As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
New Camera
Rohan
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, despite being bored to death with Photography class in college for the past two years (mostly because we were using black and white SLR's and we had to develop the photographs), last year I picked up a Fujifilm Finepix S6500 fd. It's a brilliant piece of kit for a brilliant price, however despite appearances, it's not a true SLR - I can't remove the lens. I love doing macro shots and they're a real struggle to do properly on the Fuji, because the lens isn't designed solely for them. So, what I want to do now is buy a true Digital SLR, which I can at some point down the line buy a whopping big lens for and take all the macro shots I want to my heart's content.
Digital SLR's are quite expensive and I'm really not looking to spend a lot of money on them. I was looking at the Nikon D40, it looks like quite a nice camera for the price. Any suggestions? I will use it in the same way I'm using my Fuji now - general use (holiday, party and whatever) and, whenever I'm bored, traipsing around the back garden, crouching down for several minutes trying to take decent macro shots.
I'd be grateful for any help on this
Digital SLR's are quite expensive and I'm really not looking to spend a lot of money on them. I was looking at the Nikon D40, it looks like quite a nice camera for the price. Any suggestions? I will use it in the same way I'm using my Fuji now - general use (holiday, party and whatever) and, whenever I'm bored, traipsing around the back garden, crouching down for several minutes trying to take decent macro shots.
I'd be grateful for any help on this
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Rohan on
0
Posts
The Canon Rebel series is a decent option as well. It's what I learned on. Though I soon outgrew the little beastie and upgraded to the Nikon D200.
Check in at the photography thread in AC, they're pretty up to snuff on dSLR tech.
Also, how much are you looking to spend?
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
That being said, your body doesn't matter all that much. It's very hard to miss if you stay within the current line-ups of the big DSLR manufacturers these days (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, to a lesser extent Fuji, Sony) You should put far more research into the lense line-up each company offers and what the lenses you eventually want will cost you. For example, high end Fuji lenses are gorgeous but holy-shit expensive - all of their faster, longer lenses are $2k+ a piece. Pentax AF is good but not as easy to shoot sports with as the faster Canon/Nikon bodies. Sony cameras simply don't have much in terms of lense selection, and what is there is nice but very expensive.
So take your budget and allot half of it to lenses. With what remains, get the body that is in within your price range and has the correct mount for the lense line-up you want to buy into. I'd take the closest look at the Canon XSi, the Nikon D80/D70/D50 and the Pentax K200D. Canon/Nikon can do most anything, and Pentax is great for landscapes, portraits, or anything else where lightning fast AF isn't vital and their line-up of gorgeous prime lenses and beautiful legacy glass.
Nope.
Raptr profile
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Which is something you should do, if you have the chance. Pick them up and try them out, the both of them, before you make your decision.
I'm assuming you're in Europe, but keep looking around for a better deal, that kit you linked is a little expensive (11xx euros vs 9xx dollars on Amazon).
I can't speak for the lens. It seems alright.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Stop being an asshole, please.
Any lens that Canon is currently selling at retail will work. Any discontinued EF or EF-S lens will work. Older FD lenses will not but those predate digital SLRs.
Let's take a quick look at some ridiculous statements, though:
What? What does wanting to build a lens collection have to do with which body you start on? It makes the most sense to get the cheapest reasonably featured DSLR and spend the extra money on lenses. The XT fits the bill, it's got more than adequate resolution and it has just about any feature you could list except that it doesn't allow you to do spot metering to the AF point. Which is far from vital. And guess what, unlike the D40 it's actually fully compatible with the range of lenses available for its mount.
Then we have this gem
So what you're doing here is telling someone that the entire Nikon line is inherently better than the entire Rebel line based on your inability to make pragmatic decisions based on camera capabilities.
And then you go on to suggest the D80, a camera whose kit costs $1100, after going on about two models whose kits cost around $700 (the XTi) and $550 (the XT). All of those prices are Canadian so they may differ in the OP's area, but the difference in cost between the models will be the same. How does that comparison make any sense, though?
The XSi is similarly priced, but again about $100 cheaper. You can compare the two here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos450d.asp
and
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d80.asp
You'll find that the two are identical feature wise, but you can go into the camera database and look up the XTi and XT as well and decide if either of them lack critical features that you need. I'll tell you right now that you won't need the extra megapixels, 8.0 MP is already so huge that you're not likely to print anything that size at 175 dpi (and you'll pay out the ass if you want to get something printed at higher res).
You can save a lot of money here and get the one of the greatest lenses you'll ever use for only about $100: the Canon 50mm f1.8. The Mark I had a metal casing, Mark II is just hardened plastic, but the glass is just as nice between the two. Nikon has a similar lens, I haven't used it.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
What the hell? Long was just answering an ambiguously worded question. There's no asshole in that quote.
On a fixed budget the number of lenses will be directly dependent on how much the body costs. This is exactly what Long's post said. And no spot metering whatsoever would be a deal-breaker for me - I spend more time in spot than I do in evaluative and centre-weighted combined. Not being able to spot meter would be annoying as hell.
No, he's saying that the D80 is a superior body to a Rebel XT/XTi/XSi. Which it is. Granted, his argument for it was poor, but he's quite right. If Rohan wants to spend a bit more on a good body, and has the budget to get a few good lenses along with it, the D80 is a great camera to start on. You'd best get that bee in your bonnet looked at.
Good call on the 50mm. The kit lense plus a good fast 50mm is a great start to a solid lense collection. For the macro, Nikon makes a really gorgeous 105mm VR (vibration reduction) macro lense that is by all counts fabulous. Canon's 100mm macro is rather nice as well. Both are quite useful longer portrait lense too, in case you like to do more than macro.
Add Canon to "different camera." I didn't assume that I could use Canon lenses on an Nikon.
Okay granted that I completely misread his post.
Yes but it's really not any different than the XSi. It probably has a brighter viewfinder due to having a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror. Maybe it's significantly different I don't know, but I can't imagine it being a deal breaker difference. The XTi is also highly competitive feature wise, particularly given that it's $400-$500 cheaper.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Like I said, I used the Rebel XT before I moved on to the Nikon D200. The Rebel is a great camera for and probably the best value for a new entry-level dSLR. I'm not trying to be a Nikon shill here. When I went with the D200 over the Canon 40D it was for a number of reasons, including the incredible solidity and weather-seal of the D200, not to mention that I could get it for about 2-300 less than the Canon for comparable features. But, to be completely honest, it went down to picking up a good older model for less cash than picking up a comparable newer model for more cash.
I didn't say the OP should go one way or the other, just that I'd take the D80 over the Rebel line, if money wasn't the deciding factor. The Rebel body is simply not as solid as the D80. It's still a good camera.
If the OP is still interested in looking at Canon, I'd like to suggest checking out the 20D and the 30D as well. Both are a little older but have a great feature set with a strong build, with good speed, reliability and performance. Personally, I would pick up a 30D before I'd go with the XSi, but, given that I haven't had a chance to fiddle with the XSi, this is going off of what I know of using the XT and the 30D.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Either way, it seems a bit strange to suggest a $1200+ body to someone like that, but maybe you folks have a lot more money than I'm used to. Rohan, I'd suggest sticking with a low-end, "Starter" DSLR like you were looking at; I looked heavily at the Nikon D40/D40x, but ended up going with a Rebel XT for a few small reasons. If you're set on Nikon, I remember the D40x being much more highly recommended, but you can't go wrong with a Rebel XT/XTi/XSi either (I have pretty minimal knowledge of the new XSi though). Obviously if you're willing to spend a lot more money, the sky is the limit, and you're better off going with the advice given by the above posters.
If you're interested in getting something a bit different than the kit lens that comes with the camera, let us know. That opens up a whole new discussion too. But I will say that although I upgraded to something better than the kit lens within 6 months or so, the kit lens is still a decent alternative if you don't want to lay down a whole bunch of money at first. It's a great way to see exactly what kind of photography you prefer doing, and what kinds of things limit you, before spending tons of money on better lenses.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I disagree. The latest iterations of all the big kit lenses (Nikon/Canon/Pentax) are absolutely wonderful when stopped down. Their only fault is build quality - optically, they're damn fine. Granted, they're not for high speed or low light work, but any lense that is good at either of those things will be significantly more money. This is all doubly true if you're getting a deal of the kit lense (they usually come with a body for around $100). Don't skip it unless you have a lot of money and want to buy a really nice wide-to-normal zoom.
The D40 is actually better at high ISOs than the D40x and cheaper. Unless you want to do huge prints, the extra megapixels mean nothing but more noise. However, I still recommend against a D40/D40x/D60 because of the lack of focus motor. This really is a pretty big deal unless you truly love manual focus.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
- Gary Busey
A Glass, Darkly
I have a Nikon D80. The stock lens was pretty good (17-135).
I'm interested in looking at upgrading to maybe a 18-200, but dont know how to tell what lenses are compatible with my D80. How do I start shopping for lenses? Are there certain brands that are Nikon-compatible? Any I should avoid?
I'd say so. Yes, it's been discontinued, but that just means it should be on sale for even cheaper. I couldn't justify spending the extra on the XTi, and even now with the XSi, I can't see spending the extra for the features.
My take on the kit lens is, if you have the extra money, by all means just buy the body and pick up a decent starter lens. But if you just can't afford the extra few hundred dollars for a better lens, don't feel bad. The kit lens is perfectly reasonable, espescially if the new one that Dark Moon mentioned is the one you're getting. I picked up my XT with the garbage lens, and I still made decent photos. It just makes the step up to a better lens when you do have the money all the better.
How close do you plan on getting to your subjects ( 100mm vs 50mm is a large difference considering that on a crop sensor the 100 becomes a 160mm lens and the 50 a 80mm).
What kind of magnification do you want. A 1:1 macro lens means that the lens puts the life size image on the sensor (higher magnification), while 1:2 means its half the actual size on the sensor(lower magnification). 1:2 lenses are usually cheaper and most come with a converter which adds an optical element to achieve 1:1.
Does speed matter to you. Most good modern lenses are expensive not because of their optical formula but from the the machinery built into the lens to enable faster focus and shake reduction. For the most part, nothing has really improved image wise for slr glass since the early 90's and most primes from the 60's and forward (takumar for pentax and older nikkors to name a couple) will blow most zooms out of the water and can be had for very cheap prices as well as having other advantages such as great build quality.
My suggestion would be to look for a pentax k100d and look into older manual focus lenses. You can find the body for between $350-450 online and add about $50-100 for the 18-55 kit lens it comes with(which is a very fine lens and worth the price). Its a 6 megapixel camera which is plenty for most of the prints you might do and fine for web viewing. The real reason to get the pentax though is for its internal image stabilization and focus confirmation in the viewfinder which both work with any lens you put on the camera. This is particular good for macro since most of the decently priced lenses are on the slower side and you will need to use slower shutter speeds (especially if you don't plan on using a flash and want to do it without a tripod). And when I say decently priced I mean older lenses that pre date digital. If you search around on flickr you can see a lot of samples from most of these lenses. It also has a big and bright viewfinder (which most of the entry level dSLRs don't have) and will meter with a lot of glass. It will work in aperture priority with any lens you put on it. Just need to buy the right adapter and you are good to go (which are also pretty damn cheap, 20-30 bucks for an m42 to k adapter).
A few examples of some great lenses would be the tamron 90mm 2.5 SP2, Vivitar 90mm series 1, or krion 105mm. These all go for about 100-150 bucks if you look around on ebay. For a couple hundred more you can look into Voigtlander manual focus stuff that they made in the last decade. They are about the top you can get with a macro lens image wise.
Another solution to consider would be to look for a fast 50mm and get a macro teleconverter or tubes for it. With a 2x teleconverter you can get a 50mm prime lens to be 100mm and 1:1 magnification.
Of course everything I have mentioned is worthless if you want auto focus; but for macro photography, focusing manual is much better.
Raptr profile
My favorite lens is my canon 50mm, but in casual social situations I now get a lot more use out of my 35mm. With the 50 I'm having to step back, but the 35 w/1.6 crop gives me the focal length I'm comfortable with. Don't get me wrong I still reallly like the 50, I just don't use it as much as I used to in that situation.
To someone just starting out in dslr, I think getting a kit lens is a great/cheap way to cut your teeth in shooting in a range of focal lengths (assuming it's a decent kit lens). Take hundreds if not thousands of exposures so you get used to the camera controls and how to take pics. Then you're better armed to buy additional lenses. Buy as nice lenses as you can afford, lenses where you've compromised and didn't get quite what you wanted end up not being used. Case in point, I only use my Canon prime lenses; I've loaned out my Tamron, my only zoom because I just don't use it (it did it's job, it was a single lens I could carry on vacation without having to shlep my camera bag around).
When researching lenses I like to go to fredmiranda.com to get and idea of what people have to complain about certain lenses, so I have some idea what to be looking for when I look at it in person.
Fallingman: Nikon makes excellent lenses. Canon too, but you've a Nikon body. Tamron makes decent lenses, and Promaster re-brands Tamrons and are cheaper and some have 5 yr warranties, these aren't going to feel quite as sturdy as Nikon/Canon but I never felt like it was going to break. You'll have to look for yourself and see if it can perform to your needs. You can save some bucks buying used, but good lenses in good condition hold their value remarkably well.
Thanks for the input - I'll take a look.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
This may not have been your intended meaning, but I'll clarify just in case: This is true with same-brand optics only. Inter-brand lense mounting (Canon on a Nikon, Fuji on a Pentax, etc.) is very tricky, sometimes involving cutting important looking pieces of metal or at least using adapters, and often the loss of vital features (like the ability to focus to infinity). You will never have full lense functionality (automatic reading of aperture settings, normal metering). It is not recommended in most cases. The M42 to K mount is a really common, though, and works wonderfully if you don't mind stop-down metering and spinning an aperture ring instead of an on-body wheel.
If you do decide to use manual focus glass on a modern Pentax DSLR, consider replacing the focussing screen. A split-prism focussing screen like the ones made by Katz Eye Optics will making manually focussing really easy, though if the lense is fast enough (f/4, ideally much faster) you can get away with the standard screen.
It really doesn't matter about the brand as much as the mount on the lens. For instance Leica R and Zeiss Contax(both have adapters that you can buy to fit on EOS) can be adapted to to Canon EOS mount since the register distance of the these lenses is larger then that of the EOS mount, these two combinations will not effect the optical properties of the lens (it will still focus to infinity). I should have also mentioned that since most of the dSLRs today are not fitted with proper focusing screens so it can be tricky to focus these lens at bigger apertures (1.2-1.7). I would not recommend changing the focus screen on the pentax since it does have a focus confirmation built in already that will tell you if you have the center of the screen focused on your subject.
Anyone interested on doing any of this should look around this forum http://forum.manualfocus.org/ if you want to learn more about using these lenses. The members there are pretty helpful and will answer any question you might have.
Yeah, the 35mm x 1.6 is essentially a true 50mm lens, which gives the same perspective as the human eye.
and fredmiranda.com is awesome to find general consensus of lenses. slrgear.com too for more laboratory reviews.
- Gary Busey
A Glass, Darkly
I have an XTi and I love it. I preferred the extra MP and sensor cleaning and a few of the other features over the XT, but I do not have anything but the kit lens yet because I'm poor. It does great pictures, and it was definitely worth the money, but I do wish it had internal IS.
Yes, that's a pretty good price.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
You owe it to yourself to go to your local photo district and play around in some of the camera specialty shops. You'll probably be able to get them to price match any of the big retailers anyhow, and you're not going to get a significantly better deal online from a reputable site anyhow. The way the prices of DSLRs are uniform across retailers is almost as ridiculous as the way Apple's laptops are. Occasionally you'll catch a sale on a DSLR, though.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Pics: