Photography Camera Experts (Vu, John...?)
06-12-2007, 11:44 PM
#31
Former Moderator
QUOTE
The cropped frame in digital SLRs is a HUGE gripe that long time pros that have been shooting film complain the most about. Portrait shooters usually shoot starting from around 50mm to 85mm and as high as 135mm. Using a 1.6 crop frame severely cripples you. I started with a 20D and I had to stand so freaking far back to use my 85mm.
is it ok to laugh
portraits will work with either camera. 1.6 = 85-200mm
The 1.6 crop saves you money on glass for distance sports.
I think the 5D is a better camera than the 30D but for me I'd prefer a 5D with a crop than ff.
I'll have to read from the beginning.
Does anyone have any idea why you shoot portrait at that distance. More than one answer.
look at the pick bellow for the first hint.
The cropped frame in digital SLRs is a HUGE gripe that long time pros that have been shooting film complain the most about. Portrait shooters usually shoot starting from around 50mm to 85mm and as high as 135mm. Using a 1.6 crop frame severely cripples you. I started with a 20D and I had to stand so freaking far back to use my 85mm.
is it ok to laugh
portraits will work with either camera. 1.6 = 85-200mm
The 1.6 crop saves you money on glass for distance sports.
I think the 5D is a better camera than the 30D but for me I'd prefer a 5D with a crop than ff.
I'll have to read from the beginning.
Does anyone have any idea why you shoot portrait at that distance. More than one answer.
look at the pick bellow for the first hint.
06-13-2007, 12:17 AM
#32
Former Moderator
Originally Posted by thejohnremus,Jun 12 2007, 01:30 PM
Hmm,
well it looks like it's my turn to post a response
Speaking as a professional and someone who has worked with many professionals shooting everything all the way up to professional sports... I disagree that a "pro" would say to stick with a 35mm.
Picture quality (and definitely versatility) has been surpassed by digital. Speed is superior of course, and while they are still (and always will be) increasing megapixels - for the general user the megapixel race was over years ago.
Canon versus Nikon... you can debate this for hours... I will simply point out pixel quality. Having shot along side Nikon users both more (and some less) talented than myself AND personally editing images side by side from those events... I will say that image quality of a Canon is superior.
Canon's CMOS sensor does not heat up as quickly as Nikon's sensor and results is less noise in the photograph. I would say that Nikon's ISO1600 is equivalent to Canon's ISO800 or even 640 in some cases.
When it comes to general all around use the Rebel (if you stick with Canon) would suffice. However it would feel small and cheap/easy to break in someone as tall as you, Rick. Also, it doesn't meet the 5fps
Why would someone want 5fps over 3fps? Who cares, right? It's personal preference, and honestly, it's quite noticeable to not even have the option of shooting one photo as quickly right after the other. While you may not shoot the full 5 in one second, you can shoot faster bursts... make sense?
The 5D would be a completely bad choice for Rick. First, it's too expensive. While it's a good camera, $2,100 (not 3) is too much for just a body and the 30D is a much more versatile camera in my opinion. The 30D will be much sturdier and solid, the 1.6 crop factor is actually something preferred by many photographers - even for portrait/models. You'll only find it limiting in tight areas or for large family photos.
As for lenses.... as I've told everyone who's asked me so far... Nearly any lense will work "for what you want to do". A general lense will get you by through all your day to day stuff.
Hell, buy the kit lense and learn how to use it first. Everyone thinks they need to buy L glass lenses right off. That's like turning 16 and buying your S and the next week going and buying to CTSC cuz the car doesn't seem to be as quick as everyone else?
Make sense? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, and I know many people here can actually afford top dollar lenses just because they prefer the best
The 24-105 will be better - however if your budget won't allow it, don't worry.
And definitely check out Sigma lenses as well. I've used many Sigma lenses and they're sturdy, and effective. Many pros also swear by them and use them along side their Canon L's.
Rick, go with what your own research tells you to go with. While Keeble and Shultz is fun to go to play around with gear - they're over priced.
Everyone's opinion will be completely different, and mine is different than many on here... But, I'm offering my two cents as someone who has shot with many types of equipment in alll different situations.
Good luck with whatever you decide to buy.
well it looks like it's my turn to post a response
Speaking as a professional and someone who has worked with many professionals shooting everything all the way up to professional sports... I disagree that a "pro" would say to stick with a 35mm.
Picture quality (and definitely versatility) has been surpassed by digital. Speed is superior of course, and while they are still (and always will be) increasing megapixels - for the general user the megapixel race was over years ago.
Canon versus Nikon... you can debate this for hours... I will simply point out pixel quality. Having shot along side Nikon users both more (and some less) talented than myself AND personally editing images side by side from those events... I will say that image quality of a Canon is superior.
Canon's CMOS sensor does not heat up as quickly as Nikon's sensor and results is less noise in the photograph. I would say that Nikon's ISO1600 is equivalent to Canon's ISO800 or even 640 in some cases.
When it comes to general all around use the Rebel (if you stick with Canon) would suffice. However it would feel small and cheap/easy to break in someone as tall as you, Rick. Also, it doesn't meet the 5fps
Why would someone want 5fps over 3fps? Who cares, right? It's personal preference, and honestly, it's quite noticeable to not even have the option of shooting one photo as quickly right after the other. While you may not shoot the full 5 in one second, you can shoot faster bursts... make sense?
The 5D would be a completely bad choice for Rick. First, it's too expensive. While it's a good camera, $2,100 (not 3) is too much for just a body and the 30D is a much more versatile camera in my opinion. The 30D will be much sturdier and solid, the 1.6 crop factor is actually something preferred by many photographers - even for portrait/models. You'll only find it limiting in tight areas or for large family photos.
As for lenses.... as I've told everyone who's asked me so far... Nearly any lense will work "for what you want to do". A general lense will get you by through all your day to day stuff.
Hell, buy the kit lense and learn how to use it first. Everyone thinks they need to buy L glass lenses right off. That's like turning 16 and buying your S and the next week going and buying to CTSC cuz the car doesn't seem to be as quick as everyone else?
Make sense? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, and I know many people here can actually afford top dollar lenses just because they prefer the best
The 24-105 will be better - however if your budget won't allow it, don't worry.
And definitely check out Sigma lenses as well. I've used many Sigma lenses and they're sturdy, and effective. Many pros also swear by them and use them along side their Canon L's.
Rick, go with what your own research tells you to go with. While Keeble and Shultz is fun to go to play around with gear - they're over priced.
Everyone's opinion will be completely different, and mine is different than many on here... But, I'm offering my two cents as someone who has shot with many types of equipment in alll different situations.
Good luck with whatever you decide to buy.
Picture quality? Adobe is nice and fast.
Canon versus Nikon. Does Jeff produce outstanding pictures of our cars. nough said
L lenses. It all depends what you expect from your pictures. Take a picture of a doorway with the kit lens at 18mm and you'll find that your the new owner of a fisheye lens. This can be fixed in adobe but do you really want to spend all kinds of precious time fixing something lame like that. This is only one of many things.
Sigma lenses zoom opposite of canon. might not be fun getting used to if you own one of each.
Keeble & Shuchat. they occasionally have good deals but you can't beat B&H.
06-13-2007, 09:01 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Yea
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thejohnremus,Jun 12 2007, 08:21 PM
I shoot as a journalist, what I consider a portrait is entirely different than what you consider a portrait.
All I'm saying is to each his own.
My opinions will be different than yours.
I disagree that it "cripples" you. And I disagree that it's a huge gripe. Yes, it's completely different and for close quarter shooting, the FF of the 5D is obviously the better choice - it's why Canon made the 5D, for those who wanted FF.
However, for pretty much any situation I've been in, the "crippled" 16mm on my 1.6 crop is wide enough I've found.
As my first original post said... I shoot news and sports. I don't work in a studio setting unless the situation calls for it. I typically do not shoot landscape/automotive/etc unless requested, either. My experience and knowledge comes from my experience as a journalist which is a completely different shooting style.
For a versatile, durable, all around camera my opinion is still the 30D. While you may get a FF 16mp image out of a 5D, the 30D meets all of Rick's requirements. And since he didn't say whether he would be shooting portraits, I'm going to assume that he'll want an all around camera.
All I'm saying is to each his own.
My opinions will be different than yours.
I disagree that it "cripples" you. And I disagree that it's a huge gripe. Yes, it's completely different and for close quarter shooting, the FF of the 5D is obviously the better choice - it's why Canon made the 5D, for those who wanted FF.
However, for pretty much any situation I've been in, the "crippled" 16mm on my 1.6 crop is wide enough I've found.
As my first original post said... I shoot news and sports. I don't work in a studio setting unless the situation calls for it. I typically do not shoot landscape/automotive/etc unless requested, either. My experience and knowledge comes from my experience as a journalist which is a completely different shooting style.
For a versatile, durable, all around camera my opinion is still the 30D. While you may get a FF 16mp image out of a 5D, the 30D meets all of Rick's requirements. And since he didn't say whether he would be shooting portraits, I'm going to assume that he'll want an all around camera.
For normal portrait shooting, the cropped frame does cripple you. It cripples you more of course if you do landscape shots. You never get the full wide angle of a wide angle lens.
The 30D is a good camera, but I think Rick should just start with the Rebel instead and use the money he saved and get better lenses. Image quality will be the same from both a Rebel and the 30D.
Edit: Since he has Nikon lenses, he should save even more money and just get a nikon body.
06-13-2007, 10:36 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good fricking god how did i miss this thread...
here we go:
I didn't quite read every response since it seems like a Nikon/Canon pissing war (I still think it comes down to preference, as one's not clearly superior to the other) but based on what you've got and are looking for, I think the D80 or maybe even a D40 or 50 would be suitable for you.
The #1 thing that bugs me most about people buying DSLR's left and right is that they don't know how to use it properly. The bottom line is that you have a lot of nikon lenses right now, so there is no reason for you to jump to another camera and potentially waste money regardless if you have enough to lose with the sale of your existing lenses. Unless you're John Remus caliber, I highly doubt that your skill outweighs your camera, but rather vice versa, as is the point with me and probably a majority of the people here who have bought DSLR's in the past year.
So yah, start out with a starter DSLR, reach its potential, learn to edit (if you choose to do so), then in a few years, talk about upgrading.
here we go:
I didn't quite read every response since it seems like a Nikon/Canon pissing war (I still think it comes down to preference, as one's not clearly superior to the other) but based on what you've got and are looking for, I think the D80 or maybe even a D40 or 50 would be suitable for you.
The #1 thing that bugs me most about people buying DSLR's left and right is that they don't know how to use it properly. The bottom line is that you have a lot of nikon lenses right now, so there is no reason for you to jump to another camera and potentially waste money regardless if you have enough to lose with the sale of your existing lenses. Unless you're John Remus caliber, I highly doubt that your skill outweighs your camera, but rather vice versa, as is the point with me and probably a majority of the people here who have bought DSLR's in the past year.
So yah, start out with a starter DSLR, reach its potential, learn to edit (if you choose to do so), then in a few years, talk about upgrading.
06-13-2007, 10:44 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 2,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by arrrmand,Jun 13 2007, 10:36 AM
I think the D80 or maybe even a D40 or 50 would be suitable for you.
The #1 thing that bugs me most about people buying DSLR's left and right is that they don't know how to use it properly.
So yah, start out with a starter DSLR, reach its potential, learn to edit (if you choose to do so), then in a few years, talk about upgrading.
The #1 thing that bugs me most about people buying DSLR's left and right is that they don't know how to use it properly.
So yah, start out with a starter DSLR, reach its potential, learn to edit (if you choose to do so), then in a few years, talk about upgrading.
06-13-2007, 10:53 AM
#36
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
So he's got all of these Nikon lenses, but their all non-autofocusing, so why bother keeping them? Seems like they would be a major PITA to deal with in the digital age, especially if shooting a decent FPS is an issue for you. I could see if all you are doing is shooting studio portrait pics, but if you are shooting any action/sports photography, forget about it.
06-13-2007, 11:01 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 2,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Voodoo_S2K,Jun 13 2007, 10:53 AM
You shoot Nikon right?
06-13-2007, 11:32 AM
#40
Registered User
Thread Starter
Vu, I totally see what you are saying here since I was just at RITZ during lunch to try and use all of my lenses with the Nikon D80 DSLR. The guy there was pretty helpful and let me try all the lenses on their demo body. He even took some sample pics and let me try each one a bit. Good thing I tried the auto focus lense they had last since it was so much faster and easier - wow!
I guess I'm so used to doing manual focus but those A/F lenses are great! At least now I know all my Sigma/Nikon lenses can be used if I wanted - there's a switch on the Nikon to move it to FULL Manual mode.
I read with great interest what John, Jarod, Jeff, and Mac had to say about each of the ups/downs. But frankly I got lost with all the terminology from Mac....hahahaha
Seems to me as if the Canon is a better choice if I was to just get a camera and lense. The Nikon's main advantage for me is I can use all those other lenses to practice my skills.
They have a special right now at Ritz that allows me to buy the Canon 30D with this 118mm lense supposedly worth $500 for a package deal at $1499.
The Nikon with the standard lense will cost me $1299.
At this point no matter which choice I go with, I'll need a bag, CF cards and tripod so looks my investment will be under $2k I hope.
Just curious but if I wanted to sell all those lenses I had, where would be a good place or can someone give me an idea on MSRP or what they are worth?
I'm going back to the store tomorrow to make a decision and will print out this thread. Everything here is super helpful as I'm a total newbie going into this digital SLR era
thanks guys,
rick
I guess I'm so used to doing manual focus but those A/F lenses are great! At least now I know all my Sigma/Nikon lenses can be used if I wanted - there's a switch on the Nikon to move it to FULL Manual mode.
I read with great interest what John, Jarod, Jeff, and Mac had to say about each of the ups/downs. But frankly I got lost with all the terminology from Mac....hahahaha
Seems to me as if the Canon is a better choice if I was to just get a camera and lense. The Nikon's main advantage for me is I can use all those other lenses to practice my skills.
They have a special right now at Ritz that allows me to buy the Canon 30D with this 118mm lense supposedly worth $500 for a package deal at $1499.
The Nikon with the standard lense will cost me $1299.
At this point no matter which choice I go with, I'll need a bag, CF cards and tripod so looks my investment will be under $2k I hope.
Just curious but if I wanted to sell all those lenses I had, where would be a good place or can someone give me an idea on MSRP or what they are worth?
I'm going back to the store tomorrow to make a decision and will print out this thread. Everything here is super helpful as I'm a total newbie going into this digital SLR era
thanks guys,
rick