Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Help me pick a digital SLR camera.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help me pick a digital SLR camera. - Page 8

post #106 of 113
2/18/08 at 11:31pm
My focus is mainly product photography for our web business currently, though this will inevitably be our "nice camera" for museums, tourism, and the like. I would also like to be able to photograph my dog, typically in her element which is running around being a psychopath.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 113
2/18/08 at 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronik View Post
My focus is mainly product photography for our web business currently, though this will inevitably be our "nice camera" for museums, tourism, and the like. I would also like to be able to photograph my dog, typically in her element which is running around being a psychopath,

it seems to me, that all you need is a standard or slightly wide angle lens, and depending on the size of your products, possibly a macro. you certainly don't need a long zoom for what you want to do (unless by tourism, you mean a safari.)

get yourself a 24mm prime, which will be a slight wide angle lens on your camera. i suspect it will be all you need. it will let in much more light than the kit lens. if the products you intend to photograph are stamps or watches, you need a 60mm macro, not a long zoom. the macro would also be great for headshots and pictures of your dog.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 113
2/18/08 at 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
In general I would agree with that, but in the case of the Nikkor 18-55, it's quite a nice lens for the price. I generally don't like Sigmas, but I have no experience with the lenses you linked. The 18-55 is quiet, fast, and has almost no distortion. It's hard to go wrong with it, at its price.
at the wide end, it's an f/3.5, which is too slow for available light work. at the long end, it's an f/5.6, which is also way too slow for available light work, and does not give a shallow depth of field for portraits, especially on a cropped sensor. i don't see the usefulness of a lens like this, unless all you do is shoot landscapes on a tripod. they are the same specs you would get on a point & shoot.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 113
2/19/08 at 2:12am
Trust me, if you're not a professional photographer, you're not going to notice the difference between 3.5 or 2.8. "Specs" hardly matter in actual photography. A point and shoot will never get the same depth of field as the 18-55 kit lens. It also won't focus as well. The problem here is that you're judging this entirely without any experience on it, but rather on the basis of "it's a kit lens." Overgeneralizations will get you nowhere in photography. I've had extensive experience with the 18-55, and it's a great go-to lens for the beginner.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 113
2/19/08 at 2:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Trust me, if you're not a professional photographer, you're not going to notice the difference between 3.5 or 2.8.

I beg to differ. It can make a significant difference in the shutter speeds available to you. A 3.5 probably won't be constant throughout its range either. When I was taking pics in peru I would have killed for faster glass. Shooting moving animals at 300mm early morning in low light it would have definitely helped. That is a silly claim to make because amaterus have all sorts of preferences when it comes to what they like to shoot. There are lots of amateurs for whom the extra speed is crucial.

I agree that peopel need to get some use out of a dsl before deciding where to pump money. You won't know what your tendencies are until you pickup a camera and start shooting.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 113
2/19/08 at 2:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Trust me, if you're not a professional photographer, you're not going to notice the difference between 3.5 or 2.8.

"Specs" hardly matter in actual photography. A point and shoot will never get the same depth of field as the 18-55 kit lens. It also won't focus as well.

The problem here is that you're judging this entirely without any experience on it, but rather on the basis of "it's a kit lens." Overgeneralizations will get you nowhere in photography. I've had extensive experience with the 18-55, and it's a great go-to lens for the beginner.

actually, i'm speaking from experience. i've posted a lot here about how i try to shoot everything in available light, and there is a big difference between being able to shoot handheld at 1/45 sec. versus 1/15 sec., especially at the long end.

i do think this lens could suit him fine for his product photography (if he doesn't need a macro), but for a travel/all purpose lens, it is not ideal. that's all i'm saying. it's not ideal.

i'll post some pics i shot with a d80 and the nikon 17-55/2.8 lens. even with this lens, i ended up wishing i'd taken an f/1.4 prime with me.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 113
2/19/08 at 2:28am
..
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 113
12/31/10 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Consider the 50mm f/1.8 as well. It's one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes and let's in lots of light with the 1.8 aperture..

This sounds like the right lens for:
1) low light / indoor shots
2) creating bokeh shallow focus.
3) no zoom needed

If there was a "oneLens", would this be it?
(Taking group shots, portraits, and close ups)

Can it take macro shots?
or do you need an explicit macro lens for that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
There is a quality minimum to take pictures with decent depth of field and color (which pretty much starts at the $500 SLR level) and so for 99% of people, for 80% of purposes, a D40 or a Rebel XT will more than satisfy their needs.

This is the type of perspective that is often lacking on SF.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Help me pick a digital SLR camera.