Buying A Dslr In Sri Lanka

Pericles · November 18, 2008

Overdrive said:
Thanks for the replies guys. I have decided to buy the 450d + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I'm getting a tripod free so that's cool. Next is i need a couple of good lenses. I was told by some pro's not to go for the Tamron lenses as the motor starts making a noise after a while when foucusing. And that the sigma one's are quite good.
By the looks of it this lense, The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG (Canon AF) combines telephoto and macro options. is this right? if so this will be brilliant.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/catego...29861/Show.html

''Macro shooting with maximum magnification 1:2 High optical performance is demonstrated throughout the entire zoom range. It also has a switch that converts the lens to macro photography at focal lengths between 200mm and 300mm with a minimum focusing distance of 95cm. In normal mode the minimum focusing distance is 150cm at all zoom settings. Maximum magnification between 200mm and 300mm is 1:2.9 to 1:2.''

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/catego...29861/Show.html

my other question is the 450d lense fitting is said to be Canon EF, Canon EF-S, so can a lense with a Canon AF interface fit to this (like the sigma above) . I'm a bit confused as they sell these as bundled items.

When it says AF, it just means Auto Focus, its not the interface. A friend who has the Nikon mount version of the Sigma 70-300mm DG raves over it (No APO). But one who had a Canon mount version was less than pleased. Difficult call. Check

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sigmaapo70300mmdg/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma70-300mm/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/67489753@N00/

And remember, just coz you have the equipment doesn't mean you'll get pics like that, specially right away. Its a long process and requires patience and willingness to learn.

Overdrive · November 18, 2008

Pericles said:
When it says AF, it just means Auto Focus, its not the interface. A friend who has the Nikon mount version of the Sigma 70-300mm DG raves over it (No APO). But one who had a Canon mount version was less than pleased. Difficult call. Check
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sigmaapo70300mmdg/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma70-300mm/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/67489753@N00/

And remember, just coz you have the equipment doesn't mean you'll get pics like that, specially right away. Its a long process and requires patience and willingness to learn.

you are right peri, this thing can be quite frustrating at times and is so time consuming. I had a tough time with my nikon compact SLR as i had lost the user manual. Have been doing my research and things are sort of making a bit more sense.

Saturn · November 20, 2008

vitz said:
Guys, good to see this thread. I am also aiming to buy a DSLR,
got two options

1. NIKON D40 BLACK 18-55 MM for 399 euro

2. CANON EOS 1000D + 18/55 for 469 euro

Is it worty to spend 70 euro more for EOS as far as the photo quality and options considered.

Advice of you guys is highly appreciated.

The D40 is an excellent camera, with good low light (ISO200) native sensor. Consider getting it and saving your money for a nice VR lens and/or a few prime lenses

Edited November 20, 2008 by Saturn

Saturn · November 20, 2008

Overdrive said:
Thanks for the replies guys. I have decided to buy the 450d + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I'm getting a tripod free so that's cool. Next is i need a couple of good lenses. I was told by some pro's not to go for the Tamron lenses as the motor starts making a noise after a while when foucusing. And that the sigma one's are quite good.

Get a good prime lens like the 50mm f 1.4 or 1.8 or even the 85mm f/1.8

See if you can get a cheap 70-300 lens but remember these tend to be rather slow

Edited November 20, 2008 by Saturn

Overdrive · November 22, 2008

Changed my mind and bougt the EOS 40D with the EF-S 17-85 mm IS Ultrasonic plus a EF-S 100mm USM (macro) lense. Also bought a Sandisk 8GB Extreme III memory card with a few filters and some other stuff. Blew my budget big time. Yeah madmax the differebce in the weight,size and the quality between the 450 and the 40 is quite unmistakable.

Pericles · November 22, 2008

Interesting lens combo. Would be interesting to see the performance of that 100mm Macro. Do give some feedback on that after you get a good chance to try it out.

Overdrive · November 22, 2008

Pericles said:
Interesting lens combo. Would be interesting to see the performance of that 100mm Macro. Do give some feedback on that after you get a good chance to try it out.

I can't seem to get the lens to zoom with the + - buttons and looks like you cant get the view finder to toggle between the LCD screen. The macro had to be ordered, will be getting on tuesday. for now its just the 17-85. The macro is actually a 60mm. will post pics.

Pericles · November 22, 2008

Overdrive said:
I can't seem to get the lens to zoom with the + - buttons and looks like you cant get the view finder to toggle between the LCD screen. The macro had to be ordered, will be getting on tuesday. for now its just the 17-85. The macro is actually a 60mm. will post pics.

Errr, the +- buttons are only for reviewing the images on the screen, not for zooming. This is an SLR, not a P&S You need to twist the zoom ring on the lens. And the 40D doesn't have live view, if I remember right. The 450D does, but none of the older ones do not. You have some major reading to do. Like they say in the Biz, start basic, and RTFM!

Edited November 22, 2008 by Pericles

MasterDon · November 22, 2008

Pericles said:
Errr, the +- buttons are only for reviewing the images on the screen, not for zooming. This is an SLR, not a P&S You need to twist the zoom ring on the lens. And the 40D doesn't have live view, if I remember right. The 450D does, but none of the older ones do. You have some major reading to do. Like they say in the Biz, start basic, and RTFM!

peri... why are you posting here about camera's and not joining in on the festivities...

err there are festivities marking the great occasion right? :blink:

Pericles · November 22, 2008

HelRazor said:
peri... why are you posting here about camera's and not joining in on the festivities...
err there are festivities marking the great occasion right?

Festivities concluded a couple of hours ago. Not really the party animal type Considered a visit to the steps, but since I'm low on sleep last night too, stayed in.

Overdrive · November 22, 2008

Pericles said:
Errr, the +- buttons are only for reviewing the images on the screen, not for zooming. This is an SLR, not a P&S You need to twist the zoom ring on the lens. And the 40D doesn't have live view, if I remember right. The 450D does, but none of the older ones do not. You have some major reading to do. Like they say in the Biz, start basic, and RTFM!

I thought as much, the Nikon Compact SLR i had before had the zooming option with the buttons, so just assumed..well too darn exited with the hardware had no time to look at the FM! hehe. The 40D does have live view and i found it..Thanks mate.

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Fi..._tour/index.asp

Watchman · November 23, 2008

Pericles said:
Errr, the +- buttons are only for reviewing the images on the screen, not for zooming. This is an SLR, not a P&S You need to twist the zoom ring on the lens. And the 40D doesn't have live view, if I remember right. The 450D does, but none of the older ones do not. You have some major reading to do. Like they say in the Biz, start basic, and RTFM!

the 40D does have Liveview peri.

PS : ah, didnt see overdrive's comment about live-view before commenting.

And Overdrive, how different is the photo quality between the 40 and 450? is it the colours? sharpness?

Edited November 23, 2008 by Dilesh

Overdrive · November 23, 2008

to be honest i have'nt used the 450D to Comment about the image quality but the 40D has 2 megapixels less reslolution.

madmax · November 23, 2008

Overdrive said:
to be honest i have'nt used the 450D to Comment about the image quality but the 40D has 2 megapixels less reslolution.

Once you go beyond about 5 Megapixels it doesn't matter unless you're going to make hoarding size prints. 40D definitely has better image quality than the 450D and as reviewed by dpreview.com even better that its own successor 50D! The 2 megapixel bump in the 50D has introduced more digital noise.

Watchman · November 23, 2008

madmax said:
Once you go beyond about 5 Megapixels it doesn't matter unless you're going to make hoarding size prints. 40D definitely has better image quality than the 450D and as reviewed by dpreview.com even better that its own successor 50D! The 2 megapixel bump in the 50D has introduced more digital noise.

i havent heard a lot about 50Ds. Max, does the noise exist on the entire range of resolution or just the high end?

And i agree with the 5+mp theory.. in fact most of my shots i shoot at 2mp...

Ripper · November 24, 2008

madmax said:
Once you go beyond about 5 Megapixels it doesn't matter unless you're going to make hoarding size prints. 40D definitely has better image quality than the 450D and as reviewed by dpreview.com even better that its own successor 50D! The 2 megapixel bump in the 50D has introduced more digital noise.

there seems to be a lot of debate on this...

some argue that the digic4 really shines when shooting jpeg and not RAW and supposedly the noise levels are lesser when shooting jpeg since the newer chip "cleans" things up...

no review seems to be directly dissing the 50D against the 40D

the way i understood is that if you own a 40D already it's really not needed to go for the 50D considering the $$$ involved...unless of course you really want the newer user interface etc etc etc...

But if you own a 400d, 450d or an older 20d or summin like that... the 50D is a better choice....

If all goes well... In December i'll see how good this 50D really is

Saturn · November 26, 2008

Ripper said:
there seems to be a lot of debate on this...
some argue that the digic4 really shines when shooting jpeg and not RAW and supposedly the noise levels are lesser when shooting jpeg since the newer chip "cleans" things up...

no review seems to be directly dissing the 50D against the 40D

the way i understood is that if you own a 40D already it's really not needed to go for the 50D considering the $$$ involved...unless of course you really want the newer user interface etc etc etc...

But if you own a 400d, 450d or an older 20d or summin like that... the 50D is a better choice....

If all goes well... In December i'll see how good this 50D really is

When it comes to DSLR's (and to an extent P&S's) The camera you use is mostly insignificant.. except for a few features like live view and bigger lcd's, (and more pixels), a 3 or 4 year old DSLR can get just as good a pic as a new one, when used correctly, by a skilled photographer.

If you really want to get better photos, learn more, and BUY GOOD LENSES (Fast primes for example)

Just my two cents.. I see people around me blowing money trying to get the latest whatchamacalit DSLR with 15 megapixels and they'd get better results with a 6mp camera and a good prime lens.. ah well

On the subject of lenses, I'm on the lookout for Canon lenses.. if anyone has good ones, new or used, or knows where to find them, please let me know

Have tried metropolitan but their prices are crazy, 100% markup or more.. only decent lens they had was a 50mm which was... out of stock.

edited: oops sorry, this wasn't aimed at Ripper, just a general rant

Edited November 26, 2008 by Saturn

Ripper · November 26, 2008

Saturn said:
The camera is mostly insignificant.. except for a few features like live view and bigger lcd's, (and more pixels)
If you really want to get better photos, learn more, and buy better lenses, e.g. fast high quality zooms or better yet prime lenses

Just my two cents.. I see people around me blowing money trying to get the latest whatchamacalit DSLR with 15 megapixels and they'd get better results with a 6mp camera and a good prime lens.. ah well

On the subject of lenses, I'm on the lookout for Canon lenses.. if anyone has good ones, new or used, or knows where to find them, please let me know

Have tried metropolitan but their prices are crazy, 100% markup or more.. only decent lens they had was a 50mm which was... out of stock.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

Watchman · November 26, 2008

Saturn said:
When it comes to DSLR's (and to an extent P&S's) The camera you use is mostly insignificant.. except for a few features like live view and bigger lcd's, (and more pixels), a 3 or 4 year old DSLR can get just as good a pic as a new one, when used correctly, by a skilled photographer.
If you really want to get better photos, learn more, and BUY GOOD LENSES (Fast primes for example)

Just my two cents.. I see people around me blowing money trying to get the latest whatchamacalit DSLR with 15 megapixels and they'd get better results with a 6mp camera and a good prime lens.. ah well

On the subject of lenses, I'm on the lookout for Canon lenses.. if anyone has good ones, new or used, or knows where to find them, please let me know

Have tried metropolitan but their prices are crazy, 100% markup or more.. only decent lens they had was a 50mm which was... out of stock.

Actually i would beg to differ. The body DOES matter! and the live-view and LCD would be the insignificant factors for a professional.

True lenses are a wiser area to be investing in as opposed to bodies, because they depreciate much MUCH less. But still the Body does matter. Example, a motorsports photographer would require (or do much better) with a higher end 6.5fps 50D (using canon examples) over a 3.5fps 450D. And maybe lowlight landscape photography would do better with a higher ISO range. And with time sensors too improve in quality and sensitivity etc... So buying a better body DOES give you a slight head start over older or lower end body cos the camera would fix a lot of problems that we might not be able to do manually without the knowledge and experience.

But most of us here are amateurs and have very few high end requirements on a regular basis. Personally, I have never felt under-equipped with my entry level D40x, except for the one time that i wished i had a higher frame rate (at S'pore F1).. but hey thats just one night a year. So if you have deep pockets nothing prevents you from getting a high end camera. I dont think anyone would say the photograph is nice only because you have a high-end camera.

Saturn · November 26, 2008

Dilesh said:
Actually i would beg to differ. The body DOES matter! and the live-view and LCD would be the insignificant factors for a professional.
True lenses are a wiser area to be investing in as opposed to bodies, because they depreciate much MUCH less. But still the Body does matter. Example, a motorsports photographer would require (or do much better) with a higher end 6.5fps 50D (using canon examples) over a 3.5fps 450D. And maybe lowlight landscape photography would do better with a higher ISO range. And with time sensors too improve in quality and sensitivity etc... So buying a better body DOES give you a slight head start over older or lower end body cos the camera would fix a lot of problems that we might not be able to do manually without the knowledge and experience.

But most of us here are amateurs and have very few high end requirements on a regular basis. Personally, I have never felt under-equipped with my entry level D40x, except for the one time that i wished i had a higher frame rate (at S'pore F1).. but hey thats just one night a year. So if you have deep pockets nothing prevents you from getting a high end camera. I dont think anyone would say the photograph is nice only because you have a high-end camera.

True.. my comment was mostly aimed at amateurs I just think its a pity that they spend so much upgrading their camera's instead of getting better lenses..

Edited November 26, 2008 by Saturn

Pericles · November 26, 2008

Saturn said:
If you really want to get better photos, learn more,

Actually, if you had just stopped with this, I'd agree.

You see, a lot of the time, the thing with DSLRs is that they allow you to do things faster. They power on, focus, shoot, re-shoot, re-charge the flash, change settings, etc much faster than a small P&S. If you take bad pictures, the DSLR will not help you take good pictures, no matter what fancy bodies or pricey lens you buy. It'll just help you take bad pictures faster.

Thing is, different things for different uses. Keeping in mind the 50mm is on my shopping list.

If I was into motorsports - a lens with a good zoom capability even in a older body would be great. No use having a smaller length prime or a mega ISO and high Mpx body. Well, in Sri Lanka, where you expect most of your work to be done in the bright sunny daylight.

If I was into landscapes - wide angle, maybe prime, even better to get a full frame body, otherwise the focal length multiplication means you can't get as wide as you might want. And maybe a Nikon, coz they make one wierd fish-eye lens. How wide? It can see behind the lens. I think it was 5mm.

Indoor sports - Body with high ISO, fast lens, and depending on how much ground you need to cover, a decent zoom range.

Its endless. Depends on what your shooting and how you prefer to shoot it. Freeze action? Motion blur? Long exposure? motion trails? bokeh? The great thing about the DSLR system is it allows you to concentrate on getting equipment dedicated to your style, rather than having to accept compromises that are designed to appeal to a broader audience. Tho now, the lower level DSLRs are trying to capture that appeal too.

Saturn · November 26, 2008

Pericles said:
Actually, if you had just stopped with this, I'd agree.

Guess I should learn to quit while I'm ahead!

In my defense, my rant was mainly because 99% of the talk about DSLR's is always about upgrading the camera and seems like people are forgetting about lenses... if someone has $1500 - $2000 to spend, they should at least consider getting good lenses, as, $1500 worth of lenses with an old camera may result in better photos than a newer camera

Anyway, its really nice to see this sort of stuff being discussed and I hope it inspires other P&S users to go DSLR.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Saturn

Overdrive · November 26, 2008

I finally got my EFS 60mm f/2.8 macro Ultrasonic lense, and managed to take a couple of shots in the night. you can click on my fli*r profile and have a look. To get the full potential of the lense i will be needing more light and a tripod, so will have to wait till the weekend. I already love this lense with the big f/2.8 aperture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35605300@N00/

Btw the pics of the watch are the one's with the macro lense.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Overdrive

Devinda_Z · November 27, 2008

Overdrive said:
I finally got my EFS 60mm f/2.8 macro Ultrasonic lense, and managed to take a couple of shots in the night. you can click on my fli*r profile and have a look. To get the full potential of the lense i will be needing more light and a tripod, so will have to wait till the weekend. I already love this lense with the big f/2.8 aperture.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35605300@N00/

Btw the pics of the watch are the one's with the macro lense.

i know sweet buggerall about advanced photography, but that Cocker of yours looks downright adorable!

didn't you were , in the words of Alan Partridge , a a "Lexi"

Overdrive · November 27, 2008

Devinda_Z said:
i know sweet buggerall about advanced photography, but that Cocker of yours looks downright adorable!
didn't you were , in the words of Alan Partridge , a a "Lexi"

Thanks, the cocker loves to pose as well. yes in the words of alan partride i do drive a lexi now. needed a compromise between comfort and power. BTW the lexus shots were from a p&s camera.