dSLR Advice

[the great roberto]

Going to handle the 550d and 60d this weekend. I do remember not being inpressed with the 350d a few years back.

 

[Bensherman]

70-200mm f2.8

Mmmm I got the f4, because it's half the price and a pound and a half lighter

I've got a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 as well, and will handhold it shooting a rugby/football game.


Matt

 

[JohnH]

For period correctness use Tri-X developed in D-76 and push it by two stops (expose at EI 1600).

Cheers, Andy. I doubt that my LCS will keep Tri-X in stock. Even if I asked for it, the younger guys who work in the shop would probably think that I'm referring to some rapper from Los Angeles...

And for more early 70's period correctness you should have one of these

Yeah, last summer I suddenly got the urge for some "old-school" 35mm photography, saw the OM20 with a Clubman ( :shock: ) 28mm lens for £25 (Buy-it-now on eBay) and bought it on a whim.

Talking of "period correctness", my first ever SLR was a Minolta SRT-100, and I do miss its simplicity and rock-solid reliability...

 

[JohnH]

I went from a 450d to a 1D mark II, however the most important thing on a camera are the lenses. Spend as much as you can on lenses, I've got a 16-35mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 and although they are over a grand each I'll be keeping them for ever - camera bodies come and go. It seems every year there is a newer, better version of cameras.

Matt, that's exactly how I used to think; I believed that my 19-35mm wide-angle zoom would be useful forever.... until the 35mm frame was replaced by the APS-C sensor. On a dSLR, my very wide-angle 19-35mm lens now becomes a not-so-wide-angle 30-56mm lens...

So I can go and spend £400 on a Sigma 10-20mm lens, and all is well again -- until the prices of the APS-H dSLRs drop, followed by the prices of the full-frame dSLRs, and then I'll have to go out and buy that 19-35mm lens again.... :roll:

Although I use a Nikon digital SLR, I am finding I am using it in exactly the same way as I used to use my film SLR, a Pentax MX...

Silverclaws, I'm surprised that you switched to Nikon when buying your dSLR. The modern Pentax dSLRs can accept most of the older KA-mount lenses...

 

[Augustus]

70-200mm f2.8

Mmmm I got the f4, because it's half the price and a pound and a half lighter

there's the smart money spent - right there.



Have had the F4. Needed IS (will never not have IS again it's too good, especially on tele lenses) and bought the 2.8IS wishing there was an F4 IS.

a few months later, guess what there was?

And...the IS on the F4 is quoted as being good for an extra stop over the old 2.8 one, so equivalent anyway. :roll:

As Mike says, the F4 is a LOT lighter to lug about. And when you are lugging two of these beasts around ALL day and with quantums and flashes etc, those big 2.8's get very heavy indeed.

They are stronger though, and mine do get knocked about a fair bit.

It's all about buying the right gear for the purpose intended. Just like bikes and cars and all sorts of things. Think about what you actually want to take pics of, how big you will really want to look at them, go and get the kit that fits rather than get mugged into a numbers game. There are a lot of numbers out there. Be the master of the numbers. Not the slave.

 

[Bensherman]

Wu-tangled I only shoot sport so the extra stop f2.8 gives me more chance of stopping the action on winter afternoons, IS doesn't bother me as always shooting wide open for the dof and isolating the subject from the background. If I shoot at slower speeds it's normally with flash and 2nd curtain sync.

You're right though about costs and weight, I want or need different lenses to say someone who shoots landscapes. Horses for courses. I don't think anyone would not enjoy using the f2.8 or f4.0 versions of the 70-200mm both are superb.


Matt

 

[MikeD]

The other thing is that modern cameras are so good at high ISO that if you need another stop you can often just crank that up a notch Obviously you don't get the super-shallow DoF that way, so as said above, it depends a lot what you want

 

[Augustus]

The other thing is that modern cameras are so good at high ISO that if you need another stop you can often just crank that up a notch Obviously you don't get the super-shallow DoF that way, so as said above, it depends a lot what you want

I haven't seen anything trump the Nikon D3's for that either. They really are very good at noise reduction at high speeds. Very good.

This tends to be the way it seems to go now with Nikon and Canon. Each has a generation in the limelight with a new tech advance. They seem to take it in turns.

How times change.

Noise is always horrible. Grain was often lovely.

Just been shooting this weekend on Tri-X pushed to 1600 and 3200ASA. Lovely lovely grain.

 

[the great roberto]

Handled the canon 550d
60D :?
Then tried the Nikon 7000d

Need to save even more now.

I had teh Pentax K10d which is brilliantly made,but about say 600 ISO startrs to get soft and grainey.But is is a well built machine.To go from that to the 550d I know would be hard.

 

[Bensherman]

You can get noise reduction programs these days and as long as you don't over do it can yield some very usable images.

How often are you going to be above say ISO 800? As long as you expose correctly (histogram on back LCD) you should get hardly any noise up to 800ISO.

Cheers


Matt