Fellow photographers......In market for camera. Feedback please

[Cat118!]

I am looking for a camera around 500.00-800.00
I do mainly landscape and would like to dabble in action profile people shots.


What camera do you recommend?

[asp_125]

Questions:

Portability?
Different lenses?
Publish to internet?
Largest print size?
On camera flash or run studio slave flashes?

www.dpreview.com

[TinkerinWstuff]

Questions:

Portability?
Different lenses?
Publish to internet?
Largest print size?
On camera flash or run studio slave flashes?

www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)

good profile people shots sort of forces the issue of off camera flash wouldn't it?

i.e.
http://inikitaphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/portrait-photos.jpg
http://wallpaperstock.net/maggie-grace-portrait_wallpapers_14105_1600x1200.jpg

tried to snag pics that weren't obvious copywrite violations...

[spdu4ia]

^ not necessarily but working with that budget will be your first obsticle for "studio" shots. for on camera portraits look for a "ring flash". On location simple action shots should be very doable though without all that though.

Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 answers. I personaly always shoot with Nikon. Buy the best camera body and lense you can to start with. You can add as many accessories as you want on top of crap and its still crap if you know what I mean.

I'm not even going to get into flashes unless thats what your wanting to do. I am kind of assuming you are wanting to do a DSLR as well. If not any point and shoot is about the same just some have more bells and whistles .

[Cat118!]

Most all.will be landscape, anything else I will just dabble and have fun with. I'm starting my own label for landscape prints so need large prints, interchangable lens.

[spdu4ia]

They all have interchangable lenses at the higher end. Also look into some wide angle lenses for lanscapes.

[TinkerinWstuff]

The fun part about lenses - there are places that rent you different lenses affordably, through the mail. You can try out stuff and see what you like before plopping down the ching.

A friend rented a fisheye when we went to Kansas Motor Speedway last year for a NASCAR race. Good times playing with a $900 lens for under $100.

[vort3xr6]

The Canon Rebel series sounds like a decent setup for you.

I really like my Rebel XTi. Good MP with the benefit of glass changes.

Some of my sample shots.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/VoRt3Xr6/upload8.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/VoRt3Xr6/upload2.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/VoRt3Xr6/K7chop.jpg

[TinkerinWstuff]

Canon's are great cameras at competitive prices for sure.

I use the Nikon D60. Recently discontinued and there are great new buys available on fleabay with warranty. Good megapixel, no movies, and no remote flash (off camera body flash requires a cord).

I have a 24x36 print of a Hawaii ocean sunset above my bed.
http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac47/tinkerinWstuff/Landscapes/14.jpg

[spdu4ia]

Canon's are great cameras at competitive prices for sure.

I use the Nikon D60. no remote flash (off camera body flash requires a cord).



Yea you are either a Canon person or a Nikon person i've discovered. Oh and I've got a D60 I use as well and use off camera flashes without a cord by the way. You just have to use a wireless remote trigger.

[TinkerinWstuff]

kinda ford/chevy

it's more about the look and how you like the buttons on the dashboard. they'll both get the job done at equal quality and price.

But once you make a brand choice, you're likely committed for years because of the brand specific accessories.

I think Wicky shoots Nikon too?

[AOK303]

NIKON on a budget hit a used camera store that does repairs can get great deals on a body then pick your lenses and give you some kinda return/warenty policy

[Rooster]

i got a cannon rebel as well. and love it. but like the others said. its just preference. hold both in your hands and feel wich 1 is natural to ya. then go from there. i like the rebel series cause theres not that much of a difference in the really expensive one's. and you get too choose to use the built in flash or remote flash.

[Ezzzzy1]

The newer DSLRs are coming with video (HD) so if you dont care about that and want to save a few hundo now is the time to buy. You might be able to still find some of the last models new. Costco always has great deals on both Nikon and Canon. Usually their kits come with two lenses for the price of the body and one lens and there is always something in the range you are looking in.

There are also a ton of places that rent all the different lenses, most are under $20 a day. This is a GREAT service so look into it, it will make your good pictures look amazing!

[ipuck]

If you are still looking. The camera in that Price range with great quaity and small size is a Sony NEX5. I uses a DSLR sensor but Much smaller and more affrodable.

[asp_125]

There are Nikon and Canon fanboys, either will let you develop your craft. Lots of lens options for both. DSLRs will let you play with remote / slave flashes when the time comes. If you can't afford the latest and greatest, look on eBay or CL for used camera equipment. Some photo stores will have the hookup on where to buy used / refurb'd stuff.

I shot the following with my old Nikon D50 on my ride to Durango last weekend. (It was hazy due to the smoke from the AZ fires). It's only 6Mpx, pretty much ancient these days, but it's all about developing your skill.

For most of my track stuff I shoot with my D60 and a 70-300 zoom.

[TinkerinWstuff]

If you are still looking. The camera in that Price range with great quaity and small size is a Sony NEX5. I uses a DSLR sensor but Much smaller and more affrodable.

Problem may be action shots the OP expressed interest in. The digital sensors aren't fast enough to display on the screen. That's why all DSLR's use the eyepiece as a viewfinder and not the digital screen.

I know someone with this camera and takes some really great pictures.

[asp_125]

If you are still looking. The camera in that Price range with great quaity and small size is a Sony NEX5. I uses a DSLR sensor but Much smaller and more affrodable.

I've been looking at the new four-thirds cameras (mirrorless DSLRs) - Panasonic, Sony, Olympus. Best Buy has packages under $800. I think they might be a viable alternative to my full size SLR when I'm riding. Their smaller size fits a tank bag nicely. I need the ability to shoot in RAW, and full manual control options when I need it. Right now I am not sure their limit of 3 frames / second in burst mode is fast enough for action shots. :dunno:

[JustSomeDude]

For the wide range of subjects you listed (landscape, action, and portrait), an older mid-range Canon from the xxD series would suit your needs very well.

The Canon 40D (which is now at 60D, and will likely be superseded by the xD series) is a 10.1mp body that has a blistering 6.5 fps (frame per second) high-speed burst rate. This is the fastest burst rate in its class, and actually beats out the models that replaced it (the 50D and 60D). For action - a high FPS is a necessity. However, due to its age, the 40D does suffer from high ISO noise and has no video features (if that's something you want to experiment with).

For some background, the 40D is considered by many to be the last "semi-pro" body in the Canon xxD line. With the 50D and 60D both featuring plastic bodies, lower fps rates, and the 60D going so far as employing a tilt-out LCD screen (which most pros/semi-pros despise... it's a durability thing), many felt Canon changed the direction of the line to be a more "enthusiast" type camera, with the Rebel serving as their entry level bodies.

The 7D is pretty much the next real upgrade to the 40D, but as long as most consumers who think they "know" about photography are buying up the 50 and 60Ds, you'll be able to score a 40D at outrageously low prices on the secondary market. You'll likely score one in the $500 range on Craigslist.

As for the Nikon vs. Canon argument - I really don't think one is better than the other. In reality, they deliver the same quality images when paired with proper optics. My only preference for Canon is that it has greater market share, and I know more people with Canons, which is great for renting/borrowing lenses/gear.

I hope this helps.

[asp_125]

Don't get carried away by Megapixels. A good camera with fewer Mpx will give better results than a poor camera with more Mpx. Research the photo forums. Also, get a decent body, but spend your money on good lenses. Good glass is not cheap but worth every penny.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Don't get carried away by Megapixels. A good camera with fewer Mpx will give better results than a poor camera with more Mpx. Research the photo forums.

I've read a bit about that myself. Packing more pixels on the same size sensor can mean each pixel struggles to get enough light. I believe my reading said you can end up with grainy images at higher ISO....

Sounds like there are a few here who know much more than I and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm spewing the :bs:

[JustSomeDude]

Don't get carried away by Megapixels. A good camera with fewer Mpx will give better results than a poor camera with more Mpx. Research the photo forums. Also, get a decent body, but spend your money on good lenses. Good glass is not cheap but worth every penny.

+1

MP is over-hyped marketing crap. The more MP you have crammed into a sensor's already defined and very limited real estate, the more potential for noise and rendering artifacts. Those clamoring for more MP usually have no idea what they're talking about, or what they'll lose by cramming those pixels onto the sensor.

Also - if exploring the used market, make SURE you get a valid readout of shutter actuations on the used body. Most modern dSLR's have a shutter life of 100,000 - 150,000 actuations. I would be suspect of anyone who won't verify their shutter count for you. Anything over 50,000 shutter actuations and it's probably not worth your time or money, unless the seller accepts a lowball offer.

[asp_125]

If you MUST have only one lens, get a good 15-200mm zoom (or thereabouts). It will give you the range and is a good walkabout lens without carrying a bunch of specialized lenses. Wicky uses one for most of his stuff posted here.

[TinkerinWstuff]

+1

MP is over-hyped marketing crap. The more MP you have crammed into a sensor's already defined and very limited real estate, the more potential for noise and rendering artifacts. Those clamoring for more MP usually have no idea what they're talking about, or what they'll lose by cramming those pixels onto the sensor.

Also - if exploring the used market, make SURE you get a valid readout of shutter actuations on the used body. Most modern dSLR's have a shutter life of 100,000 - 150,000 actuations. I would be suspect of anyone who won't verify their shutter count for you. Anything over 50,000 shutter actuations and it's probably not worth your time or money, unless the seller accepts a lowball offer.

Learned something new.

I'm up to 5,472!

http://regex.info/exif.cgi/exif.cgi

[fiveninerzero]

With your price range, you might be able to find you a Nikon D90. Pretty versatile, and the lens kit that comes standard goes out to 105mm, which will hold you over as a beginner.

Going cheaper, you may be able to find a D40/D40x/D60, but you will probably have to purchase another lens. Another thing to be aware of is that the smaller frame Nikons tend to not have a motor built in so you will be kind of limited in lenses that will auto focus unless you get them with a built in motor.

[konaman]

Look at craigslist, there are a few D90 Nikons on there in your price range. Good luck.

[TinkerinWstuff]

so you will be kind of limited in lenses that will auto focus unless you get them with a built in motor.

I don't know that limited is the right word. There is an expansive list of lenses available for Nikon. And because the lenses have the image stibilization and auto focus motors built in, you can choose to buy lenses with that option or not.

I have a 50mm f/1.4 lens I bought and chose to save a buck by not buying the autofocus and OS model. Don't use it enough to care.

[Cat118!]

Thanks everyone! Feedback is helpful

[asp_125]

... Another thing to be aware of is that the smaller frame Nikons tend to not have a motor built in so you will be kind of limited in lenses that will auto focus unless you get them with a built in motor.

Yes and no. Because the newer lenses have AF, image stabilization, and motors, there are a bunch of used top shelf non-motorized lenses out there. Just get a motorized body and you can pick up some nice glass. With landscapes and portraits, image stabilization isn't as critical since you can use tripods and remote releases.

[JustSomeDude]

Pretty versatile, and the lens kit that comes standard goes out to 105mm, which will hold you over as a beginner.

Just be careful with kit lenses, and any "budget" telezoom with a wide focal range. They are typically very limited with respect to f-stop performance, hence the wide zoom range and low cost. Lenses with max stops of f/3.5 to f/4.0 are typically cheap and great "learner" lenses, but you will quickly find their limitations in low light/shallow DOF conditions.

As some one else here already pointed out - your best investment is in quality glass. Let me say this again...

YOUR BEST INVESTMENT IS IN QUALITY GLASS!

Bodies are one time purchases every few years that are easily replaceable. Lenses - at least quality ones - you will hold on to forever. There's no point in buying a 28-135 f/3.5-f/5.6 when you will soon realize that you'd rather have high quality versions of a 24-70 f/2.8, a 50 f/1.4, and a 70-200 f/2.8. Granted, you're now using three lenses to cover the same focal length as one cheapie, and at a 1,300% premium... but your gaining constant aperture out of the gate and the improved quality of your results will be obvious at first glance. Clarity, distortion (lack thereof), CA (chromatic aberration), speed of focus/acquisition, sharpness at wide open apertures, etc., are all dramatically improved when dealing with high quality glass, and you'll thank yourself in the long run.

Take it from me - I intentionally ignored this advice from a photographer friend thinking "cheap" lenses were wise choices, and that my bargain hunting skills had scored me some real winners! Then I began learning how to actually use my camera and what high quality results really were - and then I realized that my kit lenses were extremely subpar. Don't get me wrong, they are good for general shooting and 4x6 prints, but any high quality work you plan on doing, or blowing up to larger sizes, simply isn't feasible with kit lens imaging.

One more time for the road....

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OPTICS!!!!

[asp_125]

My problem is choosing between quality glass or tires! :D

[cbrjohnny]

any camera is a good camera now a days thanks to photoshop... right spuda,,, lol


back in the day of film we had to perform a lost art call "in camera edit" now you can point and shot and change later. so get whats in your budget and make sure you have some editing software.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I have a Canon S5IS that's 4-1/2 years old, cost me under $500, and I love it. It even does pretty nice video (and you can film as long as you have space on your SD card). I couldn't quite afford the Rebel DSLR at the time, but even mine is far more camera than I know how to use now, and I've gotten some pretty good shots with it. I had a 35mm Canon Rebel before that and loved it. I'm sold on Canon.

[spdu4ia]

any camera is a good camera now a days thanks to photoshop... right spuda,,, lol


back in the day of film we had to perform a lost art call "in camera edit" now you can point and shot and change later. so get whats in your budget and make sure you have some editing software.


yes and no, no matter how much "choping" you do to a picture if you have bad composition and a bad picture to start with then your pictures are still going to suck. To be honest I think that photoshop has taken a lot of the skill out of photography. You should still be able to take a picture "straight from the camera" (like my BOTM submision last month) with little to no editing and still have a good picture. Relying too much on photoshop is a great way to make sure you never improve your skills.

on a side note i don't use photoshop (i find it WAY too complicated), i just use some simple editing tool online for small stuff.

[Sean]

My problem is choosing between quality glass or tires! :DI don't think that's a very difficult decision...:no:

[spdu4ia]

My problem is choosing between quality glass or tires! :D

well thats only a problem if your riding on glass :wtf: ;)

[TinkerinWstuff]

yes and no, no matter how much "choping" you do to a picture if you have bad composition and a bad picture to start with then your pictures are still going to suck. To be honest I think that photoshop has taken a lot of the skill out of photography. You should still be able to take a picture "straight from the camera" (like my BOTM submision last month) with little to no editing and still have a good picture. Relying too much on photoshop is a great way to make sure you never improve your skills.

on a side note i don't use photoshop (i find it WAY too complicated), i just use some simple editing tool online for small stuff.

This has been my goal. I've resisted spending the $100 on photoshop because I know people used to (and do still) take wicked pics on film cameras with only minor adjustments in the dark room.

[JustSomeDude]

yes and no, no matter how much "choping" you do to a picture if you have bad composition and a bad picture to start with then your pictures are still going to suck. To be honest I think that photoshop has taken a lot of the skill out of photography. You should still be able to take a picture "straight from the camera" (like my BOTM submision last month) with little to no editing and still have a good picture. Relying too much on photoshop is a great way to make sure you never improve your skills.


+1000

Photoshop won't correct crappy exposure, poor focus, terrible composition, or a boring angle. Granted, crappy exposure can be corrected to an extent now using RAW editors. However, you still need to know what you're doing with the camera to get a good image that can be made great. Photoshop / Lightroom should just be used as tools to enhance what is already a good photo. For example, I primarily use LR for color adjustments and clarity tweaks - at least on my HPR shots - only because the high intensity sunlight combined with the haze can really wash out colors (unless you have some sick polarizing filters).

Check out Martin Heath's stuff (http://www.martinheathphoto.com/gallery.php?s=h42&g=209) when you get a chance. He's a pro and you can tell he does a ton of sharpness, saturation and vibrance adjustments in his sets.

That said, I never use Photoshop anymore. For cranking out tons of files, Lightroom is the way to go. The one click gallery upload is pretty sweet too.

[vort3xr6]

Martin Heaths stuff is okay.

Mototribu (http://www.mototribu.com/competition/motogp/2011/course/004france/wallpaper/guerin/index404.html) is one of my favorites. Amazing composition.

[Mother Goose]

Straight out of the camera, besides the logo put on in Lightroom.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/5705533683_5f22df9ff6_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5830952309_46dfec30ca_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/5831521302_067e0b0f5c_b.jpg


It's possible to get decent pictures out of a sub-par camera/lens. It's just about knowing what you're doing, or in my case, be good at pretending you do. ;)

[Cat118!]

Was looking at the canon t3i......
I don't need video.
Never used photoshop but wouldn't mind so I can mess with color contrast, b&w, and sepia tones. Also to use to tag my photos so I can post and not worry about them getting jacked.

That's all I.would use for

[Mother Goose]

Race photographers that inspire me are Scott Jones (http://www.scottjones.net/) and Jules Cisek (http://www.popmonkey.com/). More of Jules stuff is here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/popmonkey)

[TinkerinWstuff]

just curious, hope I can interject a quick question since this has already derailed off the OP; do any of you more experienced shooters calibrate your white balance or just stick with the preprogrammed settings?

[Mother Goose]

just curious, hope I can interject a quick question since this has already derailed off the OP; do any of you more experienced shooters calibrate your white balance or just stick with the preprogrammed settings?
I leave mine on auto and adjust later if needed. I've never needed to adjust for the race photos. If I'm doing a wedding, or something like that, I'll shoot in RAW and adjust the WB. Race photos, I shoot in JPEG.

[asp_125]

I try to stay away from too much post processing and rather hone my skill behind the lens. You can do a lot in studio photography with post processing but race photos (to me) look too artificial if you manipulate the image too far from just tonal adjustments and minor tweaking. All that HDR and boosted saturation and sharpness stuff is fine for artsy pics.

Straight from the camera last weekend, other than minor cropping and shadow correction.

[JustSomeDude]

just curious, hope I can interject a quick question since this has already derailed off the OP; do any of you more experienced shooters calibrate your white balance or just stick with the preprogrammed settings?

For field shooting, such as with race days, I'll typically use a preset like DAYLIGHT or CLOUDY and adjust later if need be. For more professional work, such as model or portrait photography, I'll shoot a calibrated gray card.

Typically, some adjustments are still required in post - as the camera rarely gets everything correct with it's own metering.

Not to pick on Wick, but since he posted out of camera shots, you can see his Orlando shot is pretty underexposed. However, this isn't a photographer error - just a common anomaly that photographers deal with - especially when shooting burst. The metering for the initial shot in burst mode is rarely applicable to the entire set, especially when lighting/backgrounds change. This is where histogram adjustments (using the last peak as a gauge) can be a lifesaver.

[spdu4ia]

White ballance is a good thing to have a processing program for simply because sometimes a shot you have to get "right now" using the auto is fine 90% of the time but every once in a while you will get a wierd hue.

[TinkerinWstuff]

sounds like I'm following the same model as the others then.

Send me a PM if anyone has a Nikon off camera flash cord they want to sell around the $20 range.

[Mother Goose]

Not to pick on Wick, but since he posted out of camera shots, you can see his Orlando shot is pretty underexposed. However, this isn't a photographer error - just a common anomaly that photographers deal with - especially when shooting burst. The metering for the initial shot in burst mode is rarely applicable to the entire set, especially when lighting/backgrounds change. This is where histogram adjustments (using the last peak as a gauge) can be a lifesaver.
This is when the clouds were starting to roll in and I hadn't adjusted for it yet. So it was more operator error than anything. :lol:

[JustSomeDude]

sounds like I'm following the same model as the others then.


And honestly, there is not "right" way - my best advice would be to find YOUR way, and a system that ultimately works for you.

As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes... everyone has one and they all stink. Don't worry too much about what everyone else is doing, just discover your own process. There are people who have hardons for out-of-camera photos and hate editing, then there are those who hate out-of-camera and love photoshopping out the wazoo. As far as I'm concerned, there is no right or wrong answer.

If some asks me for a straight answer, I'd say it's somewhere in between... that is, I see nothing wrong with a well composed original image that has some digital tweaks. I used to be a die hard "out of camera" fanatic, until I really began understanding the power of digital processing. Remember, almost all LR and PS editing options are derived from darkroom techniques. The unsharp mask (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking) was a manual developing technique created in the "30s. As for "burning" and "dodging" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging) - where do you think the terms are derived from? And histograms (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm) just provide an objective way of understanding exposure - which was originally done via subjective measure by controlling exposure times in the darkroom.

People have been altering their images since photography began... doing it in a computer is by no means "cheating", in fact if anything, it makes you a more efficient photographer. So long as you understand the adjustments you're making, and why you would want, or need, to apply them. To me, the computer is just another tool in a photographer's arsenal... no different than a reflector, or gray card, studio strobe, white backdrop, off-camera flash, or radio trigger. You just need to know when and how to employ it in your work.

[JustSomeDude]

This is when the clouds were starting to roll in and I hadn't adjusted for it yet. So it was more operator error than anything. :lol:

Ah! I just assumed it was a product of the burst. I see that a lot when I shoot around a corner, especially if the initial shot has a very light background compared with mid-corner.

:P

[Mother Goose]

Ah! I just assumed it was a product of the burst. I see that a lot when I shoot around a corner, especially if the initial shot has a very light background compared with mid-corner.

:P
I don't think I've had that issue with mine. My camera has a problem keeping the focus on a burst, even though it will only do 3/second. So lately I've just been trying to get one or two good shots through a corner (not continuously holding down the shutter button), instead of a "spray and pray" method.

[mountbell]

I use the D60 as well. It's been a reliable camera for me.

[JustSomeDude]

I don't think I've had that issue with mine. My camera has a problem keeping the focus on a burst, even though it will only do 3/second. So lately I've just been trying to get one or two good shots through a corner (not continuously holding down the shutter button), instead of a "spray and pray" method.

Wait ... dude ... do you refocus/recompose each shot?? You don't continuous shoot?????????

[Mother Goose]

Wait ... dude ... do you refocus/recompose each shot?? You don't continuous shoot?????????
I have to, or I end up throwing out a bunch of shots because my camera doesn't focus correctly if I hold down the shutter. It's more the lens isn't fast enough, since my camera isn't an autofocus body. That's why I'll only have 1 or 2 shots or a person in a corner. I'll do a continuous once in a while, but it's not very often.

[JustSomeDude]

my camera isn't an autofocus body.

Whoa- no autofocus?? You're manually focusing each shot out there?

[spdu4ia]

Whoa- no autofocus?? You're manually focusing each shot out there?

oh i hope not , i think he is refering to the autofocus that occurs at the begining of a burst. It maintains that focal length through the burst even if the subject comes closer to you

[Mother Goose]

Whoa- no autofocus?? You're manually focusing each shot out there?
No no no, the lens is an AF lens, just not the camera. When I use my 50mm, I have to manually focus, but I don't dare try and use that out on track. :lol:


oh i hope not , i think he is refering to the autofocus that occurs at the begining of a burst. It maintains that focal length through the burst even if the subject comes closer to you
The lens will actually try and refocus between shots in a burst, but it usually doesn't work out very well. :roll:

[TinkerinWstuff]

As mentioned previously... From when we rented a fisheye lens.

Here's the only track shooting I've done. Too bad there wasn't a cloud in the sky :(

http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac47/tinkerinWstuff/Landscapes/NascarKSFriday_086.jpg

[JustSomeDude]

The lens will actually try and refocus between shots in a burst, but it usually doesn't work out very well. :roll:

Hmm... maybe this is just my lack of knowledge of Nikon gear, but how can the lens try to focus if the body is not an AF body? Where's the "focus" signal coming from?

Is this just how Canon/Nikon differ? With Canon, if the body doesn't have an AF function, the lens has no way of getting an AF command.

[Cat118!]

Oh that's good to know about canon AF

[asp_125]

I've had better percentages doing single shots or burst mode since I've started standing where I can pan a constant radius from a turn. It's my way of compensating for a slow AF lens when I use shallow DOF. It's easier to have sharp focus at high F-stops and deeper DOF, but the results are not as satisfying.

[JustSomeDude]

Oh that's good to know about canon AF

Actually, what I described is standard on both Nikon and Canon camera bodies, which is why I asked for some more clarification from Wick. I think I'm missing something.

AF is standard on (almost) all modern dSLRs, so that when you press the shutter button half-way, a focus command is sent to the lens. If the lens has an AF chip/motor, it will then focus on the point selected, unless the AF system is deactivated (usually via a manual AF switch on the lens).

Something isn't clicking for me here... Unless Nikon's really don't have auto-focus assemblies on their bodies (!?!?). Which would seem kinda weird to me, should that really be the case.


I've had better percentages doing single shots or burst mode since I've started standing where I can pan a constant radius from a turn. It's my way of compensating for a slow AF lens when I use shallow DOF. It's easier to have sharp focus at high F-stops and deeper DOF, but the results are not as satisfying.

If doing a pan shot, DOF won't really matter - especially at 1/200th and slower shutter speeds - since everything outside your subject is a blur anyway. So no need to worry about deeper DOFs!

FTW! :loop:

[Mother Goose]

Actually, what I described is standard on both Nikon and Canon camera bodies, which is why I asked for some more clarification from Wick. I think I'm missing something.

AF is standard on (almost) all modern dSLRs, so that when you press the shutter button half-way, a focus command is sent to the lens. If the lens has an AF chip/motor, it will then focus on the point selected, unless the AF system is deactivated (usually via a manual AF switch on the lens).

Something isn't clicking for me here... Unless Nikon's really don't have auto-focus assemblies on their bodies (!?!?). Which would seem kinda weird to me, should that really be the case.

By an autofocus body, I mean that it doesn't have an AF motor on the actual camera body. You can still hold the shutter down half way, like you said, and the lens itself will do the focusing. When I put my 50mm 1.8 on, which isn't an AF lens, I have to manually focus the lens, since the D40 doesn't have the AF body. Crystal?

[JustSomeDude]

By an autofocus body, I mean that it doesn't have an AF motor on the actual camera body. You can still hold the shutter down half way, like you said, and the lens itself will do the focusing. When I put my 50mm 1.8 on, which isn't an AF lens, I have to manually focus the lens, since the D40 doesn't have the AF body. Crystal?

Are we clear?

Yes.

I said... ARE WE CLEAR?!

http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nicholson-thumb.jpg?w=250&h=256

Crystal. :D

But thanks, Wick. I was going batty in my mind trying to figure out how a "non-AF body" would work. I went so far as to envision Nikon lenses having some kind of external focus button that you'd have to push in tandem with a shutter button! BATTY I tell you!

Seriously though, thanks for the clarification. I know this started as a thread on camera gear, so I was hoping to avoid confusing newcomers to the hobby.

8)

[Mother Goose]

Planning on getting a D300 this year, so I won't drive you nuts anymore with my non-AF Nikon speak. :lol:

[JustSomeDude]

Planning on getting a D300 this year, so I won't drive you nuts anymore with my non-AF Nikon speak. :lol:

OK. I'm PMing you - because now I'm REALLY confused!

:P

[zPurpleRoom]

Planning on getting a D300 this year, so I won't drive you nuts anymore with my non-AF Nikon speak. :lol:

I have a D300s body if you would like to see how it works. I would also suggest that you look at the D7000 as I think it produces better pics from a slightly better CMOS if you are doing more low light photos.

[spdu4ia]

this has officially gone over the heads of most begining photographers :evil:. Thats how we do it here!

[Mother Goose]

I have a D300s body if you would like to see how it works. I would also suggest that you look at the D7000 as I think it produces better pics from a slightly better CMOS if you are doing more low light photos.
I've rented the D300 a couple times, so I'm fairly familiar with it. I thought about the D7000, but I'm focusing more on the action aspect, and from what I've read, the D300 is the better of the two for that. :up: Won't use the video too much, if at all since I have my GoPro, so I'll save them money and got with the plain ol 300.

[TinkerinWstuff]

this has officially gone over the heads of most begining photographers :evil:. Thats how we do it here!

I'm soakin it all in! :bow:

[asp_125]

Aw crap.. I feel the need to upgrade.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Aw crap.. I feel the need to upgrade.

DO IT!! Camera envy :devil1:

[Cat118!]

ok thanks everyone for so much information... I think I picked the one I am getting
Canon - EOS Rebel T3i 18.0-Megapixel DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens - Black

[TinkerinWstuff]

ok thanks everyone for so much information... I think I picked the one I am getting
Canon - EOS Rebel T3i 18.0-Megapixel DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens - Black

Looks like a pretty good choice. You can see in the review how the noise levels at high ISO are poor because of the high megapixel rates. Won't matter outdoors for landscape shots with ample lighting. Cropping and blowing up landscape shots should be real nice.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/04/lab-test-canon-t3i

[Cat118!]

Looks like a pretty good choice. You can see in the review how the noise levels at high ISO are poor because of the high megapixel rates. Won't matter outdoors for landscape shots with ample lighting. Cropping and blowing up landscape shots should be real nice.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/04/lab-test-canon-t3i

thanks! Reading it now!

[JustSomeDude]

thanks! Reading it now!

If you can foot it, why not just go 60D? Here's a nice brief analysis of the mid-line Canons...


Analysis. We've already read it in the rumor mill: "The Canon T3i doesn't seem like much of an upgrade over the T2i." Admittedly, it is harder to justify an upgrade if you already have a T2i, and the price leaves one wondering whether it wouldn't be better to just spend the extra couple hundred bucks and get the Canon 60D. With essentially the same imager and processor, it comes down to a question of size, speed, and price. If you like smaller SLRs, don't mind the smaller viewfinder, and think 3.7 frames per second is just all right with you, the T3i is a great choice over the 60D. If you don't mind a little more grip, need a bigger viewfinder, can take advantage of the more sophisticated AF system, and plan to shoot more action with that 5.3 fps, then the 60D is probably worth the extra money. Still, there's no question it's going to cause some confusion among camera shoppers.

From http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T3I/T3IA.HTM


As I recall, you listed "action" as one of your photographic endeavors. That 3.7fps will be limiting with sports, racing, etc. type events. The advanced AF system on the 60D is also a benefit in fast action/burst shooting. If price is an issue, check out the Canon Factory Refurbished store. That 60D with lens kit is only $1,039...

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_276389_-1

You can also get a 20% discount on all of their refurb. equipment with the Canon Loyalty Program - which would bring that 60D kit to only $831 (before tax & shipping). Basically, if you call them up and tell them you have a broken point-and-shoot, they'll give you 20% off all of the factory refurbished prices. How the heck do you think I got a 7D for $1,080?? UPDATE: Forgot to mention... The broken camera must be a CANON brand camera!

Don't have a broken Canon to use for the loyalty program? Buy a broken one on eBay or Craigslist for a few bucks.

:)