Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

From everything I've seen, it's kinda crap (on the long side, decent on the short side). IMO, go for the 55-250, doesn't cost much more, I'm pretty gorsh darned sure it has better optics, and most importantly it has four-stop IS.
 
Ramseus said:
From everything I've seen, it's kinda crap (on the long side, decent on the short side). IMO, go for the 55-250, doesn't cost much more, I'm pretty gorsh darned sure it has better optics, and most importantly it has four-stop IS.
Click to expand...

Thank you! That was exactly the kind of info I wanted! :thumbsup:
 
550 usd = 376 euros
1150 aud = 717 euros
tokina 11-16 in here 579.00 euros...

so yes.. it sucks
 
The Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 costs 12000 NOK (2100 USD). At BH it's 900USD.

Beat that. :p
 
Hi :wave:

So I'm debating whether or not to get a DSLR. I currently haz a Sony Cybershot DSC-H10:
sony-cybershot-dsc-h10.jpg


This isn't necessarily a bad camera, it has its flaws, but the main flaw it has is that it's a point and shoot :p.

Now for the last few months or so, I've not used the auto shooting mode on the camera. I set the exposure time, ISO value, whatever aperture setting it has on manual mode as well as metering and focus. It's taken some good pictures, but not without a lot of post-processing work.

Now part of me is like "If it aint broke don't fix it" but then the other part really really wants to be able to do stuff like set the aperture value, take long exposures to get really nice light trails (which I've tried on the sony), taking moving shots with blurred backgrounds, shoot in RAW, be able to do shallow depth of field and portrait shots etc. etc.

The family is planning on going to Yellowstone, Zion, and Bryce canyon at some point in the recent future as well as places in India. I've decided that I need a camera that can take really high qual pictures, and I'm fairly confident that DSLRs (even semi-entry level DSLRs) will take better qual shots than semi-high level P&S's.

I know I will never be at the level you guys are and nor do I want to make this like my career or something, but just as an interest and a hobby. I've always loved it, and I even take the time now to go take shots when I could be sitting at home playing left 4 dead 2.

Plus freaking my fam shelled out 1k for a nice 10" telescope when I was in 11th grade and I have YET to take some decent qual pics with it because I cant stick the effing point and shoot into the peephole. I would really love to take my cam out and my telescope out away from the city and do some nice astrophotography, especially being that astrophys is like my passion (no matter how much I have whined and bitched in the past).

So my question is, should I invest in one? I have like $5k in savings from this website job and I don't mind splurging upto a k for an nice DSLR with a kit lens, couple other lenses and filters, and maybe a tripod and a bag. I've been paying off my loans as well as leaving some savings for like campus visits and emergencies.

Kthxbai :wave:
 
well i would save that sony for the astrophotography.. the adapters for it are cheaper than for dslr (at least in here, so you should check the local prices also).. And Yes if you have passion for photography and will to learn it also (+money), you should buy a dslr.. I personally started with 350? 350D + kit lens (2006) and have been building my gear up bit by bit... Im so weird that i have taken the full manual route through m42-lenses which are cheap and optically pretty decent options especially for normal and short telephoto ranges.. ...

SLRs/DSLRs are interesting also from the point of view that you can build your gear according to the photography you want to do (studio, macro, landscapes,portraits etc) (yes there will be a point where you have hard time thinking what to shoot if you limit yourself or your gear too much) but still its the diversity that has been fueling me.. When I had p&s somehow i didnt have this much interest or joy in photography... So to conclude my point, yes you should invest in dslr if you have interest in photography + you have so marvelous sights to be seen, it will bring you lots and lots of joy.

For opinions about the brand and gear.. I wont go there.. The big names will collect most of the recommendations.. in this forum i reckon nikon will be promoted by epp_b and ice then canon by me and DoN.. then comes the dark side oly with norwegian dynamic duo nomix and marcos_eirik. They are all good options for starting dslrer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LP
sifu said:
well i would save that sony for the astrophotography.. the adapters for it are cheaper than for dslr (at least in here, so you should check the local prices also).. And Yes if you have passion for photography and will to learn it also (+money), you should buy a dslr.. I personally started with 350? 350D + kit lens (2006) and have been building my gear up bit by bit... Im so weird that i have taken the full manual route through m42-lenses which are cheap and optically pretty decent options especially for normal and short telephoto ranges.. ...

SLRs/DSLRs are interesting also from the point of view that you can build your gear according to the photography you want to do (studio, macro, landscapes,portraits etc) (yes there will be a point where you have hard time thinking what to shoot if you limit yourself or your gear too much) but still its the diversity that has been fueling me.. When I had p&s somehow i didnt have this much interest or joy in photography... So to conclude my point, yes you should invest in dslr if you have interest in photography + you have so marvelous sights to be seen, it will bring you lots and lots of joy.

For opinions about the brand and gear.. I wont go there.. The big names will collect most of the recommendations.. in this forum i reckon nikon will be promoted by epp_b and ice then canon by me, redliner and DoN.. then comes the dark side oly with norwegian dynamic duo nomix and marcos_eirik. They are all good options for starting dslrer.
Click to expand...

:p

Seriously: do it. Having a good DSLR is a lot of fun. Can?t you go to a store an try out the major brands and see what you like more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LP
I think The Online Photographer hit it on the mark with their Top Ten New cameras, at #6, they put "Any entry-level dSLR".

The rationale behind this is that all the starter dSLRs are good these days. In terms of performance, deliver what would have cost you ten times as much just ten years ago, they deliver IQ that would have cost you ten times as much ten years ago, and they're all as easy to use as a bottle of beer.

They also say a few words which might interest you;

"Our top recommendation for anyone currently shooting with a small-sensor digicam of any description, assuming they can handle the size, is to make the jump to large image sensors. The cheapest and most satisfying way to do this is to invest in an entry-level DSLR."
 
Thank you so much guys and +rep to you 3. I'm doing my research right now and I'm looking at reviews from cameralabs.com as well as from dpreview.com for certain DSLRs.

The one's I'm interested in are the: Nikon D3000, Nikon D5000, Canon EOS 450D/Rebel XSi, Canon Rebel XS.

From the get-go, I'm not sure if I could do without a live view. As much as I prefer a viewfinder over liveview, it might make things easier at times when you're at a weird angle or something, or if you want to check DoF etc. So for me the D3000 is oot. Other reasons it would be out is just from the reviews it seemed like it wouldn't be a camera that wouldn't grow on you. It might make life frustrating with the slow navigation and setup and other negatives.

I haven't checked olympus but I have checked pentax and I like the K200D. But I think it's a bit too expensive (found it for $690).

So I'm thinking of just settling with the 450D/Rebel XSi. I know the Rebel T1i is already out and has replaced the XSi, but it's too expensive. I'd rather be able to get a camera with a kit lens, a second lens, bag, and tripod for the same price as just one of the mid-range cameras.

The 5000D is also tempting. It's a bit pricier than the Canon (at least from the stores I found it at).

Have I gone about this completely the wrong way?
 
Last edited:
As much as I prefer a viewfinder over liveview
Click to expand...
That will change quickly. There's nothing like being able to actually look purely through the glass. Live view will never replace it.
 
epp_b said:
That will change quickly. There's nothing like being able to actually look purely through the glass. Live view will never replace it.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I was always used to a viewfinder and so when I got my sony (as a gift), I was kinda like, well like this: :blink: when I couldn't understand why they wouldnt put a viewfinder on it but anyway.

Liveview's still got some cool features and I would still like to have it.
 
youp, but some cases the live view makes sense as he said already.. weird angles, tall places where only cam can go etc.
 
The only thing that should decide for you is ergonomics. Unless there are some factors in one of the other cameras you couldn't live without (swivel LCD, weather sealing, video etc.), just go to a camera shop that carries all the big five (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony) and try them out in your hand. The one that fits is what you'll want.

If I am to pick a personal fav, I'd go for the E-620, when functions is concerned, you really won't get more functions even if you pay twice its price for a semi pro-body (D300, 50D etc.).

But the Pentax K200D is not a bad idea. You know that you need to get it with the WR kit-lenses? The WR kit lenses doesn't cost much more than the normal kit lenses, but they're freakin' weather sealed. That means you just don't have to consider rain, dust, snow, anything. It'll keep the elements out, chugging out photos.

The Nikon D5000 is also a great little camera, the sensor is easily the best at high ISO levels, it's got video (I think?), but is somewhat limited in terms of older primes, you can only get AF with AF-S (and AF-H) Nikon lenses, and HSM Sigma lenses.

Canon 450D is a good raw meat camera. That's how I see it, anyway. Not as good a grip as the Pentax or the Oly, pretty much on par with the D5000, but excelent image quality, good layout, compatability with the largest AF system out there (any EOS lens since 1986, and they've sold millions, will work).

It's your choice. Pick the one that works best in your hands.

(I've skipped Sony, as I can't tell you anything useful about their A230, though it does seem like a good model.)
 
As other said before, buy the one that feels better to use. What is the price difference between the 450D and the 500D? The Canon USA website lists only USD50 more for the 500D, and that is worthy if you put in account the faster processor, higher ISO and higher resolution display.
 
I've found the 450D online on sale for $565.95. The 500D from the same store is $720.

With a tripod + tripod bag, bag for the camera, a book, and an 8 GB SD card the total comes to $677

The 450D comes with a kit lens as well (18-55 mm)


From a local camera shop here, the price they have for the 450D kit is $649.99 for an 18-55 mm lens but they also have a nice deal with an XSi body, 18-55mm EF-S IS, AND 55-250 mm EFS-IS for $669.98
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top