|
|
Posted by Byberrian Fanman Fixed. The only..and I mean, ONLY..way the 17-85mm IS is better than the 18-55mm IS kit lens is build quality. The 17-85mm is only slightly less of a dog than the original 18-55mm non-IS kit lens.
|
oh shit. http://www.pbase.c...ns_comparison_1785
"No risk, no reward, no fun." "Go all the way or walk away" escensi omnis... | |
Center sharpness is ok, but the corners are rather mediocre. This lens also exhibits a heinous amount of barrel distortion at the wide end. The 18-55 IS is sharper (if you get a good sample), plain and simple.
| |
Posted by TheVicariousVadder Every EF/EF-S Canon lens with autofocus will focus on the rebel. Only some Nikkor lenses will autofocus with a D300.
|
A minor point, but I think you meant D3000; I'm not aware of any autofocus lenses that won't autofocus with a D300 (except most likely the ones made for the ancient and obscure F3AF).
| |
Alright well the nikon d3100 kit I'm looking at comes with a 18-55mm VR lense from what I'm seeing. All the things iv seen say that it's an extremely awesome very sharp lense for being a kit lense and the whole kit it 600$
| |
Posted by Vexx Alright well the nikon d3100 kit I'm looking at comes with a 18-55mm VR lense from what I'm seeing. All the things iv seen say that it's an extremely awesome very sharp lense for being a kit lense and the whole kit it 600$
|
I had the 18-55mm VR with my D60 and I thought it was a damn fine little lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob666/ | |
Actually, THIS is a cannon:
Posted by Byberrian Fanman The D3000 SUCKS, stay far away from it. If you're going to go the Nikon route, go for the D3100 instead. |
I recommended the D3100 to a friend of mine who's just starting out with photography stuff.
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus | |
Ha my bad. Thats what happens when im on lunch break and it 12:59 and i gotta get back to work. I end up screwing up spelling all all sorts of stuff I meant Canon of course
[last edit 3/26/2011 6:27 AM by Vexx - edited 1 times]
| |
I'm considering either a Pentax k200d or k20d (weather sealing is a must for me, but I can't afford a k7). Price is not much of a concern, and I know the k20d is a higher-end model, but I feel it might be more camera than I'll ever use. Here's an idea of what/how I'll be shooting: nature/UE almost exclusively shooting RAW almost exclusively rarely printing above 8x10 lots of tripod shots/long exposures camera subjected to rough/damp conditions constantly moving around My main concerns are durability, battery longevity, low-light performance, RAW performance, and portability. I don't particularly care for live-view, focus speed, or in-camera JPEG processing features. I've heard good things about the k200d's RAW and low-light performance, and I have no problems using nimh AA's. I'm not sure if I can afford to pass up all the additional features of the k20d, though- both cameras are 3 years old and their prices are very similar. I've found moderately used k20d bodies for significantly less than gently used k200d bodies. If any Pentaxians are about, I'd appreciate some input. Would I miss anything by choosing the k200d over the k20d, even though the price is not really a concern?
| |
Graduation and my birthday are coming up soon and I may be looking into buying a camera. I know little to nothing about cameras, and have no idea of my price range. What are the pros cons of DLSRs and P&Ss? What is a good entry level DSLR? Is there anything to look out for when buying a used DSLR, or is it stupid to even think of buying a used DSLR online? Lots of general nooby questions.
Less breaking, more entering -- *tells cop we're taking pictures* "OF WUUUUT?!" | |
Posted by Cullivan I'm considering either a Pentax k200d or k20d (weather sealing is a must for me, but I can't afford a k7). Price is not much of a concern, and I know the k20d is a higher-end model, but I feel it might be more camera than I'll ever use. Here's an idea of what/how I'll be shooting: nature/UE almost exclusively shooting RAW almost exclusively rarely printing above 8x10 lots of tripod shots/long exposures camera subjected to rough/damp conditions constantly moving around My main concerns are durability, battery longevity, low-light performance, RAW performance, and portability. I don't particularly care for live-view, focus speed, or in-camera JPEG processing features. I've heard good things about the k200d's RAW and low-light performance, and I have no problems using nimh AA's. I'm not sure if I can afford to pass up all the additional features of the k20d, though- both cameras are 3 years old and their prices are very similar. I've found moderately used k20d bodies for significantly less than gently used k200d bodies. If any Pentaxians are about, I'd appreciate some input. Would I miss anything by choosing the k200d over the k20d, even though the price is not really a concern?
|
get the k20 - ive been shooting with one since it came out and have never once have a problem with it - the weather sealing is perfect for UE and you can auto bracket up to 5 shots - pentax glass isnt the best for low light situations but they are tanks and ive been a loyal pentaxian for about 20+ years now - you wont be disappointed!
pro-abortion, anti-christ | |
bought my self a brand new camera yesterday A Nikon D7000 Can't wait to try it on my next exploration I also have the possibility to take video HD, cool!
[last edit 5/24/2011 9:49 PM by Nikkor - edited 1 times]
« Une image vaut mieux que mille mots » | |
Posted by NiiCKx3 Graduation and my birthday are coming up soon and I may be looking into buying a camera. I know little to nothing about cameras, and have no idea of my price range. What are the pros cons of DLSRs and P&Ss? What is a good entry level DSLR? Is there anything to look out for when buying a used DSLR, or is it stupid to even think of buying a used DSLR online? Lots of general nooby questions.
| There are some really good point and shoots out there, like (although I am generally not a fan of the brand, it's an amazing camera) the Fujifilm X100, but at that money you are looking at the same pricetag as a DSLR. Main downside of a P&S is obviously the inability to use additional lenses... which, when you get serious you will find yourself wanting, having outgrown a fixed lens setup. But, that really depends on your approach to urbex and how focused on photography you are. They are generally more compact, which you may prefer. Downside of an SLR is the extra space it takes up - particularly when carrying extra lenses, and the greater ongoing cost, that's about it really. A good entry level DSLR, IMO, would be a Canon 500 or 550D, or a Nikon D3100 or D5100. The kit lenses are fine to start with, but a low f-stop prime (ie: 50mm f1.2/f1.8) and a wide-angle (ie: 10-22mm, 10-20mm, or 16-35mm) will help balance out your kit. I've never purchased anything second hand, as I like warranties... and can't really trust how people have treated their gear. I've seen cameras still operate fine with over 300,000 clicks, so I'd really just ask for recent image samples and note any defects in them.
| |
Canon Rebel XS VS. Canon Rebel XTi VS. Nikon D3000?
http://www.flickr....rescueme1060/sets/ | |
Posted by rescueme1060 Canon Rebel XS VS. Canon Rebel XTi VS. Nikon D3000? |
Do not get the D3000. A better one to get would be the D3100. Get that or the XTi.
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus | |
Posted by Shawn W. Do not get the D3000. A better one to get would be the D3100. Get that or the XTi.
|
Refurbished XS kit, $399.
"No risk, no reward, no fun." "Go all the way or walk away" escensi omnis... | |
Bought the XS today from a local Mom and Pop camera shop, very excited to get out and learn how to use it.
http://www.flickr....rescueme1060/sets/ | |
Just thought i would add my 2 cents, but i just bought the Nikon D200 for $400, for its age it works great, the sensor is nice, it produces nice crisp images, i like it a lot. so for someone looking for a sturdy (the body is all metal) camera that can do a lot, the D200 is the way to go.
With the bashy bashy http://www.flickr....elics_photography/ | |
Posted by urbexkeith Just thought i would add my 2 cents, but i just bought the Nikon D200 for $400, for its age it works great, the sensor is nice, it produces nice crisp images, i like it a lot. so for someone looking for a sturdy (the body is all metal) camera that can do a lot, the D200 is the way to go. |
The D80 is better.
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus | |
Posted by Shawn W. The D80 is better.
|
I considered the D80, but i needed something that wasn't plastic, that last plastic camera i had (a D50) had so many cracks and chips in it from being taken in small areas and just generally being beat up.
With the bashy bashy http://www.flickr....elics_photography/ | |
Posted by urbexkeith
I considered the D80, but i needed something that wasn't plastic, that last plastic camera i had (a D50) had so many cracks and chips in it from being taken in small areas and just generally being beat up.
|
+1 Those magnesium alloy bodies can take a licking. I had a D200 once and I dropped that thing on more than one occasion. D90? Broke on the first fall. I would think durability and weather sealing would be a bit of a priority for UE.
[last edit 7/6/2011 9:53 PM by BaRTiMuS - edited 1 times]
http://www.synowiec.ca |
Add a poll to this thread This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 93 ms
|
|