Buying A Dslr

[Hoonigan]

+1 Hoonigan

If you check out the link I posted earlier, you can bag the 70D + 18-55 + the coveted 24-105 f/4 L for $1300++ (or you can get a couple of regular lenses instead of the L - all what you wanted) - a no brainer really.

Yes I bought my 60D without the 18-55. I bought it with the 18-200 which had a wide enough range for me to learn the basics and figure out what type of photos I gravitate to. this way, you make a more conscious decision with the second lens purchase.

[Strikeee]

+1 Hoonigan

If you check out the link I posted earlier, you can bag the 70D + 18-55 + the coveted 24-105 f/4 L for $1300++ (or you can get a couple of regular lenses instead of the L - all what you wanted) - a no brainer really.

I checked your link, but there is no shipping to australia.

I check Canon 70D, they priced over $1499 just the camera body here...

[Ruslan]

Yes I bought my 60D without the 18-55. I bought it with the 18-200 which had a wide enough range for me to learn the basics and figure out what type of photos I gravitate to. this way, you make a more conscious decision with the second lens purchase.

Same Body with 24-105 L. got a Black Friday offer (B&H) while was in US. 24-105 L is used as a overall lens and Tokina 11-16mm for wide and 60mm Canon Macro for both Portrait and Macro.

[vishkid]

I checked your link, but there is no shipping to australia.

I check Canon 70D, they priced over $1499 just the camera body here...

I assumed when you said $, USD and US Thailand and US (when they have deals) seems to be the cheapest places to snag a DSLR.

[Hoonigan]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Ruslan" data-cid="275758" data-time="1428286929"><p>

<br />

Same Body with 24-105 L. got a Black Friday offer (B&H) while was in US. 24-105 L is used as a overall lens and Tokina 11-16mm for wide and 60mm Canon Macro for both Portrait and Macro.</p></blockquote>

Never had the coin to spare for some L glass. After my recent purchase I think I will hold off until I can manage an actually good lens

[Pericles]

i know this is different peoples perspective but for me canon cams devolop almost natural saturated pictures where i find Nikon is a bit more vivid compared to the natural image.

That small personal issue aside Nikon is more value for money

Its not just you. The Sony manufactured sensors that are used in Nikons have a more saturated output.

The actual case is, if you like that, you might as well buy a Sony SLR. Damn good stuff.

[kmeeg]

Its not just you. The Sony manufactured sensors that are used in Nikons have a more saturated output.

The actual case is, if you like that, you might as well buy a Sony SLR. Damn good stuff.

Pericles,

How about the availability and prices for lenses compatible for Sony? In SL can we find lenses compatible for Sony as much as we see for Nikon and Canon? And will it be cheap?

Bcos when i check online Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR2 is $2396 and Sony 70-200 F2.8 SSM2 is $2998 (Sony seems to be expensive) Also budget wildlife lenses like Tamron 150-600 would be freely available to Sony A mounts? The reason i'm asking is; do you advice to buy anyone a Sony DSLR vs a Nikon or Canon when you look at the long term for availability and budget for lenses and other accessories?

• Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR2 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+70-200mm+f%2F2.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps
• Sony 70-200 F2.8 SSM2 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1008119&gclid=CjwKEAjwo5OpBRDU64qO07OXq00SJADn5hYnjZRS-QYH5TqRUPcapqrsIpeuaYJ-i1dTnBl-8bODqxoCW87w_wcB&Q=&is=REG&A=details

Your advice is much appreciated, Thanks in advance,

KMeeg.

[Pericles]

Pericles,

How about the availability and prices for lenses compatible for Sony? In SL can we find lenses compatible for Sony as much as we see for Nikon and Canon? And will it be cheap?

Bcos when i check online Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR2 is $2396 and Sony 70-200 F2.8 SSM2 is $2998 (Sony seems to be expensive) Also budget wildlife lenses like Tamron 150-600 would be freely available to Sony A mounts? The reason i'm asking is; do you advice to buy anyone a Sony DSLR vs a Nikon or Canon when you look at the long term for availability and budget for lenses and other accessories?

• Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR2 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+70-200mm+f%2F2.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps
• Sony 70-200 F2.8 SSM2 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1008119&gclid=CjwKEAjwo5OpBRDU64qO07OXq00SJADn5hYnjZRS-QYH5TqRUPcapqrsIpeuaYJ-i1dTnBl-8bODqxoCW87w_wcB&Q=&is=REG&A=details

Your advice is much appreciated, Thanks in advance,

KMeeg.

I said you can get a Sony if you like saturated images, not if you want lens choices or cheap accessories.

An A58 with a 18-55 is less than $500 on Amazon. If you are one of those people who buy SLRs as a status symbol and use the auto mode all the time, its a viable option rather than spending on a Canon or a Nikon. Even Sigma has DSLR bodies. Unless you need that Canon or Nikon badge for the status symbol to work.

Let me put it in a way an automotive audience would understand.

OF COURSE, THE MAIN REASON IS, PEOPLE THINK THE SLR IS A CAMERA. THIS IS A TECHNICAL MISCONCEPTION. THE SLR IS DESIGNED TO BE A SYSTEM.

... Let me simplify. The pure SLR buy is a body only. You can’t do anything with that. Its like a car without tires. You need to accessorise. First and foremost, a lens. Just like a car’s tires, this comes in many, many configurations. Do you need road tires, off-road tires, snow tires, studs or chains, what width, what tire profile, wet weather optimised or dry weather optimised, racing slicks, semi grooved racing tires? With a lens, zoom or prime, zoom range, aperture, macro capability, tilt shift ability, focus motor, weather sealing? General purpose do-it-all or specialized? And this is just the first accessory of the System! This is why it is so important to get the “what do you want to do with it” question right.

Its unique to the use case.

[kmeeg]

Quote

OF COURSE, THE MAIN REASON IS, PEOPLE THINK THE SLR IS A CAMERA. THIS IS A TECHNICAL MISCONCEPTION. THE SLR IS DESIGNED TO BE A SYSTEM.

... Let me simplify. The pure SLR buy is a body only. You can’t do anything with that. Its like a car without tires. You need to accessorise. First and foremost, a lens. Just like a car’s tires, this comes in many, many configurations. Do you need road tires, off-road tires, snow tires, studs or chains, what width, what tire profile, wet weather optimised or dry weather optimised, racing slicks, semi grooved racing tires? With a lens, zoom or prime, zoom range, aperture, macro capability, tilt shift ability, focus motor, weather sealing? General purpose do-it-all or specialized? And this is just the first accessory of the System! This is why it is so important to get the “what do you want to do with it” question right.

Best explanation ever..!! Many thanks..

[The Don]

Peri

What is a good general purpse lens to have on your camera when you are travelling and can't take a whole lens bag with you? I often take my 18-55 but to be honest sometimes need better zoom when you are a tourist, but I can't justify taking my 70-300 which is rather bulky.

While its a compromise, I thought of something like this

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/tamron-16-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-macro-review

This is general purpose photography, not particularly arty but more a chronicle of a trip.

[kmeeg]

Peri

What is a good general purpse lens to have on your camera when you are travelling and can't take a whole lens bag with you? I often take my 18-55 but to be honest sometimes need better zoom when you are a tourist, but I can't justify taking my 70-300 which is rather bulky.

While its a compromise, I thought of something like this

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/tamron-16-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-macro-review

This is general purpose photography, not particularly arty but more a chronicle of a trip.

I bought one Tamron lens but not much happy with the quality and performance. May be its user's problem..

[Schiffer]

so i was choosing between the 700D and a D5300

although D5300 is a better camera in comparison specially on low light photos.

but i found that lenses for Nikons are way too expensive.

for example i wanted to get a 50mm f 1.8 lens. for the canon its 13500 and for the nikon its 25000

Do note that OP

[Pericles]

Peri

What is a good general purpse lens to have on your camera when you are travelling and can't take a whole lens bag with you? I often take my 18-55 but to be honest sometimes need better zoom when you are a tourist, but I can't justify taking my 70-300 which is rather bulky.

While its a compromise, I thought of something like this

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/tamron-16-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-macro-review

This is general purpose photography, not particularly arty but more a chronicle of a trip.

From what I have, it'll be my 24-70 f4L IS. Basically, you need something wide that will zoom as far as possible. The best I ever had was probably the 15-85. Fantastic every way (until it stopped working ) the 18-135 will be ok for GP work too. But if you really wanna cover all the bases, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. I avoided it coz I made a conscious decision to stay away from EF-S Lens, no other reason than just in case I get a FF body.

Is this Tamron a new one? I haven't come across it before. (Haven't been following a lot for some time) I know they had a 18-270 or something which was good for normal GP stuff unless you are a pixel peeper.

Wait, summary

15-85

17-55

24-70 f4

24-105

18-135

I might switch on the 17-55 and 24-70. The 2.8 is often more useful than the 55-70 range increase, but....

[H.C]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Schiffer" data-cid="276009" data-time="1687930"><p>

so i was choosing between the 700D and a D5300<br />

<br />

although D5300 is a better camera in comparison specially on low light photos.<br />

but i found that lenses for Nikons are way too expensive.<br />

for example i wanted to get a 50mm f 1.8 lens. for the canon its 13500 and for the nikon its 25000<br />

<br />

Do note that OP</p></blockquote>

But certain lenses like 55-300, 55-200 are bit pricey for canon (Dx compatible ones). Isn't it? D5300 has a bigger sensor , wifi , but lacks touch screen. I thought of going for a D3300 as Im on a tight budget. Have you given up the 100D thought?

[Pericles]

Canon doesn't have a 55-200 or a 55-300.

But certain lenses like 55-300, 55-200 are bit pricey for canon (Dx compatible ones). Isn't it? D5300 has a bigger sensor , wifi , but lacks touch screen. I thought of going for a D3300 as Im on a tight budget. Have you given up the 100D thought?

Yes, Nikon has a 1.5 vs Canon 1.6 crop. I find it an advantage. More zoom.

[Schiffer]

But certain lenses like 55-300, 55-200 are bit pricey for canon (Dx compatible ones). Isn't it? D5300 has a bigger sensor , wifi , but lacks touch screen. I thought of going for a D3300 as Im on a tight budget. Have you given up the 100D thought?

True but couple of lenses i checked were more expensive for the nikon. i didnt really get it but they said something about a mechanical lens in nikon or something

and yeap given up on the 100D for one reason. i want a flip out display

i am trying to increase my budget for a 70D

[Pericles]

True but couple of lenses i checked were more expensive for the nikon. i didnt really get it but they said something about a mechanical lens in nikon or something

and yeap given up on the 100D for one reason. i want a flip out display

i am trying to increase my budget for a 70D

Ohhhh, that Complication

Yes, you need to check that with Nikon. Some bodies have a motor. They can use lens which don't have a motor on the lens. Those lens which don't have motors can only be used on those bodies. Or at least, you get AF only on those bodies. You can probably manual focus.

A whole complication which I never learned about properly since it was irrelevant to me. And just another reason I avoided Nikon.

[Schiffer]

Ohhhh, that Complication

Yes, you need to check that with Nikon. Some bodies have a motor. They can use lens which don't have a motor on the lens. Those lens which don't have motors can only be used on those bodies. Or at least, you get AF only on those bodies. You can probably manual focus.

A whole complication which I never learned about properly since it was irrelevant to me. And just another reason I avoided Nikon.

Yeap thats what he said. about the Nikon D5300 need a lens with a motor in it. which makes the lenses more expensive.

anyways my heart has been set on canon ever since i was a kid since the day my dad gifted me a Canon FTb ql SLR

[H.C]

Yeap thats what he said. about the Nikon D5300 need a lens with a motor in it. which makes the lenses more expensive.

anyways my heart has been set on canon ever since i was a kid since the day my dad gifted me a Canon FTb ql SLR

Pardon me for my ignorance, I thought most of the entry level Dslrs needs lens with focusing motor. ( both canon and nikon) I saw at cameralk listing that both nikon and canon got 70-300 lense for below 20k without auto focus motor.

[Schiffer]

Pardon me for my ignorance, I thought most of the entry level Dslrs needs lens with focusing motor. ( both canon and nikon) I saw at cameralk listing that both nikon and canon got 70-300 lense for below 20k without auto focus motor.

AFAIK canon doesn't need lenses with a motor in it.

[vishkid]

AFAIK canon doesn't need lenses with a motor in it.

More correctly, none of the Canon bodies have a focus motor in them because all the EOS lenses have a built in motor. Nikon started (in late 90's and 2000's) putting motors in their DSLR's and simultaneously started to push out a motor-less range of lenses. As of late they have changed that trend and are following Canon in making all the new lenses with a motor.

With Canon, there's nothing to worry about - all EOS system lenses have a focus motor and will AF with all Canon bodies.

With Nikon, if you combine the new 5xxxx series or 3xxxx series with some older lenses like the 85mm/1.8D, 50mm/1.8D, then you don't have a motor in the body nor in the lens, thus limited to manual focus (which is not a bad thing at all, I use 50mm/1.8 with D3300 with great results). If you buy these cameras and stick with new lenses, there's nothing amiss.

[Pericles]

OK, I don't know the Nikon scene, you can refer to what vishkid has said.

In Canon there are two types of lens. EF-S and EF. There are two types of sensors, Full Frame and crop. Generally unless you are paying over 200k for a body (And if you are paying that much you really should know what you are doing and can't be a total noob) you will 99% of the time, be getting a crop. (the other 1% is there just in case you get insanely lucky on the second hand market)

And if you have a crop, All EF and EF-F lens will work, and will auto-focus.

In general terms, Full Frame bodies are made to work only with EF lens. That's all the beginner needs to know

[The Don]

OK, I don't know the Nikon scene, you can refer to what vishkid has said.

In Canon there are two types of lens. EF-S and EF. There are two types of sensors, Full Frame and crop. Generally unless you are paying over 200k for a body (And if you are paying that much you really should know what you are doing and can't be a total noob) you will 99% of the time, be getting a crop. (the other 1% is there just in case you get insanely lucky on the second hand market)

And if you have a crop, All EF and EF-F lens will work, and will auto-focus.

In general terms, Full Frame bodies are made to work only with EF lens. That's all the beginner needs to know

I think if you are starting off in photography, a full frame is wasted on you. The argument might not always hold for lenses.

There is a Canon outlet shop you can buy Canon refurbished cameras at very reasonable prices. I bought a 500D at around £300 many years ago with a Canon warranty and the kit lens. Still works well, while I learn the intricacies of photography. I'll upgrade once I've learned a bit more, but for the moment it suffices. The main issue I have is I only have 2 lenses. The 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300 Tamron Zoom lense without image stabilizer, which still worked ok even at maximum zoom when I took it to the Olympics. But I still don't think I've extracted the best out of even my crop body, and still playing around with different settings

The Tamron lens is pretty recent. I read the reviews and the results are encouraging. Clearly it does not have the sharpness of the L series and it does deform a bit at the extreme ends, but its a compromise, and intended for general purpose photpgraphy.

At a recent work shop, I was told I should probably get a 50mm fixed focal length camera (if thats the correct term, I mean non zoom). What do you think about that?

[Hoonigan]

I tihnk the complication is when we try to future proof the purchase. And to be fair, you don't buy camera bodies that often and the fear of outgrowing the most basic body quickly.

Speaking of lenses, There are FD lenses that were used on old Canons that go for very cheap prices. I bought myself a 50mm f1.4 a while back. You need an adapter to mount it on our cameras. With the crop sensor and the multiplier in the adapter, the focul length is closer to 100mm but the bokeh at 1.4 still looks pretty amazing. Focusing and Aperture is all manual as well so it can get a bit fiddly. Neverless, I think FD lenses are a relatively inexpensive route to learn new areas of photography.

I also bought a lens reverser for this 50 and it doubles as a decent close up lens too.

@Peri, you mentioned that you use a 24-70 f4L on a crop body right? While the 24 end on a FF body is considered wide, it's like a 40mm on the crop isn't it? Do you find that as an issue or does it still work as a good general purpose lens?

[The Don]

Actually even with the basic bodies you can do some pretty amazing stuff Hoonigan. More than the camera, it is usually the skill and the artistry of the photographer that makes the difference. Obviously the crop takes some of the perspective out, but the basics of photography hasn't change much for many decades. A more advanced sensor will result in better quality.

I don't know if you guys remember a Russian brand called Zenit. Many budding photographers started with those in the good old days. Basic, cheap as chips but allowed you to develop your skills well.

I do not think there is much point trying to future proof electronics. Often they will fail before you outgrow them, and there will always be a better version next year. If you want to be a formula 1 driver, there is no point trying to buy a formula 1 car at the begining, even if your dad is a billionaire. Because until you've mastered a Go Cart, its unlikely you'll have any chance of driving a higher formula car safely

Reason why I say this is I see a lot of people hung up on choice on what to buy and worrying about these things. But the key thing is to buy something and get out there and sharpening your skills. When the time comes, there will always be a buyer for your old kit.

Its kind of the philosophy I have when it comes to buying electronics goods. I spend the least I need to, to get the result I need. Anything more is a waste of money. A good example is I still survive ok a 4 year old i3 Acer though I use it professionally for my work. Now I've given it an upgrade, and it does run some taxing app, and coped brilliantly. Now I've got friends who have the latest kit which cost 4 times as much as I've paid for mine, but I've made a lot of money on mine as I use it for work. Now its their money, their choice and I don't mean to judge. But there is always something else you can do with your money. Money I don't waste, I spend on other things, most recently cars

Edited April 13, 2015 by The Don