Best DSLR Under $1500 (With Lens) For Image Quality Alone?
Jul 25, 2007 at 4:32 PM Post #46 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
As for technique, believe it or not, I've found out one trick so far: basically every perspective except just standing upright and holding the camera makes a better photo.


For landscapes, I do most of my shooting standing up
tongue.gif
icon10.gif
But good point that you should move around in all directions to find the "best" composition.

Also, it should be clarified that bumping up ISO is not the first thing you should do to prevent motion blur. Motion blur is a result from a slow shutter speed....bump up your shutter speed to something over 125 (even faster if its a really fast moving object your photographing). Usually, high ISO is needed for low light situations where you need a faster shutter speed. If you're looking for the best detail in a nighttime shot, then a slower shutter speed with a tripod is optimum.

The problem with filters is that some people forget that they're on and get confused if they get flare ups....since I don't photograph in sandstorms, I don't worry about scratching my lens (my lens cap stays on the lens when I'm not shooting). I only use a filter when it's called for (UV and CPL for landscapes). Yes, I'm a lens nudist and I feel free
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 5:07 PM Post #48 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's actually the exact opposite. Invest in good glass because you can/will always upgrade the body.


X2.

Canon 30d with Tamron 17-50 2.8 perhaps?? Body is great and that lens is absolutely stunning. Saw a test with that lens compared to the 17-55 2,8 Nikon (wich costs like 1649 euros here) and they were actually in the same league.
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM Post #49 of 95
I too am shopping for my first D-SLR having only shot P-n-S before now, and it is SO SO SO overwhelming to try and dive into all the different cameras and lenses while trying to make the best purchase with your $1000.

I'm not rich, so I have to be careful what I get!

I'm wanting to shoot mostly low-light and night shots. If you want to see the kind of shots I take now, look here (mostly Lomo though): http://flickr.com/photos/c12
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 7:12 PM Post #50 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For landscapes, I do most of my shooting standing up
tongue.gif
icon10.gif
But good point that you should move around in all directions to find the "best" composition.

Also, it should be clarified that bumping up ISO is not the first thing you should do to prevent motion blur. Motion blur is a result from a slow shutter speed....bump up your shutter speed to something over 125 (even faster if its a really fast moving object your photographing). Usually, high ISO is needed for low light situations where you need a faster shutter speed. If you're looking for the best detail in a nighttime shot, then a slower shutter speed with a tripod is optimum.

The problem with filters is that some people forget that they're on and get confused if they get flare ups....since I don't photograph in sandstorms, I don't worry about scratching my lens (my lens cap stays on the lens when I'm not shooting). I only use a filter when it's called for (UV and CPL for landscapes). Yes, I'm a lens nudist and I feel free
biggrin.gif



Well, outdoor photography is another entire world. I'm talking about indoor (sorry, should have clarified. I forgot that most people other than myself actually go outside
wink.gif
) when you've already slammed your aperture all the way open to let the limited lighting you have in, and simply chopping the shutter time from 1/60th to 1/120th will leave you with a black square (ok, maybe not that bad). You need a way to compensate, and my point is that DSLR's have excellent high ISO performance compared to P&S's, especially an older Canon Powershot (not that I'm knocking powershots, having owned a couple myself).

What is a flare-up and what causes it? I've had my D50 for about half a year now and it's only in the past month or so that I've used a UV lens and haven't noticed any problems so far. Then again, I haven't taken any really bright outdoor shots with it yet (though I will on vacation in a week).
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM Post #51 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What is a flare-up and what causes it? I've had my D50 for about half a year now and it's only in the past month or so that I've used a UV lens and haven't noticed any problems so far. Then again, I haven't taken any really bright outdoor shots with it yet (though I will on vacation in a week).


Yeah, the thing that really impressed me about my 5D was its ISO quality: 1600 ISO on it is so much nicer then 1600 ISO film. There's no comparison with P&S, since P&S cameras have small sensors (and literally can't capture as much light).

As for flare up, well you might not have encountered it yet since you're not taking photos of bright sunsets
wink.gif
icon10.gif
A flare up is when stray light enters the lens and gets exposed (you actually see a beam or spot of light in your photo). dSLRs are more prone to flare ups over their film SLR counterparts, because the digital sensor can actually reflect light towards the lens and then reflect back. I don't have a UV filter on because I'm one of those who believes in keeping the lens as sharp as possible. But the one situation where almost everyone agrees a lens should be filterless is if you're taking photos of a sunset (only a lens hood is used).
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 9:14 PM Post #53 of 95
I thought the 30D has better AF than 20D.
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 9:18 PM Post #54 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChemist /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Don't bother with the 30D unless you NEED spot metering or the larger buffer for continuous fire. I'm fairly certain the 20D is the same in all other respects.


That's what I've been reading; although based on everyone's recommendations it seems as though I'll be buying a Digital Rebel XT and a nice Canon wide angle lens, and maybe upgrade the body later on.
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM Post #55 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's what I've been reading; although based on everyone's recommendations it seems as though I'll be buying a Digital Rebel XT and a nice Canon wide angle lens, and maybe upgrade the body later on.


good choice! if you happen to stumble upon a cheap used 20D though maybe you should look into that. have you handled the XT/XTi? do you find it small? if you do, that's another good reason to go for the 20D if you can find one.

but anyway, the XT/17-55 f/2.8 IS seems to me to be a very good combination. with f/2.8 and IS it is very capable in low light situations, and it's also super sharp. here are just a couple test shots that i took when i received my lens the other day: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpo...&postcount=316
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 9:56 PM Post #56 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
As for technique, believe it or not, I've found out one trick so far: basically every perspective except just standing upright and holding the camera makes a better photo.


That's why I'm planning to buy the E330 with the tilting LCD screen. I found that waist level shooting works best for me, personally. Not to mention that it fosters congrousness in the street, making for better street photography, IMO. I believe that less subject/camera interaction results to much more natural images.
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 10:02 PM Post #57 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh0eBoX /img/forum/go_quote.gif
good choice! if you happen to stumble upon a cheap used 20D though maybe you should look into that.


Why go used when you can still go new?

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNEOS20D

I've dealt with these people before.....they're trust worthy.
 
Jul 25, 2007 at 10:11 PM Post #58 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why go used when you can still go new?

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNEOS20D

I've dealt with these people before.....they're trust worthy.


haha yeah buydig is awesome... that's where i bought my 17-55

i suggested buy used because with the lens i suggested him, if he were to buy new he would go over his budget of $1500

but if he does want to go new he could always downgrade the lens... there's still many suitable options for great IQ at a lower price point
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 26, 2007 at 9:30 AM Post #59 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why go used when you can still go new?

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNEOS20D

I've dealt with these people before.....they're trust worthy.


At this price point, I would just get a refurbished 30D. Resale value is higher on the newer item also. I would just get a used 20D.
 
Jul 26, 2007 at 10:57 AM Post #60 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's actually the exact opposite. Invest in good glass because you can/will always upgrade the body.



x3 (at least). As the saying goes, "Lenses are forever, but bodies come and go". Nowhere is this more true than in digital. Improvements in sensor technology, and the availability of higher end bodies with larger sensors, make glass your best investment.

I'd look for a used 20D, and get a 17-55/2.8 EF-S. Probably the best bang for the buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top