• 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

One major difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon uses in-camera image stabilization, whereas Canon uses in-lens.

Professionals will tell you that in-lens is better. However, that means that if you own 5 lenses, you have to pay for the image stabilization system 5 times, which gets expensive. With the Nikon, you only pay for it once, in the camera body.
 
rritterson said:
One major difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon uses in-camera image stabilization, whereas Canon uses in-lens.

Professionals will tell you that in-lens is better. However, that means that if you own 5 lenses, you have to pay for the image stabilization system 5 times, which gets expensive. With the Nikon, you only pay for it once, in the camera body.
Click to expand...

ive read that the nikons IS in the body isnt as good as the IS in the canon lenses. any truth to that?

fwiw, most canon lenses will come in both NON IS and IS. so if you want to save some $, you can buy it without IS. but IS does double the price almost.
 
VeloceMoto said:
Yes! Link me some pictures!

What the difference between XT and XTI? Age? Features?

Concerns about buying used gear?
Click to expand...

pm sent

i bought my body used, but the lens new. i found a local guy who seemed legit and runs a photography business. that way if something happened, i knew i could get in touch with him.
 
wannabe said:
'Peace of mind' meaning that you get what is shown on the website. There are a lot of shady photography websites on the internet that like to sell you only part of what usually comes in the box from the manufacturer. So, usually, if the price is too good to be true for photo equipment on the internet, it usually is.

B&H & Amazon are always reliable.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh... OK. I thought we were talking about "vs buying on Craigslist".

Any reason NOT to buy used camera gear on Craigslist? I mean, I guess if you bring along a laptop, take a few snapshots and it works, it works right?
 
VeloceMoto said:
Any reason NOT to buy used camera gear on Craigslist? I mean, I guess if you bring along a laptop, take a few snapshots and it works, it works right?
Click to expand...

You know the answer.

Would you buy a car from a random guy standing on O'Farrell & Jones in SF after riding it around the city blocks a couple of times? Or would you at least go to a reputable place to buy your car?
 
m_asim said:
You know the answer.

Would you buy a car from a random guy standing on O'Farrell & Jones in SF after riding it around the city blocks a couple of times? Or would you at least go to a reputable place to buy your car?
Click to expand...

Depends on the price of the car. :laughing
 
rritterson said:
One major difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon uses in-camera image stabilization, whereas Canon uses in-lens.

Professionals will tell you that in-lens is better. However, that means that if you own 5 lenses, you have to pay for the image stabilization system 5 times, which gets expensive. With the Nikon, you only pay for it once, in the camera body.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, wtf?

Nikon does NOT use in-body stabilization. Pentax and Olympus (I believe) do their stabilization by moving the sensor, Nikon is in-lens just like Canon.

With lens-based stabilization, you pay for it $$$ with each stabilized lens, but the system is optimized for the lens, and you don't have to pay for it at all if you don't want to or need to.

None of my lenses are VR, and I do OK. :thumbup
 
thats odd... cuz i have also read online it was in body lol... oh well thats the internet for ya!
 
VeloceMoto said:
How about for San Francisco proper? :nerd
Click to expand...

Calumet in the city has a decent selection, but I tend to find them a bit snotty. Their prices aren't that great either, but if you insist on seeing something in person, I suppose they're better than Wolf/Rizt.
 
Okay dudes...

The OP wants to get what seems to be his first DSLR and you're talking about image stabilization. That is totally irrelevant for any beginner. To get started with digital photography all you need to get is a used decent camera. Most cameras produced within past two years would do. Save your money and get a used kit. Play with it. Once you become good get a better lens. Arguing about Canon vs Nikon is for people who get into photography just so they can argue about something.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm, this one may be tough. If your kit is the 18-55, you may want something longer, and the 55-200 definitely fits that bill, but it's going to be slow (smaller aperture (bigger number)) and not so good in low light. The 50/1.8 is a great little lens, from either side of the fence, and will open up a whole new world of available light shooting.

My personal preference would be to go with the 50/1.8, and spend some time and effort working on your skills. Zoom lenses are convenient, but they are either slow or expensive, and don't necessarily force you to learn. Just my thoughts. Probably the most educational three weeks I've ever had with my camera was when my 18-135 broke (fell from a ceiling fan, long story) and I had only one lens, a rented 85mm/1.8. I still shot everything, just had to get very creative with how I did it and it made me learn a great deal.

Edit: Ultra-wide angle lenses are a lot of fun, and can be amazing when used well. The primary trick with them is you have to get really close to your subject, otherwise you end up with a picture of lots of really small things, and no real interest.
 
I had 18-55 that came with D40. It is a sweet little lens that gives you a lot of value for your hard earned bucks. Definitely keep that one until something happens to it. I would too go with a 50/1.8. Use the old school zoom technology and you'll be all set. FYI, old school zoom: If you need to zoom in, get closer and if you need to zoom out, get away :)

If you are not hurting in this economy and if you're serious about photo, take a look at 18-200 VR Nikkor. You can find many reviews on the net and the consensus is that this lens is more than suitable for being a total workhorse. Granted, it is sold for around $700 but if I had cash that's the lens I'd buy. Okay, scratch that... I am getting carried away by the fact that I would love to have that lens myself but in reality I am still a n00b who has not pushed the limits of the stock kit lens. I damaged it and now I shoot with a 10-20 Sigma (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00XK).

Fisheye lenses are fun, but I would rather get something else that is more suitable for daily use. Enjoy and post some pics!
 
The sigma 10-20 is awesome, and will definitely open up a whole new world of wide angle for ya. Or your pictures will suck. Depends on how close you get. I was seriously considering one earlier this year but rumors of a full-frame in a small body kept my wallet closed for just long enough...Right now I'd love to add a 14-24 and go ultra wide, but I can't really make a business case for it.
 
You guys are great! This really helps!

So it sounds like the stock kit lens 18/55 and a 50/1.8 would serve me well for awhile and allow me to have fun and learn. If I went with a d40, can you get a 50/1.8 lens? It seems like everyone was raving about the sub-$100 50/1.8 for the Rebel series cameras (or will it work with the Nikons???)
 
VeloceMoto said:
You guys are great! This really helps!

So it sounds like the stock kit lens 18/55 and a 50/1.8 would serve me well for awhile and allow me to have fun and learn. If I went with a d40, can you get a 50/1.8 lens? It seems like everyone was raving about the sub-$100 50/1.8 for the Rebel series cameras (or will it work with the Nikons???)
Click to expand...

Yes, nikon makes a very inexpensive, and very awesome, 50/1.8. It's about $120 brand new, and about $75 to $80 used. The only caveat is that it will not autofocus on the D40, due to the lens using an older focusing system with the motor in the camera body instead of the lens. I'd still say go for it. It's a great little lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top