Photography equipment guide (1 Viewer)

[oldmantran]

So my buddy brought his D7000 in to work yesterday for me to mess with. It feels good and well built. I'll check out the D5100 when i get a chance. The problem with the D7000 right now is supply, as in no one has any. Body only is 1199 versus 599 for the D5100.

Does anyone have a full frame camera? If it's worth the extra $ and the wait, I'd be open to the new D800 or the 5D Mark II. The only problem with upgrading from say a D7000 (DX format) or the Canon 7D (1.6x format) to a full frame camera is that the lenses aren't recommended for use with the full frame. So anyone with a D700 for Mark II right now?

 

[soymilk]

amazon has the d7000 in stock right now.

Actually I bought my nikon d7000 from amazon, and they have great service. The first one had inconsistant autofocus. I have a Canon 5d mark II, and I've used the d700 for a little bit, so let me know if you have questions about those cameras. Generally the problem with these cameras for people just getting into photography would be the cost of full frame glass. After the 2000 or so you spend on the camera, you'd have to spend several thousand more on lenses. You can get away with cheaper glass if you don't mind using primes.

35mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.8 are all great lenses and priced decent. As a general guide though, I say start small and see how far into photography you get. No point in spending several thousand dollars and have it sit in a corner.

 

[oldmantran]

Yea, what do you use the full frames for and do you like using it better than the smaller format cams? I'll be using it primarily for real estate photography but also aquarium shots and the kiddos too. So needs to be versatile. I'd definitely start small if I was not using it for business. Still might if i can justify it.

 

[soymilk]

Full Frame refers to the sensor being the same size as old school 35mm film. There are advantages to using full frame over APSC sensors, but for the most part you should be ok with the "smaller" sensor. The main advantage for using full frame is increased low light performance. But the difference is about 1 stop better iso performance, but for your application. Indoor room photography, this doesn't matter.

For real estate photography, all you really need is a tripod. The advantage of full frame doesn't really apply to real estate. You can get the same results using apsc cameras, for cheaper. Remember the camera is just one component, also think about the lenses. Expect to pay a decent amount more for lenses.

 

[soymilk]

kinda late, was gonna post this last week but i've been on 70 hours workweeks lately. I wasn't trying to sound elitist but here's a few pictures to help put my point across.

Venetian Hotel Lobby in Las Vegas

one was taken with a "smaller" aps-c sensor camera, and one was taken with a full frame camera 2 years later. Both were slightly cropped to give it a better frame. You can check the exif if you wanna see which is which, but for the most part I think anyone would be hardpressed to see if they can find the difference. Its up to you if you wanna spend the extra $1500 bucks. For some people its worth it, but for some people it isn't.

I think its better to start off with an APS-C camera first, and if you think you'd be interested in full frame then start collecting full frame glass. But keep us posted on what you decide. APS-C cameras are gonna stick around for a while, so I wouldn't worry too much about buying into a dying format.

 

[oldmantran]

Thanks, man. The boobies are brighter on the bottom pic.

I've decided to go with the Canon 7D, however, it's almost 3 years since they introduced it so I can't help but feel there's an upgrade to the 7D coming out very soon. I'm in the process of researching a good range of lenses now. Will need a wide angle for real estate photos.

 

[soymilk]

I made the bottom one a little different, so it doesn't look like you're looking at the same picture. Picture on top was a Sony A700 + Carl Zeiss 16-80mm, picture on bottom was Canon 5dmkII + 24-105mm.

a new 7d is due. If you're worried about the new one coming out soon, i'd get a t2i or t3i and use that for the time being (same sensor as the 7d). Then upgrade when the new one comes out. The price is probably gonna be around 1700 for the new 7d body only, the used price for a 5dmkII is around 1600-1800, so also keep that in mind. D7000 is still a pretty awesome camera if you haven't given up on nikon yet.

A good wide angle crop sensor lens (ef-s) for canon are...
Canon 10-22mm f3.5-f4.5 (about $800new and $500-600 used)
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ($600 new and $450-550 used)

Don't forget to budget a decent amount for a nice solid tripod.

 

[oldmantran]

Glad you mentioned the tripod. I haven't gotten the camera yet but here's the tripod I just ordered.

Dolica ZX Series 60" Carbon Fiber Tripod with Balanced Ball Head ZX600B300

 

[soymilk]

looks like an awesome deal for a carbon tripod. keep us posted kevin.

 

[flexrac]

New entry level dslr with lots of potential (NIKON D300) with 1080p video and AF-S lens Mount which means easy upgrades
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25492/D3200.html

what do you think soy?

 

[soymilk]

from what i've heard or read, the pictures look pretty good. I would be concerned with lenses though. You'd need some really really good glass to take advantage of that amount of megapixels. But overall it seems like a good camera. The entry level d3100, and d5100 didn't have manual controls for video, so I don't really expect this camera to have it either. Which is kinda a bummer, and its why most people doing dslr video still use a Canon.

I buy nikon lenses and use them on my canon 5dmkii. This way, if nikon ever catches up (technically the d800 is pretty nice) I can still use the same glass.

 

[oldmantran]

The D5100 actually has dropped in price with the entry of the 3200. I believe it's $600 for the 5100 body only. Pretty much same price as the 3200 except it's hard to find the 3200 without the kit lens. Aside from the higher pixel count, the 3200 doesn't have any advantages over the 5100 to write home about. The 5100 has a slightly larger sensor and is capable of ISO up to 25,600. http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5100

I think if I was on the market for a Nikon, I'd go with the 5100 over the 3200.

By the way, I got my new tripod in and I took your advice, Soy, and borrowed a T2i. Gonna use that until the new 7D comes out. I suspect really soon because for some reason the 7D prices have dropped a hundred bucks in the last week.

 

[soymilk]

The d5100 is a great camera, the d3200 seems pretty nice too but won't know until it goes on sale. I see a lot of people selling their 7d cameras. Still a good camera.

P.s. don't use flash. Try putting the camera in Av mode. Also look at getting a remote shutter cable, that way you don't shake the camera when you hit the shutter button. Or try putting the drive mode to 2 second timer. That way you press the button and let go of the camera. Show us some pics.

 

[Hangman]

it also produced soft images handheld and on tripod, also if you used it hand held, you could get blurry pics from vibration when the shutter clicks.
i might burrow it again and try to take some sample pics, i won't go out of my to make it look bad, all i know is the owner don't even use it himself, as a matter of fact, when i gave it back to him, he stated he had forgot all about it. maybe he got a bad one.

Its hard to judge a lens on the performance of one lens. There are sample variations out there, even for the Nikon/Canon lenses.

I think the issues you cited for Tamron will be issues on all macro/micro (Nikon) lenses. Blurry pictures from shutter is not the fault of the lens, even lenses with VR/IS will be affected by vibration, from shutter or any other sources, resulting in blury pictures that could make the lens seem artificially soft.

As for the aperture change from 2.8 to 4, that is normal for all macro lenses. It is just the way macro lenses work. Macro lenses is another term for lenses with extension tubes built into them, thus allowing them to project the image on sensor as a 1:1 ratio. At this ratio, the front element has to be extended far from the sensor, thus reducing the aperture down to beyond the 2.8 that is available at non 1:1 ratios. This is just the physical property of a macro lens.

 

[soymilk]

Have you tried the new nikkor 100mm vr micro lens hangman?

 

[Hangman]

Have you tried the new nikkor 100mm vr micro lens hangman?

Yes, I had both the 105 2.8D and the 105 2.8G VR versions.
After lots of testing, the image quality negligable so I sold the 2.8G VR version and kept the 2.8D version which was only 1/2 the price of the G version.
I am not a big fan of VR for macros because most of my macros use flash.

Here are samples from the 2.8D version (you might have seen these already..)

 

[soymilk]

I remember seeing those before, I know the new 105mm vr was IF. I was wondering if the aperture stays constant thru the focus range.

 

[Hangman]

I remember seeing those before, I know the new 105mm vr was IF. I was wondering if the aperture stays constant thru the focus range.

No, the aperture does ot stay constant on the VR either. I thin at 1:1 it becomes a f/4.8 lens..

The lens physically does not extend due to internal focus. but the focusing element does move inside the lens away from teh sensor... so same issue..