• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

Does anyone own the Canon EOS-M? I am thinking about buying one.. I am not a pro-photographer nor am I aspiring to be one. I just want a better than average point and shoot camera for my Hawaii trip. I think I'd buy the 18-55mm lens instead of the 22mm for the zoom advantage. What say you?
 
rebekahlynn said:
Does anyone own the Canon EOS-M? I am thinking about buying one.. I am not a pro-photographer nor am I aspiring to be one. I just want a better than average point and shoot camera for my Hawaii trip. I think I'd buy the 18-55mm lens instead of the 22mm for the zoom advantage. What say you?
Click to expand...

Looks expensive for just a better than avg p&s.

Do u have a cam already?
 
yes, I have a Canon Powershot that's four years old. The pictures are good I just thought it'd be nice to have an upgraded camera..
 
Oh Hai Rebekah! :waves

My twopenneth - I'd get an Olympus/Panasonic/Lumix body, simply because they all use the same lens mounting system, ergo that opens up choice of lenses enormously.

If you do get it, you'll want the 20mm pancake for it's compact size and low-light advantage.

But for $700, you can almost get a good Olympus mirrorless body AND the Lumix 20mm F1.7... which is better than the Canon's 20mm lens from all accounts.
 
rebekahlynn said:
Oh heeeeeeey Ian :)

I've read a lot of reviews since my earlier post. I think I might just upgrade my point n shoot since I don't need a lot of advance features- plus, they say a newer version of the EOS M might come out this year with a fix for the slow AF feature. I'm considering this point n shoot.. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Stabilized-Wide-Angle/dp/B0075SUK14/ref=zg_bs_330405011_1
Click to expand...



Good idea.

I've seen a lot of people upgrade to a bigger camera before a trip and end up not using it because of the size. The best thing about point and shoot cameras is that they are very portable.

I went on a 2,500-mile moto trip through some of the most beautiful country the US has to offer. I brought my 5D Mark II and a nice tripod. I never used it on that trip. I ended up taking all my vacation pics with my iPhone.
 
Man, the things us photo enthusiasts must ponder...

To bring my D700 to Burning Man, or not to bring... that is the question....

So hard to decide.
I've read of the horror.
I've seen the photos of the aftermath.
I've even read of the various gizmos Photographers use to try and protect their gear...

But man...

The visual feast!

So torn.

What say you, oh denziens of the great and mighty BARF?

(I am starting to research insurance options too. ;) )
 
I brought my D300 and I rented the Nikkor 18-200mm f4-5.6 VRII lens for Burningman. Your D700 is weather sealed so you should be good on dust. Just slap that lens on and never take it off and you should be dust free. I also bought a scarf to put around the camera also when I am not using it. All my pictures came out fine and my camera still acted like it was brand new after I came back. I got my lens from Borrowlenses.com
 
Last edited:
My house got burglarized last month and what do you prefer, a slower telephoto lens with more zoom such as a Nikon 80-400 or sigma 50-500, or a faster lens but without as much distance (70-200mm , 2.8)

I'm not a professional or anything. I just want crisp pictures that I can print.

I did rent the Nikon 80-400mm this last weekend for MotoGP, and it was a great lens, but it was a little soft at the 400 end
 
jorbar1551 said:
My house got burglarized last month and what do you prefer, a slower telephoto lens with more zoom such as a Nikon 80-400 or sigma 50-500, or a faster lens but without as much distance (70-200mm , 2.8)
Click to expand...

It depends on what your primary use will be. If you are going to do more daylight telephoto than lowlight handheld type shooting and need the range then the 80-400 is prob the answer. If mixed, consider the versatility of paring the 70-200 2.8 VR II with the TC-20E III teleconverter. It will get you to 400 -- but not as sharp as the 80-400 @ 400. I have yet to get the TC as I don't do much extreme tele shooting. I just rent when I need that. 70-200 2.8 VR II is very versatile but suggest you rent / try it out--maybe even with the teleconverter if you are leaning in that direction to see if you like it. Will have some heft and not as compact as 80-400 collapsed @80mm.
 
Last edited:
The new 80-400 has (from what I've seen and read) very fast af and tack sharp throughout the range, even wide open. It's got a hefty price tag but if you want 300+mm that zooms this is a much better choice than the 70-200 with a 2x tc. It really depends what you will primarily be using it for though. I use the 70-300 range more so when I need a little more reach than 200, I throw on my 1.7 tc on my 70-200. If I need 400+ then ill go with a 300mm prime with a tc
 
sorry, this is a cross post but i put it in the other camera thread which has less activity.

How are you folks liking the 6D (i know someone must have one)? I'm about to make my first full-frame foray, I think that's the camera for me. Now I just need to decide whether to get body only and use my 17-40L or get the 24-105 bundled with it. Seems like having the 17-40 and the 24-105 will be a bit excessive (though i do love wide angle landscape) - I just don't know. Also - when did the 17-40 become more expensive than the 24-105?
 
highonF4i said:
sorry, this is a cross post but i put it in the other camera thread which has less activity.

How are you folks liking the 6D (i know someone must have one)? I'm about to make my first full-frame foray, I think that's the camera for me. Now I just need to decide whether to get body only and use my 17-40L or get the 24-105 bundled with it. Seems like having the 17-40 and the 24-105 will be a bit excessive (though i do love wide angle landscape) - I just don't know. Also - when did the 17-40 become more expensive than the 24-105?
Click to expand...

I am also looking into the 6D. The 17-40 L became more expensive since this is a popular lens range for landscape and portrait and especially since the MK II version came out.

What are you goals with the camera.
 
Outta Control said:
I am also looking into the 6D. The 17-40 L became more expensive since this is a popular lens range for landscape and portrait and especially since the MK II version came out.

What are you goals with the camera.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about the MKII version.
I've always wanted a full frame - mainly to make my 50mm 1.4 a real 50mm instead of a weird 80mm portrait lens, and also, I'm very interested in the better ISO performance - I currently have a T2i which is very noisy. I wouldn't say I've outgrown the T2i at all - I shoot mostly landscape/travel photography with a fair amount of pets and every now and again portraits - but I have the cash so I thought it would be nice to upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top