Let me know. Some of you guys havent met me yet, but Im a really easy going guy and love to take photos. I have over 4 grand in equipment. Like my sig says I do have some credentials as far as those things go and I do get paid on the side to do it. Feel free to check out my website in my sig and let me know if any of you all would be interested in a photoshoot (hope this doesnt get deleted for hinting at advertising :rofl: )
I always do event photos for any "club" Im in personally for no charge at all. :wiggle: My way of giving back to the community.
remove my previous statement as for its now working..... Your site just anwsered a question i was tring to anwser before getting my Digital SLR. about lens..i wasnt sure if the nikon only fit the nikon and so on.
JESUS D200? thats like 2 grand! and you lenses...gawww.. Heh, everyone has the standered 18-55mm lenses nowadays. Those are some nice pictures....envyness...
I've seen some of your photoshoots on ImportAtlanta, they're always top notch. Glad to have you on the site.
Hey, I already hit you up about this, but since you live close to me we need to go out and have a session sometime. I could use all the pointers I can get.
I researched a bunch lately about building up a DSLR system. It's pretty much Canon or Nikon. I'm looking at a D80 or 30D (very nice rebates on Canon atm, can grab a 30D for around $950). What glass do you find you use most? Has anyone used the Nikon 18-200 VR?
Don't neglect the idea of a lightly used 20D or even 10D. People keep upgrading to the latest and greatest whether they need to or not, and you can get the previous generation at a nice price sometimes. As for glass, if you go with Canon it's very hard to beat the L glass. It comes at a premium, but the lenses are simply fantastic. I use a 70-200/4L (weighs about half as much as the 2.8 so it's more manageable) and it's insanely sharp and contrasty. As for Nikon v. Canon, either way you get access to an enormous amount of both manufacturer brand and third party lenses and accessories. You can not go wrong with either.
I have been keeping my eye out for used cameras. The 30D is within budget because of the double rebates. The following lenses all get good reviews and are within budget as well. The "L" glass can get pricey quick. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (portrait, outdoor sports, wildlife, landscape) Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (general purpose) Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (landscape, architecture)
The 17-85 you listed is ok, but the borders are horrendously soft on the wide end, even when stopped down. Considering you're looking at a 10-22 for the wide/ultrawide, might be worth considering something else for the middle range. Also, be sure to pick up a 'nifty fifty' (50/1.8) -- they are tack sharp, light weight, and can be had for $60-70. A fantastic shorter portrait lens. And finally, the 70-200/4 is borderline for outdoor sports. I've shot some with mine, and found myself wishing for something longer. It would be fine with a 1.4x TC but then you're facing a f/5.6 on the far end.
Check out this site for a decent price on the body only...well respected in the photo community: http://www.adorama.com/INKD80.html
D80 is a great body, but the D200 is on the same level as the 30D in many aspects. Like Moose has mentioned, upgrading or buying an expensive body isnt the way to go. Everyone is always in awe at high megapixel numbers, and flashy gimmicks to increase the wanting of someone to buy an expensive body. But your camera body is only as strong as your best piece of glass. For a while I shot with a D50 and decided to shell out a 1000 for a telephoto lens. It was money well spent, way more than if I had kept my budget lens and bought a D2X or something like that. Glass lasts forever, bodys do not. My personal reccommendation is purchase a D50 or D70 and use the money you saved on the body and purchase a high end Sigma or Nikon glass. I use all sigmas predominatly and Nikon Primes. My primes are my money makers though because of how versatile and how sharp they are. I tend to steer clear of all around type lenses such as 18-200 type stuff. And VR is great for beginners but its not useful in my opinion when you start becoming more advanced.
This is pretty much what Ive been using for the most part. Ive picked up one more prime since. I choose not to really get into the whole Nikon versus Canon debate though, only because in my opinion both sides have great equipment. However, Ive always like color reproduction on Nikons.
I will have to disagree with you on VR/IS not being useful other than for beginners. If anything, beginners should mostly AVOID it; itcan become a crutch and hamper development as far as learning how to hold steady, pan properly etc... As for their usefulness, 2-3 stops advantage is 2-3 stops advantage no matter how you slice it. Yes, you can get the same advantage with a monopod, but if you use a monopod AND VR/IS you're even better off. But that's just my $.02... I'm really a 4x5 kind of shooter anyway, so take it for what it's worth.
If the price difference between glass wasn't about a thousand, VR or IS would be worth it. But I don't see myself spending almost a thousand more for a lens just because it allows me to shoot 2- 3 stops faster.
I was just looking for any real world opinions on the 18-200VR mostly because it's $750 and is very highly reviewed/recommended. The VR is nice but mostly I am intrigued by the range. I know no lens can do everything, but this one seems to be a great lens when you only want to carry one. I'm not a pro, just a wanna be amateur. A used D70s is around $600-700. A new 30D is $950. No way to tell how many shutter clicks the used camera may have either. To me, the price difference is insignificant as the glass is way more important as it will be kept a lot longer than the body. Good discussion, keep the opinions flowing.
I agree, however the difference isn't necessarily that much. The 70-200/2.8 L lens carries a $500 or so premium for IS. The real penalty for going IS in my opinion is the weight increase. RADON: I wouldn't fret the # of shutter clicks, unless you have encountered cases where the shutter was actually worn out from use. Modern SLRs are extremely reliable and don't wear out quickly. Also, the 18-200 is an exercise in compromise. Lighter weight, wide range, better price; they all contribute negatively to optical performance.
i've been thinking about getting a canon rebel xti for a while. i don't think i have the resources to get a better camera than than
Have a look at KEH (www.keh.com); they sell used equipment and are very very good to deal with. I've sold and bought lots of stuff there. My advice would be to get a camera body that covers what you need without going overboard, and spend the real money on glass. I still shoot with a 10D because I see no reason whatsoever to upgrade. Inexpensive body + really nice glass is much much to prefer over really nice body and mediocre glass.... but I'm repeating myself.
Be sure to handle the cameras in person. The XT and XTi were uncomfortable in my hands. The 20D/30D and nikons are larger and to me feel much better.
Yes, go and try both of them out. The XT is a very good camera, but i really choice it because i was able to figure out most of it with no prior knowledge of how to use a DSLR. D50 was nice too, but it was just to big and heavy for my liking.
Ok, briefly... Lenses are generally described as something like f2.8/85 or somesuch. The 'f' defines the aperture (f-stop), the number after the slash the focal length in mm of the lens. 50mm is considered 'standard' length; shorter than 50mm is wide, longer is tele. Note that due to the different size sensors in digital cameras this isn't necessarily completely true, though! Due to the 1.6x multiplier inherent in these designs, a 35mm on most dSLRs would act like a 50mm on a traditional film camera. A lens can have more than one value in each property. For instance, a lens that says f/2.8-5.6/70-200 means that it is a zoom lens from 70mm to 200mm, with an f-stop of 2.8 on the short end and 5.6 on the long end. This is fairly normal in consumer level zoom lenses. The f-stop (aperture) defines the 'speed' of the lens; how much light it can gather. A lower f-stop means you can shoot in lower light. It also allows you to reduce the depth of field more (blurring out what's not in focus), which can be both beneficial and damning. For instance, if you NEED a lot of depth of field having a really fast lens (low f-stop) won't buy you much since you wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. Low f-stop = more light, faster shutter speed, more shallow depth of field. Also, faster lenses often tend to be more expensive, have better optics, and be heavier.
Thanks, I'll need to read it a few more times before it really sinks in though. Nice link too. I've got 1000's of point & shoot digital pictures and I'm ready to start taking better pictures. Maybe for Christmas I'll get a nice camera...