Camera

[SmokinRAM114]

i want to buy a GOOD digital camera and im dumb when it comes to one of those, but im always looking to try. what should i look for? camera and lense. basically if u got something good and used let me know. my friend shoots a D80 with a Sigma 70-200 F2.8. i have no ****** clue wat that means and all he said is it wasnt cheap lol:rolf but he always has amazing shots like this one from the national at redbud few weeks ago:drool:

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn36/AdamZabel/32.jpg

[Smokey1226]

I want a Canon 40D, its big $$$ but its incredible. the 80D is also very very nice!

[lasttimearound]

check out the 400d. its a 'cheaper' version of the 40d. i have one and love it, it does feel a bit cheaper than my friends 40d, however it does everything i need and more. you can get them with a basic lens, bag and extra battery for like 500 on ebay, then you can always upgrade lens later.

[Smokey1226]

check out the 400d. its a 'cheaper' version of the 40d. i have one and love it, it does feel a bit cheaper than my friends 40d, however it does everything i need and more. you can get them with a basic lens, bag and extra battery for like 500 on ebay, then you can always upgrade lens later.

I would be very skeptical on how it preforms when the 40D is $1400 with a great lens and then one your talking about for $500. I could understand if it was $200-$300 difference but no $800-$900

[lasttimearound]

well, call me a liar then, its cool mang. it performs well. does everything i need, and im sure most people need. it doesnt have the magnesium body the 40d has, but its more than i need really. the lens on the 500-600 one is sh*t, but whatever, if you're just starting its fine til you can afford a nice all around. talk to scott, he was the one who recommended it to me. thanks scott, by the way.

[wikked]

I would be very skeptical on how it preforms when the 40D is $1400 with a great lens and then one your talking about for $500. I could understand if it was $200-$300 difference but no $800-$900

It's all about the lens.
A 400D with a $1,000 L series lens, will blow the doors off the 40D with the 18-55 kit lens.


I have an even lower model (350D), but a decent lens (28-135 IS)... I'd say it does well:

http://wikked.com/350d/bf1.jpg

http://wikked.com/350d/fountains.jpg

(right-field bleachers)
http://wikked.com/350d/gabekapler.jpg

http://wikked.com/350d/girl-puppy.jpg

http://wikked.com/350d/house-led2.jpg

http://wikked.com/350d/skisplash0.jpg

http://wikked.com/350d/hart.jpg

http://wikked.com/98/350dspyder/spyder10-20-07b.jpg

etc. etc. :goof

[Smokey1226]

well, call me a liar then, its cool mang. it performs well. does everything i need, and im sure most people need. it doesnt have the magnesium body the 40d has, but its more than i need really. the lens on the 500-600 one is sh*t, but whatever, if you're just starting its fine til you can afford a nice all around. talk to scott, he was the one who recommended it to me. thanks scott, by the way.

lol, im not calling you a lair. I was just saying when you said "its the same camera just the cheaper model". And to me Theres gotta be some major differences to make for a $800+ difference.

No doubt in my mind, can the 400D take great pictures. Hell the pictures above this post are incredible! And i believe those were on a 350D. The 400D would be perfect for someone like Chris and I.


BTW: School me on lens, and what to look for, and what the numbers really mean? The lens on the pictures above is outstanding.

[lasttimearound]

yeah, i was annoyed last night, not at you, but some phucker broke into my garage and took some shit. so i probably shouldnt have been posting. anyway, to be honest, the 400d does most if not everything my friends 40d will do. the 40d seems expensive when you hold it, the magnesium body is amazing, but as far as features, they seem to have the same. the lens is where you make up the quality. i bought mine for 800 and the lens that came with it seems to be amazing so far. people like scott and my friend have a lens or two that go for about 7k, i know my friend got a great deal on his, but his listed for like 8800.

[SmokinRAM114]

yeah, i was annoyed last night, not at you, but some phucker broke into my garage and took some shit. so i probably shouldnt have been posting. anyway, to be honest, the 400d does most if not everything my friends 40d will do. the 40d seems expensive when you hold it, the magnesium body is amazing, but as far as features, they seem to have the same. the lens is where you make up the quality. i bought mine for 800 and the lens that came with it seems to be amazing so far. people like scott and my friend have a lens or two that go for about 7k, i know my friend got a great deal on his, but his listed for like 8800.

:durr im not about to get that crazy in it:stare 8k for a flippin piece of glass. ill look into that 400d

[wikked]

BTW: School me on lens, and what to look for, and what the numbers really mean? The lens on the pictures above is outstanding.

Thanks :)

Basically, the lower the f-number, the better. (and more expensive)
I.E. your friends f2.8 ($650-$800) can take pictures of moving objects with incredible sharpness, because of it's low f-number.

At f2.8, it lets in a lot of light, allowing for a faster shutter speed.
This is what also makes the background soft/blurry/out of focus.

The higher you set the f-number, the more everything around your subject comes into focus.
This also will dramatically decrease the shutter speed, especially in low-light.
Like, at f14, pretty much everything will be in focus around your subject, but if you don't have a decent amount of light (dusk/night/poorly lit gyms/forests/etc.), you're better off taking pictures of non-moving objects.

There is an amazing lens that is a fixed 50mm (no zooming in/out) focal length, but goes as low as f1.8. It's a mere $100.
That picture, 3rd from the bottom (jetski pouring water out) was taken with that lens at f1.8.
The only catch is, you need to be pretty close to whatever you're taking a picture of, to take advantage of the fast shutter speed.
It works great for portrait shots though.


Some lenses are 'IS' which has Image Stabilization built right into the lens, that really jacks up the price as well.

I'm definitely not an expert, so I'm sure others can chime in with more/better info.

[lit666]

Talk to Isaac, he posts on here sometimes. I think his screen name is sacstoy or something like that. He's a camera guy and knows his shit.

[Cryptic]

wikked sum'd it up well...

Your paying for a lens that can operate at lower light and still keep that shutter from having to stay open so long that your subject moves and you end up with a blurry picture.

Better lenses will stay at their lowest F-number throughout their zoom range.

Cheaper ones will be say F3.5 at 24mm but will be F5.6 at full zoom (say 70mm)

Each "Stop" of light is half the light, so technically you need twice the exposure time (shutter open) to achieve same light in picture.

Full Stops 1 1.4 2 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22 32 45 64

[whitepony]

I'm a professional photographer (weddings and such) and I have a Pentax *ist D. I have several lenses for it. I love it some friends of mine have the canon rebel which you can buy at like a best buy or something and those are decent too.

[lilws6]

wow i didn't know camera's could get so techinical i want a good nikon but damn they get expensive quick and i as well know nothign about the lenses and what not

[lilws6]

not to jack the thread or anything but would this be a good first camera and just upgrade the lense by what i just read in above posts the lense should be decent if i'm not mistaken does the mega pixels mean anything with these cameras?
http://www.preferredphoto.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=3545160&l=Froogle

[wikked]

I'd stay away from preferredphoto... they have been known to be shady dealers, burned many people.
(they also go by the names Broadway Photo / A&M Photo World, Regal Camera, Prestige Camera, Preferred Photo, Royal Camera)
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo


You might be able to find a used D40 w/kit lens for $400... maybe.
New, that package goes for more like $500.

It's $470 at B&H, with free shipping.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/471716-REG/Nikon_25420_D40_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

[whitepony]

I ordered mine from B&H Photo and Video

[lilws6]

but its a decent package that was the first sit i got with it so i just posted it for a refference

[DirtyMax]

There is an amazing lens that is a fixed 50mm (no zooming in/out) focal length, but goes as low as f1.8. It's a mere $100.
That picture, 3rd from the bottom (jetski pouring water out) was taken with that lens at f1.8.


Nifty Fifty FTW. I've gotten some of my best shots with that lens! :thumbsup

[jamest]

not to jack the thread or anything but would this be a good first camera and just upgrade the lense by what i just read in above posts the lense should be decent if i'm not mistaken does the mega pixels mean anything with these cameras?
http://www.preferredphoto.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=3545160&l=Froogle

Like mentioned above B&H photo is a good company to work with. The same with Calumet photo calumetphoto.com. KEH.com is great for used equipment. Other sites might be cheaper but usually they sell gray market cameras and manufactorer warranties don't apply if it is gray market.

Both the lens quality and the quality of the chip are all pieces of the puzzle to make a great photograph. Exposure, lens, composition etc. also are just as important. You can have a great $1mil. lens but if the chip is poor quality it won't make a difference. Megapixels are a huge part of it. The more mega pixels the larger you can make a print. Typically a 10MP camera can cover all your needs.

I would suggest to anyone that wants to get into a DSLR system to go to dpreview.com. They have a great glossary of terms and explain functions and the basics of photography really well.

[Smokey1226]

Talk to Isaac, he posts on here sometimes. I think his screen name is sacstoy or something like that. He's a camera guy and knows his shit.

Imma have to talk to Isaac about this, as he is basically a neighbor to our gas station and stops in quite a bit. Plus he is incredibly nice!

[Nick]

It's definitely all about the glass. As far as the "blowing doors off" claims of the body, not necessarily true. 40D has a ton of capability and options over 400D and 350D. Many claim the 350D and 400D have better sensors, but that is hearsay. It's about the glass and about your talent with the camera.

One feature in particular about the 40D is the new Highlight Tone Priority.
Read about it here. It's almost invaluable. http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/highlight-tone-priority-image-salvation.html

The 40D takes higher quality images at higher ISO with little noise also. Much faster shooting speed too. Ergonomically MUCH more comfortable too.

Shot this week with my 40D and Canon 70-200 F/2.8 USM L at Yellow Stone and Jackson Hole, WY.

http://bordumb.com/forums/uploads/monthly_08_2008/post-2-1217909456.jpg

http://bordumb.com/forums/uploads/monthly_08_2008/post-2-1217909823.jpg

Shot with my 40D and my Canon 10-22 USM lens
http://bordumb.com/forums/uploads/monthly_08_2008/post-2-1217909484.jpg

http://bordumb.com/forums/uploads/monthly_08_2008/post-2-1217831704.jpg

[badass88gt]

What do the different numbers mean for the lenses, 18-55mm, 50mm, 55-200mm? Why are they in millimeters and what does each lens do differently?

Is a 10 megapixel much, much better than a 6.1mp? Is it noticeable to the "average" user like myself?

[badass88gt]

Nick, you mentioned the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 USM L Lens, am I looking it up correctly, that is over $1000 lens?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

[jamest]

What do the different numbers mean for the lenses, 18-55mm, 50mm, 55-200mm? Why are they in millimeters and what does each lens do differently?

Is a 10 megapixel much, much better than a 6.1mp? Is it noticeable to the "average" user like myself?

The 18mm-55mm etc. is the focal length of the lens. They are in mm because it is measured from the optical center of the lens to the focal point of the film or sensor. Each lens provides different results. A lower number such as 18mm is wide angle. 50mm is considered a normal lens. Anything above 80mm is considered a telephoto lens.

Yes the more mega pixels in general will be better. However, it is all about how you define an average user and what you want to photograph. Finally how much money you want to spend will answer whether 10MP or 6MP is noticeable for you.

[Nick]

Nick, you mentioned the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 USM L Lens, am I looking it up correctly, that is over $1000 lens?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

This is correct. That is about what I paid for mine. The model with Image Stabilization is significantly more expensive as well. around 1600 I think. That is really not as necessary as on the f/4 model though because the 2.8 lets more light in and allows for faster shutter speeds or depending on the model camera you have, a less noisy higher ISO setting also can go a long way - such as that in the 40D.

Image stabilization would be a good thing if you shoot in a lot of low light situations though.


The 18mm-55mm etc. is the focal length of the lens. They are in mm because it is measured from the optical center of the lens to the focal point of the film or sensor. Each lens provides different results. A lower number such as 18mm is wide angle. 50mm is considered a normal lens. Anything above 80mm is considered a telephoto lens.

Yes the more mega pixels in general will be better. However, it is all about how you define an average user and what you want to photograph. Finally how much money you want to spend will answer whether 10MP or 6MP is noticeable for you.

This man is correct.

[Goat Roper]

This is correct. That is about what I paid for mine. The model with Image Stabilization is significantly more expensive as well. around 1600 I think. That is really not as necessary as on the f/4 model though because the 2.8 lets more light in and allows for faster shutter speeds or depending on the model camera you have, a less noisy higher ISO setting also can go a long way - such as that in the 40D.

Image stabilization would be a good thing if you shoot in a lot of low light situations though.


The Canon 70-200 2.8 lens either in IS or non-IS really is a "must have" if you ask me for your camera bag (right next to a 24-70 2.8L :headbang ) The F4 with IS costs roughly about the same as a 2.8 non-IS but the IS does not get you near the extra stop of light that the 2.8 gives you. IQ on the 2.8 is better in my experience as well.

You can get a slightly used 2.8 IS model for around $1500 and one with some external wear for $1300. The things just don't lose much of their value, which makes them a good investment. If you want new you can catch a $200 rebate every now and then on them as well.

The 40D really is the best bet in the prosumer market. As far as comparing the XTi and such to the 40D the sensors are the same but it is the ton of background things like the DIGICIII processor copmpared to the DIGICII, the higher bit digital processor on the 40D and a bunch of other geeky stuff that I can run over but it is just easier to say that the 40D really is the direction you want to go.

Anyway, just my .02 on it