[terrorist]

50d no big deal, canon comes out with camera every year.

i'm waiting for 6d, next generation of full frame sensor =p

[watcher]

erm I need some advice on buying my first digital SLR. Basically i've been looking at the nikon D40 and D60 and i can't decide which one to buy. I've been reading alot of reviews and basically most people say that it's better to buy the D40 and then use the extra money for a 55 – 200 mm zoom lens. i'm basically a new to all this and don't really know about lenses. Does anyone have the D60 or D40? or give me advice on which one to get?
thanks

i think this review sums it up nicely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm
i dont support all of ken rockwell's reviews, but this one i think hits the mark.
if you want a short version of what he says...
he says get the d40

[awdark]

http://gizmodo.com/5040111/nikon-d700-firs...s-yep-little-d3
Might be a older article... but the iso and noise levels.. is really impressive O_O

I see noise but I don't want to decrease the ISO or my shots will fail more >_<

[dot1q]

50d no big deal, canon comes out with camera every year.

i'm waiting for 6d, next generation of full frame sensor =p

Hopefully the 5dii/6d will be a dramatic improvement over the current 5d (as the 5d was when it was introduced). Judging from rumored specs, the jump doesn't seem to be as dramatic. Regardless, its still full sensor and I'm waiting for its' release to pick one up.

[watcher]

Hopefully the 5dii/6d will be a dramatic improvement over the current 5d (as the 5d was when it was introduced). Judging from rumored specs, the jump doesn't seem to be as dramatic. Regardless, its still full sensor and I'm waiting for its' release to pick one up.

haha... im curious about digic 4 and their AF upgrades. im betting they gonna up the burst mode and screen size as well as MP. add live view and dust cleaner... standard stuff that the newr models have. 5d is apparently considered discontinued... haha

[Tonyc402]

Do you guys think that I will see a significant different in sharpness in my photos if I get myself a Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS lens compared to the kit lens on my XTi Rebel.

[watcher]

Do you guys think that I will see a significant different in sharpness in my photos if I get myself a Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS lens compared to the kit lens on my XTi Rebel.

no. dont upgrade from one kit lens to another. you may see significant sharpness if you upgrade to prime lenses or other high quality lenses like L series or certain third party lenses, like the tamron 17-50/2.8, but NOT the kit lens!

[d0wne]

Anyone see the new Canon 18-200mm IS? Honestly, if it's cheap enough I'd buy one as a one-lens solution when going on vacation.

[dot1q]

^ For the common consumer, the range alone is great and it truly would be a one lense solution. Many consumers aren't interested in having additional lenses and just want something that works, takes nice photos, and provides dslr functionality. This lense was probably made for this exact purpose and targeted for such consumers. However, for anyone remotely interested in photography as a skill, they're better off sticking to the 2-3 separate zooms to cover the entire specified range. Especially if its going to be a consumer oriented lense (price wise), I seriously doubt the quality would be consistent across the whole focal range. It'll probably vary greatly. Regardless, if its cheap enough, it might still be worth a purchase (for all users) when you're just taking random photos on vacation where you just care about whats in the photo. It would solve the issue of carrying a compact as well (where you're outside and having fun and don't have the time to change lenses).

No, I haven't actually researched or looked up the lense but assuming its a low cost solution, I'm pretty sure the above applies.

Man if Canon just made a 17/18-85 2.8L IS lense to go along with my 70-200 2.8L IS and 50 1.4, it would just be dream and I would never have to buy a lense again. It would probably cost upwards of 2g+ but it would be soooooo worth it. The only MAJOR downside of going full frame is I would miss my 17-55 2.8 IS so much and canon currently has no EF L quality alternitive with IS.

[negitoro]

So, I found the XT/XTi accessory kit on sale recently and I decided to get one because I've always wanted to try the battery grip.

Now that I have it, I'm on the fence on whether or not I actually want to keep it.

I mean it's great because my camera feels more substantial and better balanced (which are the main reasons why I wanted it). But I think I got used to tucking my pinky under the body... having the grip there feels really weird. The vertical orientation also doesn't feel as natural as I thought it would.

Also, in what must be the most retarded thing ever, after you attach the grip to the camera, it doesn't fit into the bag that came in the kit. It's also slightly too big for my old bag too... so now I have 2 extra bags that can no longer hold my camera. Hmmm...

[negitoro]

^ For the common consumer, the range alone is great and it truly would be a one lense solution. Many consumers aren't interested in having additional lenses and just want something that works, takes nice photos, and provides dslr functionality. This lense was probably made for this exact purpose and targeted for such consumers. However, for anyone remotely interested in photography as a skill, they're better off sticking to the 2-3 separate zooms to cover the entire specified range. Especially if its going to be a consumer oriented lense (price wise), I seriously doubt the quality would be consistent across the whole focal range. It'll probably vary greatly. Regardless, if its cheap enough, it might still be worth a purchase (for all users) when you're just taking random photos on vacation where you just care about whats in the photo. It would solve the issue of carrying a compact as well (where you're outside and having fun and don't have the time to change lenses).

No, I haven't actually researched or looked up the lense but assuming its a low cost solution, I'm pretty sure the above applies.

'Low cost' is probably going to be debatable. The thing's priced at like $700 MSRP, which roughly puts it in the same price range as the Nikon 18-200. And unless Canon has done something interesting, I wonder how it'll stack up to the upcoming Tamron 18-270 VC.

[watcher]

'Low cost' is probably going to be debatable. The thing's priced at like $700 MSRP, which roughly puts it in the same price range as the Nikon 18-200. And unless Canon has done something interesting, I wonder how it'll stack up to the upcoming Tamron 18-270 VC.

hyperzooms are always a compromise in image quality. unless tamron got some magic up their sleeve, the 18~270 will not outshine any of the 18~200 lenses.

[negitoro]

hyperzooms are always a compromise in image quality. unless tamron got some magic up their sleeve, the 18~270 will not outshine any of the 18~200 lenses.

True, but how much better ? If we're getting mediocre quality anyway, that extra 70mm might be more appealing than the smidgen of IQ. If Canon had just pulled the trigger and put in USM, it'd have a much stronger case.

[watcher]

True, but how much better ? If we're getting mediocre quality anyway, that extra 70mm might be more appealing than the smidgen of IQ. If Canon had just pulled the trigger and put in USM, it'd have a much stronger case.

you might see more distortion and CA across a larger focal range with the longer hyperzoom than the shorter one. same goes with image softness when using the wide/long ends of the focal range. and these dont take into account other non-IQ factors of build quality and general quality assurance [how much wear and tear before the lens becomes useless].

can't tell until you go out and test it, but i've seen cases where i thought IQ couldn't get any worse, but it did. some lenses make the kit lens look like an unofficial L.

[dot1q]

$700 is def not worth it for someone who already has lenses covering those ranges. I'll deal with the hastle of a lense change or carrying a second body in exchange for significant overall improvement in quality. However for someone who doesn't have lenses already, this could be a strong consideration. You also have to consider that most of your typical shots will lie under 85mm or so (portraits, vacation, landscape, scenic, etc). Is it worth the sacrifice for the convenience of changing lenses? It's up to the user I suppose.

[watcher]

$700 is def not worth it for someone who already has lenses covering those ranges. I'll deal with the hastle of a lense change or carrying a second body in exchange for significant overall improvement in quality. However for someone who doesn't have lenses already, this could be a strong consideration. You also have to consider that most of your typical shots will lie under 85mm or so (portraits, vacation, landscape, scenic, etc). Is it worth the sacrifice for the convenience of changing lenses? It's up to the user I suppose.

i think each lens has its uses. i'm considering an 18-200 sometime in the future, when the budget's not as tight. reason being that it'll be much lighter and compact when i'm vacationing. xti+18-200 > 30D + 24-105 + 70-200/2.8 if your gonna travel around. there's overlap, but how you use it will really show its value

[d0wne]

$700?! I had high hopes for this lens.

btdubs, I think this lens type definitely has a place even in a more advanced photographer's bag. It's perfect for vacation. When I'm getting paid to shoot some event, of course I'll bust out better lenses.

Hey dot1q, I'm waiting for the Canon 10-600 f/1.0 IS USM L which is built like a tank but small and weighs about a pound. ::crosses fingers for next year:: haha

[Angie]

Hi, my fellow DSLR lovers<3 I need your guidance in buying a new friend for my Rebel XT!

So, I am in desperate need of a telephoto zoom lens (because right now all I have is the kit lens and 50mm, and I don't like using the kit lens much) and am debating between either...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH..._pr_product_top

or

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011NVMO..._pr_product_top

...the prices of either aren't a problem--I've been saving for a new lens for a while. I know that one is considerably cheaper, but I would prefer to purchase the one out of the two that performs better. If any of you own these lenses or have tried them, please help me with your advice (:

Thanks<3

EDIT//

Oh, and I have to rant, somewhat.

Have you ever taken pictures, and then when your friends/peers see them, the first thing they say is, "Oh my gosh, your camera takes such good pictures!"

...

Is it just me that finds that somewhat insulting? I mean, I know my camera is of better quality than a point & shoot spec-wise, but I feel that a lot of people give too much credit to the camera sometimes and not enough credit to the photographer behind it =[ Because a lot of thought gets put into the pictures like composition, contrast, white balance, changing manual settings, etc.

I never say anything though because I hate sounding rude, but I think it all the time, haha. And I think about saying that photos from a regular point & shoot could look just as good with the right person behind the camera. And that pictures from an SLR can look totally crappy from people that don't know what they're doing.

Bahaha, next time I'll just say it isn't the camera.

It's the lens!

[awdark]

My bunny says hi! I like raw so much

[erure]

Hi, my fellow DSLR lovers<3 I need your guidance in buying a new friend for my Rebel XT!

So, I am in desperate need of a telephoto zoom lens (because right now all I have is the kit lens and 50mm, and I don't like using the kit lens much) and am debating between either...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH..._pr_product_top

or

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011NVMO..._pr_product_top

...the prices of either aren't a problem--I've been saving for a new lens for a while. I know that one is considerably cheaper, but I would prefer to purchase the one out of the two that performs better. If any of you own these lenses or have tried them, please help me with your advice (:

Thanks<3

EDIT//

Oh, and I have to rant, somewhat.

Have you ever taken pictures, and then when your friends/peers see them, the first thing they say is, "Oh my gosh, your camera takes such good pictures!"

...

Is it just me that finds that somewhat insulting? I mean, I know my camera is of better quality than a point & shoot spec-wise, but I feel that a lot of people give too much credit to the camera sometimes and not enough credit to the photographer behind it =[ Because a lot of thought gets put into the pictures like composition, contrast, white balance, changing manual settings, etc.

I never say anything though because I hate sounding rude, but I think it all the time, haha. And I think about saying that photos from a regular point & shoot could look just as good with the right person behind the camera. And that pictures from an SLR can look totally crappy from people that don't know what they're doing.

Bahaha, next time I'll just say it isn't the camera.

It's the lens!

I used the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (so it's the same lens you're getting except it had IS) before and it was great. It's light, sturdy, and sharp. I would get the L if I were you.

And I agree with you about the camera thing. One of my friends was into photography before me and she is very knowledgeable. She herself knows that the camera isn't everything, so it hurt my feelings even more when she told her friend (who complimented my photography) that "Anyone can take good photos with her equipment" (and I was right there too). I guess she was jealous, but I don't think I'll forget what she said. I kind of agree with Ken Rockwell when he asks, "People know buying a piano won't make them pianists, so why do people buy cameras and think that great results just happen?"