For crop sensors the 17-55 is probably the better choice. With the 17-40 you are paying the extra for use on a full frame sensor. With the EF-S lens you trade that for IS and an extra stop. It doesn't have the red ring, but build quality is reportedly just as good. EF-S lenses no matter how nice don't get those. Also remember while billed as a wide angle lens, its not really if you put it on a crop sensor.
27.2mm is still fairly wide. That probably would be a better choice, but it is also $250 more. It is also painful paying so much for the "kit" lens, even though it is a much better version of it. At any rate, I just spent two month's rent on a camera, I should probably stop spending money for a while.
I still consider 17-40 to be a short zoom though, I just like to reach out an touch things a bit further. Something up to 125 or so would be more in my line of thinking for a mid range zoom. Seems like you want more width though, which might be important for the way you shoot.
I second pol's suggestion on the EF-S, with one caveat. If you think you'll ever switch back to a full frame sensor - which you might want to if you really shoot wide that often - you won't be able to us the EF-S lens. At least you can't use them on most of the full frame bodies, I'm not sure if that's something Canon can change if they want to.
Regardless, keep us posted on the new body, love to hear how it works out for you.
You have to ask yourself what you are willing to negotiate away in exchange for the smaller, lighter camera?
Yeah, pretty much boils down to this. I pulled the trigger on a GF1 for my 30th and I've really been enjoying it. I know I could have a bit more speed and a bit more clarity with a full-size SLR, but frankly, what I have lost in quality, I've made up for in portability. Really love it, and its done a good job of taking my previously casual photography that one step further.
Rezzy, if you're looking to keep the in-body flash, you might want to consider the GF1. Its not particularly sizable, but it does pretty well as a fill. And the GF1 is a good chunk cheaper than the NEX5 at the moment, great build quality, and 1080 video.
Only problem I can see is that now the lens bug has bit me. I've got the mid-range zoom that came with the package, bought the Lumix telephoto, and now I'm looking at primes and/or UWA's. I think I have some kind of disease.
Only problem I can see is that now the lens bug has bit me. I've got the mid-range zoom that came with the package, bought the Lumix telephoto, and now I'm looking at primes and/or UWA's. I think I have some kind of disease.
Ah... see, that's what I ran into with my Canon. Like I said, so far I've sunk over half a grand into the experiment. That's why I like the current Sony deal. Just enough zoom, a nice wide angle, and the small form factor.
Aaaand I may or may not be in a chat with a Sony Sales Rep that is currently ringing up my order and scoring me a 16GB high speed Sony memory stick for $30.
EDIT: I spent the last two days digging into different cameras and models, and I finally decided that I'm giving the sleek newcomer a try. If I don't like it there's a return policy and I still have my 10D to suck up my extra moneys.
For crop sensors the 17-55 is probably the better choice.
Just placed the order for this last night, should be on my doorstep Monday. Yay me!
Finally got to play with my new 60D and it is amazing. The 1080 video is insane (also it takes up an insane amount of space, its about 5 megs per second), and looks great. You can make anything look artsy if you screw with the focus to get nice bokeh.
As far as images go, 18MP is insanely huge. I will never need that high of a resolution, except for prints. For prints, it will be very cool. The rotating screen is nice, although I like it for a different reason than most people. I use it to keep the screen hidden 90% of the time, since I don't really like reviewing pictures on camera, and I don't like the risk of breaking the screen.
Also, the size of the body makes a huge difference over a T2i for someone with giant man hands like me. It feels so much better. I can't wait for this weekend to get out and start shooting.
It is also painful paying so much for the "kit" lens, even though it is a much better version of it.
By this logic this 17-40 would be inferior to the kit lens, no? The 17-55 is a helluva piece of glass.
It is also painful paying so much for the "kit" lens, even though it is a much better version of it.By this logic this 17-40 would be inferior to the kit lens, no? The 17-55 is a helluva piece of glass.
Yeah, it seems like I prefer primes for the speed and the shallow DoF. I decided against being interested in 17-40 because it is so slow.
certainly can't argue with that...I think an 85 1.8 is next on my list.
DF7 wrote:Teneman wrote:I'm curious though, how do you find your photos on other sites?
Sweet, very helpful. Thanks.
I must say that particular site is very useful. It made me aware of exactly how far my picture has been circulated. I guess thats what you get for taking pictures of attractive asians dressed as a starcraft ghost. I should have watermarked my name onto it or something subtle. Ah well, live and learn. On another note, I have been messing with some b&w and focus blur in post processing:
Also some coloring techniques from a different photoshoot:
I must say that particular site is very useful. It made me aware of exactly how far my picture has been circulated. I guess thats what you get for taking pictures of attractive asians dressed as a starcraft ghost. I should have watermarked my name onto it or something subtle. Ah well, live and learn. On another note, I have been messing with some b&w and focus blur in post processing:
This is all personal preference of course, but I honestly would have preferred no focus blur on #1. Fantastic work on #2 - a great example of street photography.
My wife just got a Nikon D3100 with its 18-55mm kit lens and a 55-200mm as well. After working through some of her college career doing photo finish at horse races (from shot to manually developed print within 5 minutes), she has developed some kind of precognition that is difficult to explain and is always ready for a good picture. It boggles my mind with what she can do with a film camera or even a digital point and shoot. This is her first foray into DSLR land. I'm expecting good things!
I was wondering where this thread went, I didnt feel like looking! I finally upgraded my olympus e 300 to a canon 7d... olympus, we had a good run. BUT you will not be missed.
I was wondering where this thread went, I didnt feel like looking! I finally upgraded my olympus e 300 to a canon 7d... olympus, we had a good run. BUT you will not be missed.
7D sounds pretty nice. I thought my 60D would satisfy me but I've been missing shots because of bad auto focus lately. Time for more gadget lust.
And because I'm feeling slutty, I'll whore out my Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexandersollie/
WOW
Do want. I want that on the Fuji x100.
I'm shopping for a DSLR for my fiancee and wondering which would be the best to get.
She's been wanting to get into taking pictures and has been talking about getting one for a year or so. But. Right now she has a crappy, old point and shoot. So this would be something for her to learn on.
So the questions are:
Whats a good starting place?
I understand the lenses aren't always interchangeable, what's the easiest brand or format to get started with?
She'll probably be using it for a mix of indoor and outdoor shooting. Is the lens that comes with most of these kits good for that?
I don't want to spend more than ~$900 or so. Is that going to do it? How long do these things stay relevant, it's not like every other high-tech gadget that goes obsolete every 6months, right?
You definitely don't have to worry about it becoming obsolete in a few months. I have a Nikon D40x which is a few years old and it doesn't feel obsolete at all. You can easily get a good all around Nikon or Canon DSLR for under 900 bucks.
dpreview.com tends to have really good and thorough reviews. If you have some spare time, just read about some of the cameras in your budget range and they will give you the pros and cons of each.
They are a really good investment, in my opinion, as they feel worlds better than point and shoot cameras.
My suggestion is stick with Nikon or Canon as they are reputable brands and will be easier to get lenses for in the future. I don't think that Sony, Pentax, etc. cameras are worse, however.
Start with a Canon or Nikon kit and you can grow from there.
I've been shooting Canon for years starting with a Rebel and just purchased a 60D and couldn't be happier. The lens system is interchangeable so the investment will last if you like the brand.
How long it will last depends on how much of a gear geek she is. The current generation of entry level DSLRs will more than suit the needs you describe and give room for growth if she gets into it.
Check Costco and Amazon for package deals, you should be able find something very nice in that price range.
A suggestion would be the Canon EOS Rebel T1i ($699) and in addition to the kit lens, a prime lens such as a 50 mm - F/1.8. You'll love the speed in low light shots. And its cheap at about $125.
Like RichyRambo said, Canon or Nikon kit will do you. I'd suggest Canon, being a Canon shooter myself.
Specifically, for the range you're looking at, try the Canon T3i at $949. You can also go with a T2i, or any of the slightly older EOS Digital Rebel series if you can still find them, probably slightly cheaper.
And yes, they do put new models out fairly rapidly. Unlike computers and consoles though, an 'obsolete' unit doesn't become unusable. I'm personally shooting with a Canon Rebel XTi which is several models old and was release five or six years ago if I'm not mistaken. While there are some gadgets and perks on the newer model that I'd like (mmmm, better high ISO performance....) they are not necessary, nor have they caused me to miss any shots I was after.
Ken Rockwell (overall photography good guy) has some great recommendations and reviews on his site. He's partial to Nikon, but Canon is right on par with them in terms of quality IMO.
Also, it doesn't hurt to go into a shop and hold the cameras to see how they feel. I think the lower end Nikons fit better with larger hands. The Canon Digital Rebels seem to fit smaller hands better.
1080p video seems to be a big thing at the moment. Also, I think some cameras are introducing some autofocus for video shooting. You might pay attention to that feature and check some of the reviews. It could be really handy. My brother and wife use their Canon T2i (I think that's what they have) for taking video of my nephew all the time, and it looks great.
Well, all the new gear talk finally did it. Broke my resolve. Unfortunately (or fortunately!), that happened at precisely the moment that this beauty came back into stock at B&H.
The order has been placed, and the last gaping hole in my lens kit is now closed.
I bought the Canon version of that lens and love it. It hasn't come off my camera since I got it.
Just throwing my 2c in, Lester, but I've been really happy with my Panny GF1. It has a good heft and feels great in the hand; the micro 4/3 form factor means I can get it in my laptop bag or my windbreak pocket; it has been hard wearing and battery life has been great; and it takes pretty good photos. The interchangeable lenses are a definite step up from the old P&S I had, but it doesn't feel overwhelming, either. So I've kinda fallen in love with it.
Don't know if you could find any new though, as the second iteration of the GF series is out and doesn't feel like much of an upgrade. I know the GF2 has only been out a few months, so its price hasn't dropped much (if at all) but maybe someone out there will be looking to upgrade their 1 to the 2 and you can find a deal?
I got my eye (and wish list) on this before summer vacation
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Also nice blog there Teneman, I may try something along those lines as well shortly.
Thanks Richy! The blog is a time commitment, but I've had a blast doing it. I've learned a ton as well, particularly back while I was doing the flame and splash shots.
And summer vacation is exactly why I picked up the Tokina. Incidentally, I was debating between the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 10-22 you linked. The reviews I read pegged them both as excellent lenses, but came down on the side of the Tokina being slightly better in many respects. Most notable was chromatic aberration and the constant f/2.8 throughout the focal range. Unless you really need the extra 1mm on the wide side or the additional 6mm on the long side, you may want to consider the Tokina. Ends up being $150 cheaper as well.
Thanks Richy! The blog is a time commitment, but I've had a blast doing it. I've learned a ton as well, particularly back while I was doing the flame and splash shots.
And summer vacation is exactly why I picked up the Tokina. Incidentally, I was debating between the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 10-22 you linked. The reviews I read pegged them both as excellent lenses, but came down on the side of the Tokina being slightly better in many respects. Most notable was chromatic aberration and the constant f/2.8 throughout the focal range. Unless you really need the extra 1mm on the wide side or the additional 6mm on the long side, you may want to consider the Tokina. Ends up being $150 cheaper as well.
Hmm...good points. I'll check that out, and post your thoughts after a few weeks with that new glass.
Pages