MHV9218 Posted December 30, 2010 Share #576 Posted December 30, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted December 30, 2010 Share #577 Posted December 30, 2010 What exactly is this "DSLR feel" then? The inability to do anything other than take a quick photo? Granted, I rarely use the video feature, and almost always take photos. But having the capability to take photo and video (in HD) on the same camera is not something I would turn down... I don't get this whole argument that an SLR can only take photos. Canon 5D Mark II? That's a "real" DSLR... Back in the olden days when digital sensors were born most of you were using the good old film cameras, SLR cameras were mostly mechanical into the late 1900s when they started adding more electronic parts (such as Canon's new EF mount in 1987) and eventually going digital by the mid/late 1990s. Back then you really needed to know your stuff when it came to photography (film types, manual focusing, all the stuff DSLRs mostly do today), otherwise you got a camera (like the one my dad had back in the day) that does it all automatically for you and you simply sent the roll of film to get developed at the end of the day. I feel adding in video modes does/might bring up prices, and I'd rather use my memory card space for photos (especially when you shoot in the highest quality) that taking up half the card with short videos totaling over 2-4 gigabytes. I mean look at some of these cameras, 1080p video, 24 fps framerates, that's pretty insane. Oh, and SLRs are pretty much any camera with the so-called "reflex mirror" which allows you to get a real-time, live preview of whatever the lens itself is seeing when you peer through the viewfinder. Although it won't help much when you adjust certain settings, there's always Live View to fully preview your current setup 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted December 30, 2010 Share #578 Posted December 30, 2010 The D3000 is a good starter camera. I have the D5000 and you can take some wicked pics any time of day once you get used to it. The great advantages on Sony DSLRs is the quick(er) focus especially with live view. On the D5k, it drives me nuts. As for video quality itself, it's perfect. However, you have to deal with tiltshift, manual focus and the iffy mic. (There's ways to overcome this though) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanatic Posted December 30, 2010 Share #579 Posted December 30, 2010 I know this is not the thread for this, but those are some sick ass shots (1)! :tup: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted December 30, 2010 Share #580 Posted December 30, 2010 What exactly is this "DSLR feel" then? The inability to do anything other than take a quick photo? Granted, I rarely use the video feature, and almost always take photos. But having the capability to take photo and video (in HD) on the same camera is not something I would turn down... I don't get this whole argument that an SLR can only take photos. Canon 5D Mark II? That's a "real" DSLR... The way I see it a DSLR should not be equipped for videos...I'd keep the videos for a P&S camera or a camcorder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted December 30, 2010 Share #581 Posted December 30, 2010 Go with whatever you feel that's right for you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted December 30, 2010 Share #582 Posted December 30, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted December 30, 2010 Share #583 Posted December 30, 2010 New DSLRs with video capabilities are one of the few examples where a cheaper implementation [of video] has resulted in a more flexible application as well as a final product that is literally "just as good". A 5D Mk. II can shoot 1080p30 video and has been used to shoot an episode of House. Plus it can use the full line of Canon EF lenses...that's a major improvement over previous digital video cameras. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
css9450 Posted December 30, 2010 Share #584 Posted December 30, 2010 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. I agree, this thing is going to be very slow and clunky particularly zoomed out to 300mm when the maximum aperture is going to be 5.6. You'll be stuck with a pretty high ISO in order to ensure a high enough shutter speed so you can hand-hold it without camera shake (and don't even think about using it underground). If you can get something with VR (ideally an actual Nikon lens) you'll be doing a lot better. Even better would be a faster lens like the 70-200/2.8 but that's probably not in your budget (I have an older version 80-200/2.8 which even though it doesn't have AFS or VR, its my favorite lens and I wouldn't give it up for anything!). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R160 Posted December 31, 2010 Share #585 Posted December 31, 2010 I want to start taking underground shots (low light) so I started looking at some lenses. I found these two: 1. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top 2. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t Which would you recommend? I have a Canon Rebel T1i. If there are any lenses that you use, please send me the link. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted December 31, 2010 Share #586 Posted December 31, 2010 What lens do you use now? The Stock lens that came with my Nikon is an 18-55mm so I wouldn't want a 55mm lens no matter how well it does in low light because it would be like zooming in all the way for every shot. I have a 35mm lens that does great in low light, try finding a Cannon lens like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R160 Posted December 31, 2010 Share #587 Posted December 31, 2010 Right now I use a 18-55 for low light but the lowest aperture is f/3.5. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 1, 2011 Share #588 Posted January 1, 2011 Prime lenses are fixed at a certain focal length but the trade off is the wide apertures you get with them, 50mm at f/1.8 is fine but you'll need to keep at a distance, or find a prime lenses with a shorter focal length if possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 1, 2011 Share #589 Posted January 1, 2011 50mm is a bit long on digital; i'm not saying you can't use it, but you should definitely be aware of the field of view such a lens provides. IIRC, Canon makes a 35mm f/2. That would be a good lens with a very usable FOV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
css9450 Posted January 1, 2011 Share #590 Posted January 1, 2011 50mm is a bit long on digital; i'm not saying you can't use it, but you should definitely be aware of the field of view such a lens provides. Exactly. In the tight confines of the subway, you'll want something more wide angle than the 50. The 35/f2 is a good choice and its not that terribly expensive. Even better would be something like a 24 or 28mm but anything faster than f2.8 gets spendy in a hurry. I use a 17-55/f2.8 in the subway; its similar in focal range to the kit lens but its f2.8 even all the way out at 55mm so it would be a lot better underground. However, even at f2.8 I'm usually shooting at something like ISO 800 to keep the noise and shutter speeds at an acceptable level. If I could afford a wide f1.4 lens I'd buy it in a heartbeat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 1, 2011 Share #591 Posted January 1, 2011 Exactly. In the tight confines of the subway, you'll want something more wide angle than the 50. The 35/f2 is a good choice and its not that terribly expensive. Even better would be something like a 24 or 28mm but anything faster than f2.8 gets spendy in a hurry. I use a 17-55/f2.8 in the subway; its similar in focal range to the kit lens but its f2.8 even all the way out at 55mm so it would be a lot better underground. However, even at f2.8 I'm usually shooting at something like ISO 800 to keep the noise and shutter speeds at an acceptable level. If I could afford a wide f1.4 lens I'd buy it in a heartbeat. How I want that 17-55mm f/2.8 for my Rebel... Lol but it's like over 1000 bucks, I need to find another job for it, I'd replace my 18-55mm in a heartbeat! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 1, 2011 Share #592 Posted January 1, 2011 Exactly. In the tight confines of the subway, you'll want something more wide angle than the 50. The 35/f2 is a good choice and its not that terribly expensive. Even better would be something like a 24 or 28mm but anything faster than f2.8 gets spendy in a hurry. I use a 17-55/f2.8 in the subway; its similar in focal range to the kit lens but its f2.8 even all the way out at 55mm so it would be a lot better underground. However, even at f2.8 I'm usually shooting at something like ISO 800 to keep the noise and shutter speeds at an acceptable level. If I could afford a wide f1.4 lens I'd buy it in a heartbeat. What system do you shoot with? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted January 1, 2011 Share #593 Posted January 1, 2011 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R160 Posted January 1, 2011 Share #594 Posted January 1, 2011 My recommendation: I'd look at Canon's version of the second lens: the 35mm f2 prime, or the third lens. Both of those are capable in the dark, though one is better in low light and one is more versatile. So would you recommend something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCU 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 1, 2011 Share #595 Posted January 1, 2011 So would you recommend something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCU That looks like a nice piece of kit. For once we fully agree! LOL The Nikkor 35/1.8 is an excellent lens. I bought a 35/2 (its FX cousin) only a few weeks before it came out; was kind of bummed that I didn't wait. AF-S and an ass-gasket, two things that I wish I had now. How's that Sigma 18-200 working for you? I've used a similar lens (think it was a Tamron 28-300) and i've noticed that the autofocus gets hokey at f/6.3. The practical limit for AF is f/5.6 in almost all phase-detect autofocus systems, even on the high-end cameras. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted January 1, 2011 Share #596 Posted January 1, 2011 That looks like a nice piece of kit. LOL The Nikkor 35/1.8 is an excellent lens. I bought a 35/2 (its FX cousin) only a few weeks before it came out; was kind of bummed that I didn't wait. AF-S and an ass-gasket, two things that I wish I had now. How's that Sigma 18-200 working for you? I've used a similar lens (think it was a Tamron 28-300) and i've noticed that the autofocus gets hokey at f/6.3. The practical limit for AF is f/5.6 in almost all phase-detect autofocus systems, even on the high-end cameras. I have the Nikkor 35/1.8 lens also 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
css9450 Posted January 1, 2011 Share #597 Posted January 1, 2011 What system do you shoot with? I have a Nikon D80. The Nikkor 35/1.8 is an excellent lens. I bought a 35/2 (its FX cousin) only a few weeks before it came out; was kind of bummed that I didn't wait. LOL I did the same thing; not long after buying my DSLR I replaced my ancient manual-focus 35/2 with the AF version, then right afterwards they announced the 1.8. Anyone want to buy a lightly used Nikkor 35/2 AF-D? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 1, 2011 Share #598 Posted January 1, 2011 Do you have the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 or one of the third-party versions? The Nikkor is impressive, I don't even like normal zooms and I think that's a damn-fine lens, hah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted January 1, 2011 Share #599 Posted January 1, 2011 I have the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens, this week im going to bring it with me to the city to take photos, ill let you know how it works B) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted January 1, 2011 Share #600 Posted January 1, 2011 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.