TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Let's talk cameras.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Let's talk cameras.

So... i am looking to purchase a camera that is not super expensive yet efficient.

I don't need anything fancy, i just wish for it to shoot perfectly regardless of movement ( if i was on a train / car )



Recommendations?

Re: Let's talk cameras.

quote:

Originally posted by Amduscias i just wish for it to shoot perfectly regardless of movement ( if i was on a train / car )

Your shutter speed (ie. your ability to capture fast moving things without blur in varying degrees of light) will depend on the quality of the camera's lens, as well as its f-stop rating. The lower the f-value, the better the lens, generally speaking (very generally).

I'm assuming you want a compact camera, and not a DSLR right?

The most important info you can give here is your budget

Ideally less than 300

quote:

Originally posted by Amduscias Ideally less than 300

I can't really help you much, sorry mate. Even with Google, my issue is comparing prices here to yours in the US - Waaaaay different.

Lots of photography peeps here though, hopefully someone can help you out

Canon s100?

Stu, do you happen to be an expert on lenses, too? I might need to buy one for work soon (needs to be Canon) and I might need some hints there.

Sony NEX-7 for the win!

Not cheap, but it's an amazing camera, I absolutely love mine.

You could get some good advice here: http://kenrockwell.com/

My AU$0.02 is that my old camera, a Sony DSC-W70 had pretty good low light performance for a compact. It didn't have any explicit control over shutter speed though.

But yeah 'low light performance' is a good catch-all term for what you're looking for I reckon.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Stu, do you happen to be an expert on lenses, too? I might need to buy one for work soon (needs to be Canon) and I might need some hints there.

Yeah, I can help you out with Canon lenses. I use Canon gear as well.

I've been looking for a Mark I. It's not easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Yeah, I can help you out with Canon lenses. I use Canon gear as well.

YOU WHORE!!!!

On a side note, does anyone have any experience with the Sony SLT-A57 or the other Sony DSLRs? I'm looking at getting a Canon 2-Ti, but Sony has some pretty slick features for an extra $100 or so. From what I saw, it has a better operating system that will automatically stitch together pics for panoramas and better low lighting shots.

quote:

Originally posted by phyrrus From what I saw, it has a better operating system that will automatically stitch together pics for panoramas and better low lighting shots.

You should be doing stitching on the computer, not on the camera;

1) Heavy on the processor/drains battery life
2) Poor job on camera compared to proper software (photoshop, autopano giga)
3) Keep your photos separate for any further edits.
4) No advanced control

I've done a *lot* of panoramic shots, if its something you really need, get this program;

http://www.kolor.com/image-stitchin...opano-giga.html

It handles massive files, I've been able to stitch together 40+ images at 15mp each where the final size of the image exceeded the maximum allowable for JPEG, 30,000 pixels in length though you can use other formats if you need to go bigger (TIFF is great, but its significantly slower with bigger file sizes).

speaking of cameras... whats everyone's opinion on the canon dos t3i (rebel)? I just picked that up the other day based on a friends recommendation. still have about 10 day warranty on it but if anyone can advise something better for the same price (around 700 before taxes + warnty) id love to hear your input

quote:

Originally posted by kamil

What are you recommending then for DSLR in that price range? Canon 2-Ti? 3-Ti? Nikon 3100/5100?

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire speaking of cameras... whats everyone's opinion on the canon dos t3i (rebel)? I just picked that up the other day based on a friends recommendation. still have about 10 day warranty on it but if anyone can advise something better for the same price (around 700 before taxes + warnty) id love to hear your input

Good entry level DSLR. If you're serious about making great photos but not able to spend Stu type money I'd say skip the Rebel entry line and go straight to a 60D or 7D (I have a 60 and love it).

i bought a canon powershot digital elph sd1000 for about $200 several years ago, really happy with it. Far from professional but when you adjust the settings to maximize image quality it's a great little camera

EDIT: I wanna say that all these new cameras default with shit-quality settings to make you think you have to spend more money to get a better product. Same with HD TVs

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Good entry level DSLR. If you're serious about making great photos but not able to spend Stu type money I'd say skip the Rebel entry line and go straight to a 60D or 7D (I have a 60 and love it).

ah, interesting. would you say its good enough in regards to video? I bought it more for that reason, to shoot some music videos on a slightly above amateur level.

I am currently letting go of my Nikon gear, because i am going to move to the Leica M system.

Nevertheless, I suggest Nikon over Canon. They are better built and produce better lenses. Lenses are also backward compatible so you can use ones from the 70s that still produce great quality. Try looking for a D300 used on eBay. Its a great machine and durable. If you dont need video, this is a great choice.
You can then get a fast lens such as the 35mm F1.8 DX.

This would be an affordable kit for you. Dont listen to Ken Rockwell though, hes a fkhead.

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Ocean I am currently letting go of my Nikon gear, because i am going to move to the Leica M system. Nevertheless, I suggest Nikon over Canon. They are better built and produce better lenses. Lenses are also backward compatible so you can use ones from the 70s that still produce great quality. Try looking for a D300 used on eBay. Its a great machine and durable. If you dont need video, this is a great choice. You can then get a fast lens such as the 35mm F1.8 DX. This would be an affordable kit for you. Dont listen to Ken Rockwell though, hes a fkhead.

Thats false information youre giving right there.

Both Canons and Nikons are built well. Both have great lenses, NEITHER have 'better' in general as both manufacturers have lenses that are better and worse than the other, case in point

Canon 24-70mm vs. Nikon 24-70mm (the Nikon is better, apparently)

and

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII vs Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8

I know for damn sure the Canon 70-200mm slaps the Nikon equivalent around.

Also, in terms of old lenses compatibility, how often would you use any of them and how many would anyone even have? Dont they lack autofocus as well? Why spend cash on a new body and then more cash on inferior lenses??

quote:

Originally posted by phyrrus What are you recommending then for DSLR in that price range? Canon 2-Ti? 3-Ti? Nikon 3100/5100?

I wouldnt know, but i think the t3i has 1080p recording, if so, I'd just get that. I've used the t2i to make a short video clip, and the image quality was spectacular.

I dont like Nikons because;

a) they never offered a dSLR camera below 1k when I got into photography (I started off on the original Canon Digital Rebel 8 years ago)
b) their User Interface and controls are fucking terrible.

quote:

Originally posted by kamil Thats false information youre giving right there. Both Canons and Nikons are built well. Both have great lenses, NEITHER have 'better' in general as both manufacturers have lenses that are better and worse than the other, case in point Canon 24-70mm vs. Nikon 24-70mm (the Nikon is better, apparently) and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII vs Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 I know for damn sure the Canon 70-200mm slaps the Nikon equivalent around. Also, in terms of old lenses compatibility, how often would you use any of them and how many would anyone even have? Dont they lack autofocus as well? Why spend cash on a new body and then more cash on inferior lenses??

just what a canon user would say....I'll agree that maybe bodies and some of the zooms are the same.

Nikon has a 14 - 24 2.8 zoom which Canon lacks, it does produce excellent images, even Canon would agree...not that I use zooms, I use primes., Car Zeiss ones. I use a Noct NIkkor 58mm f/1.2 which is AI, this is just one example of a lens I need a camera to read.

I use all manual, I dont use Autofocus..or anything auto so..if you like the camera to make your decision for you...knock yourself out with new auto lenses.

The truth is the best lenses dont use auto focusing..(Voigtlander 125mm F2.5 APO Lanthar) comes to mind..

If you want to go Canon, I am not saying stay away, but Nikon is where it's at for me.

and thats bullshit that the user interface and controls are terrible...everything is where you want it to be. It is a more expensive brand sure, but in photography the phrase you get what you pay for can not be more true.

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Ocean just what a canon user would say....

Just what a Nikon user would say

Honestly, Canon and Nikon are so close in terms of quality, it's not even worth arguing about. They both have different products available, such as the lens you mentioned, so choose the one that best suits your photography.

Anyone who knows their camera shit, knows that

thats true honestly its best to try them and see what you like the best..in the end its just a tool for the means...

I love your photos sushi, as you know!

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Ocean just what a canon user would say....I'll agree that maybe bodies and some of the zooms are the same. Nikon has a 14 - 24 2.8 zoom which Canon lacks, it does produce excellent images, even Canon would agree...not that I use zooms, I use primes., Car Zeiss ones. I use a Noct NIkkor 58mm f/1.2 which is AI, this is just one example of a lens I need a camera to read. I use all manual, I dont use Autofocus..or anything auto so..if you like the camera to make your decision for you...knock yourself out with new auto lenses. The truth is the best lenses dont use auto focusing..(Voigtlander 125mm F2.5 APO Lanthar) comes to mind.. If you want to go Canon, I am not saying stay away, but Nikon is where it's at for me. and thats bullshit that the user interface and controls are terrible...everything is where you want it to be. It is a more expensive brand sure, but in photography the phrase you get what you pay for can not be more true.

LOL @ 'just what a canon user would say'

And why would you say that? To encourage the stupid war between nikon/canon users? Do you feel superior because you use a Nikon eventhough viewers and pros cant tell if the end result was taken by a canon or nikon or other?

LOL again at your comment/implication that autofocus lenses are 'new'. AF has been around for quite a while. Go ahead and tell someone whos doing sports photography to use a 30 year old Nikon lens.. which is essentially why there are so many more sports photographers shooting with a Canon. I'd also like to see how accurate someone can get their focusing in manual compared to autofocus under normal circumstances.... equally importantly, i'd like to see someone shoot in manual focus as quickly as with AF, most situations dont allow for that kind of crap to put up with, ie; wedding photography. Sure, in the studio where you have (basically) an infinite amount of time to fuck around with focusing, manual will work.

I've been shooting for 8 years and in that time I've rarely had a need to manually focus.

I do have a serious question though; where does this 'elitist' crap come from, from owning a nikon camera? Hopefully you'll answer that.

I don't see this kind of attitude from Canon users. It reminds me of Apple fanboys with their Mac computer and conceitedness (and yeah, I use a Mac too, but I know its flaws, as well as Canon's).

I nearly switched to Nikon when the D90 came out, mainly because of its video capabilities. I didn't care about photo quality because both Canon and Nikon are so close to being on par, it really doesnt matter.

User Interface, however, very much *is* a nightmare on Nikons. I'm not talking about the physical button controls on the camera, but the on screen menus and controls; theyre fucking terrible. They'd get shit right if they had anyone that used Apple's mentality of simplicity considering that dSLR's demand a lot of advanced settings which mostly photo-savvy users will understand. Trying to change ISO settings should straight forward, Nikon went ahead and successfully made it a chore, which is one of the things that turned me off about the D90... and I haven't seen any new Nikon improve on that flaw.

You won't see me bash/complain about Nikon in any other area because theres nothing that really warrants it, because if it did, Canon would be right there too since both manufacturers are basically the same in every area.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.