getting my first DSLR - Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums
Ribbon Banner

Go Back   Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums > GENERAL DISCUSSION > RANDOM CHATTER > TECHNOLOGY CORNER > V6P PHOTOGRAPHY CLUB
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Insurance
V6Performance.net is the premier Honda Accord Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 9th, 2010, 09:20 PM   #1
Registered User
 
H22 VTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 879
Lightbulb getting my first DSLR

ok guys i need some help. im looking to get my first DSLR and found a Canon Powershot SX10IS brand new for super cheap.
point of this thread is to find out the pro's and con's of getting this camera and if you'll recommend something else.
H22 VTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 10th, 2010, 06:04 AM   #2
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
The SX10 isn't a DSLR though, it's a higher end compact with a tiny sensor and a super-zoom lens. No interchangeable lens either. If you wanted a DSLR I don't think this is what you'd want.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 10th, 2010, 07:46 PM   #3
Registered User
 
H22 VTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 879
ahh i see. so which would be a good DSLR to start off with?
H22 VTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old January 10th, 2010, 08:08 PM   #4
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
got a budget in mind? Also any particular thing you have in mind for type of photography? If not that's fine but if you do it'll help with lens and/or accessory selection.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 10th, 2010, 09:32 PM   #5
7th Gen ACcord
 
xjdMb16a2six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: socal
Posts: 3,671
hey.. im in the same boat. im planning to get the Canon 50D with 28-135mm lens kit.
xjdMb16a2six is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 10th, 2010, 09:33 PM   #6
FG4
 
Batmobile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: (っ⌒‿⌒)っ
Posts: 2,274
canon xsi...........pros and cons ?
Batmobile is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 11th, 2010, 05:11 AM   #7
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
If I was getting a Rebel I'd get the newer T1i, which has a much nicer screen and apparently improved ergonomics over the earlier XSi and XS rebels. The XSi has a 3" screen, but still only 230k pixels like older models with 2.5" screens. The T1i gives you a 3"/920k dot screen. It makes a big difference as far as quickly being able to see if you got the shot you wanted or not so that you can move on, along with the ergonomic improvements.

The 50D is a more serious camera. I'd only buy that if you really need all of the features and capabilities of a camera like that. Otherwise you're better off buying something cheaper like a Rebel and putting the extra money towards some nice lenses. The 28-135mm IS lens is intended for full-frame cameras and not crop body ones like the Rebel/xxD line. You'll probably find it isn't wide enough and will want to ditch it for an EF-S 18-55IS or 17-85IS. I think Canon just about gives the lens away for free with kits, so you can get the lens in a kit and make a few bucks selling it on eBay.

Most important is to go to a store and actually try out the feel of the camera bodies in your hands. For whatever reason my hands are physically incompatible with Canon bodies as my hands can't easily reach all of the controls (feels very awkward), and the menus at least on older models made no sense to me. So I greatly prefer Nikon ergonomics. Some people are the exact opposite and think Nikons feel awkward and that their menus make no sense. It's purely subjective. So be sure to check that out and don't just order something from online based on specs.

Also if you have friends that shoot one brand or the other, that's good reason to consider shooting that brand, since it makes borrowing or sharing equipment easier.

On the Nikon side, either go with the base Nikon D40 (I just sold mine), or skip the D60/D3000/D5000 and go straight up to the D90. I don't think the D300s (competes with 50D) is worth it over the D90, especially since Nikon castrated the D300s and left it with the poorer performing sensor. The D90 (and D5000) are currently Nikon's best performing crop body cameras from a image quality perspective and not the D300s which just came out.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 11th, 2010, 02:15 PM   #8
t|23v0|2 n00b t00n3|2
 
Trevendous03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,572
^^^ DSLR guru... take his advice.

Which point and shoots have you had in the past? Because if you like a certain system, then you may want to stick with that. I used to have a Nikon P&S, thus I stuck with Nikon DSLRs, but if you're used to Canon, then by all means, it will be easier to use a Canon DSLR.

Steve is right, depending on budget, get the Rebel T1i or Canon 50D or Nikon D90. The Canon 50D is a little bit more expensive than the Nikon D90 and is always compared to the D90. The Rebel T1i is supposedly not as good as the Nikon D90, but it is lower in price.

Lenses, get body only and forgo the kit lens. Kit lenses are worthless and slow and the cheapest/worst lenses the manufacturer offers most of the time. Get a 50mm f/1.8 prime (very cheap but great!) and an all-purpose zoom lens like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (it's fast, light, and covers a good focal length spectrum). Those two lenses would cost you only $500 more but would give you much more capability right away than the kit lens would. If you'd wanna just get the all-purpose lens, the Tamron is $400.

This all depends on your budget though and photographer style as Steve said.
Trevendous03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 11th, 2010, 03:18 PM   #9
Registered User
 
H22 VTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 879
thanks for all the info. i dont really have a budget in mind just yet. Looking at all the prices at online stores and people selling on forums i'd say they go from $500-$600 easily. im a complete noob at slr's though and would like to start with something pretty basic and simple to get the feel, but at the same time not get something completely inferior compared to all the different camera's that are out. im actually coming up from a Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-H3
H22 VTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 11th, 2010, 04:25 PM   #10
you gotta rub to dub!
 
relentless's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,126
Send a message via AIM to relentless
I came from a Sony Cyber Shot too hahaha! Listen to the pro's above, they gave me the best advice. I was able to pick up a Canon XSi for $430 new from Best Buy. I had a $1000-1200 budget so I used the rest on lenses and accessories. I got the XSi because it was cheap and it was easy to use for me compared to the Nikon. I plan on getting a Canon 7D in the near future. The plus side, almost all the accessories and lenses I get for my XSi are compatible with the 7D so I'll be set when I upgrade. Good luck with your decision!
relentless is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 11th, 2010, 04:57 PM   #11
Registered User
 
Muhib's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 257
Cool

I have canon rebel T1i and I am very happy with it. D90 is not that much different by the reviews. The video quality is same, if not T1i is actually better. I guess D90 owners like to brag since they paid more for a D90 than T1i .

No matter which DSLR you get, its all about being creative and practicing enough for great shots. I used to have a Sony A300 DSLR and many ppl were bashing me. Yet I could take great pics.

The kit lens for Canon is not bad, however, get the 50mm f1.8 lens aka nifty fifty. I bought it with the camera and very happy.
Muhib is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 11th, 2010, 07:10 PM   #12
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
Lenses, get body only and forgo the kit lens. Kit lenses are worthless and slow and the cheapest/worst lenses the manufacturer offers most of the time. Get a 50mm f/1.8 prime (very cheap but great!) and an all-purpose zoom lens like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (it's fast, light, and covers a good focal length spectrum). Those two lenses would cost you only $500 more but would give you much more capability right away than the kit lens would. If you'd wanna just get the all-purpose lens, the Tamron is $400.
Oh come on now. Kit lens bashing.

For your style of photography and things I've seen you post I agree the kit lens is far from an optimal choice, but for general photography they're outstanding. I've had all three of the Nikon 18-55 kit lenses and they've all been great, and I've gotten great photos out of all of them. I posted a couple in my D40 for sale thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
This all depends on your budget though and photographer style as Steve said.
Indeed it does. Model shoots, no kit lens will be all that great simply because of the slow aperture. But for general photography and vacation/travel shots, they're my lens of choice even over 'pro' glass.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 12th, 2010, 12:47 PM   #13
t|23v0|2 n00b t00n3|2
 
Trevendous03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,572
Bahhhh whatever... I really just hate any variable-aperture lenses. haha Every variable aperture zoom lens I've ever had does not even compare with the fast/constant-aperture lenses. For $400, you can't beat the price of the Tamron 28-75... even beginners can't beat that price.

Anyway though, when making your decision about which camera to get, you don't really need IS or VR (image stabilization/vibration reduction), because if you get a fast lens, image stabilization renders obsolete. Also, pretty much all the new cameras come with superb features, just don't settle on features alone, like *ehem* 1080p vs 720p video. You're not getting a DSLR for its video capabilities, that's just a bonus! Menu/system comprehension, image quality, high-ISO performance, semi-fast FPS continuous shooting speed, and feel of the camera trump excessive amount of megapixels or excessive features anyday! One feature that is a must-have though is a top LCD... any DSLR without a top LCD you should just throw out of the mix. The top LCD comes in so handy, couldn't tell you the last time I even touched my menu to change aperture or shutter speed or metering. Dials and top LCD, my friend.
Trevendous03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 13th, 2010, 07:29 PM   #14
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
Bahhhh whatever... I really just hate any variable-aperture lenses. haha Every variable aperture zoom lens I've ever had does not even compare with the fast/constant-aperture lenses. For $400, you can't beat the price of the Tamron 28-75... even beginners can't beat that price.

Anyway though, when making your decision about which camera to get, you don't really need IS or VR (image stabilization/vibration reduction), because if you get a fast lens, image stabilization renders obsolete.


This is all very misleading because you're not qualifying your comments with a particular style or type of photography. I've got or have owned slow variable aperture kit lenses, I've got heavy fully professional f/2.8 zooms, I've got primes from f/1.4 to f/2.8, and I've got lenses with and without stabilization, and some fully manual only lenses. There's a time and a place for all of them. It all depends on your particular style of photogrpahy and what you're trying to accomplish, and simply what would "work" best. You can say one might be "better" than another, but it's meaningless without qualifying the comments towards a particular type of photography.

Shooting along the famous Boat Quay in Singapore as the light was fading I needed to stay stopped down as much as possible for maximum depth of field to keep everything in focus, but also wanted to avoid pushing ISO any more than needed for maximum image quality. I had my 18-55VR f/3.5-5.6, and my 17-55 f/2.8 with me. Guess which did a better job? The 18-55VR did, because with the VR system it let me stay stopped down at a smaller aperture with more in focus and made a nicer photo than the 17-55 did shooting at 2.8 with less in focus! And when the light went away and I wanted to get some long exposure shots of boats going through the river, my ultra-light tripod could easily support that little kit lens, but definitely not the pro f/2.8 zoom. Would have needed a far bigger and heavier and far more annoying and less portable tripod to support that beast, but you hardly need anything at all to support the kit lenses. At 35mm and f/5.6, both lenses return identical images. The extra aperture and size and weight of the big lens only become a hindrance, so guess which lens always stays home for travel/vacation shots?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
Also, pretty much all the new cameras come with superb features, just don't settle on features alone, like *ehem* 1080p vs 720p video. You're not getting a DSLR for its video capabilities, that's just a bonus! Menu/system comprehension, image quality, high-ISO performance, semi-fast FPS continuous shooting speed, and feel of the camera trump excessive amount of megapixels or excessive features anyday!
This I agree with wholeheartedly. The amount of pure crap they're throwing into cameras these days is simply insane. Manuals are hitting 500+ pages, all in English, which is absolutely retarded.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
One feature that is a must-have though is a top LCD... any DSLR without a top LCD you should just throw out of the mix. The top LCD comes in so handy, couldn't tell you the last time I even touched my menu to change aperture or shutter speed or metering. Dials and top LCD, my friend.
Obsolete throwback to the film era. Would never miss my top LCD, except for the fact that Nikon took a GOOD thing and brilliant design with the rear Info screen in the D40 and have now completely hosed it up in the D90. On the D40 I could back my eye away from the viewfinder, see everything and adjust everything I needed to quickly on the rear Info display which was all in plain view, and then quickly get back to shooting. On the D90 I have to pull the camera away, flip up to see the top LCD, flip back down to make sure I'm hitting the proper shared button, flip back up to see the top LCD and make adjustments, then flip back down and get back into the viewfinder. That's stupid. My problem with the rear info display is that despite the huuuuge 3" screen, a lot of stuff is now hidden like exposure compensation settings and only show up when you hit the shared buttons!! It's also quite disorganized and not nearly as easy to read quickly like you can on the D40, so I'm back to using the antiquated TOP LCD all because Nikon somehow managed to screw up a good thing. Otherwise the ergonomics of the D90 are almost flawless. I wish the rear info display was copied exactly from the D40. They could take the top LCD out, save some size and weight and cost, and I'd never miss it for a second.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 14th, 2010, 09:08 AM   #15
t|23v0|2 n00b t00n3|2
 
Trevendous03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,572
lol I was just saying that from my experience with variable-aperture lenses, my fast zooms perform better. Doesn't the 17-55 f/2.8 have much better optics than the kit lens? Does that lens really weigh that much more? Idk why you'd prefer the kit lens even with VR other than weight. My new Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 weighs just a fraction more than a kit lens, so there is such a thing as having a semi-professional zoom lens that doesn't weigh a ton. Basically what I was saying about VR or IS is for him to not get the kit lens just cause it has VR and these other more professional lenses don't. It's not overly important to base a decision off of.

I made the mistake of getting the Nikon D60 as my first DSLR when the D40 is actually a better camera body, because it's less pixels jam-packed into the same-sized sensor, so the sharpness of the image with a D40 would have been better. I got the D60 based on megapixels and the VR kit lens, and now I wish I would have never wasted the money on the D60 and started with the D40 instead.

Now I have a D90 though, so it's all good. I actually haven't had an issue with the D90's viewfinder or info displays. If you press "info" on the rear LCD of the D90, it shows you your settings, then you can adjust with the dials, and I prefer the top LCD, because it has everything right there in a more concise layout, and I just use dials to quickly change things. There is also a way to quickly adjust the ISO with a dial and view it in the viewfinder (if you set it that way in the menus first). Pretty sure you can't be in manual mode and do this though. :/ I guess that's the only issue I see, the ISO can be a bit cumbersome to adjust with the D90.
Trevendous03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 14th, 2010, 01:35 PM   #16
Just a Regular Member now
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 962
Send a message via AIM to Dizzy
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is another option. I found the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 not wide enough for me. I should have kept it in hindsight. I think it took better pictures than my Tamron 17-50. Oh well, I'll save up for the next lens.

I agree with the others. Buy body only. Or buy with kit lens 28-135 and sell it fast.

You really need to goto a store and just play with the cameras to see how they feel. Ignore any offer to help. Most sales want to push one product or another depending on the day. The reality is, Canon and Nikon both take really good shots. The differences are what Steve already stated. Some people on the other camera forums get annoyed at me when I only recommend Nikon or Canon. Why not Olympus, Pentax, or Sony they ask? There are many reasons which I'll get into later...I've got to get back to work...LOL.

I like the Canon T1L and actually considered getting it as a second camera
Dizzy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 14th, 2010, 05:58 PM   #17
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
lol I was just saying that from my experience with variable-aperture lenses, my fast zooms perform better.
Yes, for you, and in your type of photography. Doesn't mean that would be the case in other types, or for all types. Important to emphasize that for the n00bs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
Doesn't the 17-55 f/2.8 have much better optics than the kit lens? Does that lens really weigh that much more? Idk why you'd prefer the kit lens even with VR other than weight.
The kit lens optics are outstanding! Just slower. Seriously.

Go to Photozone.de and compare the MTF resolution of the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens to the 17-55mm f/2.8 pro zoom and you'll see that at a given focal length and equal aperture the kit lens is just as good if not better than the pro zoom is. And actually, the 18-55 kit lens tends to be a bit better at the edges and corners than the 17-55/2.8 because its much simpler and slower optics bends and distorts light around less resulting in a flatter focusing field and more consistent sharpness across the frame. I've seen this personally in my own testing shooting the two lenses side-by-side.

So if you're going to be doing a lot of landscape/scenic or travel type photography where you're generally going to want to stop down as much as possible for maximum depth of field, what does that fast 2.8 pro lens buy you shooting it at f/5.6 or smaller? Absolutely nothing. It's more a liability than an asset since if you want a tripod shot you need a much larger and far more annoying tripod which are a pain to walk around with, it draws attention to yourself and invites theft, and if you're walking around a lot the extra weight becomes aggravating. When the light fades you still want that smaller aperture for depth of field, so a stabilized 5.6 lens is still preferable to a non-stabilized 2.8, or even a stabilized 2.8.

Lots of people think that if you buy a larger f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lens that it's "always" going to be better than a 3.5-5.6 or whatever at all focal lengths and apertures and that they'll for sure get much better image quality all the time and in all shooting conditions, but it just isn't so.

Go here: http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

Go to the "Going Light - Travel Kits" section and you can read the story about Thom Hogan's shocking discovery that the world renowned and famous Galen Rowell was hiking around in the mountains getting his trademark shots with a dinky little 80-200mm f/4-5.6 lens and a 20mm f/4, along with equally dinky Nikon film bodies. You don't get those miraculous photos that Galen did at sunrise by dragging many pounds of heavy f/2.8 pro lenses several miles into and UP the mountains before dawn. If I had hiked up Mount Faber in Singapore with my 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 in 95F weather and 90% humidity, I probably would have died long before getting to the top. Instead I just had my kit lens and a Tokina 11-16, got lots of great shots, and lived.

And note I'm again emphasizing a particular type and style of photography here - travel/scenic stuff. The reason you would buy and use a 17-55/2.8 are for totally and completely different reasons 180 degrees apart.

The 2.8 constant aperture lets you get nice portrait shots at 55mm, not applicable to landscape or travel shots. The fast aperture also extends the range of your flash, also not applicable to landscape or travel photography. The insanely fast and accurate AF is great for action shots and things that don't hold still, also not applicable to landscape and travel shots. The weather sealing is for when you're out chasing your kids around in the snow and your whole camera body and lens setup is going to get soaked, similarly inapplicable to landscape and travel shots. And the superior build quality is nice for when you're getting knocked around, which isn't too likely on travel. Every reason for which you'd only want and buy the Nikon 17-55/2.8 lens for one type of photography (portraiture, photojournalist, news) is absolutely irrelevant for another (landscape and travel).

Sometimes I think I'm one of the only people that has both the pro 17-55 and dinky kit 18-55 lenses and enjoys them both equally for their respective intended purposes. Needless to say, if you try to use the 18-55 lens for the purposes the 17-55/2.8 was intended for you're going to be let down. It doesn't mean the kit lens is a bad lens though - it means you're using it for a purpose other than for what it was intended. Nikon makes very few 'bad' lenses and their kit lenses certainly aren't any of those [see here] Ken put the 18-55 kit lens in his '10 Best' listing. It really is great when you use it where it's strong. You can use the 17-55/2.8 for the purposes the 18-55 was intended for and still get good results, but you're toting around a whole lot of excess baggage for no better (if not worse) results and needlessly complicating things for yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
My new Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 weighs just a fraction more than a kit lens, so there is such a thing as having a semi-professional zoom lens that doesn't weigh a ton. Basically what I was saying about VR or IS is for him to not get the kit lens just cause it has VR and these other more professional lenses don't. It's not overly important to base a decision off of.
I thought you were saying a fast lens would obsolete the need for VR/IS? If you do travel or landscape photography, VR is a huge huge benefit. Again, you generally want to stay stopped down at smaller apertures for travel/landscape stuff for maximum DOF, so the larger aperture is of little benefit, but VR/IS definitely is because it lets you stay at the smaller apertures and lower ISOs for longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
I made the mistake of getting the Nikon D60 as my first DSLR when the D40 is actually a better camera body, because it's less pixels jam-packed into the same-sized sensor, so the sharpness of the image with a D40 would have been better. I got the D60 based on megapixels and the VR kit lens, and now I wish I would have never wasted the money on the D60 and started with the D40 instead.
Having shot with my dad's D60 quite a bit to make sure it was working right (Adorama refurb, $299), I'd actually like it quite a bit and probably even more than the D40 for landscape/travel stuff. And funnily enough if you read Thom's snippet on travel kits he believes that if Galen Rowell was still alive today that the D60 would be his choice DSLR (along with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR kit lenses! ). I've learned how to tweak every last bit out of that 10MP CCD sensor from my D200, so the extra pixels could be of some good use for landscape work. The D60 also has Active D-Lighting which will certainly help out with travel shots, and the metering is better to so you won't have to screw around for a few shots trying to get the bloody metering right like you would on the D40. There's lots of firmware features in there too that aren't in the D40, my favorite of which is the "rangefinder" mode option which converts the finder exposure meter display to a focus assist display when using lenses that don't have AF support on that body, like the Tokina 11-16/2.8 that I had. You get the tiny little 'green dot' in the lower left of the finder on the D40, but the D60 rangefinder mode was sooooo much better. So like they say, one man's trash is another's treasure.

I do like those Tamron lenses. They're nice and sharp, both the 17-50 and 28-75, possibly sharper than the Nikons. I'd gladly have bought one and saved a whole ton of money vs the Nikkor, but all the reports of lousy and slow AF and poor low light focusing (and ugly bokeh on the 17-50) caused me to steer clear. Also my 17-55 has probably taken enough hard hits ("rough play" with the kids ) to probably have knocked the Tamrons out of whack.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 14th, 2010, 08:22 PM   #18
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
A couple other things I thought of (only because maybe it'd help the newbs, otherwise I wouldn't bother ing so much )

A lot of people seem to think that if they buy the "pro" 17-55/2.8 or other pro lens that it's supposed to perform absolutely perfectly when used any way they want. A lot of dorks on forums take their 70-200VR f/2.8 lens optimized for sports, portraiture, and photojournalism and shoot brick walls with it, and then get horrified that the corners aren't perfectly sharp and whine and complain. Well duh, it ain't a macro lens. If you want great brick wall shots then you need to get a lens that optimized for uniform sharpness throughout, and which also has an optical design that gives a perfectly flat focus plane. That's what a macro lens is for, not that thing. A lot of people don't accept that though, and demand and expect a lens to perform perfectly in all areas all at the same time, just because they paid a lot. It doesn't work like that. It's like getting an Accord with the V6 but then not expecting it to consume anymore fuel, and also not expecting it to feel anymore nose heavy and be just as balanced as the 4-cylinder is, and then being horrified and upset when you discover that's not the case. Unrealistic expectations. You can never get everything all at the same time. I'm an engineer so I know this, but most people don't. You want an absolutely perfect first model year car that never has any "first year issues", it could happen. But how would you like a 7 or 8 year design cycle rather than 5, and how would you like to pay more like $40k for an Accord rather than $20-30k.

A whole ton of D60 shots from my parents Alaskan Cruise. It's seriously a great travel camera. Almost every shot my dad took was perfectly exposed and the Active D-Lighting handled the more extreme lighting situations perfectly. With the awful matrix metering and no ADL on the D40/D80, I would have been chasing exposures all over the map. All my dad had was his 18-135 kit lens and shot the whole time on green dummy AUTO mode. The camera truly did a great job, better than my D40 or D80 would have done in that mode. I just saw my sister post some photos from Laos on her FB presumably from her D80, and a lot of the shots had exposure "issues".

Last point. It's not like the camera companies are going to tell you any of this either. They want you to be as confused as possible and if they idea exists or is floating around that if you spend $1000+ for one of their professional lenses that you'll automatically get better photos then they're all for it! If you think you'll get much better landscape and travel photos with the $1200 17-55 f/2.8 than you will with the $100 18-55VR kit lens then they're all for that too, even though there's little if any difference. Ken is independent and isn't afraid to tell you that a lens like the 17-55 is pretty pointless for his genre of landscape and scenic photos. He did that review back in 2004. With the newer 18-55VR kit lens I'm sure he'd say there's even less point. Ken isn't a photojournalist though. I am (with my kids) and it's an outstanding lens for that.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 15th, 2010, 12:55 PM   #19
Just a Regular Member now
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 962
Send a message via AIM to Dizzy
Who thinks Steve should start his own "Ken Rockwell" type site? LOL. Sign up with Google adsense and you'll be getting a few hundred dollars a month too

Seriously Steve, you're pretty much right on the money on the last two posts. I'm not a fan of the slow focus of the 17-50, but I'm also not willing to spend more money on a lens that I won't use as much either, so I'll keep it for now..LOL. My next purchase might be a Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22 for my landscape shots when I'm up at Deep Creek Lake.
Dizzy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 16th, 2010, 09:44 PM   #20
t|23v0|2 n00b t00n3|2
 
Trevendous03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,572
haha I read most of what you said, but man, oh, man I am ADD. isn't everyone nowadays though? teheheh

I do agree with a lot of what you say Steve, but I just offer a rebuttal about the pro lenses and the D60. I also have a question... why are pro zooms like 10x as expensive if they don't have better optics?

I only speak about the D60 based on experience with it... the CCD sensor doesn't appeal to me as well as CMOS does. The CCD does provide a very sharp image, but I'm sure that would have been much sharper even with the D40, because Nikon fit almost twice as many pixels into the same sensor with the D60. Why I prefer CMOS is because it makes for softer portraits for me, and portraits are my name of the game. Anyway though, to each his own, and I do agree with the camera choices available obviously. If he's on a lower budget, the Nikon D5000 would be a good choice, although the lens compatibility sucks with that camera or the Canon T1i would be great. With a higher budget, the Nikon D90 or Canon 50D would be great!

Anyways, I tried my Tamron 28-75 for the first time tonight, and the AF was hunting like crazy in low light. It was nighttime though and not ideal for using a f/2.8 lens, but I was also using a AlienBees ring flash. I hope the AF isn't this slow when it's daytime...
Trevendous03 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old January 17th, 2010, 07:25 PM   #21
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevendous03 View Post
haha I read most of what you said, but man, oh, man I am ADD. isn't everyone nowadays though? teheheh

I do agree with a lot of what you say Steve, but I just offer a rebuttal about the pro lenses and the D60. I also have a question... why are pro zooms like 10x as expensive if they don't have better optics?
Already mentioned...

- Lighting fast "snap" instantaneous, accurate, and consistent autofocus.
- Great autofocus performance even in crappy light.
- Sharp optical performance wide-open and at all focal lengths.
- "built like a tank" build quality.
- Far superior quality control with very little sample variation, at least on Nikons.
- weather sealing for use in snowy/rainy conditions
- Creamy smooth bokeh qualities

Only pro lenses will give you all of that all at the same time, and that's reflected in the price. You're paying for a lot more than the optics. If you can get by without having all of that stuff in a lens at the same time, then by all means save yourself a whole ton of money and only pay for what you reasonably need.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old September 2nd, 2010, 09:53 PM   #22
Ty
 
drnguyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin/ Dallas
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to drnguyen
just read everything on this thread. great thread for camera noobs such as myself haha. i am thinking about grabbing a d40 pretty soon.
drnguyen is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old September 3rd, 2010, 12:58 AM   #23
Growth Chart Specialist
 
Shenaniganz08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hawthorne
Posts: 3,422
Send a message via AIM to Shenaniganz08
same here

whats a good lens for the d40

All i need is a camera that can take good indoor pics of people hanging out, and preferably one that can also take good car pics
Shenaniganz08 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old September 3rd, 2010, 04:42 AM   #24
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
The 18-55 kit lens can take indoors people pictures, with an SB-400 flash and bouncing it off of walls and ceilings. If you don't want to use a flash, or just not much flash, the 35/1.8 AF-S is excellent but won't let you zoom in for a tighter portrait shot, and it might not let you get wide enough for a couple of people. If you want portrait shots, here's where Nikon kills you. The little 50mm f/1.8 lens is excellent for $100, but won't autofocus on the D40 bodies. You can manually focus it, but it's difficult since the feel is lousy and it isn't geared right. If you want an autofocusing 50mm on the D40 you have to step all the way up to the 50mm f/1.4G AF-S which is excellent, but also $450.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old September 3rd, 2010, 06:46 AM   #25
J35 6Spd
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 6,107
like steve said, the 35mm 1.8 AFS is a great lens that will autofocus on the D40, and is pretty cheap at $200 for the lens. I use the 35mm the most out of my lenses, especially indoors. You can get away with taking pictures indoors and in dim light with no flash. As far as zoom lenses go... the 18-55 that comes with the d40 is great, or slap on a 18-200 VR ($700 new, 5-650 used) and you probably wont need any other lens due to the large focal length coverage
Kschwiggy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old September 3rd, 2010, 11:31 AM   #26
Ty
 
drnguyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin/ Dallas
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to drnguyen
thanks guy. found on craigs for 450 ish that comes w/ 15-55 and 55-200...already email the guy just waiting for him to get back to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shenaniganz08 View Post
same here

whats a good lens for the d40

All i need is a camera that can take good indoor pics of people hanging out, and preferably one that can also take good car pics
i kinda been reading this site..seems helpful and full of info... since you and i in same boat thought you should check it out.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
drnguyen is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old September 3rd, 2010, 08:07 PM   #27
Just a Regular Member now
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 962
Send a message via AIM to Dizzy
Thanks for checking our photog section out. You'll find that most of us aren't the super snobs that you find on all the other pure photo sites.
Dizzy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Chapter
Choose your AV6 Chapter Location
Ride
What do you drive?
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On