1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

New D-SLR Camera advice?

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by Alter, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. dhc905

    dhc905 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I'll second the 18-200. I currently have that one, the 18-70, and 17-55 2.8, and while the 17-55 2.8 is by far my favorite, the 18-200 definitely sits on my camera most when I'm walking around town.
     
  2. GQgeek

    GQgeek Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    About lenses: for the D90, any opinions about spending the extra yen to get the 18-200 zoom version or is the standard 18-105 sufficient for most needs?

    I've got 560mm with my gear and I still think it's not enough! I think superzooms are a bad idea though. If you get a decent camera bag it's not a big deal to change lenses. Get the 17-55. and then get the nikon zoom (don't know the nikon range that well. it's ~1800)? You can thank me later for just spending 3600 of your money. [​IMG]
     
  3. Brian SD

    Brian SD Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I've got 560mm with my gear and I still think it's not enough! I think superzooms are a bad idea though. If you get a decent camera bag it's not a big deal to change lenses. Get the 17-55. and then get the nikon zoom (don't know the nikon range that well. it's ~1800)? You can thank me later for just spending 3600 of your money. [​IMG]
    Based on what do you think superzooms are a bad idea? That's like saying all prime lenses are bad because there are a few shitty ones of those, too. Read the reviews on the 18-200. The ones by photographers, not camera fetishists!!
     
  4. milosz

    milosz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,083
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Either Canon or Nikon, whichever one feels best in your hand and has the easiest-to-navigate menus for you.

    The only caveat I'd add to that - if you plan on shooting primes (consumer or pro), Canon has the best lineup. Zooms, they're equal. Flash, equal. Software, I never used the OEM stuff from either, just get yourself a copy of Lightroom.
     
  5. mikej77

    mikej77 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    768
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    I would agree, either stick with Canon or Nikon for an SLR. They both provide good feature sets and you can get the best choice of lenses. As for whether or not to get a D90 or a 50D, go to a store, try them both and see what feels better in your hands. The camera has to be comfortable when shooting. I currently use a 5D so I am partial to Canons, but that is because I find them more comfortable for me. The real investment in a camera comes with the lenses you choose.
     
  6. DNW

    DNW Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,526
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Recession, Baby
    You do realize that this post just cost me 50,000yen? Bastard. [​IMG]
    Look for the 18-200mm VRII. It just came out. The original one was probably as good of a "walk-around" lens as you could find. The new one is better (and of course, a bit more expensive). Try this first, then figure out what you like to shoot, then invest in appropriate lenses for those purposes.
     
  7. Luc-Emmanuel

    Luc-Emmanuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Paris, France
    I still think 18 is not wide enough, and 200 is too short. But it's a very nice all around zoom. Get the new version which doesn't slide down when you carry your camera on your shoulder.

    I am partial to prime lenses. The nikkor 50mm f1.4G is just perfect, albeit slow to focus.

    !luc
     
  8. DNW

    DNW Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,526
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Recession, Baby
    I still think 18 is not wide enough, and 200 is too short. But it's a very nice all around zoom. Get the new version which doesn't slide down when you carry your camera on your shoulder.

    In a perfect world, Nikon would make a 10-300mm f/2.8 VRII that weighs less than a pound and costs about $300. Until then, we all just have to make do with what's available.
     
  9. milosz

    milosz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,083
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    If you require a 200mm lens for "walking around," you're doing something wrong.
     
  10. Luc-Emmanuel

    Luc-Emmanuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Paris, France
    In a perfect world, Nikon would make a 10-300mm f/2.8 VRII that weighs less than a pound and costs about $300. Until then, we all just have to make do with what's available.
    I wrote above what I would use. !luc
     
  11. dhc905

    dhc905 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    ? When I'm walking around in a nature setting or the city, I probably use 150-200 more than any other mm-age. If anything, I agree with Luc that when walking around I could definitely use more than 200.

    If you require a 200mm lens for "walking around," you're doing something wrong.
     
  12. Brian SD

    Brian SD Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I most commonly use 18, 50, 70 and 135. I almost never go to 200.
     
  13. Luc-Emmanuel

    Luc-Emmanuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Taking candid shots fo my kids, I use more than 200.
    Otherwise, when I take my camera for a walk in the streets, I use a fixed 50.

    Trekking, I use fixed 24 and 50 mostly. Occasionally I use my lightweight 70-300.

    It really all depends what you shoot with your camera. Maybe the 18-200 is all you will need if you take only one lens. But I think it makes more sense to go a little wider with the 16-85 and buy a dedicated tele when you want to go over 85 (which rarely happens in my case).

    !luc
     
  14. smell n' tell

    smell n' tell Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Definitely the D90.

    You might wanna check out the image stabilized version of Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 which is due to come out soon if you're looking for an standard zoom.
     
  15. dhc905

    dhc905 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,033
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I guess in Japan you can shoot people on the street without getting beaten up, but here in Chicago, you're safest at 200mm. [​IMG]

    I most commonly use 18, 50, 70 and 135. I almost never go to 200.
     
  16. willpower

    willpower Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,414
    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Location:
    West Coast
  17. milosz

    milosz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,083
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Maybe I'm a bigot, but short of specialized applications (sports, wildlife, etc.) anything beyond 135 is overkill and you're probably not relying on god-given technique (ie moving) enough. That's being generous, I'm inclined to say 105-135 belong in certain portraiture situations and nowhere else.
     
  18. Chiaroscuro

    Chiaroscuro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Location:
    Where the blood flows freely
    These are the important factors for me as well, which is why Nikon wins hands down. [​IMG]

    I could get used to nikon ergonomics (even though canon is better), but there is no way in hell you can say nikon menus are easier to navigate. Its like a fucking labyrinth.
     
  19. aizan

    aizan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    736
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Location:
    LA
    lemme know when canon digs mirror lock up out of the menu and onto a button...or at least lets you assign it to one of the useless buttons they've recently added.

    just kidding!

    you can customize menus on any dslr.

    and stay away from superzooms and teles. it adds bulk and weight you probably don't need most of the time.
     
  20. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    These are the important factors for me as well, which is why Nikon wins hands down. [​IMG]
    +1 I like everything about Canon cameras except how they feel in my hand, the positioning of the buttons, and their menus. I don't own either, but when I went to test them out a while back, I was disappointed at how poorly the Canon fit my hand, and how little sense the drop down menu seemed to make to me. I'm sure I'd get used to the menu system, but it seemed awkward being the first time I'd used it.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by