Jump to content
  • Welcome to AutoLanka

    :action-smiley-028: We found you speeding on AutoLanka Forums without any registration! If you want the best experience, please sign in. Safe driving! 

malikweerasiri

Buying A Dslr

Recommended Posts

Hey I have an i3 Acer which is 4 years old. We might have the same model :D

I agree on the point that the camera body not having to be the latest and the greatest. However, I found the top lcd and the added direct controls easier to use than the 1100D and 600D. The 70D was just out so I got the 60D for a good price. This was the cheapest body with the top lcd.

Edit: I hear of a particular collection which is good use of the savings from your camera equipment :)

Edited by Hoonigan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey I have an i3 Acer which is 4 years old. We might have the same model :D

I agree on the point that the camera body not having to be the latest and the greatest. However, I found the top lcd and the added direct controls easier to use than the 1100D and 600D. The 70D was just out so I got the 60D for a good price. This was the cheapest body with the top lcd.

Edit: I hear of a particular collection which is good use of the savings from your camera equipment :)

Ha ha, well I'm yet to run into a limitation with the 500D itself (remembering its a crop body). The limitation has always been the lens. Either was not fast enough, does not have the focal range, did not provide a wide enough perspective and rarely not enough zoom. I must admit my usual subjects are landscapes if I'm travelling by myself rather than people, and I don't do much sport photography (fast moving objects). Tracking bolt while at full zoom was an interest afair though.

On a different note, Sonly SLRs were discussed above. The Sony models I've come accross are all SLT, so they have a LCD screen and no mirror, so even when you look through the view finder, what you see is a projected image. This felt a bit weird to me, as what I saw through the sensor was always a bit brigher and unnatural than the actual, though perhaps it better represents the ultimate photograph. Does anybody else have an opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

those lenses below 20k ones have AF motors machan, they just lack VR/IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those lenses below 20k ones have AF motors machan, they just lack VR/IS.
Yep . Canon got a DC motor. Are you sure that Nikon got a AF motor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those lenses below 20k ones have AF motors machan, they just lack VR/IS.

i might be wrong but afaik the Nikkor D lens doesnt have a motor, the G lens does and they are over 20k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I will just list the experience I have gone through when selecting my first DSLR some 2-3 years ago. I was also in the dilemma of getting Nikon or Canon. Basically I was choosing between the Nikon D5000 and Canon 550D/600D choices. Finally I chose Canon 600D considering all the facts. From my research I found pros and cons for both.

1. Nikon had a better Sensor technology which deliver great for general photography. Canon was dragging behind their sensor technology and still it is ,the same. Even now my opinion is Nikon has a better sensor.(of course Sony manufactures sensors for most of their models)

2. Nikon had better ISO capability (low noise at high ISO) comparing the two models.

3. If I go for Nikon I had to use lenses with motor to get auto focus (for the D5000 model. from D7000 model it does not matter). Canon did not have this problem since all of their latest lenses comes with a motor and no motor inside the DSLR body. Only problem if you are using very old lens.

4. Nikon entry level series lacked the options to directly change the settings like a higher end version. Most of the time you have to go to a menu and adjust stuff. Of course you have the option of assigning a function to one key but it did not work for me. For Canon, I could practice the professional level usage (changing Shutter speed, aperture , iso instantly) directly from the dials provided and I thought it will be useful even when I am going to upgrade to an upper level. ( I am not sure if the newer models solve this problem.)

5. Since I was more interested in wildlife and landscape, Canon had a good range of telephoto lenses available. But later I discovered that even Nikon has a very good range with a bit of a price difference. So this should not be a major decision maker.

So what my advice is first decide what you are going to use the camera for, If it is just for your usual trip photos and do not bother in developing/editing/post processing them then go for a Nikon entry level camera. Those are very user friendly which does not desert you in the world of DSLR. You can do things going through menus just like point and shoot. And they do deliver a very good image straight out of the camera. But if you would like to do some playing with your camera choose a Canon. But if you go to the D7000 range or D70 range and above this will not be a decision maker since both are in similar caliber.

One other thing I learned when I started using a Flash lately is that Nikon CLS(Creative Lighting System) is working better than Canon's counterpart and pleasing to (at least) my eyes.

But as some others suggested there are other brands like Sony, Pentax, Olympus who makes great DSLRs. For your note, please go and search about the new Fuji DSLR range they released. Some models like X-T1, X-Pro1 gets enormous eye catching recently and they said to be performing far better than their counterparts. Just check on them as well if you are interested.

I hope this will help at least a bit in deciding which way to go.

Edited by Chimpa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

fixed focal length lens ;) 50s are nice, but the thing is, people say you should use it pretty much to force you to think differently. I know people who use it as a primary lens. I don't. it doesn't really suit my style most of the time. In the end, it gets the call when I really need to get something in a low light space, since I have the f1.4. And even then its tricky with moving subjects, the depth is so shallow there is no room for mistakes. Since you mentioned somewhere else you are more into landscapes and not much into people, the 50 might not be the length for you if you go prime. Look more in the 20mm sort of range and see what is there.

@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?

Personal opinions based on use case. Mostly I feel its not wide enough, probably coz I was used to a 15 and 16 for a long time. Of course its just a question of going back far enough, if you have the room. And the light. Of course it does have the advantage that there is a lot less distortion, so its kinda better to shoot at that length anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I will just list the experience I have gone through when selecting my first DSLR some 2-3 years ago. I was also in the dilemma of getting Nikon or Canon. Basically I was choosing between the Nikon D5000 and Canon 550D/600D choices. Finally I chose Canon 600D considering all the facts. From my research I found pros and cons for both.

1. Nikon had a better Sensor technology which deliver great for general photography. Canon was dragging behind their sensor technology and still it is ,the same. Even now my opinion is Nikon has a better sensor.(of course Sony manufactures sensors for most of their models)

2. Nikon had better ISO capability (low noise at high ISO) comparing the two models.

3. If I go for Nikon I had to use lenses with motor to get auto focus (for the D5000 model. from D7000 model it does not matter). Canon did not have this problem since all of their latest lenses comes with a motor and no motor inside the DSLR body. Only problem if you are using very old lens.

4. Nikon entry level series lacked the options to directly change the settings like a higher end version. Most of the time you have to go to a menu and adjust stuff. Of course you have the option of assigning a function to one key but it did not work for me. For Canon, I could practice the professional level usage (changing Shutter speed, aperture , iso instantly) directly from the dials provided and I thought it will be useful even when I am going to upgrade to an upper level. ( I am not sure if the newer models solve this problem.)

5. Since I was more interested in wildlife and landscape, Canon had a good range of telephoto lenses available. But later I discovered that even Nikon has a very good range with a bit of a price difference. So this should not be a major decision maker.

So what my advice is first decide what you are going to use the camera for, If it is just for your usual trip photos and do not bother in developing/editing/post processing them then go for a Nikon entry level camera. Those are very user friendly which does not desert you in the world of DSLR. You can do things going through menus just like point and shoot. And they do deliver a very good image straight out of the camera. But if you would like to do some playing with your camera choose a Canon. But if you go to the D7000 range or D70 range and above this will not be a decision maker since both are in similar caliber.

One other thing I learned when I started using a Flash lately is that Nikon CLS(Creative Lighting System) is working better than Canon's counterpart and pleasing to (at least) my eyes.

But as some others suggested there are other brands like Sony, Pentax, Olympus who makes great DSLRs. For your note, please go and search about the new Fuji DSLR range they released. Some models like X-T1, X-Pro1 gets enormous eye catching recently and they said to be performing far better than their counterparts. Just check on them as well if you are interested.

I hope this will help at least a bit in deciding which way to go.

Thanks mate!. Its really helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personal opinions based on use case. Mostly I feel its not wide enough, probably coz I was used to a 15 and 16 for a long time. Of course its just a question of going back far enough, if you have the room. And the light. Of course it does have the advantage that there is a lot less distortion, so its kinda better to shoot at that length anyway.

I actually like the distortion at the wide end. I bought the new 10-18 Ultra wide recently specifically for this. At around 300 USD, it's comparatively cheap but the biggest limitation is the f4.5 max aperture which is pretty darn slow. I haven't had the chance to really test it out but coupled with a flash, it got me some really nice indoor shots of a party.

The reason I asked about the 24-70 is that while using the little 10-18, I felt that I will like the narrower range for general purpose shooting and that being an L lens, get some added quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep . Canon got a DC motor. Are you sure that Nikon got a AF motor?

Yup. the 70-300 got AF, it just lacks VR

i might be wrong but afaik the Nikkor D lens doesnt have a motor, the G lens does and they are over 20k

the 50mm 1.8 D doesn't have the AF motor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the 50mm 1.8 D doesn't have the AF motor.

erm.. thats what i just said O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually like the distortion at the wide end. I bought the new 10-18 Ultra wide recently specifically for this. At around 300 USD, it's comparatively cheap but the biggest limitation is the f4.5 max aperture which is pretty darn slow. I haven't had the chance to really test it out but coupled with a flash, it got me some really nice indoor shots of a party.

The reason I asked about the 24-70 is that while using the little 10-18, I felt that I will like the narrower range for general purpose shooting and that being an L lens, get some added quality.

So does Dilesh, the man loves his wide shots :D But its not nice when shooting groups of people when the people at the edge have elongated heads like some Egyptian drawing or get stretched out like they just stepped out of Area 51 :D Can't have that when shooting weddings.

The range, and indeed, how much range, is really personal preference. As much as the 16-35 is useful, there are plenty of occasions you wish you had more at the tele end. Its one of those never enough, grass is always greener situations :D

As far as this whole L lens quality thing, I'm not sold on it. The thing is, Ls perform on the extreme ends of their specification. Most often that is where the others are let down. But given idea conditions, its possible to get similar output from others. The big difference is that Ls somehow saturate more and give more contrast, but again, with post processing...

Non L - https://www.flickr.com/photos/preveen/3117666438/

L - https://www.flickr.com/photos/tharendra/3163252698/

Both were using Rebel bodies IIRC. 450D in my case, and I think 400D in his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Pericles" data-cid="276271" data-time="1429102799"><p>

<br />

So does Dilesh, the man loves his wide shots :D But its not nice when shooting groups of people when the people at the edge have elongated heads like some Egyptian drawing or get stretched out like they just stepped out of Area 51 :D Can't have that when shooting weddings.<br />

<br />

The range, and indeed, how much range, is really personal preference. As much as the 16-35 is useful, there are plenty of occasions you wish you had more at the tele end. Its one of those never enough, grass is always greener situations :D<br />

<br />

As far as this whole L lens quality thing, I'm not sold on it. The thing is, Ls perform on the extreme ends of their specification. Most often that is where the others are let down. But given idea conditions, its possible to get similar output from others. The big difference is that Ls somehow saturate more and give more contrast, but again, with post processing... <br />

<br />

Non L - <a href='https://www.flickr.com/photos/preveen/3117666438/'>https://www.flickr.com/photos/preveen/3117666438/</a><br />

<br />

L - <a href='https://www.flickr.com/photos/tharendra/3163252698/'>https://www.flickr.com/photos/tharendra/3163252698/</a><br />

<br />

Both were using Rebel bodies IIRC. 450D in my case, and I think 400D in his.</p></blockquote>

Those are some nice shots! Love the first one. At the moment my biggest limitation is myself. I haven't used a L yet and am largely drawn to one because of the red ring hive mind :D

I will spend more time with the kit I have and cross that bridge when I actually get there I guess :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Pericles" data-cid="276271" data-time="1429102799"><p>

<br />

So does Dilesh, the man loves his wide shots :D But its not nice when shooting groups of people when the people at the edge have elongated heads like some Egyptian drawing or get stretched out like they just stepped out of Area 51 :D Can't have that when shooting weddings.<br />

<br />

The range, and indeed, how much range, is really personal preference. As much as the 16-35 is useful, there are plenty of occasions you wish you had more at the tele end. Its one of those never enough, grass is always greener situations :D<br />

<br />

As far as this whole L lens quality thing, I'm not sold on it. The thing is, Ls perform on the extreme ends of their specification. Most often that is where the others are let down. But given idea conditions, its possible to get similar output from others. The big difference is that Ls somehow saturate more and give more contrast, but again, with post processing... <br />

<br />

Non L - <a href='https://www.flickr.com/photos/preveen/3117666438/'>https://www.flickr.com/photos/preveen/3117666438/</a><br />

<br />

L - <a href='https://www.flickr.com/photos/tharendra/3163252698/'>https://www.flickr.com/photos/tharendra/3163252698/</a><br />

<br />

Both were using Rebel bodies IIRC. 450D in my case, and I think 400D in his.</p></blockquote>

Those are some nice shots! Love the first one. At the moment my biggest limitation is myself. I haven't used a L yet and am largely drawn to one because of the red ring hive mind :D

I will spend more time with the kit I have and cross that bridge when I actually get there I guess :)

Of course. You can buy a garage full of pro quality tools but its useless unless you know to fix the car, and the same applies for cameras :D

I can give one general bit of advice. Key word we all use when talking about the non-L or "inferior" lens and body is "In ideal conditions". Ideal conditions is having the right light. Sometimes its cheaper and more effective to just introduce light. Again, depends on the scenario and you need to learn to balance it, but even introducing a torch into the mix can make things interesting. Tho what I'm saying is, buy a flash, not a torch :D Flash and reflectors. Or even a fat friend in a white tshirt. You'd be amazed at the difference :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L lenses have their merits, when used correctly they are extraordinary.I would also like to point out that the latest STM lenses are superb. I've come to love the 55-250 stm I purchased recently. Colours and performance is practically on par with 70-200 afaik

So does Dilesh, the man loves his wide shots :D But its not nice when shooting groups of people when the people at the edge have elongated heads like some Egyptian drawing or get stretched out like they just stepped out of Area 51 :D Can't have that when shooting weddings.

The range, and indeed, how much range, is really personal preference. As much as the 16-35 is useful, there are plenty of occasions you wish you had more at the tele end. Its one of those never enough, grass is always greener situations :D

As far as this whole L lens quality thing, I'm not sold on it. The thing is, Ls perform on the extreme ends of their specification. Most often that is where the others are let down. But given idea conditions, its possible to get similar output from others. The big difference is that Ls somehow saturate more and give more contrast, but again, with post processing...

Non L - https://www.flickr.com/photos/preveen/3117666438/

L - https://www.flickr.com/photos/tharendra/3163252698/

Both were using Rebel bodies IIRC. 450D in my case, and I think 400D in his.

Those are some nice shots! Love the first one. At the moment my biggest limitation is myself. I haven't used a L yet and am largely drawn to one because of the red ring hive mind :DI will spend more time with the kit I have and cross that bridge when I actually get there I guess :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L lenses have their merits, when used correctly they are extraordinary. I would also like to point out that the latest STM lenses are superb. I've come to love the 55-250 stm I purchased recently. Colours and performance is practically on par with 70-200 afaik

What body you have coupled it with ? While I got the same lens last week, I'm not entirely bought on the sharpness of the full blown (100%), wide open, image quality at 250mm. Then again I'm somewhat a pixel peeper.

Edited by NRX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using a 50d.

I should mention I had less than stellar results with a rebel body.

If its OK with you could you get the lens and camera over to me one day? I'd like to take a look at both.

A few things you could check:

1. Is it a focus issue? Try manual focus / zoomed using live view.

2. Is it IS related? Switch off IS, use a tripod and clear target, sunny day say 1/200 with iso 100.

3. Could be due to the body - try another one?

I'm saying this because virtually every time I've had poor results with a lens its been due to those factors. The only time I've had actual bad results due to lenses has been with old lenses (60's, 70's designs).

What body you have coupled it with ? While I got the same lens last week, I'm not entirely bought on the sharpness of the full blown (100%), wide open, image quality at 250mm. Then again I'm somewhat a pixel peeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy and FREE!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×