This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I have the T3i and it's really not very user friendly for video because the autofocus is ridiculously slow (as in, effectively unusable). A school play or dance recital where everything stays the same distance from the camera is probably the only place I would try it. Manual focus does work OK, but it's stupid to shell out big $$$ for a camera only to do manual focus. I use a simple point & shoot or iPhone for the occasions when I need video nowadays. Note that the video quality is actually pretty good when things are generally static.
Manual focus looks great and gives you amazing control over the storytelling aspect of video. But it's definitely not something that would appeal to a hobbyist or someone shooting casual videos where you just want stuff to be in focus all the time.
I've read a lot of opinion pieces that "The DSLR is dead!" but this is the first camera that makes me think it's closer on the horizon than most people think. It's shocking to me that I read this less than a year ago and rolled my eyes at the time but a few months later I already agree with him...http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/
That is nice, but at $2800 a bit steep. I guess in 3 or so years it will be around $500 and then us non-scuppers can pick one up.
What comes with the T3i for $780?
18-55mm IS, and 55-250mm IS Lenses, 8GB Class 10 SDHC Card, Canon Rebel Gadget Bag, Mini-HDMI Cable, Tutorial DVD - Costco
I would wait for a better deal.Here is one example. It is expired now, but something like it will pop againhttp://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/1243236/
That's not a bad telephoto lens, but it's not a very good fit for sports photography. For sports photography you'd be better off with an f2.8 lens for outdoor sports, or a f1.8 lens for indoors sports. Also, while the class 10 is great I think if you want to shoot sports you'd be much happier with a pair of 32gb cards(~$20 each). You'll be taking a lot more "bad" shots that will end up getting deleted.
f/1.8 is crazy talk in that focal length. and any long f/2.8 lens they won't even let you take it into the stadium. they barely let me take in my 55-250mm IS at Ford Field.
If I was trying to take photos at indoor sporting events for that price range I would buy a very good Nikon D3200($459)...http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-107031-k-nikon_d3200_242_megapixel_digital_camera_body_only_black.htm
For about a year I've been thinking of giving up my dslr for a mirrorless rig. Olympus & Sony both have compelling systemsI shopped for wide angle lenses for my dSLR for quite some time before deciding to go the mirrorless route due to price/size/weight. I actually looked for that exact NEXC3/lens for quite some time but ended up getting a great deal on a Samsung NX1000 with a 16mm/F2.4 + zoom lens recently. I still use the dSLR for telephoto/portait shots but anytime I shoot indoors, wide, or street photography I only use the Samsung. They compliment each other nicely. As would any of the small mirrorless cameras and the Panasonic FZ200 imo. That really is the best superzoom I've ever seen and with the rest of the P&S's getting pushed off the cliff by phones like the Nokia 808 PureView I only hope we'll see all P&S manufacturers use all their resources to try to top the FZ200.
I am a big fan of the NEX cameras. I had the 5N that I sold when the 5R was announced. I liked the 5R very much, but for a reasonable amount more, I returned the 5R for the NEX-6 which has the built in EVF (excellent quality), built in flash, and comes with the smaller kit lens (SELP1650). The 5R was also supposed to be available with the smaller kit lens, but Sony pulled that package for some reason...probably so they could refresh the 5 again this year and make the zoom kit standard like they did with the 3N. Anyway, the photo quality is outstanding on these cameras and they're a lot smaller than DSLRs. The video quality is also very good. I would highly recommend that anyone looking for a camera check these out!
Different lenses. If you're a prime guy, I think having a 35 and 50 is almost required.
Thanks. I'm definitely more of a prime guy because the picture quality is a lot better, and don't mind having to crop. I just have the 35mm now. Debating between the 50mm f/1.4G, and a 18-200 to replace my kit 18-55 and a 55-200. Leaning toward the 50mm now though.
If you don't mind cropping, what is it you hope to gain from the 50mm that you don't get from your 35mm? Or is it just the upgrade to the 1.4? Also what body are you shooting with? Is it full frame?
Mostly hoping to gain from the upgrade to the 1.4. The different focal length is a secondary benefit, but it would give me a bit more flexibility too.
Well, here are my thoughts. I'm nowehere near as experienced as some in this thread, so my perspective is that of a novice/amateur shooter. I've shot with the 50mm 1.4. It's a beautiful lens. But on a non-full frame body, it's effectively 70-75mm, which is pretty tight, particularly if you're shooting people indoors (say at a party or get together). Before you drop the coin, you could always just dial in your 18-55 at 50mm and use it for a few days to see how you like shooting with that zoom all the time.
I can move closer with portrait shots, but not for distance shots. What prompted me to think of the 1.4 was, I was on vacation on Italy recently and took a lot of night pictures (e.g., Vatican lit up at night as taken from my hotel rooftop; St. Mark's Square in Venice). I was able to crop and zoom what I took with the 35mm. They turned out okay, but my pictures were still a little bit blurry and thought having a 1.4 might be even better. (The kit 18-55 and 55-200 were obviously much worse with night pictures.)
Thanks. Yeah, the 50mm might be pretty tight on my current body, and I probably wouldn't get full use out of it until I upgraded that. I think the 35mm would still be my go-to for portrait shots, and the 50mm would be more for low light/distance.bigbottom said:
I find the D3000 to be pretty bad at ISO800, whereas other nicer bodies can go 800 or 1600 and still be very nice.
Wow, that's pretty shocking. I thought pretty much even average dSLR's did pretty well at iso800 and consider the D3000 above average(although I've never shot with one).
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000/high-iso-comparison.htm
I use Lightroom to smooth it out afterward, but it can only do so much.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I need Flickr Pro anymore now. Used to only let you have something like 200 pictures. Now that I can have a TB, don't know if I'll need to renew.
I would experiment with the high ISO settings with your camera(and perhaps more importantly software you use for noise reduction) to see the highest ISO you consider usable.
I'd bring a beanbag with me to level the camera and use the timed shutter release (e.g. 2 sec. or 10 sec).
You have a good thought in taking lens price into consideration when choosing a camera, but keep in mind the technology in those lenses are getting long in the tooth so they may not focus as fast as modern lenses and may need maintenance sooner.
