know much about them.




"Most people think time is a strict progression of chords to effect, when really it's more a big ball of timey wimey... stuff..."
UER Forum > UE Photography > The Official "What camera to buy?" Thread (Viewed 336886 times)
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21-40  


Add a poll to this thread



This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private.



All content and images copyright 2002-2022 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 62 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 682950972 pages have been generated.