I was looking toward cannon. Maybe even a nikon? What do you guys suggest?
Canon's are awsm according to my GF and a few camera freak friends.
450D's are nice and they go for around $500
450D's are nice and they go for around $500
Nikon D3000
i have one, it's 12 megapixel and does very well.Cybargs wrote:
450D's are nice and they go for around $500
before this turns into another us vs. them thread - it's really a system once you are into dSLR, you have to account for the lenses, bodies, flashes, and even memory type. i would recommend Canon.
Nikon D40.
The reason the majority of people recommend Canon is because of the amount of marketing they do, appealing to the newer photographers and people who generally get sucked into things.
(Not putting Canon down though. I just think the majority of new DSLR owners are a bunch of idiots.)
The reason the majority of people recommend Canon is because of the amount of marketing they do, appealing to the newer photographers and people who generally get sucked into things.
(Not putting Canon down though. I just think the majority of new DSLR owners are a bunch of idiots.)
That is a reason.. but it certainly isn't the only reason. Nikon and Canon both make top notch cameras. The only place I think one excels over the other is in the point and shoot area. Canon > Nikon in similar price ranges. This opinion is only due to my personal experience with each. Sorry Ashton.DefCon-17 wrote:
Nikon D40.
The reason the majority of people recommend Canon is because of the amount of marketing they do, appealing to the newer photographers and people who generally get sucked into things.
(Not putting Canon down though. I just think the majority of new DSLR owners are a bunch of idiots.)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nikon stock glass > Canon's. At least according to my Nikon-using pro-photographer friends.
yeah, no bias there.ghettoperson wrote:
Nikon stock glass > Canon's. At least according to my Nikon-using pro-photographer friends.
i've rented two "L" series lenses now, and i will say the glass is the price is ridiculous, same as "G" series glass from Nikon.
i have a Canon 7D, it's 18mp, shoots 8 fps, and i'm happy with it. the difference between the camera i own and Nikon? i can recommend my camera.
Stock lenses are for noobsghettoperson wrote:
Nikon stock glass > Canon's. At least according to my Nikon-using pro-photographer friends.
I heard Canon CMOS makes images> Nikon's
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-02-01 03:45:03)
Sticking with 35mm for now KTHX.
Fuck Israel
Don't do it man, don't rent those L series lenses!!burnzz wrote:
i've rented two "L" series lenses now, and i will say the glass is the price is ridiculous, same as "G" series glass from Nikon.
It turns into an addiction that normal glass can't cure..
The EOS 5D is a 35mm DSLR...Dilbert_X wrote:
Sticking with 35mm for now KTHX.
And he's buying a $600 camera, so I'm quite sure he'll be sticking with the stock glass for a while.Cybargs wrote:
Stock lenses are for noobsghettoperson wrote:
Nikon stock glass > Canon's. At least according to my Nikon-using pro-photographer friends.
I heard Canon CMOS makes images> Nikon's
You get more Dollar for Dollar getting a canon compared to a nikon from what I've heard, so that extra money can go into lenses.ghettoperson wrote:
And he's buying a $600 camera, so I'm quite sure he'll be sticking with the stock glass for a while.Cybargs wrote:
Stock lenses are for noobsghettoperson wrote:
Nikon stock glass > Canon's. At least according to my Nikon-using pro-photographer friends.
I heard Canon CMOS makes images> Nikon's
What extra money? If you want anything decent $600 is not going to leave you with much change for lenses. And that's not true at all, Nikon and Canon are practically identical; there's no real reason to go for one brand or the other for any reason other than personal perference. Try both out, see what you like more.
Why blow cash on a DSLR if you don't plan on getting better lenses? Only reason why anyone would buy a DLSR is if they want to have an expensive photography hobby.ghettoperson wrote:
What extra money? If you want anything decent $600 is not going to leave you with much change for lenses. And that's not true at all, Nikon and Canon are practically identical; there's no real reason to go for one brand or the other for any reason other than personal perference. Try both out, see what you like more.
wish you would have told me that five thousand dollars ago.Cybargs wrote:
Only reason why anyone would buy a DLSR is if they want to have an expensive photography hobby.
Not at all, you can get perfectly good photos with the stock gear.Cybargs wrote:
Why blow cash on a DSLR if you don't plan on getting better lenses? Only reason why anyone would buy a DLSR is if they want to have an expensive photography hobby.ghettoperson wrote:
What extra money? If you want anything decent $600 is not going to leave you with much change for lenses. And that's not true at all, Nikon and Canon are practically identical; there's no real reason to go for one brand or the other for any reason other than personal perference. Try both out, see what you like more.
+1ghettoperson wrote:
Not at all, you can get perfectly good photos with the stock gear.Cybargs wrote:
Why blow cash on a DSLR if you don't plan on getting better lenses? Only reason why anyone would buy a DLSR is if they want to have an expensive photography hobby.ghettoperson wrote:
What extra money? If you want anything decent $600 is not going to leave you with much change for lenses. And that's not true at all, Nikon and Canon are practically identical; there's no real reason to go for one brand or the other for any reason other than personal perference. Try both out, see what you like more.
My wife has a cannon rebel xs (which I believe is the 1000d outside the US) with the kit 18-55 and a cheap cannon 75-300 which takes what I would consider very good pictures, as good as a multi thousand dollar set up, no but much better than our old point and shoot. She even makes money with it.
we've had the 1000d, now we have the 450d and a 7d. i must say, glass is the difference.jaymz9350 wrote:
My wife has a cannon rebel xs (which I believe is the 1000d outside the US) with the kit 18-55 and a cheap cannon 75-300 which takes what I would consider very good pictures, as good as a multi thousand dollar set up, no but much better than our old point and shoot. She even makes money with it.
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire
if your wife is making money, kudos! i don't get paid, like Cybargs said it's an expensive hobby.
Yeah most of what I've heard is it's much more worth throwing money in to glass than the body. Eventually the plan is to get some nice lenses and maybe a new body (and i'll keep the XS) but for know it still works very well.burnzz wrote:
we've had the 1000d, now we have the 450d and a 7d. i must say, glass is the difference.jaymz9350 wrote:
My wife has a cannon rebel xs (which I believe is the 1000d outside the US) with the kit 18-55 and a cheap cannon 75-300 which takes what I would consider very good pictures, as good as a multi thousand dollar set up, no but much better than our old point and shoot. She even makes money with it.
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/426 … 2f2a_b.jpg
if your wife is making money, kudos! i don't get paid, like Cybargs said it's an expensive hobby.
To me one of the biggest selling points to me for a DSLR even though i'm not a photographer by any means is the ability to manual focus. I had many pictures ruined or unable to shoot with our point and shoot due to it focusing on the wrong point.
With digital its the quality of the glass AND the detector.
With film it was the glass and the film.
With film it was the glass and the film.
Fuck Israel
I guess I may have worded it wrong. I'm not saying a better body won't help but you'll get most likely get better pictures with a cheaper body and good glass than with a top of the line body and cheap glass.Dilbert_X wrote:
With digital its the quality of the glass AND the detector.
With film it was the glass and the film.
I think most manufacturers only have a few detectors in their range but many bodies, you need to pay more attention to which detector the body has than how many gizmos, that all I'm saying.
But obviously the starting point is the glass which may well have more effect than one 10MP detector compared to another.
But obviously the starting point is the glass which may well have more effect than one 10MP detector compared to another.
Fuck Israel
When you say detector, is that Australian for sensor?
D3000 got it and it is great. Had a deal for a 18-55 and a 55-200 for only 700 bucks. Well worth it and it has 10 megapixels, easily taking high res pictures.