|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Great Member Photo Wish List
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Yost
Master Film Handler
Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-30-2006 10:18 PM
Jen, there are sites that review D-SLR's .. lenses and accessories. One of the best is dpreview.com, which also has very informative forums for each camera system. As has been said, none of them are 'perfect'. But, they improve at a rapid rate.
At certain settings they'll all be a tad noisy, but compared to 35mm film of the same speed, under the same conditions, they're amazing! Also, there are excellent noise-lessening software 'plug ins' available. "Noise Ninja", for one. I rarely need it.
'Camera RAW' is the only way to shoot if one wants the most versatility in their images, in my opinion. It's basically an unprocessed digital negative format that dumps all the raw data from the sensor on to the flash card. Makes huge files, tho. The negative is later 'developed' in software on one's computer. It takes TIME to learn how to use it effectively, however.
I was a dyed-in-the-wool Nikon-F user, since the late 60's. Now I use a Canon Digital Rebel, and love it. I'd probably have gotten the D100 Nikon if it had been available at the time, though I certainly don't regret my decision. It took a while for me to get used to the 'Canon Way', however.
I wouldn't invest a lot of dough in -any- moderately priced digital body .. they change too often, unlike the old F's. The lenses pretty much stay the same, and that's where I put the money.
Avoid aftermarket lenses, if possible. They aren't really worth the money, in my view, tho I don't think it's necessary to have 'The Best' Nikon or Canon lenses to make great images. 'L' series Canon lenses are nice (for the most part), but are very expensive overkill for most non-pro users, in my opinion. Lots of very occasional shooters have them for the snob factor alone (I know a few, but at least they let me use them when I need a special range I don't have). Nikon and Canon's 'consumer' level lenses produce awfully dang good images these days. Their build-quality (mostly plastic) isn't as good as their most expensive lenses, of course, but I haven't had any trouble with them at all. They're a lot lighter (and -much- less expensive) than the high-end lenses, as a compensation.
My most-used lens is the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. It can produce some pretty amazing sharp images hand-held in very low light, in spite of being fairly 'slow'. That's when the image stabilization really helps! It has pretty good macro ability, too (tho not as good as my old Micro-Nikkor's). It's in their 'consumer' lens line and is about $420. Great all-around very versatile lens.
Ron Yost .. blab off ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic