Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
JJC

The Camera Thread

Recommended Posts

Well with the popularity of the photography thread, I've noticed that a lot of people are getting interested in buying a DSLR. (If you don't know what a DSLR is, or are unsure of the advantages of it, I suggest you check out http://www.kenrockwell.com > how to> The two classes of digital cameras. direct link if you don't want to check out the rest of his site.

 

What I'm trying to say is, the camera you use doesn't really matter. If you have a magic lens that fits every camera in the world, the pictures you take from Nikon's flagship pro-dslr the D2X will be no different than a whatever Konica Minolta budget dslr. Megapixels don't matter unless you plan on making huge prints. This is even more so with film cameras, my 19 yr-old manual nikon FE will give exactly the same results as the F6.

 

"what I'm trying to say is, the camera you use doesn't really matter..."

But the lens attached to the camera does. Sharpness, color/contrast, distortion, depth of field and shutterspeeds all depend on the lens. Which is why pros that shoot Nikon and Canon use their camera brand lenses instead of thirdparty stuff from Sigma/Tokina/etc. (Those are the 2 giants in the slr business, though pentax/olympus makes great lenses too). The important part is that you stick with your camera brand lenses. It's because they've been making lenses specifically for their camera systems since forever and know what they're doing as opposed to thirdparty manufacturers mixing and matching their mounts.

 

My camera(s) Nikon d70, Nikon FE circa 1986

lens: 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 af

50 f/1.8 af

80-200 f/2.8 af

85 f/1.4 af

 

Hope I help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really know shit about lenses, but I'm looking to get the nikon d70, and the lens that comes with it is the 18-70mm AF-S DX f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED. Is this a good lens for just multipurpose shots; details, long range, night shots? or should I look for a better one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by WeakSauce@Nov 9 2005, 01:08 AM

I dont really know shit about lenses, but I'm looking to get the nikon d70, and the lens that comes with it is the 18-70mm AF-S DX f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED. Is this a good lens for just multipurpose shots; details, long range, night shots? or should I look for a better one?

The D70 is an incredible camera.

The 18-70 is what you're looking for- it's sharp, it's wide (the 18mm end is pretty much as wide as you can get other than the the 12-24 or some crazy fisheye/specialty lens for upwards of a grand). You're fine with night shots as long as you have a tripod, If you find yourself in dim light, and the 4.5 isn't fast enough for you? crank that iso up to 1600, it'll still be very usable.

 

But if you can wait a bit, say around, till the end of the year, I'd say go for the D200. (I'm getting one myself) It's a league ahead of the D70 with a bigger af motor, buttons dedicated to ISO/Quality/WB, and an optional vertical grip that's very important to me. And a programmable button that should be very useful for quick AF override or flash control. You get that, and an extra 5 megapixels for 700 more. definitely worth it I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great info, but i would have to disagree on one point. In film cameras, the camera itself, in terms of image quality matters very little. The handling, ease of use, specs and build quality would be how to choose. WIth digital however, the camera has a huge role. In addition to the qualities needed in film. other things factor in also. If you ever compare 3mp cameras to 6mp ones you will see an amazing difference. same as if you compare 6mp dslrs to 14mp ones. also, many of these cameras have variations in the colors they produce. most high end ones can be programed to give you close to what you want, but some may not.

 

eh.

 

i have

F100

FE2

50mm 1.8 af

24mm 2.8

75-150mm 3.5

35-70mm 2.8 af (soon!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i generally agree with the majority so far. the lenses ARE important, but you can do 75% of your shooting with a mediium length zoom.., that's why the 18-70 is ideal. i have an 80-300 that i use maybe once a month for sneaky candids or soemthing. PopPhoto had a good article on lens selection a while back...download A PDF of it.

 

my d70 is the fucking joint and the image quality--even with less-than-high-end lenses--is dope. the whole megapixel thing is useless anymore unless you're shooting as a professional. the 14mp canon is essentially going to give you the same results as the 6mp nikon... unless you're printing HUGE images. i did a 24"x40" pring (RAW, sent to the printer as a 300dpi PDF) and that was 90% perfect.

 

there is a significant difference in point-and-shoot digis and DSLR though. just like 35mm, it makes a difference. so when Ckit says the 3mp and the 6mp are worlds apart, it only really goes with the point-and-shoot... to a degree. i'm so not about all the tech shit though. i've seen the illest photos come from fucking pinhole cameras... images that crush the $12,000 digital medium format shit. it's like anything else: your equipment should reflect your ability. it's like buying some expensive european paint and expecting to be a good graffiti writer... or getting the best setup in the skateshop and thinking that'll make you a good skater... all the same shit. if you suck, you suck. practice makes you good, not the equipment.

 

JJC: the d200 is going to be pretty sick. that whole vertical grip thing though, you can get one that pops onto the d70 for like $10 (check freestyle photo supply). the individual buttons will be nice though, that push-and-turn shit is annoying in fast-shooting situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carwreck, I have to ask...

When you shoot are your raw images naturally that satrurated or is that a small tweek after uploading to your computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by -Rage-@Nov 9 2005, 12:14 PM

carwreck, I have to ask...

When you shoot are your raw images naturally that satrurated or is that a small tweek after uploading to your computer?

 

what i shot at the steel was the largest jpeg setting, 'fine'. it produces a 10x6 300dpi file. the color is 99% original to the intial file... that's because the d70 offers not only custom color saturation settings (mine's on 'high'), but also various shooting modes (portrait, night, action, etc) that each have an inherent color profile. the 'landscape' mode makes greens pop, the macro makes reds, and so on. the only photoshop work i do is for contrast (PS7 has some weird muddying in the transfer) and cropping. occasionally i'll get into color correction if the lighting is all fucked (i.e. sodium or florescent). but i try to shoot an original that's as close to the actual colors as possible.

 

so i guess it's the camera doing a little tweaking more than anything... but i feel like that's the equivalent of shooting really saturated film like velvia or kodachrome in 35mm...

 

 

*edit... i just reread that and realized just how nerdy it sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, there's NO visible difference between 6mp and 12 when you're making prints 9x11 or less. But yes, D70 is 'da joint', no two ways about it. Only thing I want more from it is faster AF speed, more FPS, a vertical grip, and WB/ISO/QUAL buttons, and a programmable free button. Oh wait... I want a d200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering my question in depth JJC thats exactly what I needed to know. And as far as the d200 goes, it sounds great but I can barely afford the d70 right now. let alone another $700. Thanks again though you've helped a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking to get into medium format. Anyone here have experience in that field? Gear/format advice would be mega appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract

I would only buy sony's and panasonic's cause they carry ZEISS and LEICA lenses. Fuck that nikon, canon crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i shoot med. format, but on a holga. not somethin' i'd recommend since it's made

of plastic, has a plastic lens and light leaks etc. plus it's one of the trendiest goddamn

camera's on the planet.

my dad has a huge mother of a med. format camera, a real nice one, but the name of

it is drawing a blank. hopefully i'll be shooting with this thing by the end of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Tesseract@Dec 8 2005, 11:23 AM

I would only buy sony's and panasonic's cause they carry ZEISS and LEICA lenses. Fuck that nikon, canon crap

 

it doesn't really matter anymore, all their stuff is made in china.

besides that, their cameras are weak. the lenses are a gimmick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of where theyre made... Ive been looking into getting a D70S and from what I'm finding the 'good' lenses and cameras are american made, where there is sort of knock off versions coming out of China. Has anyone else run into this? And how do I tell them apart (does it say)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract
Originally posted by coffeedependency+Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (coffeedependency - Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Tesseract@Dec 8 2005, 11:23 AM

I would only buy sony's and panasonic's cause they carry ZEISS and LEICA lenses. Fuck that nikon, canon crap

 

it doesn't really matter anymore, all their stuff is made in china.

besides that, their cameras are weak. the lenses are a gimmick.

[/b]

 

 

I'm not sure you're right, a friend bought a canon eos 20d with the standard canon lens and my 3 year old sony f717 kicked the shit out of the canon lens pound to pound. Everything else sucked on the sony but that zeiss lens is awesome. Also, when we talk about dslr's the body has alot to do. This fuckin CCD that actually digitizes the input has alot to do with the quality.

The golden days of a kickass lens and just a shutter that works nicely are over.

I'd trust an electronic company anyday compared to a lens company when it comes to ccd's and vice versa.

 

Its hard to accept it but unless you pay more than a grand for a nikon/canon lens you aint getting shit, add a minimum of 2 grand on a decent dslr body and you seriously have to think about a 1200 high end sony/panasonic/olympus model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Tesseract@Dec 8 2005, 09:00 PM

Example, this camera.

 

GIMMICK

Any photographer worth his beans will be able to make better pictures with a d70/20d than with that or any panasonic/sony. Image quality plays a part, but quality does more so. I expect you were able to take a lot better pictures than your friend because you're just better at it.

 

Yes, fifty years ago, Leica, Zeiss, other German lenses were the shit, but now they're just a brandname. They compete with Canon and Nikon. Some of their fixed lenses are better, some are not. But both Canon and Nikon beats the shit out of them when it comes to zooms.

 

It's not a matter of where they're made. Nikon's 50mm f/1.4 and 1.8's are all made in china now. The difference in optics from when they were made in Japan? None. It's just that they're molded out of plastic now instead of metal. A bunch of reviews states that the Leica/Zeiss/Planar 50/55mm may be a bit sharper but they don't make DSLRs and they're prime lenses. It's a lot different than the shit (the lens' you see on pointandshoots/fixedlensc ameras) they churn out with a brandname sticker nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Misteraven@Dec 8 2005, 11:56 PM

canon 20d

canon 1ds mark ii

 

Is this what you used in part of AKAv1?

 

I was wondering that when I flipped through the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_Tesseract
Originally posted by JJC+Dec 8 2005, 10:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JJC - Dec 8 2005, 10:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Tesseract@Dec 8 2005, 09:00 PM

Example, this camera.

 

GIMMICK

Any photographer worth his beans will be able to make better pictures with a d70/20d than with that or any panasonic/sony. Image quality plays a part, but quality does more so. I expect you were able to take a lot better pictures than your friend because you're just better at it.

 

[/b]

 

I shot the flicks with the two cameras my self. I shot the same shots, same settings. Everything that came from the 20d was better (color reprasantation, noise etc, etc) but lens crispness was really better with the sony/zeiss.

You're right that dslrs are way more flexible and gice you real tools to work with if you're a pro.

What i'm saying is that for every 'serious' amateur that doesnt have 5 grand to spend on a camera a 1200 sony/panasonic/whatever with a good lens zeiss/leica (its more than a brand sticker) is a much better option than a dslr body with the lens kit they give you on default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×