Discussion in 'Riders with Cameras' started by steampunk, May 22, 2011.
Want a second hand backpack, hit me up. I'm selling mine.
*cough* Pentax 645D *cough*
*cough* K-5 *cough*
So because Pentax dont have a 1D equivalent, the rest therefore is rubbish?
Comparing a Pentax to a Chinese motorcycle is so beyond a ridiculous argument - it's laughable.
Just so you know Steampunk, I use a Pentax K20D... I got a couple of kit lenses in the deal (an 18-55, and 50-200), and also bought myself a wide angle lense to go with it (16-45)... All of these lenses are pentax lenses... You can see how the pictures stack up on my Photobucket thing here... Now, I know that these may or may not be the best in pictures in the world, and they are by no means all that I have taken, but it takes a mean photo if you know what needs to be done with it... This little set up almost got me an exclusive gig at an event, but another guy's price (when he gave 50% off) was a better deal... Moral of this: don't discount the "other brands"...
One of the main reasons to look at the Nikon or Canon range is because they have their history... Another is because they also have cheaper bodies... The reason for the cheaper bodies is because they have all of the drive parts for their auto focus in the lenses, which means the lenses are heavier and more expensive... Pentax have the drive in the body, which makes the body dearer and the lenses cheaper... It also makes the focussing that little bit slower, but unless you are a professional then this really is a negligible thing to worry about...
The reason why I went for the Pentax was because I was able to get more for the money that I wanted to spend... The Canon that I was looking at (the 400D) was an entry level camera and had one lens with it, where the K20D was "the next level up" (or mid-priced) and I could get it with 2 lenses... I also liked the feel of the Pentax... It was a slightly heavier camera than the Canon, but I prefer something that feels slightly more solidly built...
At the end of the day, go to some of these camera places to see what they have to offer, and see how the cameras feel... Preference is a very individual thing, and you need to find the camera that has all the mod cons that you want in it, and also feels "right" to you... You don't have to buy from these camera places, but it's better to know what you're buying before you part with your cash on Ebay...
BUT IT'S NOT A CANON!!
Sorry... back in my box now.
been shopping the past few days. took a while to work out where all the cameras are in relation to each other. most shops said don't bother with anything other than canon and nikon. and most shops only stocked cannon/nikon stuff. held most of the cameras and the nikons were really nice. There seems to be a huge range of canon second hand stuff out there. My preference would be a second hand 7d cause they go around $1400 second hand but can't find any at the moment.
I'm leaning towards a NIKON D300S with a 50mm F1.4 lens, battery grip, SB-600 speedlight+omnibounce, wireless remote and uv filter for $2150. Sound good?
I've also spotted a canon 60D for $1500 with 22 months of transferable warranty, 18gb sd card, 2 uv filters, bag, tripod and two kit lenses. EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens and EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens.
is it worth holding out for a 7d second hand?
and a website I've found extremly useful is http://snapsort.com/compare
Firstly - you're right in K-5 range there.
But other than that - *personally* if I wasn't look at a Pentax, it'd be a Nikon. Just me 2c.
I assume youre meaning this? http://www.allclassifieds.com.au/ac/display-ad?cid=123095813
yah. going to look at it in 20 mins.
Good advice. Get a body only and spend the rest of a good lense.
Unless you need the weather resistance, and the fps jump to 8 from 5, why would you? The latest xxD has the same AF system (I think!). IQ wise, you have so many pixels that all you see is your lens quality and get huge files that need more sharpening.
Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome body and perfect for what I do, but it doesn't sound like something you need... By the time you get to notice that a 60D is missing stuff relative to the 7D you'll be able to a) resell the 60D and b) get whatever replaces the 7D, or pickup a used one for a lot less...
The D300s is also offers one of the best backwards compatibility for lenses
How'd you go?
didn't feel quite as good as the d90. the 50mm prime lens is meant to be really good from the reviews I've read though. the layout was a fair bit different to the other nikons I'd seen.
I think I'd prefer a slightly lesser body and a really good zoom lens. I can get a secondhand D90 for $700 body only.
Just finding it hard to work out exactly what price point I want to enter in at. was thinking of 2-2.5k for a good body and lens. but I'd proably be just as good with an older d80 for $500. There's just so much to take in it's a bit overwhelming.
spent the whole weekend looking at cameras/reviews and still feel like I know nothing. ~__~ (it's like building a pc but sooooo many more variables)
How much do you know about photography? What are your plans for buying an SLR? Do you want to invest in lenses and other things in the future? Do you plan to make money from it?
I often get asked to give people advice when it comes to buying cameras. There are a few things to consider when you're looking. Firstly, camera people can be a lot like computer people. You know the PC vs Mac debate? It's like that when it comes to cameras - everyone has their "brand" and all else is crap in their eyes. Everyone who has an SLR will probably tell you that the brand they bought is better than the others. Fine, that's their opinion. Try everything you can get your hands on and see what you like best. Some will make more sense to you, and others won't. The technical differences between them may or may not be noticeable to you depending on your level or skill and experience (I imagine that if you had a lot of photography experience you probably wouldn't be asking for advice! ) Pros around the world fall roughly into three categories: those who use super expensive large and medium format, those who use Canon, and those who use Nikon. There is a little more to it than that, obviously, but what I'm saying is that Nikon and Canon are the pro standard for a reason. Much larger range of lenses and accessories than others, better technical specs (to date), and a long history of producing good cameras. Does that mean you should buy one of those brands? Not necessarily. If you are going to go pro in the future, I would recommend them (easier to get parts, help, lenses, accessories, etc,). But 99 out of 100 people who buy an SLR will never buy a third lens, never need last minute access to lenses, etc. I recommend casual users consider the other brands, too (Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc).
Technical specs are really nice on paper but most people can't tell the difference by looking at the image. Reviews online will talk about all sorts of crap that won't make any difference to your photos, but make for good comparisons on what are essentially identically performing cameras. Something worth looking out for though, is the low light performance. That will most definitely make a difference to your photography and good low-light performance can't be beaten.
Second hand? Always a good option. Good deals can be had. I've bought second hand cameras and lenses before and I'd do it again. As always, it's buyer-beware though, so there is always a risk that you'll buy something that could die on you in the near future.
I'm rambling now. I'm really tired and not sure if this even makes sense any more. I'll be back later when I'm able to think coherently.
I had a whole rant typed up - but I just CBF'd.
If everyone wants to keep dishing out the same dribble over and over - go nuts.
I agree with Steampunk's desire for a lesser body and a better lens. If that means (Nikon side; happens to be what I shoot... but I shot that in film 35mm days, and it has the lenses and flashes I need for what I do) a secondhand D80 is a good option. I'm happy with my D90 (Nikon DX stuff I went D70-->D90, skipped the D80).
That said, it's kinda hard to go past the 18-200VR on the Nikon camp. Kinda reduces the need for a twin lens kit. Goes against the 'get awesome lenses'. It is awesome - and easy to supplement with some cheap primes. Which brings another point - I still wouldn't get a Nikon that doesn't have the screw-drive focus in the body, which rules out the bottom-end Nikon bodies. The screw drive primes are cheap as cheaps and are phenomenal lenses.
If I'm going anywhere for work, I take the 18-200 and that's it. I might take my ubermacro (105VR) if I have room/weight allowances etc. Other than that, a 30/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 are all excellent primes that are cheap on the second-hand market (the 30/1.8 being the most expensive, being newish and DX only).
The only off-brand lens I own is a Tokina 12-14/4. Mainly cause the resale of the Nikon lenses is superior; the Tokina is the only one that will lose money if bothered to sell it. It's nice having 'free' lenses that you can sell in a year or two for the same price you paid (assuming you got them second-hand).
Something else worth considering:
-High zoom ration lenses (18-200mm) lenses are wonderfully versatile, but have quality issues at the extremes. 3rd party lenses, like my Tamron, are cheaper, but will show these quality issues distinctly. My Tamron has major issues with barrel distortion at 18mm, and aberration at anywhere past 180mm.
-You don't need to cover every mm of the focal spectrum. The difference between a 50mm and a 30mm is a few steps forward or back. Don't need to buy both.
Technically, the difference is just a crop away between the two focal lengths. Taking steps forward and back changes the perspective and relative positions of the elements in the photo... But yes, you don't need the full range covered.
Cropping is the devil.
I agree - for the most part. But when one starts talking about the twin lens kits... the Nikon 18-200 is better than the 18-55 and the 55-200 combo, everywhere. Yes, it's a $1k lens; it should be better. It's versatile and NOT poop. But from what I can tell, the third party megazooms are poop, and the Canon one is ok but not stellar.
I'd rather spend $1500 on a Nikon system buying a second-hand D80 and an 18-200VR if I were starting out. 200's long enough on an APS-C sensor size, and I'd supplement with a prime or two. If I had $1700... I'd struggle to toss up between secondhand D90 + 18-200VR or D80 + 18-200VR + 50 (or 30). Probably go for the D90, it has a few nicer things than a D80... but it would depend what mood I happened to be caught in.
EDIT: and if the D80 or D90 came with a lens or two, it'd depend what the lens(es) were as to if I'd sell them to fund an 18-200 or if I'd keep them.
My 18-200 is the last lens I'll part with. Second last being the 105VR...
I actually have the 50/1.8 from the macro days... on Nikon, the older one has an aperture preset ring so can be used with tubes or (what I own) extension bellows. The 30/1.8 can't, being a newer all electronic lens. There is a perspective change if you frame the same objects, as Peanut points out - 30 being close to normal on an aps-c sensor, 50 being a bit longer than normal. I use them to shoot different things and the fact that I paid $90 for a second-hand 50/1.8 means I just bought a few less coffees at work to own both. Nifty fiftys are a bit easier to buy second-hand, not least cause they're normal on 35mm.
Having the twin lens kit I certainly wish I'd wangled the 18-200 instead. Unfortunately though it wasn't an easy option at the time and now the lenses I really want are freakin expensive.
Separate names with a comma.