Why do I want a "nice" camera?

[JustinRebbert]

Now that some people have mentioned it, I don't believe I've actually looked through the viewfinder of the D700. D300, D90, D80, 40D, yes, and honestly, I didn't have a problem with the viewfinder image in any of those. Of course, I was in a brightly lit store, so it might not count. Perhaps at this point, if I'm not going to get the D700, as seems to be the case now, I should avoid looking through it, that way, I won't know what I'm missing!

 

[AnandaSim]

Now that some people have mentioned it, I don't believe I've actually
looked through the viewfinder of the D700. D300, D90, D80, 40D, yes,
and honestly, I didn't have a problem with the viewfinder image in
any of those. Of course, I was in a brightly lit store, so it might
not count. Perhaps at this point, if I'm not going to get the D700,

I have not played with the D80 but I briefly looked through the D90 and the D300. Of course, I have played with the D40, Sony A200, 300, 350, Pentax K200D, the Oly E-3, E-30 and my own lower range Olys.

1. The store lighting does not count. It is not the brightness of the scene, it is how bright and large as well as detailed the viewfinder looks.

2. Of course, for that you need a working lens fitted, preferably the same f/no as all the models you are going to look through, you need to set the dioptre adjustment correctly - I can blush that I was making a split last minute decision and went the Oly way because the Sony A200 viewfinder looked blurred. When I was downstairs in the mall in another shop handing over the money, I realised my evaluation error - I had not figured out how to twiddle the dioptre adjustment on the Sony A200. But I'm happy I went the Oly way.

3. You should and must look through the cameras you mention, plus the lower range ones. If you cannot grasp what we are talking about, then like we used to say in hifi, buy the cheapest one that you can't see/hear the difference.

4. There is a big difference between the D300 viewfinder for example and my Oly E-510 viewfinder - I can't focus manual focus lenses easily (even though that's my favourite pasttime) because it is hard to discern the point at which focus is correct. The D300 viewfinder looks like someone put good spectacles on a near sighted fellow or you stepped from looking at your normal size telly to these modern 50 inch HDTV flat panel televisions.

The difference is significant - even though I don't put that facet at such a weight for my personal choice that is overwhelms other facets.

as seems to be the case now, I should avoid looking through it, that
way, I won't know what I'm missing!

Nope. Looking is free. Taking it home is not. Do the free thing.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

 

[Gary Fischman]

Great points - I hadn't considered that. I agree with most everything except this:

Don't buy any other lenses until you really understand.

Don't agree with that fully. Don't fork out thousands of dollars on
expensive lenses yet. Do budget or be aware how much these lenses
will cost one day - could be one month, could be 6 months, could be 1
year later). But if you spot some worthwhile lenses (keepers) that
are not inexpensive and don't fog your brain in choosing, why not?

In my opinion, use of a zoom immediately precludes use of the feet. Being forced to move the camera to change composition is an extremely powerful tool and, IMHO, should be fully understood before going to a zoom, or for that matter, even a telephoto.

--
http://photos.fischman.net/

 

[AnandaSim]

In my opinion, use of a zoom immediately precludes use of the feet.
Being forced to move the camera to change composition is an extremely
powerful tool and, IMHO, should be fully understood before going to a
zoom, or for that matter, even a telephoto.

hehe. You are sooo right. Even experienced or shall we say, veteran shooters (there is a difference), whether you buy a prime or whether you buy a zoom debate is everlasting, even in one person's own head.

One thing that does not go into the debate now, is price. For the primes that I want (I emphasise, I want) the prime is as expensive as a zoom (I emphasise a zoom, not any zoom). With legacy, alien, manual focus lenses, the choice is simple. I want some reliability in sharpness (not a guarantee but all else being equal, an old prime should be sharper than an old zoom). I want cheap. So it's easy for me to choose a prime.

For modern lenses, a zoom is very, very attractive. They make enough volume of those to make them competitive in cost. The sharpness is good, given the advances in computer calculation of optics. And if you are reasonable, not get a 10x zoom, the zooms are fine. Only when you go to a high end request - f/2 or f/2.8 on a 200mm, does the prime appear respectable in cost, weight. However, the two demons go popping in my head - prime vs zoom, prime vs zoom, given the high cost of either.

You are 100% right. Your feet become very lazy when you have a zoom. But that people also don't bend their knees or bend their waist when they shoot. There's a whole different perspective there at 4.4 feet height, old measure.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

 

[bill henry]

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER

 

[G Rash]

While I very much enjoy my 50, 85 and 300mm primes and would like to have a couple more primes, I moved from advanced P&S cameras to DSLR's primarily in order to capture kids' sports (faster AF and better high ISO). For some of the kids' sports I shoot, a zoom is simply better than a prime. While primes certainly have their place, I think the recommendation to only buy a prime is highly dependent on the shooter's subject matter.

--
Good shooting,

GR
North Carolina

 

[JustinRebbert]

You are 100% right. Your feet become very lazy when you have a zoom.
But that people also don't bend their knees or bend their waist when
they shoot. There's a whole different perspective there at 4.4 feet
height, old measure.

This is actually one thing I have already learned, and, say what one will about book learning, I learned it from a book. Actually I think it was two different books, both, I believe, by the same author, whose name I unfortunately forget. One was about composition in general, the other was about photographing your family. From those, I have learned to consider other "points of view", including in particular for kids to get down to their eye level. Don't just stand and aim down. So, this is something I've been doing for some time with my P&S. In fact, I quickly figured out that sitting on my butt, I could brace my elbows to my knees and turn my body into a tripod.

 

[JustinRebbert]

Canon 40D w/ 28-135 IS

Actually, I didn't really make a decision, other than to not make a decision now. A friend had this camera that he doesn't use much now, and he has let me borrow it for awhile. I just felt that there is too much I don't know yet to spend so much money. Do I really need full frame? Do I really need super low light performance? Will the first high-end lens I want be wide or tele? Do I need a tripod right away? Well, I hope to get the answers to these questions and more from playing around with something, and the best part is, I can do it for free, without spending a lot of money on the wrong choice.

 

[Craig Gillette]

Canon 40D w/ 28-135 IS

Actually, I didn't really make a decision, other than to not make a
decision now. A friend had this camera that he doesn't use much now,
and he has let me borrow it for awhile. I just felt that there is too
much I don't know yet to spend so much money.

Probably a good thought.

Do I really need full frame?

As others have pointed out, the full frame cameras add a level of performance at a, for most people, serious added expense. That's a decision that is best based on one's own objectives and interests, that takes some experience to hone.

Do I really need super low light performance?

Many cameras now do pretty well without jumping up to the D700 types, etc. For most users, adding light or using a tripod is a solution.

Will the first high-end lens I want be wide or tele?

Using the 28-135is at a birthday party will tell you right away if you need "wider."

Do I need a tripod right away?

Even an inexpensive but reasonable quality tripod can be an amazing tool for many users. family shots on timer. Evening and morning (really!) sunrise/sunsets, moving water, cityscapes, landscapes, etc.

Well, I hope to get the answers to these questions and more from
playing around with something, and the best part is, I can do it for
free, without spending a lot of money on the wrong choice.
--

 

[dvolk]

What about wide angle?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/denis_volk

 

[JustinRebbert]

Not sure if I understand the question, or even if it's directed at me. Are you rephrasing my own rhetorical ponderings, or are you specifically asking me why I don't have a wide-angle lens?

I do not have a wide-angle lens at this time because I do not even own a DSLR body. I'm not going to buy a lens for a body I don't have; I don't even know which brand of body I'm going to end up with. My friend did not have a wide-angle lens to lend me. And, most importantly, I don't even truly know yet whether or not I actually need anything wider than what this zoom can do, 28mm (x1.6, of course). This is one reason why I'm "trying before buying": If I find I keep wanting to go wider than this setup is capable of, well, then I'll know that when I buy for myself, I'll want to get a wider lens. On the other hand, if I never find myself wishing I could go wider, then I'll know not to waste money on something I clearly won't need.

 

[dvolk]

I thought you announced what you were going to buy.

In any case, 28-135mm is a 35mm lens that doesn't seem to be very useful on an APS-C DSLRs. It begins somewhat after wide angle ends, because of the crop factor.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/denis_volk

 

[edacsac]

Do I need a tripod right away?

Even an inexpensive but reasonable quality tripod can be an amazing
tool for many users. family shots on timer. Evening and morning
(really!) sunrise/sunsets, moving water, cityscapes, landscapes, etc.

I agree and believe this answer should be yes without a doubt. I went out shooting today and took a tripod. I have a $50 tripod and a new $9 tripod. I took the $9 dollar tripod out today, and while it's pretty much junk, it works and it did what I needed it to do just fine. I would have skipped 30% of the shots I wanted if I didn't take it because I wouldn't have been able to hand-hold the shot due to lighting and shutter speed choice.

 

[IndianaGeo]

Canon 40D w/ 28-135 IS

Actually, I didn't really make a decision, other than to not make a
decision now. A friend had this camera that he doesn't use much now,
and he has let me borrow it for awhile. I just felt that there is too
much I don't know yet to spend so much money. Do I really need full
frame? Do I really need super low light performance? Will the first
high-end lens I want be wide or tele? Do I need a tripod right away?
Well, I hope to get the answers to these questions and more from
playing around with something, and the best part is, I can do it for
free, without spending a lot of money on the wrong choice.
--

Justin,

What you've done here is brilliant. I think you're going to love that 40D. It's a top contender in my own research so far. Tripod is a great idea I think. I've seen the 40D (with awesome lenses) win categories in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year awards. It's a fantastic camera. Let us know how it goes.

Cheers,
Geo

 

[Marty4650]

Justin,

You have made a very smart move by postponing a huge gear purchase until you know more about what you want to do, and what will do it for you.

You just bought yourself time to take photos with a really nice camera (yes... the Canon 40D is an EXCELLENT camera) and learn more about your own specific needs rather than relying on a bunch of total strangers to tell you what they prefer.

And six months from now you will know a lot more about what you need, and the Nikon D700 will be cheaper to buy. In fact, there might be a Nikon D800 out by then, that will blow away the D700.

Or, you might even discover that the Canon 40D works great for your purposes, and make you friend an offer to buy it from him. And then use all that money you saved to get some nice L series glass.

I have absolutely nothing but praise for the Nikon D700, but I felt it was a giant step for a beginner to take. And Justin, you still may end up owning one. But you will get if you decide it fills your needs, and not because you "heard it was a nice camera."

Good luck!
--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
http://marty4650.zenfolio.com/p82379129/slideshow#h275db7e6

Panasonic FZ30, LX2, TZ5
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 12-42mm, 40-150mm

 

[bill henry]

The OP is, he threw out the bait and 97 fell hook line and sinker, DUH!!!

 

[EDirkx]

Good luck with testing, and most importantly: Enjoy the shooting!!

Greetings,
Erwin
--
Still learning.....

Sony H2
Canon 450D 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 50mm 1.8

Some of my pictures here:
http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/