Discussion Forums > Technology
Digital Cameras.
costi:
--- Quote --- you can afford it, 18-200 DX VR is everything you'd ever want. Mind this as well - longer lenses, like the 18-135/18-200 - will be useless with the built in flash. You'll get a bit of blackout on around 18-25 due to the lens being long & blocking off part of the flash area. ( then you need an external flash for full use indoors or at night. Those external flashes ... expensive! Ahhhh! )
--- End quote ---
I never had a problem with the 18-200 and flash... the D40x is smaller, so maybe it's a problem there, but the D300 doesn't suffer from it.
Oh, BTW. the 18-70 has much better optical quality than 18-135, and is built more solidly (metal bayonet). So, unless someone really need the extra focal length, I'd go with the 18-70.
Still, if you can afford the 18-200 VR, buy one. As kyanwan said, you'll use it 95% of the time, it's just fucking awesome. Also, grab the 50/1.8G to go with it - it's dirt cheap and has superb image quality, it's one of the best Nikkor lenses (and almost the cheapest one!). This way, you have the 18-200 for general use and the 50 for portraits and shots where you want to have a small depth of field. It has only one drawback - the 50/1.8 won't autofocus with D40/D40x/D60, because they lack the internal motor - you'll have to focus manually (which isn't always so easy with the small and dark viewfinders of these cameras). But even then, the lens is a bargain.
@Stsin - I'd say they're more-or-less the same. Personally, I wouldn't buy the D40x, because it lacks some feature that I often use (AF motor, Commander mode for the built-in flash, DOF preview button, top LCD with settings), but it's a good camera for it's price. A used D70s is also a good choice, though the sensor in the D40x is better - however, the D70s has all the stuff I mentioned, so it gives a few extra options.
As for Canons - I don't like their entry-level bodies, they're too small and uncomfortable for my taste. I also don't like the menu system of Canons.
Actually, if you have a tight budget, take a look at Pentax and Olympus - both offer suprisingly good stuff for their price (especially Pentax). Another bonus of Pentax is that these cameras have very good support for old, manual, M42-mount lenses. If you don't mond doing some stuff the old-fashioned way, you can buy great lenses for ridiculous prices.
Your best bet would be to go to a store and play around with some cameras - see how they fit your hand, which is better to operate for you. These things are as important (if not more) as sensor quality and built-in features.
Also, seriously consider an external flash unit - it makes a world of difference and is one of the main features DSLRs have to offer.
--- Quote ---If you don't want to look like a fool - don't go over 135/200 for your lens
--- End quote ---
That's stupid advice - try shooting wild birds or animals, or planes, with a 200mm lens. Good luck. I wouldn't buy a long tele, for example a 70-300VR, as my only lens - that's silly, unless all you do is shoot long-distance photos. However, such lenses have their uses, and saying one looks like a fool with one of these is making a fool of yourself.
sdedalus83:
Get a decent point and shoot now. Save up for a real full frame Nikon or Canon. The lens selection, quality, and price amongst the old 35mm lenses is often far better than for DSLRs. The full frame sensor allows you to use the old lenses without any distortion or cropping. If the cost is too much, then go with Pentax, Nikon, or Canon and test out the old 35mm lenses you find used to see what works well with your camera.
costi:
--- Quote ---Get a decent point and shoot now. Save up for a real full frame Nikon or Canon. The lens selection, quality, and price amongst the old 35mm lenses is often far better than for DSLRs. The full frame sensor allows you to use the old lenses without any distortion or cropping. If the cost is too much, then go with Pentax, Nikon, or Canon and test out the old 35mm lenses you find used to see what works well with your camera.
--- End quote ---
Actually, FX lenses perform better on a DX camera, since you don't use the edges of the lens, where the vignetting and loss of sharpness is most visible.
IMHO it's not worth to go into a full-frame camera. Not only the body costs twice as much as DX, but also FX lenses are much more expensive than their DX counterparts. I'm not even touching the issues of weight and size. For me, the FX advantages (better high-ISO performance, bigger selection of ery-wide-angle lenses, shallower depth of field, bigger viewfinder) do not justify the price tag - these fetures are important to professionals and to people who know exactly what they want (and such people usually don't ask on anime forums for advice ;) ). A regular user is much better off with a decent DX camera and great lenses for half the price. And FX lenses still work perfectly with a DX body, while it's usually not the case the other way round.
Tatsujin:
I came down to these two:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830180200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120330
I'm purchasing one in couple of hours. My budget is no more than 180 dollars. Unless if you wanna recommend something to me.
Malific:
Take the Cannon, they have overall better quality and a longer life span than the Panasonic's do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version