looking to get a new camera... suggestions

[Garrett 0 P]

i think i want to go canon

anyone have suggestions

i know some skilled photogrophers use these forums.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11180829&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&N=4001462&Mo=9&pos=2&No=4&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&cat=1236&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&Sp=C&ec=&topnav=

i was looking at that one.

cameras statistics are like a forein language to me, i just want really nice clear crisp pictures that look sweet.

[ridetilludie]

linky no worky

[Garrett 0 P]

linky worky for mee

let me cheat the system

http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/ProductLarge/151290LL.jpg

[ridetilludie]

linky worky for mee

let me cheat the system

http://content.costco.com/Images/Content/ProductLarge/151290LL.jpg

That thing looks nice. How many cash duckets?

[allsk8sno]

anything canon or i have heard good things about the panasonic's too, but we have a canon and it is awesome, like it better than my brothers sony for sure and it uses non prorietary memory!, good video too, though the light has to be good for that, its the A610, not as high end as that beast there but we wanted something we could point and shoot and also play with manual settings... note the small thing inbetween the wife and me in my icon...

[Garrett 0 P]

800 cash duckets

[ChelanDHer]

Just remember when buying a DSLR, you're buying into a lens system. The XTi is a good camera from what I've heard, it does have a dust cleaning system of some sort for the sensor, which is great for people who don't clean their sensors (let alone know what the sensor is). I wouldn't hesitate to buy the XTi, price looks decent as well. As far as I knew, they were $1K with a kit lens, I'd go for it. I'm quasi-professional and I shoot Nikon, but that's just me. Only reasons I didn't buy Canon was 1) Local stores will asking way too much for Rebel XT's last year ($950 with kit lens) and I got my D50 back then for $700 with a lens 2) I just don't like the feel of Canon cameras, they just don't fit my hands well enough. Now I have $2K worth of Nikon mount lenses, a little difficult for me to switch now. Alright, there's my .02

Oh yeah, this is in edit, when you buy the thing, be sure to get a UV/Protective lens filter. I've seen way too many people just beat the piss out of the glass it's ridiculous. The 18-55mm kit lens is an excellent piece, you won't find anything a whole lot better without spending upwards of $500 and for the casual shooter, the 18-55 is a decent range for most. I'm picky about my lenses, the last one I picked up was $1,000, but the glass supplied with this camera is superb so no worries there. Okay I'm done, I promise.

[biggins]

the rebel xti is a good camera if you dont want to lay down the extra money for the 30D. the body isnt quite as stout and the seals are quite the same but i have been shooting the 8.2 version for a while now and love it. its just a decision if yo uwant to spend the extra 500 bucks for the heavier built body of the 30D or take that money and get another lens.

[ChelanDHer]

30D is hype. Chances are he doesn't need the pro features the 30D offers, even then they're minimal. He gets greater resolution and a self cleaning sensor by going with the XTi. From a professional standpoint, I'd still hesitate to buy a 30D over an XTi, let alone a casual shooter. The XTi will be plenty camera for his needs.

[Garrett 0 P]

so thumbs up on the canon or should i look into one of those nikons

i just figured that 800 was a steal for that camera

[ChelanDHer]

I would go to a camera store and put both in your hands. Between the two, there is very little difference, it just comes down to what lens mount you want/already have and how the camera fits your hands. Other than that, they're all the same as far as reliability, build, and overall quality. You can't go wrong with Canon, and yes that is a pretty decent price for an XTi.

[Garrett 0 P]

what do you mean by lens mount?

[ktown.freeride]

depends on what lens setup you want to go with. I'd look into the Nikon D50 or D70, good cameras to get started on. I believe Nikon also has a wider variety of lenses. You can get a Nikon D50 with a nice 18-135mm lens for around $700-800. Really good deal for what your getting. Go to the camera store and tell what your want to do and they'll hook you up.

[ChelanDHer]

I wouldn't opt for a D50 with the 18-135mm, the 18-135mm is hyped up, crappy lens. Plus, the 18-135 is super expensive, a D50 with that lens would be $1000 at least. The 18-55mm kit provides sharper images. Plus, the D50 is going to be replaced with newer technology very soon (D60 is about 2 months away). Canon has just as many, if not more lenses then Nikon. People need to realize that the differences between Canon and Nikon are so miniscule, you can't go wrong with either one. Best way to find out what you need is go to a camera store, put both in your hands and try them out. Either way, you're getting a great camera, whether you buy Canon or Nikon. Nikon is typically a little cheaper, but $800 for an XTi with a lens is a bangin deal.

BTW, lens mount basically means you can't put Canon lenses on a Nikon or vice versa. You can, however, buy third party lenses (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) that come in Nikon, Pentax, Canon, and Minolta mounts, etc.. I have Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM that I love, it's worth more than the camera. If you buy Nikon and want another lens, I have a 70-300 that I'm willing to sell cheap.

[Skookum]

i have a Canon G6. i'm not a pro and don't have money for lenses. It's all i need.

When i was lookin around at cameras i did research on DPreview.com and i'd put a few questions out on cameracourage.com.

[Garrett 0 P]

well if i did buy that cannon, id probly only look into buying a fisheye lens or a really wide angle.

ill probly go with the canon.

unless you can convince me to go nikon

what does 70-300 mean?

[jimbo_the_biker]

Don't get a 70-300. Look into the Canon 70-200mm F4L. VERY sharp lens, its L glass! You can get em for about $550 or so, much better deal than the 70-300's. I've got a Canon 30D, and I've owned the 300D (Original Digital Rebel), and 10D as well. I've got an assortment of lenses as well if you have any more specific questions.
The XTi is a great camera at an even better price. I wouldn't hesistate much on it. I've even thought about getting one as a 2nd body.

-James

[ChelanDHer]

70-200mm 4L is good glass, but it isn't any better than what you can buy from Sigma for the same price. He says he's looking for a good fish eye, which will be expensive from Canon, at least $1,000. I really hate how super wides are so expensive, that's the only reason I don't have one yet. Be prepared to spend upwards of $700 to get a true super wide angle. The 18-55mm kit is pretty wide, but to get down into the 12mm range it's gonna cost some bucks.

[jimbo_the_biker]

Yeah, I've got the Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye. Its wide enough, but with the 1.6x crop factor it loses a lot of the fish-effect. I'd suggest going to a shop and trying stuff out. I've heard good things about the Sigma 12-24mm, I think its ~$600 or so.

-James.

[Netguy]

[QUOTE=ChelanDHer;2368281]70-200mm 4L is good glass, but it isn't any better than what you can buy from Sigma for the same price. QUOTE]

The 70-200 F4L, far exceeds anything that Sigma makes in the equivalent price range/focal length, in relation to build quality, motor speed, color and sharpness. For $650, the this lens is a steal, and if you shoot Canon, you should own this lens, at least once in your life. The Canon L lens will always dominate, at lower fstops, with corner to corner sharpness over a Sigma or Tamron for that matter.

Not taking anything away from Sigma, they make some very nice quality products, and I actually have owned a couple of their lenses, however Canon L, is in a different league, and until you spend some time with one, you will not understand why. Next time you are at a pro sporting event, look at how many white lenses are on the end of cameras. There is a reason for this.

Getting back to the question at hand. Yes, the XTi falls into that category of a great camera, at a very affordable price. You should stick to a DSLR if you are going to be shooting sports. Digi point and shoots, and other digital models, are adequate for sports at best.

My advise would be to go with Canon. Nikon has some awesome bodies on the market right now, at very competitive prices. Their D200 body is killer, however from my experience with both, Canon seems to be more noise free at higher ISO's which is a plus for me.

[66]

The 30d is not just hype. It is a better body then the XTi. The Megapixals is higher on the XTi but that isn't the only factor involved. The sensor is actually slightly larger on the 30d. Cramming

The Rebel line is good. But it's the lens that takes the photo. don't spend 800 on a body just to put a 100 lens on it. maybe find a used 20d (basically an older 30d) and find get a good lens. or a used 350d (older rebel).



70-300 is the focal point range. it's 70mm-300mm. That is a wide range and is quite long. With 70mm on a APS-C sized sensor (Rebels) would fill the frame with a human head at about 6-8 feet. 18mm would do it at inches. 300mm umm...further away.

if you don't know why you want an SLR, then assess your camera wants. you might want a camera that is small and you can take biking. An SLR is large and expensive. It's rare that I take mine biking. And when I do it's only xc.

What camera do you have now and what is wrong with it? why do you want a better camera?

[Garrett 0 P]

Don't get a 70-300. Look into the Canon 70-200mm F4L. VERY sharp lens, its L glass! You can get em for about $550 or so, much better deal than the 70-300's. I've got a Canon 30D, and I've owned the 300D (Original Digital Rebel), and 10D as well. I've got an assortment of lenses as well if you have any more specific questions.
The XTi is a great camera at an even better price. I wouldn't hesistate much on it. I've even thought about getting one as a 2nd body.

-James


you got any sample pictures you want to throw up so i can get a feel for what the canon pictures look like?

[66]

you got any sample pictures you want to throw up so i can get a feel for what the canon pictures look like?

http://www.pbase.com/cameras
http://www.fredmiranda.com
http://photo.net/
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/

[ChelanDHer]

Netguy, I didn't say the 70-200 4L was a bad lens, I think we're on different wavelengths.The really nice thing is that you get USM for $550, that's pretty sweet. It's a bit strange, but my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG HSM blows away anything Nikon and/or Canon makes in the $1,000 range in terms of sharpness, vignetting, and pincushioning, I guess I just overlook the cheap stuff anymore. I've heard the 4L is good, but maybe we're thinking on different levels of "good"? I think the 4L is probably an outstanding lens for the amateur shooter, however, the lens is composed mostly of plastic, does not have 77mm filter threads, and doesn't not open up to 2.8. For the price, I think it's a great lens, but it is not of professional standards by any means. But, in regards to about 90% of the people out there, this is probably a great lens. In regards to who shoots more Canon at sporting events, that's easy, Nikon doesn't offer a full frame camera and Canon claims to have better saturation with the full frame sensor (which is probably true). That's why all those guys are shooting 600mm primes that are 15 pounds, they don't have the crop factor to play with. I've also heard that Canon's autofocus is just a little faster, which I can understand as the autofocus on my D50 is slow as hell and I don't think the D200 is worlds faster. Having an autofocus motor on the lens (USM, HSM, etc.) really helps the autofocus speed, I've shot plenty of sporting events with my 70-200 without any problems, but for those that desire to be a little faster, I think Canon has a slight edge. However, Canon's ergonomics bug the hell out of me. I can't get used to not having a top mounted display, there's no thumb roller, that drives me nuts, and the only roller they put on the camera is right on top in the worst position ever. Every time I pick up a Canon I have to wonder why in the hell they put that stupid roller there.

[Skookum]

Netguy, I didn't say the 70-200 4L was a bad lens, I think we're on different wavelengths.The really nice thing is that you get USM for $550, that's pretty sweet. It's a bit strange, but my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG HSM blows away anything Nikon and/or Canon makes in the $1,000 range in terms of sharpness, vignetting, and pincushioning, I guess I just overlook the cheap stuff anymore. I've heard the 4L is good, but maybe we're thinking on different levels of "good"? I think the 4L is probably an outstanding lens for the amateur shooter, however, the lens is composed mostly of plastic, does not have 77mm filter threads, and doesn't not open up to 2.8. For the price, I think it's a great lens, but it is not of professional standards by any means. But, in regards to about 90% of the people out there, this is probably a great lens. In regards to who shoots more Canon at sporting events, that's easy, Nikon doesn't offer a full frame camera and Canon claims to have better saturation with the full frame sensor (which is probably true). That's why all those guys are shooting 600mm primes that are 15 pounds, they don't have the crop factor to play with. I've also heard that Canon's autofocus is just a little faster, which I can understand as the autofocus on my D50 is slow as hell and I don't think the D200 is worlds faster. Having an autofocus motor on the lens (USM, HSM, etc.) really helps the autofocus speed, I've shot plenty of sporting events with my 70-200 without any problems, but for those that desire to be a little faster, I think Canon has a slight edge. However, Canon's ergonomics bug the hell out of me. I can't get used to not having a top mounted display, there's no thumb roller, that drives me nuts, and the only roller they put on the camera is right on top in the worst position ever. Every time I pick up a Canon I have to wonder why in the hell they put that stupid roller there.

This is precisely why i'll never be a pro photographer, it's like a frikkin different language....

Like with any tool it's all about the person using it. Sure you can be limited, but if you're forking over the cash it sounds like your gonna fork over, it's not like you're going to be using a disposable...:biggrin:

[jimbo_the_biker]

The 70-200 F4/L is from their 'L' series. The 'L' series is their professional stuff. Its not 'mostly plastic' and has 67mm filter threads. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7345

I have sample photos for all my lenses.. Links go to full res shots.
Here's two quick ones from the 70-200 F4/L
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/coyote4-small.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/coyote4.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/deer1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/IMG_0581.jpg

And one from the Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye (keep in mind this shot was taken at 1/13th of a second)
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/guy-4-small.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/guy-4.jpg

-James

[Netguy]

Netguy, I didn't say the 70-200 4L was a bad lens, I think we're on different wavelengths.The really nice thing is that you get USM for $550, that's pretty sweet. It's a bit strange, but my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG HSM blows away anything Nikon and/or Canon makes in the $1,000 range in terms of sharpness, vignetting, and pincushioning, I guess I just overlook the cheap stuff anymore. I've heard the 4L is good, but maybe we're thinking on different levels of "good"? I think the 4L is probably an outstanding lens for the amateur shooter, however, the lens is composed mostly of plastic, does not have 77mm filter threads, and doesn't not open up to 2.8. For the price, I think it's a great lens, but it is not of professional standards by any means. But, in regards to about 90% of the people out there, this is probably a great lens. In regards to who shoots more Canon at sporting events, that's easy, Nikon doesn't offer a full frame camera and Canon claims to have better saturation with the full frame sensor (which is probably true). That's why all those guys are shooting 600mm primes that are 15 pounds, they don't have the crop factor to play with. I've also heard that Canon's autofocus is just a little faster, which I can understand as the autofocus on my D50 is slow as hell and I don't think the D200 is worlds faster. Having an autofocus motor on the lens (USM, HSM, etc.) really helps the autofocus speed, I've shot plenty of sporting events with my 70-200 without any problems, but for those that desire to be a little faster, I think Canon has a slight edge. However, Canon's ergonomics bug the hell out of me. I can't get used to not having a top mounted display, there's no thumb roller, that drives me nuts, and the only roller they put on the camera is right on top in the worst position ever. Every time I pick up a Canon I have to wonder why in the hell they put that stupid roller there.


Its all good mate, however I disagree with your opinion that the 70-200 F4 is mostly made up of plastic. Its the same build as the 70-200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS. ($1200 and $1600). Are you saying that those pro lenses are not good builds either?

Also, the reason why you see so many L lenses, on cameras at pro sports events, has absolutely nothing to do with Canon only offering full frame. Who shoots full frame at sports events? Cropped cameras are much more preferred, as it gets you closer to the action.
The 1DmarkII, which is easily Canons most popular sports body (pro), is a 1.3crop, shoots 8fps, has a massive buffer, and most importantly, has a separate processor that handles auto-focus duties, making the autofocus extremely fast and accurate.
Sure, Canon does make a full frame pro body, (1DsMarkII), however for $7500, its a photo-journalist body, and only gives you 3fps. It can shoot sports, however its not designed for it, and for $3500 more than the 1DMarkII, its not worth it (for sports).

Its good to disagree, and debate...thats what forums are for.

[ChelanDHer]

I'm not convinced the 70-200 4L is a pro lens. You gotta stop down to 2.8 for it to be "professional" in my book. And the plastic body I'm not too hot about either, my Sigma isn't plastic and none of the Nikon pro super teles are either. I think the 4L is a lighter grade of plastic than the pro lenses, you can just feel the heft of a pro lens versus the cheaper ones. Sure there might be more lens elements, but the weight has to come from somewhere, usually the build of the body. Like I said, probably a great lens for keen amateurs, but it's far from professional.

Bottom line, between Canon and Nikon, there is little difference. Both have a great line of lenses, but there are a few in each line that just flat out suck and are not worth their salt. Nikon has a few, I'm more familiar with what's "crap" in the Nikon line. I got tired of spending $500 on a lens and getting crappy glass, I'm not buying lenses that don't sell for at $1,000 any more, just not worth it for me. I am, however, waiting for the D3x to be released, then D2Xs prices will hit rock bottom.

[jimbo_the_biker]

Have you ever even tried a 70-200F4L? I have mine sitting right here. Its metal, same build as the 70-200 F2.8L/IS. The reason the lens is light is because the F4 uses smaller glass and has no IS unit. Its a perfect lens for hikes/etc. F2.8 is great for sports, but not all 'pro' lenses are F2.8. Are you going to tell me that the 600mm F4-L is not a 'pro' lens because its only F4?

The Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 is a good option for sure. BUT the F4L is sharper, focuses faster, is lighter, has a better build quality, and is cheaper. If you MUST have F2.8 and can't afford the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L/IS, the sigma works.

The build quality on L glass is 2nd to none. Great stuff.

-James.

[ChelanDHer]

A friend of mine has a 70-200 4L. I've shot a little with it on his 20D. The lens just feels like a toy compared to my Sigma. Whatever works for you though. And sorry to break it to you, the 4L is not a better lens than Sigma's 70-200 2.8 EX HSM. The 4L is good, but it's just not in the same category. I'll agree it's a great lens for the PRICE, but there are better lenses, gentlemen.

[Five]

Best thing is to go check the cameras out at a store. You can't go wrong with either. I personally use a Nikon and have for over 20 years and love it. I don't have any opinions on Canon since I've only used them a few times. Spend the extra money on good lenses - don't compromise with the cheap stuff just because you want to get a long lens or a fancy fish-eye. It's not worth it. The camera body you'll upgrade in time, the lenses will be with you a lot longer.

[MinorThreat]

Hey ChelanDHer (oh yeah, and Five too), I have another DSLR question for you. I haven't gone digital yet - - my main camera is still my trusty old Mamiya 1000DTL dinosaur.

I'm looking at the possibility of a Pentax body (K100D) - - in about the $500 range right now. I've read some pretty good stuff about them. Advantage me is that I'm supposed to be able to (with the $15 adapter ring) use my old 1.4 Mamiya and my 135mm Vivitar telephoto (both really good optics - old Pentax screw mount)

Is this a good idea or should I wait and spend more on a totally new camera/lens package?

[Five]

Hey ChelanDHer (oh yeah, and Five too), I have another DSLR question for you. I haven't gone digital yet - - my main camera is still my trusty old Mamiya 1000DTL dinosaur.

I'm looking at the possibility of a Pentax body (K100D) - - in about the $500 range right now. I've read some pretty good stuff about them. Advantage me is that I'm supposed to be able to (with the $15 adapter ring) use my old 1.4 Mamiya and my 135mm Vivitar telephoto (both really good optics - old Pentax screw mount)

Is this a good idea or should I wait and spend more on a totally new camera/lens package?

Doug - just get a new camera. The lens will fit on the body, but you won't have autofocus capabilities and metering might be a problem. Plus you'll have a fancy shiny new camera/lens and you can take a picture of me biking for a change :brow:

[ChelanDHer]

The K100D is a great camera, I've heard some good things about it. Never tried one personally, but read reviews in mags and on the net and have heard that they are excellent bodies.

[jimbo_the_biker]

Garrett-
I'd suggest doing a bit of reading on http://www.fredmiranda.com/ for lens reviews.
And http://www.dpreview.com/ for the camera reviews. They have very comprehensive reviews, by the time you are done reading it, you'll basically be able to operate the camera. Good stuff.

-james.

[MinorThreat]

Doug - just get a new camera. The lens will fit on the body, but you won't have autofocus capabilities and metering might be a problem. Plus you'll have a fancy shiny new camera/lens and you can take a picture of me biking for a change :brow:Thanks - - I had a feeling that's what you might say. Just needed the 'doing' up-side the head :D Yeah I need to get back to doing some regular shooting . . . will be much more appealing when I'm not burning up film.

Thanks too to you Chelan -- yeah I'm going to check further into them. Price range is tempting.

Gotta dig through my old slides sometime and put 'em on the scanner - - got some shots from a Trans-AMA at Puyallup early '70s of the Norton WASP sidehack team hittin' the jumps that you might enjoy. Imagine MX on a sidecar rig - -anyone for sidehack DH? I'll be the monkey . . . .

[Garrett 0 P]

And one from the Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye (keep in mind this shot was taken at 1/13th of a second)
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/guy-4-small.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/guy-4.jpg

-James


the camera doesnt look like it captured action/speed shots very good at all. hes all blurry and stuff.

are there ajustments that can fix that

[ChelanDHer]

Garret, he was just running a slower shutter speed to create that affect. Had he run a faster shutter speed and changed a few variables, he could have "frozen" the rider.

[jimbo_the_biker]

Yeah, I did that on purpose. 1/13th of a second is quite slow. That was at skatebarn, I usually shoot 1/200th there.. or faster if I bump the ISO a little.
The photo was also taken w/ my flash set to 2nd curtain sync, hence the nifty ghosting.

Here's one shot a bit quicker.

http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/phil1.jpg

[Fairfaxian]

I like to carry a camera on my camelabak shoulder strap. Quick access, but I could destroy it in a face down crash -oh well. I now use the Leica D-Lux-3 ($600), but for $200 less you can get the same camera with a Panasonic logo (Leica & Pansonic collborated in this camera so the brands have only minor differences) I have a high end SLR (Canon 5D) which blows away the Leica -but I ain't taking on mtb rides. The Leica (or Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2) has a wide angle (28-112 mm) lens. 10Mpx wide frame format -great for landscapes 16x9 apsect ratio, auto & full manual controls & image stabilizer. Best of all -shoots RAW format, which trumps any cameras without the feature -for me. Not a perfect camera, but works well & is the best compact currently available FOR MY CRITERIA. But check DP review & the user reviews to be better informed. I like the Leica version, but would proabably by the Panasonic now that the price point has dropped -sorry Leica!

[Qman]

well if i did buy that cannon, id probly only look into buying a fisheye lens or a really wide angle.

ill probly go with the canon.

unless you can convince me to go nikon

what does 70-300 mean?

Unless something has changed in the very recent past, I don't think there's a fisheye that will give you the full effect on the cropped sensor Canons. So unless Sigma makes one or Canon comes out with an EF-S fisheye, you should look at Nikon or a full size sensor Canon if you really want the full fisheye effect.

Bang for the buck seems to be the D2X right now. There's a lot of info but www.dpreview.com is a great place to research cameras and get completely overloaded with choices.

[ChelanDHer]

You can only get a true 12mm fisheye on a full frame camera, which is going to be Canon's 5D ($2800) or 1Ds Mark II ($6700), pretty expensive. Nikon doesn't produce a full frame sensor body, so you're stuck with the crop factor if you go Nikon. You can buy a 12-24mm fisheye, but the widest it would be with a crop factor of 1.6x is roughly 18-19mm when compared to a film body. The crop factor is great if you're looking to stretch your long range lenses, but not so great if you're looking for fisheye. My advice? Buy whatever suits you best that's in your budget, buy a good, super wide lens, and go with it.

Edit: Nikons 10.5mm prime lens does offer a 180 degree fisheye whereas Sigma's 10-20mm is only 102 degrees. Canon has a 14mm prime, but it only gets to about 114 degrees. Looks like Nikon is about the only manufacturer (as far as I can tell) making a true 180 degree fisheye. Now, this lens would work great on a 1.6x crop factor camera, you'll just have to stand back a little further is all. At 10.5, you're sitting at 16mm or so with a 1.6x crop factor, that's about as low as they come.

Here's a link to buy the 10.5, it's only $600, I would have guessed it would be more. http://www.adorama.com/NK105DXU.html

[Five]

Edit: Nikons 10.5mm prime lens does offer a 180 degree fisheye whereas Sigma's 10-20mm is only 102 degrees. Canon has a 14mm prime, but it only gets to about 114 degrees. Looks like Nikon is about the only manufacturer (as far as I can tell) making a true 180 degree fisheye. Now, this lens would work great on a 1.6x crop factor camera, you'll just have to stand back a little further is all. At 10.5, you're sitting at 16mm or so with a 1.6x crop factor, that's about as low as they come.


I have the Nikon 10.5 f/2.8 lens - It's awesome!

Here's a sample:
http://web.mac.com/ljulian/iWeb/Crankworx/Slopestyle_files/DSC_8028.jpg

[Garrett 0 P]

the background on that picture above this looks a bit pixelated and not much definition. is that normal?

[Garrett 0 P]

Yeah, I did that on purpose. 1/13th of a second is quite slow. That was at skatebarn, I usually shoot 1/200th there.. or faster if I bump the ISO a little.
The photo was also taken w/ my flash set to 2nd curtain sync, hence the nifty ghosting.

Here's one shot a bit quicker.

http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bike/phil1.jpg

yea thats sweet. what camera and lense you use for that?

[jimbo_the_biker]

That was taken with my canon 30d and the Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fish. After the 1.6x crop factor its effectively 24mm, but I find it to be plenty wide.

-James.

[MinorThreat]

Doug - just get a new camera. The lens will fit on the body, but you won't have autofocus capabilities and metering might be a problem. Plus you'll have a fancy shiny new camera/lens and you can take a picture of me biking for a change :brow: OK, one more dumb question and I'll leave you guys alone. When I read this the first time my mind was thinking about auto-aperature when I was reading 'autofocus.' So now my twofold dumb question: I'm not sure that losing autofocusing capabilities would be that important to me. Isn't that a bit overrated when doing fast-acting sports photgraphy anyway? Don't you usually wind up setting up focus (like at a certain course feature) manually ahead of time anyway? Part 2: If metering is an issue, that's bad indeed; and I guess my other concern is if I'd lose the auto-aperature function, or is that something that can be retained using old analog optics on a digital body?

I know, I know, "just buy the whole thing;" but I wanted to get those niggling questions cleared up. Thanks!

[Netguy]

OK, one more dumb question and I'll leave you guys alone. When I read this the first time my mind was thinking about auto-aperature when I was reading 'autofocus.' So now my twofold dumb question: I'm not sure that losing autofocusing capabilities would be that important to me. Isn't that a bit overrated when doing fast-acting sports photgraphy anyway? Don't you usually wind up setting up focus (like at a certain course feature) manually ahead of time anyway? Part 2: If metering is an issue, that's bad indeed; and I guess my other concern is if I'd lose the auto-aperature function, or is that something that can be retained using old analog optics on a digital body?

I know, I know, "just buy the whole thing;" but I wanted to get those niggling questions cleared up. Thanks!


Autofocus is extremely important with sports photography. Canon uses AI Servo mode, to continually track a moving subject, and I know Nikon has their own version of this, as do most DLSR cameras.

What AI Servo mode does, is locks the focus on a moving subject. So regardless on which direction the subject is moving, as long as you have your focal point, on the subject, he/she will always be in focus. Usually to track, you half press the shutter button down, so when the subject is at the desired location in the fame, you simply fully press the shutter.

Yes, you can manually focus at a certain point, however its far less accurate, as you are now setting the focal point, not a computer.
Even if you prefocus your subject standing at the location first, there is no guarantee that your subject will be exactly that focal length away from the camera, when he/she comes by on a bike. When your subject does come by on the bike, if he/she is 1 foot closer to you, than the pre focus point, you will most likely have an out of focus photo.
Also, if it is successful, pre focusing is only really going to work, on subject that move from one side of the frame to the other, so the focal distance stays about the same. If the subject is moving towards you, there is no accurate way for you to determine where the focal point was.

Just get a DLSR. Your other option will be a struggle/frustrating at best.

[66]

the background on that picture above this looks a bit pixelated and not much definition. is that normal?


That image is 65k and was probably about 8000k to begin with. When putting images on the internet it is necessary to degrade the image when resizing. That give the image the pixel look. In it's original state you would not be able to see the pixel edges but that would have taken a very long time to load (plus you would see it if it was RAW).

The sky is clipped. The white is all white. There is no data. That is not so much the camera as it is the photographers choice. If he chose to keep the detail in the bright sky, the subject (biker) would have been very underexposed (dark). Better cameras have better range but no camera could have exposed the biker and the sky in that shot.

[Garrett 0 P]

ok i didnt think of that

[MinorThreat]

Autofocus is extremely important with sports photography. Canon uses AI Servo mode, to continually track a moving subject, and I know Nikon has their own version of this, as do most DLSR cameras.

What AI Servo mode does, is locks the focus on a moving subject. So regardless on which direction the subject is moving, as long as you have your focal point, on the subject, he/she will always be in focus. Usually to track, you half press the shutter button down, so when the subject is at the desired location in the fame, you simply fully press the shutter. Wow, shows you what I know about DSLRs - - didn't know the autofocus was so smart. That alone is enough to make me want to switch.

Yes, you can manually focus at a certain point, however its far less accurate, as you are now setting the focal point, not a computer.
Even if you prefocus your subject standing at the location first, there is no guarantee that your subject will be exactly that focal length away from the camera, when he/she comes by on a bike. When your subject does come by on the bike, if he/she is 1 foot closer to you, than the pre focus point, you will most likely have an out of focus photo.
Also, if it is successful, pre focusing is only really going to work, on subject that move from one side of the frame to the other, so the focal distance stays about the same. If the subject is moving towards you, there is no accurate way for you to determine where the focal point was.That's less of an issue for me. Lots of years of shooting motorcycle races. Plus, that's what a good depth of field is for (admittedly not very much w/the telephoto on).

Just get a DLSR. Your other option will be a struggle/frustrating at best.I know you're right. Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm just glad decent ones are getting down in a price range that's realistic for me.

[bibs]

nikon has the new d40 WICH IS 599 IF YOU WANT A ENTRY LEVEL dslr. oops sorry about caps..too lazy to re-type

[Garrett 0 P]

i think im gonna get the canon

[ChelanDHer]

I wouldn't buy the D40. You'll never be able to grow into it. I outgrew my D50 in about 2 months, I've had it for about a year and I need a D200 badly.

[Garrett 0 P]

i was gonna get the digital rebel XTi

all it has was good reviews on the forums i was looking at

[66]

i was gonna get the digital rebel XTi

all it has was good reviews on the forums i was looking at

http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/ele/241948356.html
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ele/241839624.html

check out those ads.

[Garrett 0 P]

i dont know if i want to go used, i dont know enough to know what could be wrong with it

[bibs]

I wouldn't buy the D40. You'll never be able to grow into it. I outgrew my D50 in about 2 months, I've had it for about a year and I need a D200 badly.


yea, thats true. I already have a D200...its a nice!

[Five]

yea, thats true. I already have a D200...its a nice!

I want a D200 too...hmm, maybe next year. :brows: