Official General Camera/Photography Discussion

[Infamous85]

Don't get caught up in the whole megapixel myth. It's not the megapixels that's important...it's the pixel density. Pixel density = megapixels per square millimeter. Ridiculously high pixel densities only degrade image quality.

 

Imagine two devices; both have 5 megapixel sensors. Device #1 has a sensor of pixel density 5MP/mm². Now imagine device #2 has a sensor of PD 2.5MP/mm². Device #2 has a lower pixel density...less pixels per square millimeter. Ceteris paribus, device #2 will have better resolution than #1 and therefore judgmentally better image quality.

 

I know, megapixels only mean size, they don't matter much after a certain point. I honestly can't tell the difference between 5 & 12. I just listed that because they are somewhat comparable.

 

However I always thought higher density was better, sounds like it'd create a sharper image.

[R32 3348]

Of course, among this community you will see people who prefer their cameras more. Only the most recent innovations in phone technology have cameras that can pass for everyday photography (nothing very serious). Railfans have a set criteria for the photos they take, while the vast majority of people take pictures whenever they see something funny, are with friends, etc. A phone is just fine for that purpose, especially since the latest phones mostly have 5-10MP+ cameras anyway (and better sensors and whatnot). I don't see the point-and-shoot camera dying off though.

[Daniel The Cool]

I'm planning on buying a 70-300 mm lens for Elevated stations stops and was wondering are these good?

http://www.jr.com/tamron/pe/TR_NA75_hy_300MM/

 

This will also be used for LIRR and Metro North stops.

[lilbluefoxie]

I use canon equipment so I dont know much about Nikkon but http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report this seems like a good one, the Nikkon 55-200mm lens, i have the canon equivilent, the EF-S 55-250mm lens, it works fine for me but I use it for aviation photography when I go to air shows, so I cant tell you how those telephoto lenses work in the subway.

[Melvin]

I'm planning on buying a 70-300 mm lens for Elevated stations stops and was wondering are these good?

http://www.jr.com/tamron/pe/TR_NA75_hy_300MM/

 

This will also be used for LIRR and Metro North stops.

 

You can't use autofocus on that lense with your D40X, it needs a camera that has a screw-in AF motor. If you want a good 70-300, you need to spend 300+.

[R160]

As Melvin said, if you want a good 70-300, you will need to spend A LOT more money than $124.

 

I have a Canon Rebel T1i and here is the 70-300 lens I am considering: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293408676&sr=8-1

 

This lens would be much better: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1293408782&sr=8-2

 

Also keep in mind that you don't necessarily need that much zoom. I have a lens that goes up to 250mm and I can see people a station away.

[553 Bridgeton]

124$ aint buying no good lens for you buddy.

 

200mm will do you good. Only spend what you can afford. SLR Lens are not cheap and require money.

[Daniel The Cool]

124$ aint buying no good lens for you buddy.

 

200mm will do you good. Only spend what you can afford. SLR Lens are not cheap and require money.

 

ok. Is there any good ones around $200.00?

[R160]

This 55-200 lens is just under $200:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-VR-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1293477590&sr=8-2

 

Keep in mind that with lenses, you get what you pay for. Pay less, get a lower quality lens.

[Joe]

The Nikkor 55-200mm DX lens is a fine choice, I owned it for a time myself. That Tamron is...well, it's not good, we'll put it that way.

 

Telephoto lenses in the subway are an art to themselves, a lens with VR would be very handy.

[553 Bridgeton]

ok. Is there any good ones around $200.00?

 

You can but the quailty will be less. Me I stick with the 18-55mm and its great, I also have a 200mm on the side.

 

The more you pay the better quality you will get. When you bought that D40x, you should have bought it as a bundle. They sell alot of SLR cams as bundles with a 18-55mm and 200mm lens for under $800, and thats a steal because the 200mm will run anywhere from 150 to 250 depending on the store. I've even seen some come with 3 lens for about $900.

 

Buying lens is the same way as buying a car, you get what you pay for.

 

As much as people hate Walmart, I seen the D5000 there for $700 with a 18-55mm and 200mm.

 

Try J&R or B&H in Manhattan. B&H is a camera junkies world l0l. I bought my 200mm lens from there.

[Y2Julio]

The Nikkor 55-200mm DX lens is a fine choice, I owned it for a time myself. That Tamron is...well, it's not good, we'll put it that way.

 

Telephoto lenses in the subway are an art to themselves, a lens with VR would be very handy.

 

I agree, I've gotten wonderful results out of my 55-200mm lens.

[553 Bridgeton]

After looking at that lens again, i did notice it looks like it doesnt have VR and some of the reviews say its slow to focus. It looks really cheap, and it looks like if you drop it, it would break rights away. if I were you I'd get a Nikon Product Lens.

[SoSpectacular]

I suggest you stick with Nikon's 55-200mm lens, I too use Canon's EF-S 55-250mm lens for long range shots.

 

A word of advice- Remember that your camera isn't a full-frame, it's an APS-C (or whatever Nikon uses) and so the crop factor comes into play, for your sensor it's probably a 1.6x crop factor. You multiply that number by both the wide and telephoto ends to get the actual focal lengths for the lens, a 55-250 is actually 88-400mm on an APS-C, 70-300mm would be a bit much for you with that camera, and as others have said, most third party lens makers don't really know the ins and outs of every camera maker's lens mounts and special contact surfaces so they wind up having to reverse-engineer these cameras to find a way to make their lenses fit and work as correctly as possible.

[Y2Julio]

I shot this with the Nikon 55-200mm Nikkor lens.

[R44 CNG]

Everybody rates Nikon 1st and Canon 2nd but where does Sony fall?

 

Its either the Nikon D3000 (10.2 MP) or Sony a290 (14.2 MP)

 

I like the D3000 due to quality shown by Melvin and 553, but its the photographer not the camera.

 

But I didn't really see anybody with a Sony a290, but Shane and dman have Sony DSLR as well.

 

The only thing that matters to me is quality, price wise the Sony is way cheaper with more MP, but quality is top priority...Thanks

 

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Melvin]

If your on a budget, get a D3000. It's only 70 dollars more. I was gonna get the D5000 but it was sold out everywhere in the Bronx and online it was still $700+. I've tested out Sony's cheap cameras (a230, a380) and the way they handle contrast, it's looks like it came out of a phone. The color on the other hand is sup-par with Nikon.

 

Someone's A380

 

My D3000

[553 Bridgeton]

D3000. The camera is great and I love it. Sony is not bad as Cait Sith has a Sony SLR.

 

 

 

 

Nikon is the best imo. Im sure you can find the D3000 in a bundle where you can get 2 lens kit for a fair price. But go with what you can afford.

 

The D5000 has video however, the idea of a DLSR shooting videos is a turnoff. Pablo has the D5000 if im not mistaken and the quality of the video is good but it just doesnt look right on a SLR.

 

Nikon just has the respect for making great cameras. Once you have a Nikon you wont want to let that baby go because of what it can do. It maybe a great 1st SLR cam, but you can make it better then that as long as you have the skills with using manual and semi-manual.

 

When it comes to looking at the MP I dont. A 10MP and a 14MP camera can take the same type of picture if you dont know what you doing. Take 2 people and give one a 10MP and the other a 14MP and lets say both of them know nothing about a SLR and they take a pic of the same subject and compare the pic and you will see they look exactly the same. But if one of them knows how the use a SLR you will see a big diff.

[LRG]

While I don't have a DSLR I have to say that Nikon and Canon are the best out of all DSLR company brands, or probably out of all camera brands period. I'm kinda biased against Nikon for some reason and I like Canon more but I have to give credit to Nikon because they're on top of their game.

 

In terms of pricing, the cheapest Canon is the Rebel XS with 10.1 megapixels for $550 bit for $100 extra the XSI has 12.2 megapixels; the cheapest Nikon is the D300 with 10.2 megapixels for $550, but for $150 extra the 3100 has 14.2 megapixels.

 

It's all up to you. Go to photography shops, such as B&H and play around with the different cameras before you make a choice. Make sure you like what you are testing out before you buy or you won't be happy.

[SoSpectacular]

I'm a Canon user here and my camera is the Rebel XSI. I use two lenses at the current moment, the EF-S 18-55mm and the EF-S 55-250mm

 

Remember that it's the person BEHIND the camera and not the camera itself...

 

Shot with the "kit" 18-55mm lens

 

Shot with the 55-250mm zoom lens

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

Edited December 30, 2010 by MHV9218

[553 Bridgeton]

 

 

I don't see how an additional quality is a bad thing. Same sensor as the D90, same frame as the D3000 and capable of video -- why do the additional things turn you off?

 

s

 

I just dont like the idea of a SLR with video recording; imo, and if im not mistaken Pablo has a new camera as a backup to record videos. I have a canon sx130 as a backup/videos and I use that with all my videos now.

 

Everyone has there choices l0l thats how I feel.

 

My D3000 does the job, and when looking for a lens it can be a pain because looking for a lens with AF will cost a arm and a leg. I paid 400 for a low light lens and 220 for a 200mm lens.

 

Basically R44 CNG go to any camera store ie. B&H, J&R ect and just get a feel of that SLR camera you want and whatever your hands feel comfy with thats the one for you. Worst thing to do is buying a camera without even getting a feel of it....

[LRG]

I just dont like the idea of a SLR with video recording; imo, and if im not mistaken Pablo has a new camera as a backup to record videos. I have a canon sx130 as a backup/videos and I use that with all my videos now.

 

Everyone has there choices l0l thats how I feel.

 

My D3000 does the job, and when looking for a lens it can be a pain because looking for a lens with AF will cost a arm and a leg. I paid 400 for a low light lens and 220 for a 200mm lens.

 

Basically R44 CNG go to any camera store ie. B&H, J&R ect and just get a feel of that SLR camera you want and whatever your hands feel comfy with thats the one for you. Worst thing to do is buying a camera without even getting a feel of it....

 

I have to agree. A DSLR with video recording takes away that DSLR feel the way i see it.

[INDman]

I'd go with the D3000, I have had it since the early spring and I haven't had a problem with it. I have 3 lenses for it, an 18-55mm that came with it, the 55-200mm, and a 35mm that I use for low light shooting. If your new to the DSLR game, it's a great camera to start with. I almost got the D5000 but I don't need to have vedio on the camera. If your going to do video, do it right and get a real video camera.

 

if you want some examples of photos taken with a D3000, follow the link to my flickr. Everything has been shot with a D3000 except for a few very old ones taken with a P&S.