Author Topic: What cameras do you guys use/have? (Read 55539 times)

Rajagra · « **Reply #50 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 06:47:00 »

Quote from: clickclack;118570

BTW, I think someone already commented on this but NONE of the current Canon models have an in body focus motor (the importance of which is a moot point). They switched that out years and years ago iirc. For a bit of trivia (and its ironic) you can't really use any of Canon's old lenses on the new models...BUT you can practically use any other manufacturers lenses on newer Canon's!

Canon never used in-body focus motors in the EOS range. They learned their mistake from the T80 and decided to do things the right way.

You can use Canon's old lenses on their new cameras, it just isn't worth it. Focusing manually isn't a problem, but having to stop down manually is too much work for me.

But I did take this snapshot using an old FD lens on a D30 camera:

clickclack · « **Reply #51 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 07:22:24 »

Quote from: Rajagra;118694

Canon never used in-body focus motors in the EOS range. They learned their mistake from the T80 and decided to do things the right way.
Aside from that, I thought Canon's DSLR's "all" lacked in-body focus motors.

You can use Canon's old lenses on their new cameras, it just isn't worth it. Focusing manually isn't a problem, but having to stop down manually is too much work for me.
But I did take this snapshot using an old FD lens on a D30 camera:

Thats odd, as I distinctly remember FD and some older lenses not being able to achieve infinity focus without an additional external element on the EOS line (something that looked like a teleconverter). As the mounting plane and focal plane grew a tiny bit on those models.
Nice lunar pic btw cheese for miles!
Atleast on digital, manually stopping down is easy with generous amounts of chimping

(minus light meter)

Rajagra · « **Reply #52 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 07:47:27 »

Yes, the FD>EOS lens convertor does need to contain an element, whereas non-Canon lenses just need something mechanical to hold them in place. It is odd, but it proved Canon's determination to do things right rather than compromise for convenience.

The FD>EOS convertor was really only intended to pacify pro photographers. In reality they killed off the FD range, it was a huge gamble.

itlnstln · « **Reply #53 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 12:05:38 »

Pentax just released a new entry-level offering today if you're interested: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16272

timw4mail · « **Reply #54 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 12:51:07 »

So...when will DSLRs actually come down in price to reflect that they really aren't that much better than most point-and-shoots?

Rajagra · « **Reply #55 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 13:56:20 »

Megapixels are not a measure of quality.

timw4mail · « **Reply #56 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 14:02:31 »

Quote from: Rajagra;118799

Megapixels are not a measure of quality.

I didn't say anything about megapixels. What I'm saying is you can take pretty decent pictures with a point-and-shoot camera. It can't be worth at least $300 more just to get raw format?

And lenses? At least the ones that cost a reasonable amount, they feel super cheap. Lenses actually used to feel mechanical, like precision instruments.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it's a lot easier to find good quality in film camera than digital cameras...at least in terms of build quality.

Too bad you usually can't use film camera lenses on DSLRs...

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #57 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 14:21:34 »

Quote from: itlnstln;118761

Pentax just released a new entry-level offering today if you're interested: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16272

if you live in Japan you can get a million colours as well: http://www.camera-pentax.jp/k-x/

Rajagra · « **Reply #58 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 14:26:57 »

Quote from: timw4mail;118802

I didn't say anything about megapixels.

I can't think of any other way a P&S comes close to the quality of a DSLR.
But the bottom line is interchangable lenses.

And DSLR lenses ARE film camera lenses. I believe you are thinking more of auto focus vs manual focus lenses. The old manual focus lenses were solid and should last forever if treated well. New ones are more plasticy. Even the quality ones will fail eventually because of the electronics and motors.

Clicky Kat · « **Reply #59 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 14:40:33 »

Yes, the pricey but lovely Canon 50mm/1.4 has awesome optics, but not the best build. Knock it around a bit too much and it fails to autofocus sometimes, requiring a somewhat costly repair.

I have the Canon PowerShot G10, while not a DSLR it comes pretty close with lots of control over the shot. More megapixels than necessary, but that has been the trend. Canon finally reduced the number of megapixels with the new G11 and probably ended up with a much better camera.

Anyone here have a chance to use the 5D or 5D Mark II?

I still play with film as well with my EOS3 and Elan 7NE--mostly B&W stuff with my trusty 24mm fixed length lens and trusty walkabout lens 28-135IS. Saving up for the 70-200/2.8 L/IS though. Kind of weird walking around with that big white lens though. All about the glass though. I rented one once. Wow.

timw4mail · « **Reply #60 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 14:48:37 »

Are there any DSLRs that fit old Minolta lenses?

InSanCen · « **Reply #61 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 14:57:51 »

Quote from: Clicky Kat;118818

I still play with film as well with my EOS3 and Elan 7NE--mostly B&W stuff with my trusty 24mm fixed length lens and trusty walkabout lens 28-135IS. Saving up for the 70-200/2.8 L/IS though. Kind of weird walking around with that big white lens though. All about the glass though. I rented one once. Wow.

If you can realistically use it, you won't regret it.Great glass. But don't buy one just because it's "White Glass". A very expensive way to show off.

Rajagra · « **Reply #62 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 16:28:02 »

Quote from: InSanCen;118830

If you can realistically use it, you won't regret it.Great glass. But don't buy one just because it's "White Glass". A very expensive way to show off.

What's that? I can't hear you with my fingers in my ears while I sing loudly.
Tra la la, tum te tum te tum...

As you can see I do have some Nikon gear - they make great lens caps. :-)

Clicky Kat · « **Reply #63 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 16:31:17 »

Too true. I can't really justify it with the photography I do, so it's pretty low on my list. I'll probably get a nice macro lens and a decent flash first. It's a nice range though the 70-200.
Talking about white glass though, here's one.

The Canon 1200/5.6L USM for a mere USD120,000. For those special sports and wildlife shots.

megarat · « **Reply #64 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 16:39:30 »

Quote from: Clicky Kat;118870

The Canon 1200/5.6L USM for a mere USD120,000. For those special sports and wildlife shots.

Man, I'd hate to drop that thing while climbing up a rock embankment trying to get a shot.

hyperlinked · « **Reply #65 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 16:46:13 »

Quote from: timw4mail;118774

So...when will DSLRs actually come down in price to reflect that they really aren't that much better than most point-and-shoots?

The prices actually have already come to a meeting point. I haven't checked out any point and shoots in a while, but I'd suspect that high end point and shoots can cost more than low end DSLRs now.

A point and shoot could be better than a DSLR, but they're really two different types of cameras and are optimized for different types of uses.

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #66 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 16:55:40 »

So how does the D5000 compare to the 500D? I was thinking of the D5000 for a while now. I've been marinating on the lens compatibility for the Canon but not the Nikon. How are the lenses for the Nikon?

I like the D5000 because of the rotating screen. Even though it's smaller than the 500D and has only 230,000 dots, I think it will be convenient when it comes to situations where I have to lift the camera in mid air to take the picture and actually see what I'm taking.

Can someone please explain to me what AF, AF-S, and DX stand for? Is it one with motor and the other one without?

Thanks for helping me out so much here my fellow geekhackers! (;

Rajagra · « **Reply #67 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 17:04:15 »

Quote from: Clicky Kat;118870

Talking about white glass though, here's one.

Somewhere in this picture there is a camera:

5200 mm 1:14
Dimensions Length: 1290mm (hood 390mm) Wide: 500x600mm Weight: 100kg

zwmalone · « **Reply #68 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 19:17:30 »

HP m22 5MP & Minolta Maxxum 7000i SLR 35mm film camera

hyperlinked · « **Reply #69 on:** Thu, 17 September 2009, 23:04:12 »

Quote from: ripster;118918

Show Image

Jesus! What kind of rounds does that cannon fire?

lowpoly · « **Reply #70 on:** Fri, 18 September 2009, 03:44:53 »

Canon Powershot G6. Will probably get a 50D with 18/200 next.

I have a fetish for movie cameras. I sold my Beaulieu 16mm years ago because I had never used it. So it's just equipment fetishism. Didn't know that back then.

If you haven't heard about RED movie cameras check them out. Digital cameras with analog motion picture quality for a fraction of the price. The company was founded by Jim Jannard (Oakley) who started this as a photographer and movie camera collector. Somewhen he announced to develop and market a digital movie camera. Everybody laughed at him. Then he pulled it off:

I still have a Sachtler tripod, bought new back then. Probably my worst investment ever in terms of cost/usage ratio:

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #71 on:** Fri, 18 September 2009, 10:27:56 »

I was thinking of not getting the camera with the kit but many people say that the kit kens is a very good lens. I was thinking of just getting the body with a 18-200. Is that worth it? I tried it out at the store one day with the kit lens and I realized I'm not getting enough out of that lens.

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #72 on:** Fri, 18 September 2009, 10:48:36 »

thanks for the advice ripster =] I'll use the kit lens for a while before I make my decision on whether or not if I need more zoom =]

lowpoly · « **Reply #73 on:** Fri, 18 September 2009, 11:53:14 »

Quote from: ripster;119001

I use my 18-200mm a lot for travel - versatile lens and since I'm not blowing up travel pics to wall size the quality is fine.

Yes, I want it mainly for travelling. I had a 10x zoom borrowed from a friend on my last trip which was really convenient to use. Pictures were fine too which surprised me. I would never have considered such a lens I think.

InSanCen · « **Reply #74 on:** Fri, 18 September 2009, 12:48:57 »

Quote from: megarat;118875

Man, I'd hate to drop that thing while climbing up a rock embankment trying to get a shot.

If you could carry it at all while climbing a rock, you're doing well.

IIRC, it was special order only from Canon Japan, and took 9 months to make it for you. They stopped making it, as it was a loss-leader (@£60K!). Sports Illustrated own 2 of the 11 in the world.

Yeah, I wanted one badly, and, given a big lottery win, the first call would still be to Canon Japan to see if they would make me one (£150K? Yeah, that'll do!)

clickclack · « **Reply #75 on:** Sat, 19 September 2009, 05:22:39 »

Quote from: timw4mail;118774

So...when will DSLRs actually come down in price to reflect that they really aren't that much better than most point-and-shoots?

They have come down in price, quite a bit actually! Quite a bit. Don't forget old film gear nikon 6006's ($800 plus when it came out and it was only a mid model) and F5's and F6's (in the thousands high end models)

Quote from: timw4mail;118802

I didn't say anything about megapixels. What I'm saying is you can take pretty decent pictures with a point-and-shoot camera. It can't be worth at least $300 more just to get raw format?
Great>good>decent. Decent? General picture quality and sensitivity> megapixels. There are many, many PS's that are excelent, and can take professional pictures, even more so in a professionals hand. The speed, build, versatility, clarity, quality, longevity/reliability, are far, far superior in most DSLR's.
Raw format is pretty low on that list of features (although many times desirable) Many PS's now are incorporating RAW format as well, so that wouldn't be the difference anyway (it's mostly software/firmware and not hardware anyways, hacks even exist!)

And lenses? At least the ones that cost a reasonable amount, they feel super cheap. Lenses actually used to feel mechanical, like precision instruments.
That was an inevitable progression, not always desireable but needed none the less. The technology was not as readily available or cost effective (or even in existed) back then. I have many manual lenses that are sturdy and made of metal, but most new lenses do actually operate smoother, they may not be a tank but the bodies of them give and don't dent or scratch flake like they used to. They are way lighter many times, and can be made cheaper. These are not things to sneeze at. Many things can be improved true, but things have come a long way...and mostly in a good way.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it's a lot easier to find good quality in film camera than digital cameras...at least in terms of build quality.
I couldn't agree less, honestly. I see what you mean, but I truly think that people are overly romanticizing the equipment side of the equation. I have many film cameras and have had many, and used many. Of these at worst they are the same, but mostly the plastics are sturdier and less brittle, the metal is thicker or has a much more robust design in DSLR's. The irony to me seems that many PS's (film) seem sturdier than many digital PS's of today, especially with longevity.

Too bad you usually can't use film camera lenses on DSLRs...

Usually you can actually, its a common misconception.

Quote from: Rajagra;118814

I can't think of any other way a P&S comes close to the quality of a DSLR.
But the bottom line is interchangable lenses.
I would say general versatility and capability, but you cant escape the specific versatility of different lenses. But honestly I would take an SLR with a glued on lens over a PS with interchangeble lenses any day

And DSLR lenses ARE film camera lenses. I believe you are thinking more of auto focus vs manual focus lenses. The old manual focus lenses were solid and should last forever if treated well. New ones are more plasticy. Even the quality ones will fail eventually because of the electronics and motors.

I thought that to when I first read it. I do enjoy the lower occurance newer lenses breathing and gravitating though. Older lenses tend to rust more, and suffer from other problems. The good stuff and well cared for stuff usually lasts longer, as is always the case.

Quote from: timw4mail;118822

Are there any DSLRs that fit old Minolta lenses?

I believe Sony's new line does.

Quote from: megarat;118875

Man, I'd hate to drop that thing while climbing up a rock embankment trying to get a shot.

...uh... I would hate to pick it up! PERIOD!

Quote from: hyperlinked;118876

The prices actually have already come to a meeting point. I haven't checked out any point and shoots in a while, but I'd suspect that high end point and shoots can cost more than low end DSLRs now.
Easily! I know many people have an aversion to buying used equipment, but that can be a very worth while option too, and very good one at that.

A point and shoot could be better than a DSLR, but they're really two different types of cameras and are optimized for different types of uses.

And there are! (especially if you brige generation gaps... it's kinda cheating though). The user plays the biggest part and then the situation/context of its use.
There was a famous fashion photographer who used disposable film cameras, which is just cruel on many levels (he was on Tv a few years back... dammit why isnt google psychic?). Honestly though tools are just to help you with your vision or need. If you can't draw a circle a new pencil wont help. And if you are masterful at circles then you can draw one with the lead dust on your elbow. (ok so it got a little weird at the end sue me =P )

hyperlinked · « **Reply #76 on:** Sat, 19 September 2009, 05:49:10 »

Quote from: clickclack;119194

And if you are masterful at circles then you can draw one with the lead dust on your elbow. (ok so it got a little weird at the end sue me =P )

Ok, THAT'S IT!!!1!!1 I'm going 2 sue, type & spel badly, an d
I'm quittinngf this site because of U!!!!!

clickclack · « **Reply #77 on:** Sat, 19 September 2009, 15:09:01 »

Quote from: hyperlinked;119196

Ok, THAT'S IT!!!1!!1 I'm going 2 sue, type & spel badly, an d
I'm quittinngf this site because of U!!!!!

Nope, I just tried it! I cant do it! You must have really pointy elbows!
=P

ch_123 · « **Reply #78 on:** Sat, 19 September 2009, 17:39:39 »

When I need a good quality picture, I use my Dad's Canon Powershot Pro 1. I'm sure it's nowhere near as good as some of the aforementioned cameras, but the quality is more than sufficient for me.

InSanCen · « **Reply #79 on:** Sun, 20 September 2009, 12:09:13 »

Quote from: ch_123;119304

When I need a good quality picture, I use my Dad's Canon Powershot Pro 1. I'm sure it's nowhere near as good as some of the aforementioned cameras, but the quality is more than sufficient for me.

That camera would be more than sufficient for most people. I use more exotic stuff, as 1) It's my hobby, 2) I need a minimum level of quality, quite often at large sizes that a Point n shoot simply cannot do and 3) Interchangeable lenses are a must as I do a fairly varied range of work (24-500mm focal lengths). Most point n shoots also lack the ability to change more advanced settings (Flash compensation is a biggie for me), and can't use an external flash (or more commonly 2).

If you want good quality "standard" pictures though, that's a damn good camera (as are a lot of the Powershot series).

lowpoly · « **Reply #80 on:** Mon, 28 September 2009, 06:40:01 »

Semi-related to this thread:

The PEN story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Et7UQh1tg

I once had the old Pen F which you actually could use to make stop motion movies because it used the 18x24mm format like movie cameras. I tried that back then with 2 slide films glued together to a loop. I had bought an old suitcase sized 35mm projector at the same time.

The film was horrible and the (used) Pen F died during the making. But the principle worked.

itlnstln · « **Reply #81 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 09:58:49 »

For you pros out there: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/29/phase-one-645df-medium-format-unveiled-its-invasion-set-for-q4/

Rajagra · « **Reply #82 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 10:07:17 »

Quote from: itlnstln;121424

For you pros out there: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/29/phase-one-645df-medium-format-unveiled-its-invasion-set-for-q4/

I was just thinking what an insane bargain that is, then I realised it doesn't include a camera back. D'oh!

itlnstln · « **Reply #83 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 10:24:35 »

What is the difference between the camera back and the body? I would have thought for $6000 you would have at least everything except lenses.

Rajagra · « **Reply #84 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 12:10:02 »

In medium format you often have a separate back that holds the film, or more recently, the digital sensor. It's a flexible way to do things (you could for example, swap between film and digital just by swapping the back.) The camera body can be little more than a light-tight box that the lens and back bolt on to. But obviously this one is more than that, having a lot of control features built in.

itlnstln · « **Reply #85 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 12:18:56 »

Makes sense. It's flexible, to be sure, but it sounds like it can be damn-expensive. I guess it's like anything, though, if you need this level of performance, the money is secondary.

timw4mail · « **Reply #86 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 12:29:11 »

Quote from: itlnstln;121460

Makes sense. It's flexible, to be sure, but it sounds like it can be damn-expensive. I guess it's like anything, though, if you need this level of performance, the money is secondary.

Or, more likely, its a high-margin item for the camera manufacturer.

InSanCen · « **Reply #87 on:** Tue, 29 September 2009, 15:07:14 »

Quote from: timw4mail;121463

Or, more likely, its a high-margin item for the camera manufacturer.

It is. But when you make the best, you can charge whatever the market will bear. It is, however, a very niche market because of the cost involved. Just think of the R&D costs involved in this, let alone the manufacturing cost for a 645 CMOS sensor on it's own.

I have a 6x6 film camera (Bronica SQam, 6x6, 120 film) that will produce enlargements similar to this thing, but could I afford to go Digital? As it's not the camera that brings the money in, no. You are looking at a real-world $20-$25K to get a decent setup in Digital MF. It cost me a LOT less. Even today you can pick up a minter for less than $500. So why would you go Digital? Speed, plain and simple. The new digital systems are a LOT faster, and far more versatile. If your job or income depends on it, you can easily justify $25K on a new setup. And when you factor in the cost of buying, processing and converting film to a quality digital format, the camera WILL pay for itself.

clickclack · « **Reply #88 on:** Wed, 30 September 2009, 16:36:47 »

Quote from: Rajagra;121429

I was just thinking what an insane bargain that is, then I realised it doesn't include a camera back. D'oh!

I have become used to just thinking that going in...but every once in a while you just cant help but hope its with a back. =P I felt the same way when I first glanced at it, haahaa =P

I love digital MF but in all honesty I never felt the need for one. I need versatility far more than not, and only a portion of what I do is in a studio, which kinda negates the usefullness of upscaling my gear. I also take great pride and enjoyment in using MF and LF film gear still (although support is dwindling localy). When my computer set up is actually running properly (or even at a studio with high end gear) I find the processing to be a horrid pain in the ass when using MF digital.
...ok fine so is scanning MF and LF film (when and if you do) but still, you get the gist.

rdjack21 · « **Reply #89 on:** Wed, 30 September 2009, 21:23:02 »

Well my last general purpose camera bit the dust so had to get another one. Ended up getting this nice little Nikon. For the price it is a very nice camera and for the wife you just set it on fully auto mode and use it like a point and shoot. But if you want to play a little you are given the tools to do so. And did I mention it was at the right price point as well. I ended up paying $229 at the local Best Buy for it. At some point I want to get a Nikon D90 because I have some really fast Nikon lenses that I would like to use which require a focus motor in the camera body. But right now I don't have the money to get it

roaduck · « **Reply #90 on:** Thu, 01 October 2009, 02:02:16 »

I haven't got a camera at the moment - just a Samsung camera phone - but it's not the worst.This would be beat by a compact £100 digital camera for picture quality.

I did have one of the first prosumer Digital Cameras - a 3.2 MP Fuji Finepix S-602 zoom which cost £550 in 2001 and another £215 for a 512MB SD card but it got stolen in a burglary together with a Samsung SGH-D600 2MP camera phone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Samsung S8300 Tocco Ultra multimedia touchphone

2.8 inch 16M colours WQVGA AMOLED display
8 megapixel with twin LED flash
Backlight compensation
Forced flash
4x digital zoom
30 fps video camera with video editing on phone
Facial recognition
Smile detection
Anti-Shake image stabilisation
Blink detection
Panoramic mode
Macro mode
Photo blogging
Full Divx / AVI 5.1 H.264, WMV and MPEG4 support
16GB micro SD support
GPS Photo Tagging
3G Video Calling
Video Streaming
ISO 100-1600 equivalent
5 mode white balance
Black & White, Sepia effects
Manual Exposure control

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #91 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 14:13:58 »

Just to update the thread, I did pick up a T1i kit with the 55-250 because it was a great deal. Now that I've shot with it a couple of times, I realized that I want to get something to replace the kit lens. I want a zoom longer than the kit lens but bring enough to shoot indoors. I was thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8L or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. [more on the L though] Other than that, I can't find a lens that can zoom with a wide aperture. What suggestions do you guys have?

didjamatic · « **Reply #92 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 14:54:55 »

We've had a Canon 300D (1st Generation Digital Rebel) since they were new, about 4-5 years. I just bought a used complete setup that I am totally loving: Canon 40D, 28-135mm lens, External flash.

DSLR is the way to go unless you absolutely positively must have a small camera. Our 6MP 300D takes much better photos than any point and shoot out there, especially in low light and indoors. Some recent camera series have actually stepped down the Megapixels such as the Canon G11 which is only 10MP vs. the 14.7 or something in the G10. It's not all in the megapixels anymore.

You can probably get a Canon 300D for under $100 now.

didjamatic · « **Reply #93 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 15:05:25 »

Quote from: ripster;143745

He could but he just bought a Canon Rebel.

Are you one of the guys that recommends people get a Model F AT as soon as they post "I just got a new keyboard!".

Doh! I just read his update. Nice choice on the T1i, it's a great camera.

Look at this lens Canon EF 28-135mm

I just got that lens and am very happy with it. You can make it work in most situations and from what I've read, if you want to have 1 lens to do it all, then this is the one without going into the L series which are considerably more expensive.

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #94 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 15:34:50 »

Quote from: ripster;143748

Sorry, it was a "what do you guys use" thread so I deleted my comment.

Ok, Wat, I think you mean you want an wide aperature zoom in the 18-55mm range. Not cheap and although sharper you're lugging around a LOT of weight. I'd go with a 50mm 1.8mm or a 35 1.8mm fixed focal. Use your feet to zoom. To decide whether 50mm or 35mm is better I'd first take a couple of hundred pictures then look back at your EXIF data and pick the focal length you use more often. In my case it's 35mm. Trying to take group shots in your living room favors the wider lens. Taking head and shoulders shots of one person favors the 50mm.

sorry to confuse you ripster =P I bought the kit that came with the 18-55 IS along with the 55-250 IS. I don't shoot with the 55-250 much unless I'm going to shoot animals. I want something that is brighter but with a longer zoom range than the 18-55 kit lens. I didn't want to get a prime because it is fixed focal and I'm not sure if I will be able to stand at the same distance every time I take the pictures. (indoor bowling) I did get the 50mm f/1.8 mk2 but I returned it because dust got into it after a couple of days. I keep everything closed at all times but it still gets into it. So now I only have two lenses, the 18-55 and the 55-250. I want something to replace the 18-55 and I want to sell the 55-250 so I can use that money to get another lens.

If anyone is interested in the 55-250 IS PM me =D I really used it for like 2x and I stopped using it because it's not bright enough for me.

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #95 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 15:48:15 »

The camera I use is called a cell phone. Its 1.8 megapixels, it is enough to get the job done.

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #96 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 15:52:51 »

Quote from: Computer-Lab in Basement;143759

The camera I use is called a cell phone. Its 1.8 megapixels, it is enough to get the job done.

lol I can't even stand my N95. I guess I should've gave the Samsung Pixon 12 a shot before going for this T1i? xD

watduzhkstand4 · « **Reply #97 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 15:54:55 »

Quote from: ripster;143762

Donny, did you say indoor bowling?
Show Image

Well, that precludes flash. I dunno, wide aperature long lens means big bucks and heavy. Gaining a stop at 2.8 isn't buying you all that much either. And believe it or not a kit lens can take pro quality pics if you are creative. All lenses look remarkably good at f8.

Most people churn through lenses too fast IMHO - I'd take it slow and really analyze your EXIF data for patterns.

thanks for the advice ripster. I will agree with you that the kit lens does take some pretty nice pictures but it's just not as flexible as I want it to be. When I zoom in to 55mm at 5.6, it gets a bit too dark. I guess I should just get a prime after all. Maybe one like the 50 1.4 or 85 1.4.

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #98 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 16:00:05 »

The only reason I don't mind my cell phone is because I am too lazy and too cheap to buy and use a decent digital camera. With Verizon phones, you can just take a picture and send it to PIX Place and save them directly to your computer. Easier than running around finding a USB cable to work with the camera...

ch_123 · « **Reply #99 on:** Sat, 19 December 2009, 16:13:22 »

Does that service cost you?

News:

Author Topic: What cameras do you guys use/have? (Read 55539 times)