Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

Need help choosing a D-SLR


Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hope I didn't come across to strong. I felt it was a good discussion, but probably gave Dave way more information than needed for this first purchase.

 

I do have to say, I am VERY excited about the new forum!!! You think I can talk about unRAID or virtulization? Heck, I would rather talk photography any day!

 

Also, ITTOG, how did you get so many lines in your sig?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dave

    10

  • geek-accountant

    14

  • ikon

    6

  • dagamer34

    5

I think I have opened up a can of worms with this new forum! Should I just go ahead and start a chevy vs. ford, coke vs. pepsi forum as well? ;)

 

Everyone here is polite enough to disagree nicely and say their peace. I know the level of respect will same as in the regular HSS forum.

 

Just think, the more folks you guys can get into this high megapixel hobby, the more they will need a home server! We are doing a favor for Microsoft!

 

I've taken a lot from all of the conversation in this thread. Now, just pick one and buy it dammit! I know that's what your thinking....

 

Best camera is the one you use regularly. The one you learn from. I'd also like to introduce you to this lovely graph: http://robertbenson.com/blog/2010/04/18/photographers-life-in-graph/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope I didn't come across to strong. I felt it was a good discussion, but probably gave Dave way more information than needed for this first purchase.

 

I do have to say, I am VERY excited about the new forum!!! You think I can talk about unRAID or virtulization? Heck, I would rather talk photography any day!

 

Also, ITTOG, how did you get so many lines in your sig?

 

 

I don't know. I just started typing after seeing anothers sig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the graph. I am in the HDR hole right now, but it doesn't feel like a hole, I love HDR done right.

 

There is a lot of truth in that graph. I have sad "I suck" way more than "I am good". Come to think of it, I have never said I am good, just lucky from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you end up buying, read this book to get a start on the basics of photography.

 

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

 

the book is agnostic and is not Canon/Nikon or film/digital. It just explains the basic concepts to apply to the craft.

 

... and for the record, I have a Nikon D90 + Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR + Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX. I passed on the starter kit lens and tried to up my game a bit with some better glass.

Edited by TechMule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you end up buying, read this book to get a start on the basics of photography.

 

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

 

the book is agnostic and is not Canon/Nikon or film/digital. It just explains the basic concepts to apply to the craft.

 

... and for the record, I have a Nikon D90 + Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR + Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX. I passed on the starter kit lens and tried to up my game a bit with some better glass.

 

Quite a good book. I just lent it to a friend who bought their first dSLR. Man, are they quickly learning this world isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the fast 50 over a 35mm f/1.8? The kit comes with a 18-55. Just wondering what your thoughts are. I see a lot of indoors opportunity with this camera. Low light situations.

Re-thinking it a bit, I agree with the suggestion (if you get Canon) to get a 50mm f1/8 II (in addition to the kit lens). The 50mm f/18 may just be the sharpest lens Canon makes. It's a design that's been around for many decades and it's rock solid. The only downside these days is it has a plastic housing, so you do have to treat it well. OTOH, it's a $100 lens; for the price it has no equal, from any manufacturer. In a way, it's almost a throwaway lens; if it gets damaged it doesn't break your wallet to replace it.

 

Thinking back, when I taught beginner photography in the 70s I forbade the students from using zoom lenses. They had to use only the standard lens, get to know it, understand it, then forget about it so they could concentrate on the art of photography, not the technical bits. After every course I had at least a few students who would tell me that at first they thought I was nuts to only allow standard lenses, but as the course progressed they came to appreciate what I was trying to get across.

 

Remember the old motto: no photographer is as good as the simplest camera.

 

I think I have opened up a can of worms with this new forum! Should I just go ahead and start a chevy vs. ford, coke vs. pepsi forum as well? ;)

I don't think so at all Dave. Rather, I think it's a great, lively discussion that's sure to give everyone something to take away.

 

Hope I didn't come across to strong. I felt it was a good discussion, but probably gave Dave way more information than needed for this first purchase.

I do have to say, I am VERY excited about the new forum!!! You think I can talk about unRAID or virtulization? Heck, I would rather talk photography any day!

I didn't take it as too strong at all - and I totally appreciate your opinions. You changed my mind about the 50mm f1.8, mostly because I remembered it's so inexpensive.

 

I am in the HDR hole right now, but it doesn't feel like a hole, I love HDR done right.

Me too. I've known about HDR for a really long time, but never got into it, mostly because it was very difficult to do using film. With digital it's all changed. By 'done right' I assume you mean 'not overdone', as is so often the case. I don't mind it when it's overdone well to purposeful artistic effect, but there are way too many HDR shots out there that just look phaque as can be, and give HDR a bad name.

 

For those who haven't heard of Trey Ratcliff, go on over to http://stuckincustoms.com for a ton of samples of HDR work, most of it good, some of it, well, even Trey says his early stuff was 'not so much' :)

 

I completely agree with those advocating shooting in RAW; I shoot RAW + JPG, so I have something I can show right away, or post online quickly, but the RAW is where I concentrate my post-processing.

Edited by ikon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did mean not over done by "done right", but I guess I should re-think that a bit as what I think is over done someone else might not. For me, I want my HDR to be a little more than "subtle", but way less than the cartoon look.

 

I always shot RAW+JPEG until I got Lightroom. Without Lightroom I would still shot both. For me, my workflow with Lightroom and RAW images is much faster than my old workflow with JPEG and Photoshop. My recommendation is to shot JPEG if you want, but also shot RAW at the same time. If you are only going to shot one, shot RAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did mean not over done by "done right", but I guess I should re-think that a bit as what I think is over done someone else might not. For me, I want my HDR to be a little more than "subtle", but way less than the cartoon look.

 

I always shot RAW+JPEG until I got Lightroom. Without Lightroom I would still shot both. For me, my workflow with Lightroom and RAW images is much faster than my old workflow with JPEG and Photoshop. My recommendation is to shot JPEG if you want, but also shot RAW at the same time. If you are only going to shot one, shot RAW.

My goal with HDR, except for deliberate artistic effect, is to end up with a photo that looks the way I saw it with my eyes when I was there. Non-HDR photos actually don't do that very well, cause the camera doesn't rapidly compensate for differences in the scene like the eye does.

 

I'm gonna continue to shot RAW+JPG, even with LR. The JPG is very handy for on the spot posting or sharing when I'm away from the computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. At one point, there was a mad rush of pros over to Canon, that shifted back the other way with the Nikon D3 a couple of years ago. The D3 was a "game changer". That said, since I am not a pro, I see no need in switching back and forth. Canon and Nikon will keep leap frogging each other for a good while. In general terms, Canon usually has the top camera in terms of megapixels (and it will cost you) and Nikon is generally thought to have the better focus, especially in low light.

 

I think what Citezein was talking about, was that RAW images from a DSLR will not look as good as the processed JPEG's coming out of a PnS. PnS images are usually over saturated, but to many people they think this looks better. Now, take a few shots with the 50mm f/1.8 at around f/2 of your kid, and it will blow away those PnS images. Although at that f stop, you could have the nose in focus and the eyes out of focus depending on your distance from the subject, so be careful.

 

I have an alpha A200 and A350. I have been very pleased with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...