The Official Photography Gear Thread

[letsgocoyote]

i think nikons mistake was the no/proprietary hot shoe, and they just dont have good controls at all. they are point and shoots. the pentax is just too expensive for the body. i bet if the pentax launched at $400 usd, they would have been a super hit. i imagine maybe they are doing well in japan, but i dont know

[McManus]

as Larry50 states, but also APS-C in M4/3 size body (Sony NEX, some Samsung, probably Fuji) has a larger sensor than M4/3. As letsgocoyote notes some of the Sony lenses are longer but bear in mind that with the slimmer body it equals out with some primes and nearly so with the smallest zooms. Also the equivalent multiplier for the Sony is 1.5 times (due to larger sensor) whereas with M4/3 it is a full 2 times. Important if you are mainly after a very wide angle prime. (a 24mm on the Sony would be a 36mm whereas on an M4/3 you have almost a 50mm) Sony's 16 (24mm) prime on the NEX body is actually slimmer than any equivalently equipped M4/3 while delivering the wider range, but its a $290 f/2.8.

 

[IRG]

So, looking around some more, if you had to choose between 2 budget DSLRs, namely the Canon EOS Rebel T3 or the Nikon D3100. Both come with basic lenses. Are buying additional lenses for these easier/more expensive than the other?

 

I'm looking at a rewards points I have, and I could get either of these models if I chip in some additional cash at the moment.

[homestar_kevin]

It really depends on what you're looking for, but buying lenses for Canon DSLR's is really really easy and pretty awesome.

 

You can throw anything on there, you could use you're old Nikon lenses on the Canon t3.

 

DSLR lenses can be gotten cheap if you look for the right stuff, but that also depends if you want autofocus/image stabilization, etc.

 

Are you interested in a DSLR? would you like something smaller/pocket sized?

 

There are a ton of afforable options out there right now, it just kind of depends on what features you're looking for/wanting

[object88]

 

So, looking around some more, if you had to choose between 2 budget DSLRs, namely the Canon EOS Rebel T3 or the Nikon D3100. Both come with basic lenses. Are buying additional lenses for these easier/more expensive than the other? I'm looking at a rewards points I have, and I could get either of these models if I chip in some additional cash at the moment.

 

 

As far as I can tell, the biggest differences between the two is the controls and how it feels in your hand. By and large, Nikon and Canon leap-frog each other in terms of specs, both are highly available, and both are perfectly capable of taking excellent photos. I don't compare the money, because it's more important to me to be comfortable with the camera; if I have to spend a little more here or there to get a system that I really enjoy working with, then so-be-it.

[IRG]

 

It really depends on what you're looking for, but buying lenses for Canon DSLR's is really really easy and pretty awesome. You can throw anything on there, you could use you're old Nikon lenses on the Canon t3. DSLR lenses can be gotten cheap if you look for the right stuff, but that also depends if you want autofocus/image stabilization, etc. Are you interested in a DSLR? would you like something smaller/pocket sized? There are a ton of afforable options out there right now, it just kind of depends on what features you're looking for/wanting

 

 

Thanks - all I have at the moment is a couple years old p&s Canon, time to step up. I've been looking (thanks to this thread) at the myriad of choices, including some of the high end p&s options, but without changing the lenses on these, I know I'll be somewhat limited. The hybrids are interesting too, but they aren't really much cheaper than these entry level full size DSLRs, so I'm thinking it makes sense to perhaps just jump in to a full size version.

 

From reviews I've read, both the Nikon D3100 and the Canon T3 get really good reviews. I'm trying to compare specs, and see which has an advantage. Hard for me to tell. I believe the Nikon is fairly new, and older Nikon lenses won't work on it. So somewhat of a disadvantage. I would like 1 lense for close up work, one medium range lense, and then one for longer distances. I'm mostly interested in taking pictures of stills, nature, architecture, but also people. I don't need it for action scenes, video is less important than picture quality. Good audio (mic outputs?) could be a plus.

 

I'm fairly new to all of it, just learning what I can pick up here and there.

[IRG]

As far as I can tell, the biggest differences between the two is the controls and how it feels in your hand. By and large, Nikon and Canon leap-frog each other in terms of specs, both are highly available, and both are perfectly capable of taking excellent photos. I don't compare the money, because it's more important to me to be comfortable with the camera; if I have to spend a little more here or there to get a system that I really enjoy working with, then so-be-it.

 

 

Thanks, and this makes sense. Price wise, these two are close, I'm sure I'd be happy with either one. If there's much of an edge performance wise, or function wise, then that might sway me. The lenses being easier to find (and cheaper?) for the Canon is an advantage at this point, although maybe that isn't that big of deal.

[larry50]

 

So, looking around some more, if you had to choose between 2 budget DSLRs, namely the Canon EOS Rebel T3 or the Nikon D3100. Both come with basic lenses. Are buying additional lenses for these easier/more expensive than the other? I'm looking at a rewards points I have, and I could get either of these models if I chip in some additional cash at the moment.

 

 

The age old photographers question: Nikon v. Canon. Here's my take.

 

To me, the most important element of a DSLR camera system is the lenses. Bodies change every two or three years. Investing in great lenses that will last nearly a lifetime is much more important than investing in a particular body. This is even more true today, since the "traditional" DSLR's are running out of megapixel headroom on the current sensors. At the point they are at, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pack more megapixels on the sensor because the quality will suffer.

 

First, you can't go wrong with either system. Both offer comparable quality and choice both as to bodies and lenses. However, I shoot Nikon because I think Nikon (clearly) makes lenses that are routinely, with a few notable exceptions, superior to the comparable Canon lenses. Both lines offer a full range of lenses, from the budget cheap (but good) all the way to ultra expensive telephoto prime lenses (that can run $10K). Nikon just refreshed nearly its entire lens line, and the new lenses are simply fantastic. Not to say that Canon lenses are bad, they are very, very good. Canon does make some legendary lenses however, particularly their 70-200 f/2.8 (that's the lens you see at most sporting events), and their 50mm f/2.0, but I prefer Nikon images and lenses to Canon's because Nikon glass is simply better.

 

I also prefer the Nikon design. To me, the Nikon just seem to be built more solidly, with less plastic and more weather sealing. Nikon's also feel better to me in hand. I can shoot my heavy D700 all day, but when I shot a comparable Canon (the 5d MkII), my hand was cramping after an hour, even though it's much lighter (because it uses more plastic).

 

You can use any Nikon/Nikkor lens on any Nikon body going back to the 1950s', when Nikon adopted its current "F" lens mount. Some may not autofocus, but they are still highly useable. Canon created a new lens mount in 1987 (IIRC), so Canon lenses made before 1987 will not work on current Canon DSLR's. Both manufacturers have the most extensive lines of high quality lenses available, by an order of magnitude over most others. But overall, I think Nikon has the edge in lenses, and their new bodies (including the new D3100) are great. Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.8 "standard" lens for $199 that's crazy sharp, and the cheap 18-55mm kit lens it comes with is astonishingly good. The budget Canon lenses are the EF-S lenses, while their expensive line is the "L" (for "luxury") lenses (the ones with the red circle around the lens).

 

But there will always be the "Nikon vs. Canon" debate, particularly after their new pro cameras are released early next year. Canon's are more popular than Nikons, but I still think Nikon wins out overall.

 

The Canon shooters may now flame away.

[cratz2]

Nikon D50, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 18-55, 55-200 and an old school non-AF 50 f2.

Have a couple P&S Canons but another camera that really takes great shots as long as there is plenty of ambient light is my Panasonic DMC-FZ3. An ultra-zoom with a 35-420mm lens opens up to 2.8 but the Panasonics have some noise issues.

Here are a couple of my favorite shots. Keeping in mind this is a 5 year old camera I bought two years ago for $30 on eBay.

[larry50]

Nikon D50, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 18-55, 55-200 and an old school non-AF 50 f2. Have a couple P&S Canons but another camera that really takes great shots as long as there is plenty of ambient light is my Panasonic DMC-FZ3. An ultra-zoom with a 35-420mm lens opens up to 2.8 but the Panasonics have some noise issues. Here are a couple of my favorite shots. Keeping in mind this is a 5 year old camera I bought two years ago for $30 on eBay.

 

Great shots. Great light. I mean, really great light. And you seem to have caught every bit of it.

[IRG]

 

The age old photographers question: Nikon v. Canon. Here's my take. To me, the most important element of a DSLR camera system is the lenses. Bodies change every two or three years. Investing in great lenses that will last nearly a lifetime is much more important than investing in a particular body. This is even more true today, since the "traditional" DSLR's are running out of megapixel headroom on the current sensors. At the point they are at, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pack more megapixels on the sensor because the quality will suffer. First, you can't go wrong with either system. Both offer comparable quality and choice both as to bodies and lenses. However, I shoot Nikon because I think Nikon (clearly) makes lenses that are routinely, with a few notable exceptions, superior to the comparable Canon lenses. Both lines offer a full range of lenses, from the budget cheap (but good) all the way to ultra expensive telephoto prime lenses (that can run $10K). Nikon just refreshed nearly its entire lens line, and the new lenses are simply fantastic. Not to say that Canon lenses are bad, they are very, very good. Canon does make some legendary lenses however, particularly their 70-200 f/2.8 (that's the lens you see at most sporting events), and their 50mm f/2.0, but I prefer Nikon images and lenses to Canon's because Nikon glass is simply better. I also prefer the Nikon design. To me, the Nikon just seem to be built more solidly, with less plastic and more weather sealing. Nikon's also feel better to me in hand. I can shoot my heavy D700 all day, but when I shot a comparable Canon (the 5d MkII), my hand was cramping after an hour, even though it's much lighter (because it uses more plastic). You can use any Nikon/Nikkor lens on any Nikon body going back to the 1950s', when Nikon adopted its current "F" lens mount. Some may not autofocus, but they are still highly useable. Canon created a new lens mount in 1987 (IIRC), so Canon lenses made before 1987 will not work on current Canon DSLR's. Both manufacturers have the most extensive lines of high quality lenses available, by an order of magnitude over most others. But overall, I think Nikon has the edge in lenses, and their new bodies (including the new D3100) are great. Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.8 "standard" lens for $199 that's crazy sharp, and the cheap 18-55mm kit lens it comes with is astonishingly good. The budget Canon lenses are the EF-S lenses, while their expensive line is the "L" (for "luxury") lenses (the ones with the red circle around the lens). But there will always be the "Nikon vs. Canon" debate, particularly after their new pro cameras are released early next year. Canon's are more popular than Nikons, but I still think Nikon wins out overall. The Canon shooters may now flame away.

 

 

OK, great, very helpful again. I kinda prefer Nikon too, maybe it was my old film camera, I thought it was a fine choice at the time. I'm going to do a little more research, but the Nikon seems to be what I will hone in on now.

[larry50]

 

Thanks - all I have at the moment is a couple years old p&s Canon, time to step up. I've been looking (thanks to this thread) at the myriad of choices, including some of the high end p&s options, but without changing the lenses on these, I know I'll be somewhat limited. The hybrids are interesting too, but they aren't really much cheaper than these entry level full size DSLRs, so I'm thinking it makes sense to perhaps just jump in to a full size version. From reviews I've read, both the Nikon D3100 and the Canon T3 get really good reviews. I'm trying to compare specs, and see which has an advantage. Hard for me to tell. I believe the Nikon is fairly new, and older Nikon lenses won't work on it. So somewhat of a disadvantage. I would like 1 lense for close up work, one medium range lense, and then one for longer distances. I'm mostly interested in taking pictures of stills, nature, architecture, but also people. I don't need it for action scenes, video is less important than picture quality. Good audio (mic outputs?) could be a plus. I'm fairly new to all of it, just learning what I can pick up here and there.

 

 

Not true. All Nikon lenses going back to the 1950's will work on the D3100. Many of them will not autofocus (not a big disdvantage to me) because the D3100 lacks an autofocus motor (the new "G" lenses have the autofocus motor built in), but any of the older "D" lenses will work just fine (those go back to 1992) and all "G" lenses. You actually have a wider choice with Nikon, because any Canon lens made prior to 1987 won't work on any of the Canon DSLR's.

[homestar_kevin]

I agree with pretty much everything above. great points made there.

 

I went with Canon Bodies because of the video side of it.

 

I'm not a tradition DSLR user, a point I happoliy admit.

 

You'll be served very well by either choice.

 

You are able to use your old Nikon Lenses on either body.

 

There will be no autofocus or anything, but who needs that anyway..

 

 

I use Nikon glass on my t2i pretty much everytime I shoot.

[letsgocoyote]

If filmmaking is important to you, then you really need to go canon (t2i or t3i)... otherwise I think the Nikon line is a better choice. I think their control setups are more ergonomic... Pentax is pretty cool that way too

[IRG]

 

If filmmaking is important to you, then you really need to go canon (t2i or t3i)... otherwise I think the Nikon line is a better choice. I think their control setups are more ergonomic... Pentax is pretty cool that way too

 

 

At this point, film making is not of interest, no.

[IRG]

 

Not true. All Nikon lenses going back to the 1950's will work on the D3100. Many of them will not autofocus (not a big disdvantage to me) because the D3100 lacks an autofocus motor (the new "G" lenses have the autofocus motor built in), but any of the older "D" lenses will work just fine (those go back to 1992) and all "G" lenses. You actually have a wider choice with Nikon, because any Canon lens made prior to 1987 won't work on any of the Canon DSLR's.

 

 

Makes sense now. If it doesn't autofocus on older lenses, not that big of a deal.

[IRG]

Nikon D50, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 18-55, 55-200 and an old school non-AF 50 f2. Have a couple P&S Canons but another camera that really takes great shots as long as there is plenty of ambient light is my Panasonic DMC-FZ3. An ultra-zoom with a 35-420mm lens opens up to 2.8 but the Panasonics have some noise issues. Here are a couple of my favorite shots. Keeping in mind this is a 5 year old camera I bought two years ago for $30 on eBay.

 

 

Really nice pics btw!

[homestar_kevin]

go check them out man,

 

It's what you like in your hands better that's the winner.

 

Specs are just numbers, go hold a few on them, see where the buttons are, see how it feels. One should make more sense to you than the other.

[object88]

 

It's what you like in your hands better that's the winner.

 

 

This. Also, QFT. And, I agree.

[cratz2]

 

Makes sense now. If it doesn't autofocus on older lenses, not that big of a deal.

 

 

Also, some current lenses won't autofocus such as the 50 1.8D which is pretty much the very best quality values in lenses.

 

It does focus the 35mm 1.8 though which I feel is a slightly superior lens if you are only going to have one prime for general use.

[nomenclature]

My little collection:


Canon Digital Rebel 300D & EFS 18-55mm kit lens/ EF 75-300mm. both cheap lenses, never really got around in investing in anything better since money always went into music gear. Not a fan of the 18-55. I actually really like the 75-300, everything is so sharp & great colours (at least in comparison to the 18-55), but it's pretty much impossible to use in most situations at this focal length. This year I'm hoping to upgrade the entire set, it's my only digital aside from my iphone.


Stereo Realist stereoscopic 35mm camera. no idea how the pictures are, got it for christmas, gave it a good cleaning, & tightened things up, seems to be in good mechanical order. need to think of something to put it to good use for, then figure out how I'm going to view the 3d images.


Holga 120 SF. plastic lens. bleeds light like crazy. set up to shoot with 35mm instead of 120. I like it.


Woca 120 GF. Basically a Holga with a glass lens. less light bleed, sharper images. Use it for 120 + optional polaroid backing, which gets pretty interesting results.


Lubitel Universal 166 120 TLR. My favorite of all my cameras, rich colours (with the right film), pretty sharp images, minimal vignetting.


Pentax MZ-50. My first camera, stock 28-80 lens, 35mm. wasn't too bad of a starter camera. gotta get it fixed, a plastic gear for the motor has rotted away making it completely non-functional, apparently it's pretty common with these things. part of the reason why I want a completely mechanical 35mm SLR, so I don't have to worry about plastic or motors or electronics or batteries.


Minolta Maxxum 7000. My grandfathers camera, by dad had it in storage for years and I only recently got it (though it's not "mine"). 28-85 AF lens. pretty hefty, all metal, full auto. haven't developed anything I've shot with it yet.


Fuji Instax 210. Not quite a polaroid, but I like how pics turn out. pretty fun camera to have around.

[nomenclature]

Minolta 110 Zoom SLR. odd little thing, I haven't seen a 110 SLR before. Took a little work to get it fully operational, but it's not too bad. has a macro zoom. I think the light meter is a little flaky but I can work around it.


Agat 18k. 35mm, shoots half frames. another fun toy to have around, durable, usually take it camping/on trips.


Lomo Supersampler. This camera is garbage, light leaks, totally random & uncontrollable, shoots four pics on a frame. you can sometimes get something interesting, but a lot of the time it's just a waste of film.


Lomo LC-A. 35mm. Total hipster camera. I always have a camera on me, this is usually it since it can take fairly good photos and is pretty solid, but every few months I tend to take it apart and tighten everything up, always being in a bag slowly rattles screws loose and collects dirt.

lights:


Various lights. Flash for my 110 Zoom, lomo flash with multiple coloured filters, canon speedlight 420EX, Minox B flash (which arrived even though the camera never showed up), Pixel hotshoe extension cable. Orbis ringflash adapter (totally awkward to use, but pretty good results at 1/10th the price of a real ringflash). Have a set of two hotlights w/ umbrellas.

[mr benn]

just got this

loving it so far

[Matt Gnarly]

Alright camera folks, I picked up the Sony NEX C3 w/ 18-55mm lens today, it was $100 off the usual price at $499 (regular 599 here) it seemed like a decent price. I've decided not to play with it till I sell one of my guitars in case I have to take it back, but I'd like to hear some opinions from those who know cameras. If I end up keeping it I'll likely get the 16mm lens and fisheye adapter. I'm mostly looking for something portable, under $600, and good for travel, architecture, and nature photos.

Thanks guys!

[nomenclature]

 

picked up a nikon FM2n today. pretty good shape, though I'll have to clean it up a bit, it's a little grimy in places. meter seems to be good, seems mechanically sound. missing the eyepiece, not a big deal. no lenses though. that is a problem. on the hunt for some primes, the local shops didn't have anything I wanted so I'll be hitting ebay & craigslist most likely. can't wait to use it and see how things go.