PDA

View Full Version : Digital SLR cameras



Vulpix
05-03-2009, 05:51 PM
Who here owns one?

I've been thinking of buying my first DSLR for a long while now. I favor Nikon and the new D5000 seems quite interesting... or is the D90 a better buy :confused:? :p

Feel free to ramble on anything about DSLRs in this thread :)...

RoyBatty
05-03-2009, 07:42 PM
Imo there are basically 2 choices and it's either Canon or Nikon. Sure there are other cameras out there, some being quite good but for all intents and purposes the abovementioned are the DSLR market leaders.

Next question would be whether you already own lenses for one or the other platform. If not, then there's not much financial motivation to stay with one or the other manufacturer. You still have a choice then.

In terms of bodies and lenses it's fairly equal between the two. Canon's cheaper DSLR's used to have better lowlight performance ie you could shoot at high ISO levels without the pictures being too grainy but I think Nikon have closed the gap somewhat with their later budget DSLR models.

Imo you should base your decision on your budget and the type of lenses you intend to buy. For example, Nikon have a great 18 - 200mm VR (built in vibration reduction) lens for *relatively* cheap meaning that this one lens can pretty much take care of most requirements apart from wide-angle and loooooong distance shooting. In other words, it saves money, weight and hassle of changes.

Review here but as always don't rely on this site only for opinions.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

For telephoto shooting on the cheap (ok again, relatively) Nikon have a 80 - 400 mm VR lens. Not useful for "action" type shots but fine for use where you have time to compose your shots.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm

As far as bodies go I guess depending on the budget it'll be a D90 or a D5000 if I were to replace my D70. Since there isn't that much of a price difference between the two it'd probably be a D90.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

If you're on a budget there's always the D40 body which is wayyyy cheaper and quite capable.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm


As for Canon stuff, I don't know enough about them to give advice but in the pricerange you're looking at there won't be much between them and the Nikon's.

To summarise, first look at the lenses for both makes and see which ones suit your needs / budget best and then go with that platform. Good luck! :)

Zankapfel
05-03-2009, 08:10 PM
The D90 is the best choice in my opinion, what most new buyers forget is that for any kind of sharp and focused photography the lenses are also a critical piece of the set.
Whichever camera you go with, pair it with a nice glass, it's worth going the extra mile.
For the D90, I've found the Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G is good for wide shots (z.B landscape) but being lightweight also works well as an all-around everyday lens (however it has a relatively small maximum aperture which could be a little limiting for low light situations if you suffer from flashlight phobia as I do).
Hmm I'm sure you know this but DSLR cameras have no live preview so if you're used to simpler point&shoot types you must keep in mind that sometimes you'll be using manual focus via optical viewfinder without a split prism type focusing screen and also you'll have to deal with ISO, apertures and shutter speeds so it's a bit of a transition.
Little warning as a once new DSLR user though, it can be addictive and take up a lot of your time (and money! as there is always some new add-on you'd like: rings, tripods, filters, macro lenses, telephoto lenses, light meters, lightboxes, you name it).

RoyBatty
05-03-2009, 08:35 PM
For the D90, I've found the Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G is good for wide shots (z.B landscape) but being lightweight also works well as an all-around everyday lens (however it has a relatively small maximum aperture which could be a little limiting for low light situations if you suffer from flashlight phobia as I do).


The later model bodies work much better at high ISO settings so the slow glass / low light settings are less of a problem than it used to be. We're spoilt today. :)



Hmm I'm sure you know this but DSLR cameras have no live preview so if you're used to simpler point&shoot types you must keep in mind that sometimes you'll be using manual focus via optical viewfinder without a split prism type focusing screen and also you'll have to deal with ISO, apertures and shutter speeds so it's a bit of a transition.


Out of curiousity, why would you want to use manual focus? (Sometimes I do but I avoid it where possible). As for viewfinders, my D70 (and I suspect it will be the same with other DSLR's) doesn't have a very good viewfinder focusing screen, at least, not as good as what one used to get on older 35mm SLR's. This is probably because autofocus improved and manufacturers decided to save on manufacturing costs. They also probably reasoned that most users wouldn't need to focus manually anymore for typical situations.

Zankapfel
05-03-2009, 09:33 PM
The later model bodies work much better at high ISO settings so the slow glass / low light settings are less of a problem than it used to be. We're spoilt today. :)
I'm sort of still young but yes we are, I just like to whine on Sundays ;]


Out of curiousity, why would you want to use manual focus? (Sometimes I do but I avoid it where possible). As for viewfinders, my D70 (and I suspect it will be the same with other DSLR's) doesn't have a very good viewfinder focusing screen, at least, not as good as what one used to get on older 35mm SLR's. This is probably because autofocus improved and manufacturers decided to save on manufacturing costs. They also probably reasoned that most users wouldn't need to focus manually anymore for typical situations.

Just part of toying around with your new camera and "getting to know each other".
When I inherited my first DSRL I made a point to use pure manual settings, because there's no better way for me to learn than to trial and error it (or at least that's what works for me).
And when I say manual, I mean manual. I manually focused and usually kept my ISO around 200, sometimes changed. I adjusted shutter and aperture settings for every shot, I controlled my own depth of field, etc.
It's very very useful to understand the balance between aperture and shutter and this is how I practiced, it also forced me to slow down and pay attention to what I was doing and that was a good thing for my learning process.My father who's a hardcore 35mm fan is of the opinion that if you can't shoot completely manual, you shouldn't own a high end camera at all.
So manual focus was not a matter of having to, but choice and some encouragement from my father's side.
I do it rarely as well, and mostly for bokehs when it seems appropiate, I like to manually adjust the focus to the closest setting and zoom the lens in some particular conditions.
I noticed in workshop that most new DSRL owners like to mess around with their settings a lot as well, hence my mention of manual focusing and settings to the OP.
I agree that autofocus improves greatly as time goes by but as much as most cameras are intended to AF, I think most focusing rings still don't have the latitude one would need to fine tune the setting, also there's no good ol'rangefinder to tell us that we're focused properly, this is what I meant by "split microprism screen type-thingy" in my previous post (I am whining/rambling again).
Having said that, Nikon has put some of the best AF systems out there and last year they added 3D-tracking to D90’s 11-point AF so by no means I meant manual focus was necessary these days (:

Vulpix
05-03-2009, 09:51 PM
I first realised just how much I enjoy photography by shooting my dad's 1971 Fujica ST701 SLR(:D), no such thing as AF on that one :p.

RoyBatty
05-04-2009, 12:54 AM
I do it rarely as well, and mostly for bokehs when it seems appropiate, I like to manually adjust the focus to the closest setting and zoom the lens in some particular conditions.


Rubinar Maksutov lenses are not bad if it's bokeh you're after. Fairly cheap too if you can find one. Focusing this is challenging on a D70 but I'm sure it would be easier on a SLR with a decent viewfinder. :)

http://forum.mflenses.com/mirror-long-focus-lens-on-olympus-4-3-t5469.html




I noticed in workshop that most new DSRL owners like to mess around with their settings a lot as well, hence my mention of manual focusing and settings to the OP.


Right! I guess you'd be better off using your dad's classic 35mm SLR for this. Perhaps the newer budget Nikon DSLR's have better viewfinders. (No idea about Canon).



I think most focusing rings still don't have the latitude one would need to fine tune the setting,


Agree, especially with that Rubinar. (And the only way I could get it onto a D70 body was to use a teleconverter because the flash gets in the way).




also there's no good ol'rangefinder to tell us that we're focused properly


I have this but it's a bit hit and miss, especially at long distances.

Zankapfel
05-04-2009, 03:20 AM
Rubinar Maksutov lenses are not bad if it's bokeh you're after. Fairly cheap too if you can find one. Focusing this is challenging on a D70 but I'm sure it would be easier on a SLR with a decent viewfinder. :)

http://forum.mflenses.com/mirror-long-focus-lens-on-olympus-4-3-t5469.html
Oh thanks for the link, they're actually kind of popular around here. Odd comment but, I love the look of cyrillic letters on the lens.


Right! I guess you'd be better off using your dad's classic 35mm SLR for this. Perhaps the newer budget Nikon DSLR's have better viewfinders. (No idea about Canon).
He doesn't let me near any of his cameras after a small "incident" last Easter but I love how the rangefinder is basically just a chunk of glass that sits directly above the mirror. That, and analogue light meters rule :D
The D90 has a quite decent viewfinder. I also have a Canon EOS40D, all I can say Canon has on Nikon is that their lenses are in the wider selection of IS technology and tilt/shift lenses but this is not so much a problem of optics quality in my opinion, but rather quality of the mechanical construction and layout around the optics. This is a very personal observation though.


Agree, especially with that Rubinar. (And the only way I could get it onto a D70 body was to use a teleconverter because the flash gets in the way).
I have this but it's a bit hit and miss, especially at long distances.
What kind of teleconverter is it? I don't recognize it and can't make out the lettering (lol @ my avatar in the background btw).
I want the Canon 70-200 but for now I've got a couple of Nikkor and Tamron cheapos I do okay with ;p

RoyBatty
05-04-2009, 09:35 AM
Oh thanks for the link, they're actually kind of popular around here. Odd comment but, I love the look of cyrillic letters on the lens.


That's right, the letters do look cool and the lens is built like a tank. Solid tripod recommended, lol :D



What kind of teleconverter is it? I don't recognize it and can't make out the lettering.


The TC is a 1.4x Kenko Pro 300 AF-d, the idea was to use it with the Rubinar. If you have a Canon DSLR body (and a Canon adaptor ring for the Rubinar because the original mount is a Pentax type) it should fit without a TC if you pop the flash. The Nikon's flash unfortunately portrudes.

http://www.timelesswanderings.net/equipment/Kenko.html

Rubinar mounted on a Digital Rebel (notice how the flash hood can be moved out of the way):

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/rubinar_lenses_with_various_cameras.htm

Some bokeh shots:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28270619



(lol @ my avatar in the background btw)


Haha, yeah thought that'd be funny :D



I want the Canon 70-200 but for now I've got a couple of Nikkor and Tamron cheapos I do okay with ;p

Happy saving up :)

Allenson
05-04-2009, 06:42 PM
I have a Nikon D40--it's a nice camera for the money but it doesn't quite match up with the D5000. ;)

I don't have quite that budget. :cool:

Here are some shots that I've taken with my D40 with nothing more than the kit lense.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2345626346_6460105445_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2528197582_b34feb1812_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2734944519_430138a6df_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/3110884696_6eb89f6f73_b.jpg

Lulletje Rozewater
05-05-2009, 08:55 AM
I have set my mind on the Canon 450D and sigma lenses.
What is most important is to buy filters,it gives you the ability to make a photo so much attractive.
I would not go for the small-put in your pocket-camera

Skandi
05-05-2009, 07:25 PM
This thread is EVIL! I want one at present I have a compact (DMC LX2) which while being fully manual only adjusts f8.0 f2.8 which is really not enough :(

So back to the evilness of this thread I tend to do macro work, which camera would have the best set of lenses for that?

Lulletje Rozewater
05-06-2009, 07:23 AM
This thread is EVIL! I want one at present I have a compact (DMC LX2) which while being fully manual only adjusts f8.0 f2.8 which is really not enough :(

So back to the evilness of this thread I tend to do macro work, which camera would have the best set of lenses for that?

Sigma lenses are the best there is one which cost about Rand 20.000. for Macro work and stabilizer.

Ladejarlen
05-08-2009, 05:19 AM
Who here owns one?

I've been thinking of buying my first DSLR for a long while now. I favor Nikon and the new D5000 seems quite interesting... or is the D90 a better buy :confused:? :p

Feel free to ramble on anything about DSLRs in this thread :)...
I see you are a beginner, then I would have gone for a Nikon D40 or D60 over D90. I would put the "leftover" cash in a objective.
I have a D60 and im very satisfied with it, it goes for half the price of the D40 here. Both are great cameras.
And btw, if you are looking for UV or polarasation filters or remote controls etc I really recommend dealextreme.com Fast shipping and good stuff. I bought filters there that costs 1/10 of the price as the store here. But Norway is pretty expensive on most stuff anyways:)

Here are some pictures I've taken with my D60, im pretty new to this:
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs028.snc1/3160_156822990590_727885590_6559983_5184256_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs034.snc1/3261_192973490590_727885590_6821572_2776376_n.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs028.snc1/3160_156823000590_727885590_6559984_8310072_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs028.snc1/3160_156824905590_727885590_6560051_6317790_n.jpg

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs028.snc1/3160_157879820590_727885590_6573565_6069520_n.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs028.snc1/3160_157879815590_727885590_6573564_3904747_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs028.snc1/3160_156825740590_727885590_6560059_6616340_n.jpg

These are all taken with the 18-55 mm kit objective.
One of the greatest things about the D40 and D60 is that they have a small camera house (easy to take with you, who wants to carry around a huge, heavy camera?) and the grip is really good. I tested out a more expensive EOS 450D camera, but the grip wasnt as good.

Ladejarlen
05-09-2009, 07:09 PM
Bought myself a tripod today. It wasnt that expensive and it seems to be very good for its price, but it weighs alot for me to drag it with me into the mountains. But guess I will be fine. Went for this one, after recommendation: http://www.magma.pl/esklep/images/Velbon/Pro_Foto_Video/sherpa_600_rf.jpg

The legs are very configurable, and you can tighthen everything nicely. It came with a carrying bag. Now taking images at night and many other times will be so much easier. The minimum height is 29 cm and the max height is around 180 cm:)