Then you could probably make a test and compare it with the 5d ? Looks great any way.
already planning to. x100 vs 5d with 35mmL and with 35mm f/2 lenses. The big thing that hasn't been tested yet is dynamic range. I want to take a very contrasty scene with both at ISO 200, then both at ISO 1600, and see how much highlight and shadow headroom exists. The 5D has delightful dynamic range, and a very flat falloff, 1600 is only 3 stops less than 100, whereas most cameras lose up to half or more the dynamic range from min to max.
I heard they just started production back up after all the terrible shit that happened in japan, did you have to pay an arm and a leg to get one?
Nope. It's quite a story though!
1. User posts that he is considering buying an X100 from his local shop or a GH2
2. I PM him asking which shop has them in stock.
3. He answers the store's name in New Zealand (Paul's Camera)
4. I email Paul's, asking if they have any unclaimed ones.
5. They tell me they have 10 coming in, with only 4 reserved, they can easily hold one.
6. They email me the next morning that it went down to only 5 they were getting, only one free.
7. I shove my CC as hard as I can into my cat-5 cable to get the money to them so that 5th one is mine.
8. They don't ship internationally so it goes to my friend at Weta, who remails it to an address in San Francisco.
9. Said address is that of the boyfriend of an Icelandic friend, she is visiting him.
10. She is bringing it back in her luggage so I don't have to pay the 27% VAT on electronics.
11. I shower her with cookies and other baked goods in thanks.
With the shipping reimbursement to my friend, it actually came out to exactly 1,200 USD total. But an 8 gb UHS-I card was 130 USD here when it's like 40 bux in the US.
Also that nex looks damn good at 12800 compared to the 500d, if there were decent lens options it would make a tought desicion for me with my next body, as I plan on getting a 500/550D... But I dont really see being able to replace my EF lenses with a nex, not for a few years atleast. Blah
Look at that smile Congrats for the new toy. Thanks for the link with the shots from the 5D and the X100. Images from the x100 look fantastic damn it . I would love to see more when you have some
Wow that Fuji x100 looks incredible! Too bad I can't spend that much money!
I just started looking into getting a new DSLR. I'm pretty serious about it, so I want to make the most informed decision possible!
I was looking at the Nikon D3100, D5100, or the Canon T2i. Now, the D5100 is sorta just out of my price range, but if it's really worth those extra dollars, I'll find the means to get it. The Canon T2i as well as the Nikon D3100 are more within my price range.
Not quite sure what to get though!
I would say the T2i, I doubt you'll notice a difference between the T2i and the D5100, and I lean towards Canon's lens selection, which IMO is the best. Either is a good choice however. Also, the D5100 has no built in lens motor, so it will only work with the latest DX lenses. This means when you compare lens selection, a Canon T2i would have like 5-10x as many lenses available to use.
For fun I went to Best Buy the other day to compare:
550D
60D
7D
Just for the hell of it, and because I plan on getting the 550D and wanted to check it out, and make sure it really was a significant upgrade over my 350D. I left with the impression that the 60D and 7D are fucking amazing, but for the price and all features considered, the 550D is a steal if you can get a decent price on a used body. The ergonomics and controls on the 550D seem a decent amount better than the 350D, something I was a little worried about. All things consider, the 550D has a decent weight to it. The 60D feels great but I fear would be a little tiresome holding all day, and the 7D feels amazing, but it certainly is quite heavy.
On the 550D, the things that immediately stick out over the 350D; A bit more comfortable grip with a nice gripy leatherish material instead of the smooth plastic, dedicated ISO button!!!, and of course the wonderful high res LCD, which is great for image playback and live view - really a big improvement when trying to manual focus over using the viewfinder. The seemingly instant autofocus was impressive as well, not sure how much this has to do with the body, but it was only the 18-55mm kit lens attached.
I also checked out all of the mirrorless cameras, the Nex, Lumix, Oly, and Samsung, and came away decidedly unimpressed by all of them. They are all too large to really be considered a compact camera, and the controls and interface on them all suck too much to seriously replace a proper dSLR. I was thinking about just sticking with my 350D, and picking up a mirrorless kit for more casual shooting, but actually trying these cameras out has really put me off on the entire concept.
I would really love to see one of these super compact SLRs with much better controls and ergonomics. Well, I guess that is sort of the idea with the X100? Oh well, still way out of the price range.
No, the camera is the Canon EOS Digital Rebel T2i/550D, same camera. It can be confusing, but I like to refer to the model number, ie 350D, 400D, 450D, 500D, 550D, because when you start calling them the XT, XTi, XSI, T1i, T2i. It easier to keep track of which is the newer one by following the XXXD number.
Oh and really, after reading reviews and sensor data and all of that stuff, really between a similar Nikon and Canon camera, the biggest deciding factor should be to simply go to a store(like bestbuy or whatever) where you can try them both out, see how they feel in your hands and which one's controls make more sense.
Yeah, I keep a UV filter on my 30mm 1.4, because the front element is fucking huge, and it cost $415 =P. Don't really bother with other lenses. Its really nice to just clean the UV filter if it gets smudged instead of the actual lens. Also I did some tests and didn't notice any difference in quality with/without the filter on.
The 85mm 1.8 will be my next lens purchase I think, but it will be a while before I can afford it. Seems like the perfect portrait lens.
I added a touch of noise here .. (because i can LOL) next time when i have time I will upload image with less pp. It could be just in my head and I can't compare it with any other lens because the only lens I have used was the cheap 50mm but it feels like it gives me so much more resolution ... I dont know how to explain it. It is still the same camera and just 12 megapixels but it feels like I changed the body too not sure if that makes sense.
I can't afford it either but I had to use my friends that were coming back from the states to bring me one because here is like 150$ more for a new one and if I did not get that one I would not have gotten anything . Tuna cans FTW for the next few weeks
Well, that Canon EF 85mm 1.8 lens is known to be just about the sharpest lens you can get, this side of the 50/85mm 1.2, and even then, I dont think there is any real difference between sharpness with those lenses and yours. Just speed, weight, build quality and that fancy red stripe.
Yeah, I keep a UV filter on my 30mm 1.4, because the front element is fucking huge, and it cost $415 =P. Don't really bother with other lenses. Its really nice to just clean the UV filter if it gets smudged instead of the actual lens. Also I did some tests and didn't notice any difference in quality with/without the filter on.
The 85mm 1.8 will be my next lens purchase I think, but it will be a while before I can afford it. Seems like the perfect portrait lens.
I don't use a filter on my 35L, 85 1.8, or ever on any glass. Just saying. I don't pay a lot for nice lenses to shit up the optics with a crappy piece of glass, and I'm not willing to pay for the ones that are nice enough not to degrade the quality (does it really make sense to put a 200 dollar filter on a 400 dollar lens?). The coating on the front of a lens is ultra strong. I clean with my t-shirt and some breath. If I can do that to a 1,200 dollar lens and not worry about a filter, it's silly to do it on one 1/3 that cost.
What I do instead, is make sure I don't drop my expensive equipment.
Yeah, its cool man, I know you hate filters. Its pretty easy to get small scratches and cleaning marks even on good coatings, so I would prefer to avoid cleaning the glass itself often. As someone who buys/sells a lot of stuff on eBay, I'm always thinking resale value. I know some minor cleaning marks aren't likely to affect my photos, but they will affect what I can resell the lens for, so to me this is important.
I'm not trying to be the guy who tells you every lens must have a filter, just that I have one on my 30mm and I've never had a situation where it was a problem. Like I said, I did some tests with and without the filter and couldn't see any noticeable difference, its not like I've taped metal screening over my lens or something.
I realize a UV filter is not going to help if I drop my camera down the stairs, and I too, simply will avoid doing this instead of relying on filters. However, it can prevent minor damage to the glass from excessive cleaning or small bumps. Its also nice to simply leave your lens cap off all day, and not worry about it, as apposed to needing to remember to take off and put back on every time you pick up/put down the camera, this becomes pretty annoying.
The "UV filters wont protect your lens when it gets hit by a truck!" argument is sort of silly. Really, if we're simply being reasonable, a UV filter isn't likely to protect your lens from major damage, and it also isn't likely to have any real effect on the image quality of your photos, so to hear these extreme YES/NO viewpoints to the uv issue, its all just a bit excessive.
However, even though I see some good use with filters, I wouldn't ever pay money for them, as I get enough free with random gear.
How is it easy to get cleaning marks? I've never gotten one. Do you use sandpaper?
I never pass up an excuse to dispel this myth that one needs to buy UV filters. That's great that you get them for free with random gear, but how many other people reading this thread are functioning as a lens-pawn-shop and can say the same? One cheap UV filter per lens is still a chunk of change, and one quality UV filter that doesn't affect the image (much) per lens is the price of another lens.
I too leave my lens cap off all day and don't worry about it, because even with the cap on, I don't let my camera swing into things that could damage it.
So first, yeah, I use WD-40 and a dremmel tool to clean my lenses, I find it works well to really grind off that top layer of debris.
Now seriously, as far as scratches and cleaning marks go, let me break it down like this.
A good majority of lenses that I buy, be it used or new, come with filters. The lenses I buy that do not come with filters are, lets say, 20X(made up number here, as virtually all used lenses I purchase that come with filters attached will never have scratches) more likely to have scratches and or light cleaning marks. Does not having a filter mean your lens is going to get scratched to shit? Of course not, but having a filter certainly means it is much less likely that it will. This is not superstition, but instead actual fact, backed up by loads of experience dealing with hundreds of lenses. To say a filter will never protect your lens better than not having a filter, is simply asinine.
Some really good lens buying advice is this, when looking for used lenses:
A. Lens, with caps, and filter
B. Lens, with caps
C. Lens, with no caps
A is going to give an exponentially higher rate of getting perfect glass as B, B as C.
Now, as far as price, like I said I would never pay extra for a filter, or if I did, certainly not any sizable amount. I am not the only creature capable of doing this however, as a good amount of used and new gear will come with free filters. If you find a lens that does not come with a free filter, keep looking as there is a very good chance you'll be able to find one that does, and very likely for not any extra money, sometimes for less. When I purchased my 30mm 1.4, it came with a filter set, and was by far the cheapest price I could find for the lens. It would have cost me more to buy a lens without a filter, so really, anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and patients can find a lens that comes with a free uv filter.
Honestly, its not hard to give sound, reasonable advice when it comes to uv filters. I mean really, just try it:
UV Filter advice.
A. Do not pay(much) for UV filters, you can often get them free with new or used equipment.
B. UV filters may degrade image quality, so it is best to test them out and only use them if you are comfortable with the end result.
C. UV filters will always protect your lens better than not having a UV filter.
D. UV filters may be more prone to flare, so just as you would use a lens hood in certain situations, you may want to take off your uv filter when shooting into a bright light source.
NEVER USE FILTERS THEY RUIN IMAGE QUALITY!
and
ALWAYS USE FILTERS UNLESS YOU WANT TO RUIN YOUR LENS!
UV filters are like condoms, sure it feels great not to use them, but when you knock some girl up, or get the clap, you'll certainly wish you had one on.
Ok, got some time to do a quick test. Here i'm testing:
Basic shot
Detail (50% center crop)
Strong backlight
All wide open @ 1.4, and at 8.0
This is with a dirt cheap, terrible, dirty uv filter that has fingerprints and smudges on it, really the worse case scenario. I struggle to see any real actual difference in these shots that would improve or degrade the quality of my shot, with or without the filter. The results are slightly different, and I even prefer the UV filtered shots in some cases. I'm actually surprised to see the glare with the UV filter on is only a small amount higher, but again barely noticeable. I'm sure if I'm shooting directly into the sun, there would be a more noticeable difference(and I may do that later =P) however, I generally avoid shooting directly into the sun, and I think most everyone else does too.
Detail rendition is absolutely the same with or without, you'd have to view these at 800% to spot any differences in resolution. Again let me stress this, this is a "Opteka High Definition UV filter" generic and as cheap as them come, and if you would look through the thing you'd want to throw it in the trash, yet, there is very very little practical difference between using it or not.
Interesting to see this EQ. Thanks for taking time to put this together. Personally I would never sit down and start testing stuff Good to see you were doing this as you had the object back lit which should bring on the errors. I read about this before and I was thinking I could take the UV filter off when I am shooting against the light, but not sure how do I feel about removing it and bringing it back on very often, sometimes I dont really have time to think about all of this. Even after seeing your tests I am still thinking the hood might actually do a better job- does not affect the IQ and it protects it from random hits
well about the cleaning .. yeaa might have to be just as careful as always.
I'm bumping this thread rather than posting a new one as my question is pretty relevant. Also, sweet mercy this thread has a ton of great info in it!
I've been rocking high-end point & shoots for a long while now, but I'm taking a digital photography class to finish out my degree over the summer and I may be able to squeeze a little money out of my financial aid to buy an entry-level DSLR.
A few notes: I'm not a photographer, but I do enjoy photography. I do not plan on making money off of photography. I am a college student with a tight budget. I've always used point and shoots or nice 35mm SLR's.
What do you all think of the Nikon D3100 as an entry-level DSLR? The decent video is also a huge plus in my book.
I'm bumping this thread rather than posting a new one as my question is pretty relevant. Also, sweet mercy this thread has a ton of great info in it!
I've been rocking high-end point & shoots for a long while now, but I'm taking a digital photography class to finish out my degree over the summer and I may be able to squeeze a little money out of my financial aid to buy an entry-level DSLR.
A few notes: I'm not a photographer, but I do enjoy photography. I do not plan on making money off of photography. I am a college student with a tight budget. I've always used point and shoots or nice 35mm SLR's.
What do you all think of the Nikon D3100 as an entry-level DSLR? The decent video is also a huge plus in my book.
Well, what is your budget? The smart advice is to skip the latest features, like video, and get a camera body in the $200-400 range and spend the rest of your budget on a good lens(es). You can easily sell and upgrade to a better body, and keep your lenses, in a year or two if you feel the need for more features. For a start-up dSLR body, video is likely a bit excessive.
Is there a reason you're thinking Nikon?
The Canon 500D or 550D are good alternatives to the Nikon D3100/5100, and IMO Canon has a better lens lineup.The D3100/5100 only have support for the newest Nikon lenses with built in focus motors, which may be an issue trying to find older, yet quality 1st/3rd party lenses. Canon on the other hand, has been making high quality AF lenses with nice built in focus motors since about 1988, so there is a huge collection of old and new Canon lenses that will work on a new Canon dSLR. For this reason I caution going with Nikon, but Nikon makes great cameras, and you'll likely be able to find enough compatible lenses.
Hey there this must be a great camera for you, however we have talked about this before and the one minus that bugs me is the no auto focus motor in the body, which means you are not going to be able to use a lot of the lens that does not have it in them, or you will have to focus manually. How about a used D90 for price near that one.. may be- not to sure for how much does it sell now. If that does not bother you this camera is not bad at all. Try to think a bit in advance and decide what do you like to shoot- more portraits, landscapes,may be sports - then choose your lens and then see if it will work with the body. Let us know if you have any more specific questions
I just bought the Nikon D5100, and I'm quite literally blown away. I was really hesitating between the Canon 550D and the Nikon. The Nikon just felt better in my hands. It's a personal matter though. I did like how much bigger the Canon's Viewfinder was though. But regardless, I'm quite happy with my purchase. Also, according to most of the reviews I've read, the Nikon has slightly more lens choices than the Canon.
I'm actually VERY impressed with the specs on the D5100 as well... for the price, it's pretty damn impressive.
At the end of the day if you are happy with it that is all that matters you could have gotten the "better" camera but then may be you would have been unhappy because you did not listen your inside voice Start showing us some photos now
Whoops, I forgot to mention my budget! It's pretty much $600 USD tops for the camera/basic lens, and hopefully $200 in June or so for a better lens (maybe a 50-200). I didn't really have a reason to go straight for Nikon other than the price looked good on the 3100 for the feature set.
Thanks for the advice guys!
Edit: I forgot to mention that this past semester I've been shooting 35mm black and white on a Canon EOS 650 with manual-focus only, so I've actually come to rather enjoy manual focus.
I just bought the Nikon D5100, and I'm quite literally blown away. I was really hesitating between the Canon 550D and the Nikon. The Nikon just felt better in my hands. It's a personal matter though. I did like how much bigger the Canon's Viewfinder was though. But regardless, I'm quite happy with my purchase. Also, according to most of the reviews I've read, the Nikon has slightly more lens choices than the Canon.
I'm actually VERY impressed with the specs on the D5100 as well... for the price, it's pretty damn impressive.
If you count total Nikon lenses that may be true, however; many Nikon AF lenses will not work on the low end Nikon bodies, so even if Nikon has 10% total more lenses than Canon, if you can't use 70% of them on your 3100/5100, its sort of a moot point. =P
Whoops, I forgot to mention my budget! It's pretty much $600 USD tops for the camera/basic lens, and hopefully $200 in June or so for a better lens (maybe a 50-200). I didn't really have a reason to go straight for Nikon other than the price looked good on the 3100 for the feature set.
Thanks for the advice guys!
Edit: I forgot to mention that this past semester I've been shooting 35mm black and white on a Canon EOS 650 with manual-focus only, so I've actually come to rather enjoy manual focus.
Honestly with that budget, I would try to find a $200-400 used body, a 50mm 1.8 lens or 35mm 1.8/2.0(Nikon/Canon), and a 28mm 2.8 or something now or a little later. I would probably get the 35mm, or the 50mm and 28mm(later). The better quality lenses there would provide you with much better tools, the 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses for either system are generally worthless, unless you happen to get them for cheap as hell, and use them in addition to some solid fast primes. The kit zooms have uses, but certainly not as your primary lenses.
I started with a dirt cheap Canon 350D body, and only now that I have a good selection of lenses am I in the market to upgrade to a body with more features. Buying a camera body with all the latest features but using shitty lenses on it isn't ever a good idea.
As far as enjoying manual focus goes, I get what you're saying, but with the small and Dim viewfinders of modern consumer digital SLRs, trust me, you will not enjoy it anywhere near as much. An OM-1 feels about 10x better manually focusing than a consumer crop dSLR. Modern AF lenses simply are not really designed to be used as AF lenses, so most cheap lenses will really lack in that area(poor focus feel, short focus throw, etc).
Also, it would be better to simply have the option of manual focus(which every Canon lens offers) than be forced to use it, which some Nikon+lens combinations will require.
Nikon is still digging itself out from the poor choice to go with in-body focus motors back in the 80's and 90's, and only recently putting those focus motors into thier newest lenses.
At the end of the day, I would suggest going to best buy or something, and picking up a Canon T2i(550D) and a 3100, and seeing how they feel. Feel is pretty important, and Nikon bodies tend to have a little more bulk, that as a Canon user I am a bit jealous of.
Echoing the older nicer body with prime lenses. You think you want a kit lens zoom and a new dslr with googads and beebops, but if you are interested in actual photography, you're better served with a XXd canon and some primes.
Great idea about checking out some local stores to see how they feel, I may do that some this week. If you guys were to pick a body in the $500 range (new or used), what would be your picks?
I was tempted to say that the googads and beebops are pretty important to me, but in the end I could just get an HD video camera down the road. I guess if I'm throwing this kind of money into a camera I should probably get one that primarily takes good pictures.
May be Canon 40d but it depends again what do you want to shoot with it. for that price I dont really see many options. Perhaps Nikon d80 is near that price.
Nikon D80(you can get a body for $350-450 used)
Canon 40D($450-500)
Nikon D3100($450-500)
Canon T1i, this actually has 720P video($500-550 used)
Canon T2i($550-650)
These are eBay prices for used body only setups.
The 40D is going to offer better ergonomics, controls, faster shutter speeds, and weight than the T1i/T2i, but both will offer better low light performance, better high resolution screen, and more features like video etc.
I think the 40D and the D80 are about on par.
Instead of buying an HD video camera down the line, the easiest thing will be, buy a $4-500 body today, wait a year or two, sell it for $300, and then pick up a Canon 60D or Nikon D90 down the line when the prices are down to reasonable levels.
If you really want it all, right now, I would say just find a used 550D, as a lot of people really seem to like this camera, I know I know, it isn't a semi-pro XXD body, but that doesn't mean its shit! =P
Try to remember that you can easily sell your camera body(on eBay or even craigslist) and recoup a decent portion of the cost as long as its in good condition. So do not think of the body as something you're going to have for 10 years. When you put it this way, I would also consider getting a Canon 20D, and spend the extra $2-300 you save on another lens or two. For someone just starting out with a DSLR, the 20D is no slouch. However, I would personally recommend getting something with liveview, which all of the above cameras have.
The Nikon D3100 can film in HD. Great camera for the price. You can get a D3100 + lens for the price of the canon 550d T2i as well. All depends on what you want, really.
Yeah, and honestly, the 550D and the D3100 have better sensors than the 40D, so.... It really comes down to what feels comfortable in your hands, and if you can deal with the worse(but again, perfectly usable) controls of the lower end bodies.
This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:
35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).
On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400
Virtually every lens you would need for 99% of standard photography, excluding ultra-wide and long telephotos.
When we start talking sharp, fast primes that you can use on a consumer body, Canon absolutely murders Nikon(and everyone else), because they've kept the same lens spec for over 20 years. The higher cost of a Canon body is completely absolutely definitely positively worth it, over a bottom line Nikon body, because of the available lenses.
As a Canon user, I pine for Pentax's excellent low ISO and dynamic range, Sony's in body stabilization, and Nikon's ergonomics on lower end bodies, however; the last thing I will ever pine for is glass with a Canon system. Nikon is equivalent at best(on semi-pro bodies and up) and just totally out classed on consumer bodies. At the end of the day, your lenses are absolutely the most important part of your camera.
As a Canon user, I pine for Pentax's excellent low ISO and dynamic range, Sony's in body stabilization, and Nikon's ergonomics on lower end bodies, however; the last thing I will ever pine for is glass with a Canon system. Nikon is equivalent at best(on semi-pro bodies and up) and just totally out classed on consumer bodies. At the end of the day, your lenses are absolutely the most important part of your camera.
Sony's in body IS I'll give you, but while the K5 is great, it doesn't really destroy canon's equivalent priced offerings, and it's really only because it's using the latest sensor, Canon's next round of bodies using their new sensors will again catch up or even surpass. The weather sealing of the Pentax stuff is envy worthy, but they have a shitty lens line up for crop bodies if you like fast primes.
Yeah really, everything there I mention that I "Pine" for is pretty minor. I'll go even further here, Pentax's lens lineup sucks, PERIOD. =P
Really to me, when I rate available lenses per system it goes:
1. Canon
2. Sony/Minolta, this will seem like crazy talk to some, but the cheap as shit prices you can get on Minolta Maxxum lenses is really a gold mine. I mean you can get a 50mm 1.4 Maxxum for like $175, a 28mm 2.8 for $125, 135mm 2.8 for under $300, etc. As well as a really good used third party market, where the same lenses sell for other mounts at 50-100% more.
3. Nikon
4. Pentax
Note: I'm talking lenses for entry level bodies here, and budget friendly lenses. When we start talking "best lens for any money" its totally different, but then you're thinking about Leica or Hasselblad gear anyway, not Nikon/Canon. =P
I've been polling friends, freelance photographers, amateurs and photography professors about entry level DSLRs for the last week. What I've found is that opinions are evenly divided right down the middle in the Canon vs. Nikon argument, haha.
After some careful consideration, I'm leaving towards the Nikon 3100 again. A friend of mine has a number of low-cost Nikon lenses that he enjoys using despite having more expensive ones now, so I'm more comfortable knowing that a $250 lens won't be worthless.
Let me say it again, noooooo primes for the low end nikon other than 35mm 18, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8 available under like $500!
This is hugeeeee. It basically means you're stuck with only "normal" lenses, and slow crappy zoom lenses.
I mean, this isn't like an opinion here, I'm not saying "Oh I prefer canon because the way it feels" literally, the lens selection for Nikon on these low end bodies is *trash*. This isn't even a subjective thing, just a fact.
So asking a freelance photographer if he likes Nikon, knowing full well he'd never touch a low end Nikon body, is sort of a useless endeavor. Sure, he likes his $2000 Nikon body just fine. =P But that is moot.
If you really need to go Nikon, do yourself a favor and spend $350-400 on a used D80 body, or $600-650 on D90 body.
Not everyone has the money to have a bunch of lenses though, EQ. I hesitated between the Canon 550d, and the Nikon D5100. Ultimately went with the D5100 because it felt better in my hands, and the stock lens was better as well. Once I do decide to upgrade, I know I'm going to invest in something great, because the D5100 is an incredible body for the price.
I understand your opinion, and you're clearly correct. Canon does have more Lower-cost lenses available. But it's like I said, when I do upgrade for new lenses, I'll be putting a bit more money than that into a new one, so it's a moot point. Once you get over the 400$ range, I'm pretty sure it narrows down to personal preference.
Not many people like go start of with used either! I personally don't mind at all, but some people prefer to have something right out of the box.
Well thats the whole thing, if you're a Nikon user, you've gotta pay like $800 or more on one zoom lens to get the quality of a couple cheap prime lenses, and even then many aren't compatible with these bodies. So, if you dont have the money for good lenses, a low end Nikon body is a bad idea, as like I keep saying, there is a very poor selection of reasonable priced, fast sharp prime lenses for low end Nikon.
I'm not saying that with the low end Nikon bodies, you cant find EXPENSIVE lenses, thats sort of the opposite.
I have nothing against Nikon, just the few cheap bodies that do not have focus motors.
Look at it this way, here are some standard, high quality Nikon zooms, fast 2.8:
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 $1000-1500
Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 $1500-2000
Now, when you look at nikon primes on low end, all you can get is 35mm and 50mm. On a low end body, you simply can not replace these lenses with primes.
So lets look at canon, you can get these fast normal zooms(these are also significantly cheaper than Nikon, keke):
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 $850-1250
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 $1000-1500
OR, if we take the magic number of $1250, we can replace these lenses with some super sharp, and fast primes. When you break it all down, cheaping out on a low end Nikon over a low end Canon, or a higher end Nikon, will cost you in lenses, it just doesn't make sense any way you cut it.
Grand total $1000.
You could even get the 50mm 1.4 here instead of the 1.8 and still be about the same cost as a quality zoom, so, with Canon you just have much, much better options, regardless of price.
If all you want is a low end body, and a 18-55mm kit lens, then... None of this matters, brand doesn't matter, its not even remotely worth discussing, but if you want anything more than that, serious consideration must be made.
If you just want one really nice general purpose zoom, and hate the idea of primes, well then maybe a low end Nikon body is moot. But even in this case, for your money, you're better off going Canon. To the tune of about $500, or the cost difference between a D3100 and Canon 60D. =P
Replies
I get mine Sunday.
I heard they just started production back up after all the terrible shit that happened in japan, did you have to pay an arm and a leg to get one?
already planning to. x100 vs 5d with 35mmL and with 35mm f/2 lenses. The big thing that hasn't been tested yet is dynamic range. I want to take a very contrasty scene with both at ISO 200, then both at ISO 1600, and see how much highlight and shadow headroom exists. The 5D has delightful dynamic range, and a very flat falloff, 1600 is only 3 stops less than 100, whereas most cameras lose up to half or more the dynamic range from min to max.
Nope. It's quite a story though!
1. User posts that he is considering buying an X100 from his local shop or a GH2
2. I PM him asking which shop has them in stock.
3. He answers the store's name in New Zealand (Paul's Camera)
4. I email Paul's, asking if they have any unclaimed ones.
5. They tell me they have 10 coming in, with only 4 reserved, they can easily hold one.
6. They email me the next morning that it went down to only 5 they were getting, only one free.
7. I shove my CC as hard as I can into my cat-5 cable to get the money to them so that 5th one is mine.
8. They don't ship internationally so it goes to my friend at Weta, who remails it to an address in San Francisco.
9. Said address is that of the boyfriend of an Icelandic friend, she is visiting him.
10. She is bringing it back in her luggage so I don't have to pay the 27% VAT on electronics.
11. I shower her with cookies and other baked goods in thanks.
With the shipping reimbursement to my friend, it actually came out to exactly 1,200 USD total. But an 8 gb UHS-I card was 130 USD here when it's like 40 bux in the US.
Quicky: http://www.x100forum.com/index.php?/topic/447-5d-vs-x100-dynamic-range/
http://myx100year.blogspot.com/2011/04/few-more.html
I just started looking into getting a new DSLR. I'm pretty serious about it, so I want to make the most informed decision possible!
I was looking at the Nikon D3100, D5100, or the Canon T2i. Now, the D5100 is sorta just out of my price range, but if it's really worth those extra dollars, I'll find the means to get it. The Canon T2i as well as the Nikon D3100 are more within my price range.
Not quite sure what to get though!
For fun I went to Best Buy the other day to compare:
550D
60D
7D
Just for the hell of it, and because I plan on getting the 550D and wanted to check it out, and make sure it really was a significant upgrade over my 350D. I left with the impression that the 60D and 7D are fucking amazing, but for the price and all features considered, the 550D is a steal if you can get a decent price on a used body. The ergonomics and controls on the 550D seem a decent amount better than the 350D, something I was a little worried about. All things consider, the 550D has a decent weight to it. The 60D feels great but I fear would be a little tiresome holding all day, and the 7D feels amazing, but it certainly is quite heavy.
On the 550D, the things that immediately stick out over the 350D; A bit more comfortable grip with a nice gripy leatherish material instead of the smooth plastic, dedicated ISO button!!!, and of course the wonderful high res LCD, which is great for image playback and live view - really a big improvement when trying to manual focus over using the viewfinder. The seemingly instant autofocus was impressive as well, not sure how much this has to do with the body, but it was only the 18-55mm kit lens attached.
I also checked out all of the mirrorless cameras, the Nex, Lumix, Oly, and Samsung, and came away decidedly unimpressed by all of them. They are all too large to really be considered a compact camera, and the controls and interface on them all suck too much to seriously replace a proper dSLR. I was thinking about just sticking with my 350D, and picking up a mirrorless kit for more casual shooting, but actually trying these cameras out has really put me off on the entire concept.
I would really love to see one of these super compact SLRs with much better controls and ergonomics. Well, I guess that is sort of the idea with the X100? Oh well, still way out of the price range.
Thanks for the well thought-out response!
Oh and really, after reading reviews and sensor data and all of that stuff, really between a similar Nikon and Canon camera, the biggest deciding factor should be to simply go to a store(like bestbuy or whatever) where you can try them both out, see how they feel in your hands and which one's controls make more sense.
The 85mm 1.8 will be my next lens purchase I think, but it will be a while before I can afford it. Seems like the perfect portrait lens.
I can't afford it either but I had to use my friends that were coming back from the states to bring me one because here is like 150$ more for a new one and if I did not get that one I would not have gotten anything . Tuna cans FTW for the next few weeks
I don't use a filter on my 35L, 85 1.8, or ever on any glass. Just saying. I don't pay a lot for nice lenses to shit up the optics with a crappy piece of glass, and I'm not willing to pay for the ones that are nice enough not to degrade the quality (does it really make sense to put a 200 dollar filter on a 400 dollar lens?). The coating on the front of a lens is ultra strong. I clean with my t-shirt and some breath. If I can do that to a 1,200 dollar lens and not worry about a filter, it's silly to do it on one 1/3 that cost.
What I do instead, is make sure I don't drop my expensive equipment.
I'm not trying to be the guy who tells you every lens must have a filter, just that I have one on my 30mm and I've never had a situation where it was a problem. Like I said, I did some tests with and without the filter and couldn't see any noticeable difference, its not like I've taped metal screening over my lens or something.
I realize a UV filter is not going to help if I drop my camera down the stairs, and I too, simply will avoid doing this instead of relying on filters. However, it can prevent minor damage to the glass from excessive cleaning or small bumps. Its also nice to simply leave your lens cap off all day, and not worry about it, as apposed to needing to remember to take off and put back on every time you pick up/put down the camera, this becomes pretty annoying.
The "UV filters wont protect your lens when it gets hit by a truck!" argument is sort of silly. Really, if we're simply being reasonable, a UV filter isn't likely to protect your lens from major damage, and it also isn't likely to have any real effect on the image quality of your photos, so to hear these extreme YES/NO viewpoints to the uv issue, its all just a bit excessive.
However, even though I see some good use with filters, I wouldn't ever pay money for them, as I get enough free with random gear.
I never pass up an excuse to dispel this myth that one needs to buy UV filters. That's great that you get them for free with random gear, but how many other people reading this thread are functioning as a lens-pawn-shop and can say the same? One cheap UV filter per lens is still a chunk of change, and one quality UV filter that doesn't affect the image (much) per lens is the price of another lens.
I too leave my lens cap off all day and don't worry about it, because even with the cap on, I don't let my camera swing into things that could damage it.
Now seriously, as far as scratches and cleaning marks go, let me break it down like this.
A good majority of lenses that I buy, be it used or new, come with filters. The lenses I buy that do not come with filters are, lets say, 20X(made up number here, as virtually all used lenses I purchase that come with filters attached will never have scratches) more likely to have scratches and or light cleaning marks. Does not having a filter mean your lens is going to get scratched to shit? Of course not, but having a filter certainly means it is much less likely that it will. This is not superstition, but instead actual fact, backed up by loads of experience dealing with hundreds of lenses. To say a filter will never protect your lens better than not having a filter, is simply asinine.
Some really good lens buying advice is this, when looking for used lenses:
A. Lens, with caps, and filter
B. Lens, with caps
C. Lens, with no caps
A is going to give an exponentially higher rate of getting perfect glass as B, B as C.
Now, as far as price, like I said I would never pay extra for a filter, or if I did, certainly not any sizable amount. I am not the only creature capable of doing this however, as a good amount of used and new gear will come with free filters. If you find a lens that does not come with a free filter, keep looking as there is a very good chance you'll be able to find one that does, and very likely for not any extra money, sometimes for less. When I purchased my 30mm 1.4, it came with a filter set, and was by far the cheapest price I could find for the lens. It would have cost me more to buy a lens without a filter, so really, anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and patients can find a lens that comes with a free uv filter.
Honestly, its not hard to give sound, reasonable advice when it comes to uv filters. I mean really, just try it:
UV Filter advice.
A. Do not pay(much) for UV filters, you can often get them free with new or used equipment.
B. UV filters may degrade image quality, so it is best to test them out and only use them if you are comfortable with the end result.
C. UV filters will always protect your lens better than not having a UV filter.
D. UV filters may be more prone to flare, so just as you would use a lens hood in certain situations, you may want to take off your uv filter when shooting into a bright light source.
NEVER USE FILTERS THEY RUIN IMAGE QUALITY!
and
ALWAYS USE FILTERS UNLESS YOU WANT TO RUIN YOUR LENS!
Are both equally terribly pieces of advice.
Basic shot
Detail (50% center crop)
Strong backlight
All wide open @ 1.4, and at 8.0
This is with a dirt cheap, terrible, dirty uv filter that has fingerprints and smudges on it, really the worse case scenario. I struggle to see any real actual difference in these shots that would improve or degrade the quality of my shot, with or without the filter. The results are slightly different, and I even prefer the UV filtered shots in some cases. I'm actually surprised to see the glare with the UV filter on is only a small amount higher, but again barely noticeable. I'm sure if I'm shooting directly into the sun, there would be a more noticeable difference(and I may do that later =P) however, I generally avoid shooting directly into the sun, and I think most everyone else does too.
Detail rendition is absolutely the same with or without, you'd have to view these at 800% to spot any differences in resolution. Again let me stress this, this is a "Opteka High Definition UV filter" generic and as cheap as them come, and if you would look through the thing you'd want to throw it in the trash, yet, there is very very little practical difference between using it or not.
100% crops for the mentally unstable out there:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/uv1.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/499159/uv3.jpg
[Edit] Overcast cloudy day today, will have to try the sunlight test another day.
well about the cleaning .. yeaa might have to be just as careful as always.
I've been rocking high-end point & shoots for a long while now, but I'm taking a digital photography class to finish out my degree over the summer and I may be able to squeeze a little money out of my financial aid to buy an entry-level DSLR.
A few notes: I'm not a photographer, but I do enjoy photography. I do not plan on making money off of photography. I am a college student with a tight budget.
What do you all think of the Nikon D3100 as an entry-level DSLR? The decent video is also a huge plus in my book.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B003ZYF3LO/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1G8WWV833ZIMC&colid=1NXKY03VN760A
Well, what is your budget? The smart advice is to skip the latest features, like video, and get a camera body in the $200-400 range and spend the rest of your budget on a good lens(es). You can easily sell and upgrade to a better body, and keep your lenses, in a year or two if you feel the need for more features. For a start-up dSLR body, video is likely a bit excessive.
Is there a reason you're thinking Nikon?
The Canon 500D or 550D are good alternatives to the Nikon D3100/5100, and IMO Canon has a better lens lineup.The D3100/5100 only have support for the newest Nikon lenses with built in focus motors, which may be an issue trying to find older, yet quality 1st/3rd party lenses. Canon on the other hand, has been making high quality AF lenses with nice built in focus motors since about 1988, so there is a huge collection of old and new Canon lenses that will work on a new Canon dSLR. For this reason I caution going with Nikon, but Nikon makes great cameras, and you'll likely be able to find enough compatible lenses.
I'm actually VERY impressed with the specs on the D5100 as well... for the price, it's pretty damn impressive.
Thanks for the advice guys!
Edit: I forgot to mention that this past semester I've been shooting 35mm black and white on a Canon EOS 650 with manual-focus only, so I've actually come to rather enjoy manual focus.
If you count total Nikon lenses that may be true, however; many Nikon AF lenses will not work on the low end Nikon bodies, so even if Nikon has 10% total more lenses than Canon, if you can't use 70% of them on your 3100/5100, its sort of a moot point. =P
Honestly with that budget, I would try to find a $200-400 used body, a 50mm 1.8 lens or 35mm 1.8/2.0(Nikon/Canon), and a 28mm 2.8 or something now or a little later. I would probably get the 35mm, or the 50mm and 28mm(later). The better quality lenses there would provide you with much better tools, the 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses for either system are generally worthless, unless you happen to get them for cheap as hell, and use them in addition to some solid fast primes. The kit zooms have uses, but certainly not as your primary lenses.
I started with a dirt cheap Canon 350D body, and only now that I have a good selection of lenses am I in the market to upgrade to a body with more features. Buying a camera body with all the latest features but using shitty lenses on it isn't ever a good idea.
As far as enjoying manual focus goes, I get what you're saying, but with the small and Dim viewfinders of modern consumer digital SLRs, trust me, you will not enjoy it anywhere near as much. An OM-1 feels about 10x better manually focusing than a consumer crop dSLR. Modern AF lenses simply are not really designed to be used as AF lenses, so most cheap lenses will really lack in that area(poor focus feel, short focus throw, etc).
Also, it would be better to simply have the option of manual focus(which every Canon lens offers) than be forced to use it, which some Nikon+lens combinations will require.
Nikon is still digging itself out from the poor choice to go with in-body focus motors back in the 80's and 90's, and only recently putting those focus motors into thier newest lenses.
At the end of the day, I would suggest going to best buy or something, and picking up a Canon T2i(550D) and a 3100, and seeing how they feel. Feel is pretty important, and Nikon bodies tend to have a little more bulk, that as a Canon user I am a bit jealous of.
I was tempted to say that the googads and beebops are pretty important to me, but in the end I could just get an HD video camera down the road. I guess if I'm throwing this kind of money into a camera I should probably get one that primarily takes good pictures.
Nikon D80(you can get a body for $350-450 used)
Canon 40D($450-500)
Nikon D3100($450-500)
Canon T1i, this actually has 720P video($500-550 used)
Canon T2i($550-650)
These are eBay prices for used body only setups.
The 40D is going to offer better ergonomics, controls, faster shutter speeds, and weight than the T1i/T2i, but both will offer better low light performance, better high resolution screen, and more features like video etc.
I think the 40D and the D80 are about on par.
Instead of buying an HD video camera down the line, the easiest thing will be, buy a $4-500 body today, wait a year or two, sell it for $300, and then pick up a Canon 60D or Nikon D90 down the line when the prices are down to reasonable levels.
If you really want it all, right now, I would say just find a used 550D, as a lot of people really seem to like this camera, I know I know, it isn't a semi-pro XXD body, but that doesn't mean its shit! =P
Try to remember that you can easily sell your camera body(on eBay or even craigslist) and recoup a decent portion of the cost as long as its in good condition. So do not think of the body as something you're going to have for 10 years. When you put it this way, I would also consider getting a Canon 20D, and spend the extra $2-300 you save on another lens or two. For someone just starting out with a DSLR, the 20D is no slouch. However, I would personally recommend getting something with liveview, which all of the above cameras have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikon_F-mount_lenses_with_integrated_autofocus_motors
This seams like plenty, until we start to look at affordable(less than $400) primes, the list then becomes:
35mm 1.8 DX
50mm 1.4 G
50mm 1.8 G
.... and that is fucking-it. This is pathetic, I would never recommend anyone get a Nikon body that doesn't have a focus motor. These cameras are for noobs who will buy the camera with the kit lens, and never consider another lens(or just get another cheap kit tele zoom).
On the other hand, canon prime lenses under or around $400
20mm 2.8
24mm 2.8
28mm 1.8
28mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
50mm 1.4
50mm 1.8
50mm 2.5 macro
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
135mm 2.8 soft focus
Virtually every lens you would need for 99% of standard photography, excluding ultra-wide and long telephotos.
When we start talking sharp, fast primes that you can use on a consumer body, Canon absolutely murders Nikon(and everyone else), because they've kept the same lens spec for over 20 years. The higher cost of a Canon body is completely absolutely definitely positively worth it, over a bottom line Nikon body, because of the available lenses.
As a Canon user, I pine for Pentax's excellent low ISO and dynamic range, Sony's in body stabilization, and Nikon's ergonomics on lower end bodies, however; the last thing I will ever pine for is glass with a Canon system. Nikon is equivalent at best(on semi-pro bodies and up) and just totally out classed on consumer bodies. At the end of the day, your lenses are absolutely the most important part of your camera.
Sony's in body IS I'll give you, but while the K5 is great, it doesn't really destroy canon's equivalent priced offerings, and it's really only because it's using the latest sensor, Canon's next round of bodies using their new sensors will again catch up or even surpass. The weather sealing of the Pentax stuff is envy worthy, but they have a shitty lens line up for crop bodies if you like fast primes.
Really to me, when I rate available lenses per system it goes:
1. Canon
2. Sony/Minolta, this will seem like crazy talk to some, but the cheap as shit prices you can get on Minolta Maxxum lenses is really a gold mine. I mean you can get a 50mm 1.4 Maxxum for like $175, a 28mm 2.8 for $125, 135mm 2.8 for under $300, etc. As well as a really good used third party market, where the same lenses sell for other mounts at 50-100% more.
3. Nikon
4. Pentax
Note: I'm talking lenses for entry level bodies here, and budget friendly lenses. When we start talking "best lens for any money" its totally different, but then you're thinking about Leica or Hasselblad gear anyway, not Nikon/Canon. =P
After some careful consideration, I'm leaving towards the Nikon 3100 again. A friend of mine has a number of low-cost Nikon lenses that he enjoys using despite having more expensive ones now, so I'm more comfortable knowing that a $250 lens won't be worthless.
This is hugeeeee. It basically means you're stuck with only "normal" lenses, and slow crappy zoom lenses.
I mean, this isn't like an opinion here, I'm not saying "Oh I prefer canon because the way it feels" literally, the lens selection for Nikon on these low end bodies is *trash*. This isn't even a subjective thing, just a fact.
So asking a freelance photographer if he likes Nikon, knowing full well he'd never touch a low end Nikon body, is sort of a useless endeavor. Sure, he likes his $2000 Nikon body just fine. =P But that is moot.
If you really need to go Nikon, do yourself a favor and spend $350-400 on a used D80 body, or $600-650 on D90 body.
I understand your opinion, and you're clearly correct. Canon does have more Lower-cost lenses available. But it's like I said, when I do upgrade for new lenses, I'll be putting a bit more money than that into a new one, so it's a moot point. Once you get over the 400$ range, I'm pretty sure it narrows down to personal preference.
Not many people like go start of with used either! I personally don't mind at all, but some people prefer to have something right out of the box.
I'm not saying that with the low end Nikon bodies, you cant find EXPENSIVE lenses, thats sort of the opposite.
I have nothing against Nikon, just the few cheap bodies that do not have focus motors.
Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 $1000-1500
Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 $1500-2000
Now, when you look at nikon primes on low end, all you can get is 35mm and 50mm. On a low end body, you simply can not replace these lenses with primes.
So lets look at canon, you can get these fast normal zooms(these are also significantly cheaper than Nikon, keke):
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 $850-1250
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 $1000-1500
OR, if we take the magic number of $1250, we can replace these lenses with some super sharp, and fast primes. When you break it all down, cheaping out on a low end Nikon over a low end Canon, or a higher end Nikon, will cost you in lenses, it just doesn't make sense any way you cut it.
24mm 2.8 $325
35mm 2.0 $225
50mm 1.8 $125
85mm 1.8 $325
Grand total $1000.
You could even get the 50mm 1.4 here instead of the 1.8 and still be about the same cost as a quality zoom, so, with Canon you just have much, much better options, regardless of price.
If all you want is a low end body, and a 18-55mm kit lens, then... None of this matters, brand doesn't matter, its not even remotely worth discussing, but if you want anything more than that, serious consideration must be made.
If you just want one really nice general purpose zoom, and hate the idea of primes, well then maybe a low end Nikon body is moot. But even in this case, for your money, you're better off going Canon. To the tune of about $500, or the cost difference between a D3100 and Canon 60D. =P