me and my camera - Orchid Board

RJSquirrel · #1 03-17-2011, 10:54 PM

I took back the nikon d3100 I was braggin about getting. Got it and did more research.I just wanted to take some nice pictures and was impulsive with the buy. Felt I would be more happier with the canon eos60d package at twice the price..Imagine that?

But the real deal was that the nikon I was locked into using "low to middling" type lenses for it.

The canon will accept all the low mid and high end canon lenses.I have all the photogs here where I work use a whole cornucopia of canon 1d cameras.For stills live action video etc etc etc.I got to talking with the man and he says sure they have stacks of canon lenses what did I need..huh? need? I dunno!!

So I took back the nikon and am saving for the rest of the canon money..

Tell me Im doing the right thing getting a camera I wont grow out of for a very long time, at least a few years

Discus · #2 03-18-2011, 05:13 AM

The joy of buying into a camera system is once you have the lenses, you can usually change out the body - the lenses change less than the bodies with time.

I'm a Canon person myself; you can spend days/weeks/months/years arguing about

Whose Nads are Bigger

AKA

which is better

, but they are both good.

In the world of digital cameras, it might be worth thinking that canon is a massive electronics company (and what is a digital camera?) whilst Nikon have some people that are very good at sticking bits of glass together. Again, you can spend huge swaths of time arguing about just how good the lens needs to be before the image sensor plays a role/vice versa.

I'm not sure why you think you're "locked into" using only lower end lenses? The joy of DSLRs is that the good lenses still work on them (but the DSLR-only "crappy" lenses don't work on full frame digital or 35mm film bodies).

I imagine you'll be happy with either camera at the end of the day - just pick the one you like more, and which offers the features you want.

And buy a decent tripod, and then don't leave it in the closet.

I started with a Canon EOS 50e in late 2000 which I loved, and finally took the plunge to digital with a 5D in 2008.

Connie Star · #3 03-18-2011, 09:42 AM

I used Nikons years ago, pre-automatic and pre-digital. The glass is superb.
I switched to Canons because Canon made the first light weight 35mm SLR and I've never regretted it. Canon may be an electronics manufacturer, but they have been making cameras for at least 40 years and probably longer.
I agree with Discus; it is the lens, not the body. I'm happily using the "entry level" T2i to save money for the lenses.

Discus · #4 03-18-2011, 10:02 AM

Of course, once you've decided on a body, you will start lusting after accessories.

My list was pretty much:
1) Macro lens - sigma 105mm
2) Long Telephoto Lens (for wildlife) Sigma 170-500 (I hate it)
3) Tripod (Manfrotto 055 NAT2 with 141RC head)
years later,
4) Flash (Canon 550EX)
5) Fast lens for low light (f1.4 50mm)
Years after that
6) a wiiiiide angle lens (16-35mm)
A Few years after that
7) A DSLR (well, I wanted one of those for a loooong time)....
8) IS on a lens (so I got my 5D with a 24-105mm IS lens)
9) A canon 100mm macro lens Just In Case my Sigma 105mm didn't play nicely (it doesn't).
10) Another flash (Canon 580EX).

My ultimate dream lens is of course the 600mm f4 IS. Fat chance! I'm also starting to think the 65mm up to 5x mag macro lens looks interesting, as do macro flashes...

And of course various filters and other toys came along for the ride.

stefpix · #5 03-18-2011, 11:32 PM

I think many get excited about using a ton of lenses and then they do not get good photos just because they are too busy thinking about lenses. Many amateurs get excited about ultra wide angles - they look cool - but after a while it looks very gimmicky.

Many great photos are shot with normal lenses.

Of course if you shoot sports maybe you need a heavy long telephoto with a wide aperture.

But anyway often the lens with the highest image quality are the inexpensive 50 mm 1.8 and 35 mm 2.8 and so on.

Anyway on the Nikon you can use most of the lenses from way back the 60s. Canon changed bayonet mount sometimes in the 80s so you can only use Eos lenses but nothing older.

What is also important is how you use the RAW converter and so on. I have not shot Canon but I am sure I could take great photos with it.
What I like about Nikon is the wireless flash off the camera. I can use my D90 with 2 flashes and no cables. The photos can look a lot better.

I think the Nikon D3100 can take great photos with a good standard zoom and a 35 mm F1.8.

If you travel light you end up taking a lot more photos than if you carry a bag full of accessories.

I am happy with my D90 and I would love a D700 full frame. I do not think it is worth spending too much for an APC sized sensor DSLR. I got the D90 because I needed the wireless off camera flash and then it has an autofocus motor to auto focus some older AF lenses that have no motor...

But I used a D40x a lot as a backup camera. The D90 has a better image quality. Maybe the new CMOS sensor is better.

If I was going for Canon I would consider the 5D if I could spend the $$.

stefano

Call_Me_Bob · #6 03-18-2011, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefpix

I think many get excited about using a ton of lenses and then they do not get good photos just because they are too busy thinking about lenses. Many amateurs get excited about ultra wide angles - they look cool - but after a while it looks very gimmicky.

Many great photos are shot with normal lenses.

Of course if you shoot sports maybe you need a heavy long telephoto with a wide aperture.

But anyway often the lens with the highest image quality are the inexpensive 50 mm 1.8 and 35 mm 2.8 and so on.

Anyway on the Nikon you can use most of the lenses from way back the 60s. Canon changed bayonet mount sometimes in the 80s so you can only use Eos lenses but nothing older.

What is also important is how you use the RAW converter and so on. I have not shot Canon but I am sure I could take great photos with it.
What I like about Nikon is the wireless flash off the camera. I can use my D90 with 2 flashes and no cables. The photos can look a lot better.

I think the Nikon D3100 can take great photos with a good standard zoom and a 35 mm F1.8.

If you travel light you end up taking a lot more photos than if you carry a bag full of accessories.

I am happy with my D90 and I would love a D700 full frame. I do not think it is worth spending too much for an APC sized sensor DSLR. I got the D90 because I needed the wireless off camera flash and then it has an autofocus motor to auto focus some older AF lenses that have no motor...

But I used a D40x a lot as a backup camera. The D90 has a better image quality. Maybe the new CMOS sensor is better.

If I was going for Canon I would consider the 5D if I could spend the $$.

stefano

Are you saying there is a way to shoot with an off body flash, without cords or a pocket wizard? Assuming you have the d90 of course.

You can call me Bob

stefpix · #7 03-19-2011, 12:07 AM

That is what I wrote. there is a lot of info about that. TTL flash off camera triggered by on camera flash. You can balance/ set the power of the 2 flashes independently. It is a great feature that I use often especially if i need to shoot a food dish at some restaurant or a quick portrait without hauling a bag with 2 lights.
I carry 1 or 2 lenses [one on camera], a strobe, a spare battery, a spare memory card. Well, maybe I should carry a backup camera if it is something important. I have some old lenses from film days but I really never use them...

Call_Me_Bob · #8 03-19-2011, 12:51 AM

Awesome! I'll have to do some reading about this.

I had no idea you could trigger the flash that is not connected to your camera at all, without having a pocket wizard or some kind of radio device to send and receive signals.

You can call me Bob

Discus · #9 03-19-2011, 05:23 AM

Canon cameras also offer infra-red based camera slaving; you can either get a wireless flash transmitter, or use one mounted in a hotshoe to trigger others; you can even set relative ratios of flashes between several units, and have flashes "listening" on different channels. It's pretty nifty.

Off camera cords are pretty handy accessories too, particularly for macro.

And yes, running around with a single fixed focal length lens helps you learn a lot about using light and framing/composing pictures without the 'distraction' of a zoom - a 50mm lens is pretty much perfect for this, and you can pick up some really amazingly sharp, fast lenses like this for a fairly insignificant amount of money. That said, once you've learnt a bit about this, zooms are pretty handy things to have attached to your camera. There's something to be said for spending a day (or more!) taking photographs with just one lens and no other accessories.

In an ideal world, I'd drag around a bunch of cameras with several primes permanently attached.

As you said, super-wide angle lenses are a bit "gimmicky" and actually extremely hard to use well; mine seldom comes out of the bag. But when you need to get a whole room in and don't have any way of "backing up", they're invaluable. The relatively large depth of field effect you can get with these lenses is also pretty great in landscape photography. If you do it right...

tucker85 · #10 03-19-2011, 08:54 AM

My sister has the Nikon D700 and uses a wireless flash with it. She gets some great results. She can set the flash where she wants it and move around the subject with the camera. Very cool. Unfortunately my D3100 doesn't have that feature. I had to buy a flash that mounts on the camera and controls one or several wireless slave flashes. It still works fine but it's more equipment. As far as lenses, zooms are convenient but I like the picture quality of the prime lenses. I also have one macro that takes very high quality pictures also.