File :-(, x, )
Which DSLR? Anonymous
I talked to my teacher about the Nikon D40, and she said that MOST pros use canon, and the reason you see Nikons allot is because Nikon sponsors allot of stuff having to do with photography, and also Nikon cameras lens' have to be cleaned once every two months, which costs $35-$75 (each time you have them cleaned) and the canon ones also have to get cleaned, but a place near my house does it for free... Please note, I didn't know what exactly she meant by this until Clix Pix explained it a little better,
I was looking around at Canons cameras, and came across the 30D. It seems to be a very nice camera, all the reviews are all very positive, and reading the stats it seems like an awesome one for me, that will last me a long time... (unlike maybe the XT or XTi which I may want to replace when I get more into photography)
Although, the kit lens people are saying is slow to focus, and has bad color... also, if you buy it with the kit lens, it is exactly my budget, but if I buy the body and the 75-200mm f/4-5.6 II USM Telephoto, the total of it comes to $70'ish cheaper then the body and kit lens...
So my amazon shopping card\wish list is:
Canon 30D Body Only
75-200mm f/4-5.6 II USM Telephoto Lens
4gb SanDisk Ultra II Card

Total: $1,134.09 + Tax
Which combined is $37.91 below my budget...

I am mainly asking for people who own this camera to post there experience, and maybe even some other suggestions... (the only other canons I can really afford is the 20D, XTi, and XT but the XT\XTi, I will want to replace them sooner...)
Anyway, I am pretty set on the 30D and this lens, but if someone wants to recommend a better lens that is $200 or below, then please do!
With my extra $37.91, what is a filter that I can attach to the telephoto lens, to help make it a better macro lens, is it fine as is? Or maybe there is a cheap filter to make it better...
>> Anonymous
If you can afford it, it's probably worth grabbing the 2.8 version of the 70-200
>> ­
/p/ isn't www.whatcamerashouldIbuy.com

go away
>> Anonymous
better to ask now than indulge the pointlessness of "P, I done bought this lens! is it good?"
>> Anonymous
So you're saying you're planning to buy the 30D with the 75-200 and NO OTHER LENS?

You realize you're gonna have to stand like 10 feet away from anything you want to photograph if you want a closeup, and 20-30 feet away if you want anything other than a closeup, right?

Also: Your teacher is a putz. More pros use Canons for historical reasons, not because they're necessarily better nowadays. They're actually about equal. Anyone who says differently is either insecure about their choice of camera system or trying to sell you one.
>> Anonymous
>>84498
Also: I can't find any reference to Canon having ever made a 75-200 f/4-5.6 USM.
>> Anonymous
>>84498

Historical reasons? People used to use Nikons all the time instead until they switched. Pros switch over to whatever suits them best. Just like Fuji has got a following now for certain areas.
>> Anonymous
>>84511
but that is the historical reason. pros used to use nikons, then canon added AF, so pros switched to canon, and there hasnt been an innovation yet that made pros want to switch back to nikon.
>> Anonymous
>>84512

In other words the pros see that there is no reason to use the Nikons. The Canons do the job and it isn't worth the while of most professionals to invest in Nikon.

Nikon needs to mix it up to catch up.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>84516

And they have, with the D3.

Not entirely sure what it'll do to Canon's market share. But it certainly will be a long while before Nikon chip away at Canon's lead in the pro-segment.

OP: Your teacher is a douche. Lenses have to be cleaned every two months???


.... oh wait a minute... you're a troll.
>> Anonymous
>>84511
>Historical reasons? People used to use Nikons all the time instead until they switched. Pros switch over to whatever suits them best.
"Whatever suits them best" is, 99 times out of 100, the system they've already plunked down thousands of dollars for.

The thing you'll find is that pros invest a shit-ton of money in their system. Therefore, to get pros to switch, a camera maker needs to add something *extremely* compelling to their system.

E.g., Autofocus, which Canon had in a real way before Nikon did. The EOS system was awesome enough compared to its competition to get most pros who were using Nikons to switch over to Canons. It had to be, since they also had to get the pros who were using Canons to switch over to Canons at the same time.

That's the historical reason I was talking about. Also the fact that, until recently, Nikon didn't have a full-frame digital SLR.

>>84516
>In other words the pros see that there is no reason to use the Nikons.
Correction: The pros see that there is no reason to *switch* to Nikons. If they were starting out fresh now, there's no real compelling argument to choose one over the other.

>>84520
The D3 isn't enough of an improvement over the 1Ds Mk III and 5D to get people to switch. It does catch Nikon back up with Canon, and probably puts them a little bit in the lead, but I'm sure Canon will come out with a 7D or a 1Ds Mk IV eventually that'll put them back on top. If Nikon wants to really regain the pro market, they're going to need to do something far and away more exciting than full frame.
>> Anonymous
Everyone knows you really want to be using Fuji! ;)
>> Anonymous
>>84532
Incidentally, this is also why Pentax, Sony (much to Butterfly's chagrin), and the various 4/3 members will probably never get as large a slice of the camera market as Nikon and Canon. Live view wasn't enough of a draw to get people to switch (and now Canon and Nikon have it too). In-body IS wasn't enough of a draw to get people to switch (and I'd wager that Canon and Nikon are probably going to move towards having IS on their entire lens lineup eventually).

The only thing I can think of that might compel me to switch would be a *really* cheap f/1.0 lens (think double-digits) or a completely noise free ISO6400, and I only have about $2000 invested in my Canon setup so far. Maybe they can come out with some sort of AutoCompose or AutoTakeThePictureAtExactlyTheRightMoment system to finish off the trend started by autoexposure and autofocus.
>> Anonymous
4/3 is a dead end. There's no point when you can go for Nikon or Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>84565
>There's no point when you can go for Nikon or Canon.
Can't argue with logic like this.
>> Anonymous
>>84493
Lenses only need to be cleaned when you get them dirty and they're easy to clean yourself with lens cloth or lens pen.

The lens you're thinking of getting is the 75-300mm, not 200mm and it would be a terrible lens to get as your only one. Not only is it worse than the kit lens, it will give you only a telephoto range which in layman's terms means you're always zoomed in.

You're better off just getting the 30D with kit or even better finding a used 30D which are very cheap these days (~$700) since the 40D just came out. Then buy a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or something similar.
>> Anonymous
>>84574

True. Maybe one day Olympus and the 4/3 crew will give everyone a reason to use them. Then maybe they could get some pros interested in their set-up without bribing them with sponsorships.
>> Anonymous
>>84590
Functional and really cheap stuff for amateurs; seriously weatherproof stuff for pros that need it; super-adaptable lens mount for collectors of old lenses; these are the reasons I've seen why people buy Olympus. It's mostly niche, but why not?

And after all, it was the 4/3 crew that made Canon and Nikon get off their asses and start putting new features in their cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>84599
No, it was pretty much Canon and Nikon that made them get off their asses and start adding features to their cameras.

ANALOGY TIME!

Canon is a big-ass burly football player.
Nikon is a big-ass burly football player for the opposite team.
Sony, Olympus, Pentax, Leica, etc are mosquitos. The mosquito might be annoying enough for the football player to swat at it every once in a while (e.g., live view), but he's gonna be *way* more concerned about the other football player comin' at him.
>> Anonymous
>>84599
While the short flange-focal distance of the 4/3 system is nice for adapting old lenses, the 2x crop factor means that lens really isn't the lens that it was.

Now if it had the short flange-focal distance and a full frame sensor, that'd be something. But a 4/3 camera can never ever have a full frame sensor due to the fundamental nature of the system.
>> Anonymous
>>84609
Did you see that Yankees Indians game a week back? Mosquitos lawl.
>> Anonymous
>>84611
I actually did see a bit of it.

And I can actually extend my analogy to encompass that: if the Four Thirds people get Sony, Sigma, Dell, Samsung, Digimax, Mustek, Ricoh, Ritz, Vivitar, Pentax, Fuji, Kodak, Epson and everydamnbody else on board and making Four Thirds cameras, to the point that Nikon and Canon are the only companies NOT selling cameras and lenses for the Four Thirds system, then they'll have some serious competition.

Especially since, with that many companies, you can bet your ass they'd start doing some really interesting things. Maybe one of them would have the balls to make a Four Thirds rangefinder or P&S sized/shaped camera with a Four Thirds mount.

If I could get a tiny Four Thirds P&S with something like a 25mm pancaek lens, that would make me seriously consider switching.
>> Anonymous
>>84612
... Or a DSLR designed *just* for B&W, with the higher resolution and sharpness that entails.

... Or a DSLR designed *just* for infrared, either BWIR or IR with false color

Canon and Nikon won't bother making either of those cameras, or if they do, they'd make them hellaciously expensive and in small quantities. If we had a crapload of companies pumping out Four Thirds cameras, trying desperately to scrape out their own niches, without having to market the full system themselves, we might see cameras like these for reasonable prices.
>> Anonymous
>>84609
I like this idiot.
>> The 75-200 lens sets are mostly crap. Anonymous
The IS one apparently is okay, but really, you'll probably only be disappointed with it. I guess it's worth the 70 bucks, maybe - I used mine for about a week, realized it was mostly pointless and shelled out *again* for the 100mm 2.8 macro. Doesn't zoom, but it's a fine lens. Also happens to cost much more, however.

In short - don't let the 75-200 sell you; you're not going to use that as much as you think you will since it's slow, needs crazy light to not blur and even then it's not a very sharp lens.
>> Anonymous
I like that the four-thirds system is designed specifically for digital, with all the advantages that entails.

I dislike its crop factor (I actually prefer the focal lengths gotten with a 1.5x crop factor with the prime sets out there to the ones gotten with full frame, though) and its aspect ratio. 3:2 for 35mm really was divine providence; 4:3 works better for some shots, but overall, 3:2 works for far more.
>> Anonymous
I've had my 30D for a little over a year now, and i've never had any problems with it. The colour comes out amazing, and the focus was always bang on, and never slow.

I think that for what you pay for the 30D, you can't get much better.
>> Anonymous
>>84493and she said that MOST pros use canon,

I'm just curious as to why anybody would think that. I've been a professional photographer for about fifteen years and I don't think that's the case. When I started, most people who were shooting 35mm were using Nikon bodies. Canon has gained a huge amount of the market share, but I'd still be surprised if it were any more than a 50/50 split.

I really get tired of the brand issues people have. They're all fine, it's just the photographers that suck.
>> Anonymous
>>84739
Most Sports photographers I think she probably meant.

Canon has cheaper Long telephoto primes (with IS)
Nikon is only slowly catching back up in the telephoto dept, and their lenses are more expensive aswell (Though sometimes for good reason, the Nikon 300 VR F2.8 + 200mm f2.0 come to mind)

Just for the used Market I think Canon and Nikon are the best choices, you can save a lot buying used.
>> Anonymous
>>84610
>Now if it had the short flange-focal distance and a full frame sensor, that'd be something.

Sadly, this is impossible for a SLR - the minimum flange focal distance is limited by the size of the mirror.
What we need here is a camera with a full-frame sensor, a fast high-resolution Live View electronic viewfinder and no mirror at all. But that isn't going to appear in the nearest future.
>> Anonymous
>>84739
Could be the big white lenses just make pro Canon shooters more noticeable.
>> Anonymous
>>84610
2x crop factor isn't always a bad thing: all wide-angle lenses are fucked, but you get portrait lenses and long telephotos for cheap, and even with IS and MF confirmation if you manage to get one of these russian modchip thingamajigs.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>84790

Yeah but Nikon also makes White lenses... the colour white isn't trademarked by Canon it's a pragmatic approach since Black lenses would near boil in constant sunlight that they're exposed to in most games.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
sonyminolta also have white lenses.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>84803

Yeah... it's like Canon did as Speilberg did in Saving Private Ryan... making people believe that only Americans fought on D-Day.
>> Anonymous
>>84801
>>84803
>>84804
Yeah, but Canon's known for it. And hell, Minolta's old white lenses look like Canon Ls, right down to having a stripe around the barrel.
>> Anonymous
>>84804

LOL, took me a while to get the SPR thing.

>>84805

No they're not, only newb douches who fall for Canon's (very effective) Marketing think that. People who have been shooting since before the digital era all know better.
>> Anonymous
Photojournalists also seem to be mostly Canon. Maybe 9/10 from some scenes. It's not just sports.
>> Anonymous
>>84843

Photojournalist here, Every paper I've ever worked for has provided Nikon equipment both before and after the transition to digital. I've worked with a few freelancers who use Canon, but it's probably 3 out of 10 at the most.
>> Anonymous
If you're looking for advice from people on what "pros" use and somehow made the jump from D40 (which I wouldn't even call "prosumer") to 30D, you're nowhere NEAR where you need to be to make such a decision. You're going to buy an expensive ass setup and end up whining that your pictures don't look perfect.

The fact is that the PHOTOGRAPHER makes the camera. Whether it's through setup of the frame, the use of the camera, or the post-processing.

Most DSLRs are on the same level right now. But let me provide you with some advice. Feel free to disregard that, I suck cocks, whatever, but here's what I think you need to do.

Feel free to buy the 30D if that's what you want. Also feel free to buy that lens. But the key thing you need to do is go out and take photos. Learn every last bit of information on what the camera can and cannot do.

For christ's sake, buy a fucking UV filter for the lens too. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with some idiot who went to clean his lens with his nasty shirt tail and scratched the lens. At least with a filter, you're only out 10$ instead of 200$.
>> Anonymous
>>84952
Continued....

Don't impulsive shop for additions to your setup until you are taking damn good shots with what you've got. In other words, don't pressure yourself into going into studio photography when you can do landscape and urban photography without the extra grand it'll cost you for studio lighting and backdrops.

Finally: Do some research on your own when you go to buy things. Asking people what to get will only end up making you buy what they want, not what you want.

Oh, and as far as lens cleaning is concerned, your teacher is a f-ing moron. The only reason your lens would need to be opened up and cleaned is because you left it in some high temp/high humidity hell hole and ended up getting condensation/fungus inside the lens. A 10$ LensPen will do all of your necessary dusting and if you take proper care of your equipment, that should be able all you need to do.
>> Anonymous
Pro-Tip:
Canon makes white lenses so that when you're out shooting in the sun all day the lens doesn't get as hot as a black lens which would, and heating of the lens causes the glass to expand which affects image quality.

>>84952
I've decided to forgo the UV filter on my lens, not that I don't have one but it causes noticeable flaring in my photos. The lens hood suffices to protect my lens for the most part.
>> Anonymous
>>84991

Have you tried B+W filters? Usually better than others for matching up with high quality lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>84991
>I've decided to forgo the UV filter on my lens, not that I don't have one but it causes noticeable flaring in my photos. The lens hood suffices to protect my lens for the most part.

Smart noob is smart.

>>85010

It doesn't matter how fancy the filter glass is. Putting another layer of glass in front of the lens increases flare, no matter what sort of filter it is or brand.

This article explains it well:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
>> Caleb
I have a strong dislike for Digital SLRs. I can never seem to use them correctly. I personally prefer the Nikon FM10. Its gives me almost complete control of exposure, flash brightness, etc...dunno...poops.
>> Anonymous
the 40D has just come out, and its a 10 times better camera for roughly the same price as the 30D, depending on where you buy it.

Also, I had a photographer once tell me that comparing the DSLR's made by Nikon and Canon is like choosing between a ferarri and a lamborghini. So I wouldnt jump to canon just because your teacher said that.
>> Anonymous
>>85018
Try getting out of the green box mode next time you use a DSLR.