Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
DSLR Camera Guys (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sho nuff
- Start date
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Not sure if you've already pulled the trigger on that deal or not but this is a good deal on the 55-250 and the 50mm/1.8 for $238 w/free shipping...http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSZ.html?emailprice=t&utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=cj_227502
I think Canon has had a rough year and Nikon/Sony might be passing them by in the short term but if you are just starting out and want a great starter kit it's tough to beat the lens combo above with this...
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_227015_-1
... you get an excellent(if a little dated) 15mp dSLR, image stabilized 18-55, image stabilized 55-250, and a quality prime 50mm/1.8 for under $600. Nikon would by my choice for photographs if you're not price sensitive, Sony for video, Pentax for travelers but for overall value in a complete camera bag it's still tough to beat Canon.
BTW in my experience photo printers had better be a throw in because life is so much easier if you simply use a printing service.
Thanks for the links, those look like sweet deals and I passed them on to my sister who is looking now. Your brand assessment seems spot on too. I did try out the Sony A[55] and while the 10fps was impressive, the pictures just didn't seem to stand out (may have been stacked deck with the stock sony vs the prime lenses on the canons/nikons i tried). Like you said tho, superior video....the focus seemed more natural and reactive.I have a friend who is a Nikon nut, and after playing around with some of his toys I got hooked. Ended up with the D7000, along with the 35mm lens and a flash. Overwhelmed so far, but already feel silly for not doing this sooner. The 35mm lens seems to be perfect for shooting around the house. Handles low light pretty well and can keep up with the moving 5 month old.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Great stuff. But a word of warning. I was shooting some great skies the other day at about F/11, got home to process the photos and noticed loads of dust on the left side of my sensor. I shot with a D60 for five years and never had to get the sensor cleaned, despite the occasional dust spot, but this was so much dust it called for immediate action. Since I'd only changed lenses a few times, I knew something had to be wrong. Sure enough, it seems like D600s have a sensor dust issue. There's speculation floating around about the cause. Things like a gap near the shutter to an abrasion near the mirror.The bad news is I can see you have dust on your sensor, albeit very little compared to mine. (Check this photo, top left side. If you can't spot it, I find moving the photo around a bit while looking at it helps make the dust stand out.) The good news is that if you harangue Nikon, they'll clean it for free. Of course, they'll make you pay for shipping and you'll lose your camera for a week.
This has been a huge bummer for me. Several shots ruined since there's so much dust I can't begin to mask it all out. I got my sensor cleaned today and I'm worried that if it gets dusty again, I'll have to send it in.
Anyway, otherwise, I absolutely love the camera. Love it. Haven't shot much video yet because I haven't had much time, but that's my next project. Hope you get your dust resolved.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
For those looking to get their foot in the door with a Nikon without breaking the bank this is a VERY capable D5100 for $385 factory demo model...
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Demo-62313.cfm
... of with the kit lens which is generally higher thought of than the Canon kit lens...
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-G-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Factory-Demo-62311.cfm
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Demo-62313.cfm
... of with the kit lens which is generally higher thought of than the Canon kit lens...
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-G-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Factory-Demo-62311.cfm
cactus
Telepathic Stuntman
Oh wow you're right! Thanks for the heads up - fortunately I purchased this through a company that I have a long and good relationship with.
Looking for a new lens for our Rebel T1i as a Christmas present and currently have the Cannon kit lens(18-55mm and 55-250mm). I'm looking for a portrait lens. Would one of these be a good lens for the price? Not sure what the difference is except one says auto-focus. Still starting out and don't want to spend to much. Which one would be the best value?
Canon EF 50mm
Canon EF 50
Canon EF 50mm
Canon EF 50
Polish Hammer
made of glass
Those are the same lens. One is "grey market" meaning it likely wasn't intended for the US marketplace. You may get some warranty issues b/c of that , maybe not. The non-grey is cheaper anyway, so go with that one.
We got the lens in June and really like it a lot. Takes amazing pics for the cost. Just keep in mind that it is essentially always at the near-full zoom end of your kit 18-55 lens. So you'll need to be further back from subjects than you are used to.
It is awesome in low light, too. Took some pics last Friday night when the kids were at a trick or treat thing with the flash off when it was definitely dark out. Pics look like they were taken before sundown.
We got the lens in June and really like it a lot. Takes amazing pics for the cost. Just keep in mind that it is essentially always at the near-full zoom end of your kit 18-55 lens. So you'll need to be further back from subjects than you are used to.
It is awesome in low light, too. Took some pics last Friday night when the kids were at a trick or treat thing with the flash off when it was definitely dark out. Pics look like they were taken before sundown.
Parmcat
Canada: Beer, Bacon and Beavers
That lens is a lot out of my price range. Thanks for the info and link.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Since you're looking for a portrait lens and you're on a budget, the 50 1.8 is a slam dunk. Pair it with a 35 down the line and you'll have two good value prime lenses that you'll use all the time.
Brony
Footballguy
50mm f1.8 is great. I have that lens and an 18-200mm and despite the latter being 5x the price, the nifty 50 is my favorite lens.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I picked up a T2i a little while back and am still learning. Using a Canon 18-200mm lens so I don't have to carry around multiples on hikes just yet.
One of my recent shoots: http://thedigitalartist.com/chattanooga-fall-2012/
One of my recent shoots: http://thedigitalartist.com/chattanooga-fall-2012/
BoltBacker
Footballguy
That's very nice! The lens has a great reputation and I've been tempted to purchase it myself. If I used a tripod more often I'd probably already own it. The weight and cost make it a more desirable lens than the 70-200mm/F2.8 IS. I'm afraid I'd just find to many excuses to leave the heavy/expensive lens at home.
Parmcat
Canada: Beer, Bacon and Beavers
This lens is very easy to carry. It takes stunning shots. Saturation and sharpness are bang on.
I got this one for just under 500.00, so it was a no brainer...
chet
Footballguy
Choose the lowest ISO that will get you your desired aperture/shutter speed combo. Say you're shooting sports and want bokeh. So you open the lens up and set shutter speed to 1/500. With ISO at 100, will that leave the shot underexposed? If so, try 200, then 400 etc. New cameras handle high ISOs so much better than older models that you may not notice much difference going way up in ISO.
Parmcat
Canada: Beer, Bacon and Beavers
I shoot almost always on AE mode. I set the exposure I want, and the ISO, and the camera works out the shutter speed for you. Easy to adjust on the fly if needed.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Digital cameras are so great these days that you can get low-noise shots at 1600. I err on the high side, unless I'm shooting in full daylight at 100. So daytime when I'm in and out of shadows, I'll typically be at 200 or so and just leave it. Gives me more time to spend on aperture/shutter combos if I'm shooting full manual.
wilked
Footballguy
OK, think I got it. From what I have seen:
1) ISO 100 if shooting outdoors with plenty of light and not sports
2) ISO 200 if shooting outdoors and lighting is somewhat variable
3) ISO 400-800 if shooting indoors, possibly higher if needed (dependent on conditions), and be wary going beyond 1600
4) ISO 3200 only in extreme conditions
And of course adjusting from those rules of thumb as needed, but using those as a starting point.
Comments?
I have been shooting for months in ISO 100, wondering why I couldn't get decent photos without good light
1) ISO 100 if shooting outdoors with plenty of light and not sports
2) ISO 200 if shooting outdoors and lighting is somewhat variable
3) ISO 400-800 if shooting indoors, possibly higher if needed (dependent on conditions), and be wary going beyond 1600
4) ISO 3200 only in extreme conditions
And of course adjusting from those rules of thumb as needed, but using those as a starting point.
Comments?
I have been shooting for months in ISO 100, wondering why I couldn't get decent photos without good light
BoltBacker
Footballguy
You still can get decent photos but you need a tripod so the slow shutter speed doesn't ruin your photo. On interior architecture shots photographers often shoot at ISO 100. Even with a tripod it won't help you if you are trying to catch a moving subject though... like a singer/comedian that's moving around a stage for instance.I have been shooting for months in ISO 100, wondering why I couldn't get decent photos without good light
Wooderson
Fight The Power
Picked up one of these last week. Should be here in a couple days. Not a bad price if anyone is in the market for a pancake lens.
bigbottom
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I use Nikon's View NX2 software for RAW processing then move to Photoshop, although the latter can be a bit pricey and complicated if you're just getting started.
ragincajun
Footballguy
I have a T3i. If I could do it again I would buy the camera body and pic my lenses separately.
Last edited by a moderator:
You only save $50 on amazon doing that...and the 18-55mm kit lens is worth more than that.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Kit lenses get a bad rap. They're usually very affordable and versatile lenses for beginners, especially if they're not sure what they're going to be shooting.
Cold Dead Hands
Footballguy
My wife wants a dslr. i've been looking at a lot of them, and based on my budget, I think the Nikon 5100 looks like a good rig for her. Same body size as the 3100. Anyone know of any decent deals. I would go with a t3i too, but the 5100 seems to go for less.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
35 is my favorite. I just have a cheap 1.8 DX and everything I shoot with it looks great.
wilked
Footballguy
This is pretty goodhttp://www.adorama.com/INKD5100A.htmlWhat will she be using it for? That info can help me recommend a lens for her
wilked
Footballguy
yup, very versatile. Also forces me to frame the shot by moving my legs instead of wrist (zoom), and the result is I put more thought into the shot and get better angles / ideas
bigbottom
Footballguy
Me too. Big fan of that lens.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Agreed, especially for beginners.When I bought my first DSLR I looked at a bunch of lenses. I ended up dropping a pretty good chunk of change on a nice wide range lens (18mm-200mm). I thought I'd be shooting everything. As it turned out, I enjoy shooting landscapes MUCH more than everything else, and pretty much only use the 18mm-35mm range of that large, not inexpensive lens. I wish I'd just stuck with the kit lens for the first few months to figure out what I really wanted before dropping a bunch of coin on a nice lens, as I could have spent that same money on a lens that was much more fitting to how I use my camera now.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
For an extra $20 you can get this kit if you don't mind refurb....http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-G-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Factory-Refurbished-62317.cfm... the Nikon kit lens is generally thought of more highly than the Canon. Pair the 35mm prime and that's a good starting point. Seems like on Nikon side the value prime is the 35mm, for Canon it's the 50mm.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Actually, that other stuff isn't worth $30. Here is just the 5100+kit lens for $440...http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-G-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Factory-Refurbished-62311.cfmIf you have a different lens in mind you can just get the body for $385....http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Refurbished-62313.cfm
Cold Dead Hands
Footballguy
Thanks. Huge help. She is going to use it for shots of the kids mostly. Outside more than inside, but inside a good bit too. She likes taking videos on the fly too. Some outside portraits but mostly action shots.
Cold Dead Hands
Footballguy
Not sure what lens you are describing. Prime? explain this to me like I am an idiot, because I am.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
You can't zoom in and out. These tend to be (but are not always) better quality lenses—35 mm, 50 mm, 24, 85, etc. The higher the number, the more "zoomed in" you are. 35 is kind of a happy medium between portrait (close-up people stuff) and landscape (rolling hills and ####). And when he says "fast" lens, he means it has a bigger maximum aperture. Bigger aperture=more light=better results in darker conditions and a more blurred-out effect to backgrounds (shallower depth of field). Now, the bigger the aperture, the smaller the number. A kit lens typically has a max aperture in the 4-5 range. A prime 35 will usually be 1.4 or 1.8. That might sound like a small difference, but keep in mind a 1.4 lets in twice as much light as a 1.8. And yes, this stuff can take years to fully understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
New theory: the calls are coming from inside the house!http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/21/nikon-d600-dust-timelapse
I would think this is good news as it would make it less likely to be a design flaw and instead it's simply a production issue. More importantly, once the camera was finally dust(or particle) free one would assume the problem would be resolved - since dust being introduced from outside the camera may not be root of the problem.
I'm hoping full format cameras become much more accessible and popular so I hope this hiccup gets resolved quickly one way or another.
I want to get my wife a DSLR for Christmas.
I am back and forth between Cannon EOS Rebel T3 and T3i.
I have a cousin who is an avid camera guy and said to get the T3. My father in law works at Best Buy and he asked the camera guy there and he claimed the T3 was crap because of video being 720p vs. 1080p. Does that really matter? I'm not making the next star wars movie, just my kids in the school play.
Thanks.
I am back and forth between Cannon EOS Rebel T3 and T3i.
I have a cousin who is an avid camera guy and said to get the T3. My father in law works at Best Buy and he asked the camera guy there and he claimed the T3 was crap because of video being 720p vs. 1080p. Does that really matter? I'm not making the next star wars movie, just my kids in the school play.
Thanks.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The autofocus for video on DSLRs is generally pretty poor from what I've read. Unless you absolutely need just one device, you'd be better off buying the T3 and then getting a camcorder like the Sony HDR-CX190 with the money you saved if video quality is a big deal. If it's not a big deal, just buy the T3.
