Help me find a DSLR and glass(mainly photography)

Belzebub

Belzebub

Member
HI

Im looking for a DSLR or hybrid, mainly for taking photos but i want the opportunity to film . I take pictures of sports, landscape, some night photo(i live in Northern Norway so i often get the chance to take pictures of northern lights/aurora borealis.) little bit of macro and just random stuff. I currently have a Canon 350d kit lens, some sort of canon 50-200mm(?) lens and an ultra cheap tripod. I have a bit of experience with the 350d but i feel restricted by the lack of quality, small viewfinder etc.. My budget is about-800$, any less would be a bonus.
 
You will have to be more specific about 'lack of quality', but usually it is a matter of technique and/or the lens. An easy and cheap way to increase the IQ of your current setup is to get a nice prime lens.

Nevertheless, I understand the frustration of the small viewfinder. Here is a list of (relative) viewfinder sizes for different bodies:

Canon 350D - 0.47x

Canon 60D - 0.56x

Nikon D90 - 0.59x

Nikon D7000 - 0.63x

Canon 7D - 0.63x

Canon 5D - 0.71x

Here are some of those placed on a figure:

vfcompOthers.jpg
 
A canon 30-50d would be a great option. They are a huge step up from the rebel line in terms of performance and don't cost that much used. They don't have video, but as soon as you add that to a DSLR you either sacrifice photo specs or end up spending a lot more. For video, I'd look into a 60d or 7d, the 7d is basically a 50d with video, but again, it's a lot more money. They are still crop sensors so you can use the lenses you have, but I would look into upgrading. The tamron 17-50 F2.8 non-vc is a great option, I believe it's around $300-400 depending on where you buy. I'd also look into getting a prime or two, you can adapt old manual nikon/pentax/olympus lenses and good ones can be had for nothing. You sacrifice auto-focus but the IQ is really good for the price. As for a tripod, I'd save your money till you can afford a nice head/legs setup, it's not wort investing in a sub par one, they break, were as good ones can last a long time, easily making up the cost. You could probably get a 40d, tamron, and one or two primes for under $1000.
 
Quick Ebay search found me a 40D for 280 and a 50mm 1.8 II for 89$

You could also substitute that with the 30D I found for 230$, but the 40D is way better.
 
Well, most people here swear by Canon, but you *could* get a used Nikon D7000 for around $800 (I paid $950 new). This will get you:

  • a 35% larger viewfinder than your 350D (as opposed to 20% larger were you to get a Canon 40D/50D/60D)
  • compatibility with all vintage Nikon glass, including autofocus and metering, it even reads out the aperture dial on old lenses.
  • the option to shoot video (and very decent at that)
Selling your current Canon kit would get you some (but not much) money to buy a couple of prime lenses to get you started. Prime lenses is where the real increase in image quality will come from. A 35mm for general purpose and a 85mm for tele/sports will get you a long way.
 
This is a good idea.

The 40D is the way to go at the moment. It's only a little more than the 30D, but a much better cam, and a LOT less than the 50D, which isn't all that much better.

Get a 40D and 50mm f/1.8 and you'll have an AWESOME set up for less than 400$.
 
Someone suggested a 30D-50D and said they'd be a huge step up in IQ, however its a large step up from the rebel series in ergonomics as well. The scroll wheel on the back will make you never want to shoot a rebel again, guaranteed.

As far as the D7000 goes: I shot my friends D7000 underwater in the Philippines and I really liked it, however it had no scroll wheel on the back just like the rebel series; furthermore when you zoomed in on the screen you'd have to zoom out and change the photo whereas with the canon screen you can stay zoomed in at a 100% crop and scroll through the photos to compare sharpness more easily.

I personally own a 50D and love the layout of the camera and how it feels, however even with the 50D I notice the crop sensor struggling to save shadows, they're usually noisy.

Get a 50D, no less. Consider a 5D classic as well.

My 2 cents.
 
Of course the D7000 has a scroll wheel on the back, and you use exactly this scroll wheel to flip between photos while maintaining the zoom (i.e. at 100% crop).
 
Huge issue with the D7000 though is the sensor... It is apparently very prone to getting drops of oil splashed on it very easily whenever the Shutter actuates... Thus, leaving you with this kinda photo.

6984881602_c9aeece751_k.jpg


7158137836_f3d47f2e3a_b.jpg


This could happen with almost any camera, sure... but the D7k has made a lot of people pretty pissed off about having to clean their sensors all the time.
 
I would say, right now, for someone looking to get a really nice midrange camera for a decent price, the best 3 you'll find are the Nikon D80, Canon 40D, and the Pentax K10D - all from 5-6 years ago.

Here's the comparison.

-D40 has the fastest continuous burst. Pentax and Nikon only hit 3 shots a second. Canon pounds out 6.5 per second, which is good enough for sports.

-Pentax has weather sealing (think snow).

-All 3 have pretty much the same resolution at 10 to 10.2 mpx

-All 3 have about the same iso range from 100-1600 (though Canon and Nikon go to a pretty unusable 3200 with a boost) Noise performance from all 3 is roughly the same.

-Pentax has the best autofocus of the 3, and has IS built into the body.

-40D has the biggest LCD screen.

-K10D and D80 can only do 1/4k shutter speed. Canon goes up to 1/8k

-Canon takes CF. Pentax/Nikon take SD.

 
^^ interesting about the oil drops. I haven't experienced nor heard of it, maybe because I bought mine a year after the initial release, so they had time to fix this. Nevertheless something to be careful about when buying a D7000 second hand...
 
I asked the same question on a norwegian photography forum and their advice was to buy a Canon t2i or t3i, with either a tamron 17-50 2.8 or a few primes. Is that a good option?
 
Another great thing to do, and cheap way to get really nice glass is to go Canon FD.

Know that on a crop sensor camera with an adapter, you're going to turn that 50mm into almost a 100mm lens, but 20-30$ for an adapter, and lenses that are all over the place on Ebay for under 20 bucks here and there? why the hell wouldn't you want at least 1 or two old Canon FD's to switch to.

They are well made, are completely manual (which is way better for video, if that's what you're getting into at all) and even though you'll loose some light and FOV with the conversion, they are damn sharp and CHEAP.

I have a 28, a 50 and a 100-200mm from my dad's old Canon AT-1 that I use on my 60D for video (granted the 100-200 is a bit ridiculous to use for video haha).

I also had 3 old manual primes on my Pentax that I just sold, which were really cool because they didn't even need an adapter, and didn't get the additional conversion factor on the focal length that you get with old Canon or Nikon glass to their respective brands.
 
Don't use fd glass, those adapters have an additional glass element to increase the focal plane, significantly decreases image quality . Old Nikon, Pentax, and oly primes are really good.
 
Never had this problem or even heard of it until now and I've shot photos and video for over a year almost daily with my D7000. This site can be so gay over Canon and how awesome they are. Nikon Canon whatever. There both good cameras. I'd go with Nikon for photos though and my D7000 takes video that is extremely underrated by most.
 
Eh what terrible advice.

And old Nikon glass doesn't have any conversion factor on a modern Nikon camera. F-mount is F-mount. Get your facts right.
 
Well, I'm first to admit I'm Nikon retarded as i've really never used shit from Nikon. So sue me... There's still a conversion factor from Canon FD lenses or Pentax, or Zeiss or whatever other glass you may try to slap on...

As for using old glass, is that terrible advice? Shit... for the cost I personally think it's pretty damn worth it for most purposes...
 
Advising old glass is the best advice you can give.

Get anything except for SR, FD, FL or AR mount and you'll be good when shooting Canon.
 
I don't know man. I've seen a lot of good stuff come off of old FD and FL lenses, and having used some myself, they're a slammin deal when it comes to quality for the price...

Sure, having to throw on the extra element with the adapter might raise some eyebrows, and sure, on a crop sensor a 50mm becomes akin to almost a 100mm, but when you can get an adapter and a lens combo for under 50 bucks, and then search craigslist for people selling old glass from their dad's old AE-1 for 5-15 bucks a pop? Why the fuck not man.

Same with Minolta SR lenses. There are some insane deals out there on those lenses.

Comparatively, I have been able to get just as good and sharp of video out of my 50mm FD 1.8 on my 60D as I did with a 50mm K 1.7 on my K-x. there are some slight limitations, but still. I say get an adapter for whatever old lens you can find on the ultra-cheap and give it a go.
 
Legacy glass is a great idea when on a budget. However, FD glass is dirt-cheap for a reason: it doesn't work properly on current bodies. Getting an adapter and shooting full manual can be fun, but can also be hell for someone who just wants to improve his photography and get better photo quality than a Canon Rebel kit. I've also tried adapters that require glass elements: it's shit.

Then, some of the best and affordable legacy glass out there is Nikon, and those lenses work like a charm on a Nikon body with proper legacy support like a D7000. Screw drive auto-focus motor, AI aperture ring connector, full metering on non-CPU lenses (no one forcing you to shoot in M-mode), large viewfinder with focus guiding/confirmation. It's one of the main reasons I paid more for a D7000 to be able to use cheaper, older lenses without compromise.

That said, if you don't want to get into all that, the latest 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes from Canon/Nikon are not *that* expensive either.
 
I'm speaking mostly from a filming perspective... as vintage glass is far easier to use while doing video, as you don't have to change any thing electronically - fiddling with buttons and dials on the body itself, and instead you have just about everything you at your fingertips.

It's also good for really learning how a lens works, and gaining an understanding for photography in general. Sure, it's nice to have that autofocus and whatnot for taking photos with friends and of fun times and whatnot, but if your'e setting up your shot and have time, why not be able to get that lens dialed in manually? It brings a certain satisfaction as well.

As for FD glass, it's cheap and with an adapter it works totally fine if the extra glass element is even halfway good. Is it going to be the sharpest? possibly not, but it definitely leaves a pretty cool 'dreamy' kinda look, and really.. sorta crystaline bokeh. It's a good option if you don't have the dosh to drop on a good set of Nikon AIS lenses from the 80s...

Pentax is also a great option for lenses too - any of them will directly screw into your pentax's k mount. That's the biggest reason I even bought my pentax (that and the ability to use AA's - which is pretty sweet, as you can just have 8 or so charged and ready to go in your bag if your other dies on you)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top