File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/

i was wandering, and hoping to egt your expertise on this,

i would love a dslr but i dont wnat to fork out big cash. so what are the lower/older end models worth purchasing like ;

minoltas 7D & 5D
and or Cannons 10D or nikons D1X (but i dont plan on shooting sports)

i dont care about pooxels i just need a decent camera to take with me everywhere i go :)

any help great apreciated, please list some more examples!?
>> Anonymous
I'd go with the Minolta 7D based on their spec sheets, but try to handle the cameras if you can.
>> Anonymous
Minolta 7d.

tons of old minolta glass floating around for cheap and the newer sony glass if you got the money.
>> Anonymous
D2H FOR SHOOTING SPORTS,


FUCK YEAH
>> Anonymous
scratch the minolta idea the glass has gone steep ever since sonfag bough it
>> Anonymous
nikon is more professional.

although leica is pretty cheap these days
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Would recommend against the pre-Rebel Canons (i.e., the D60, D30, and 10D. Note the orientation of those 'D's, since the 30D is win), mostly because they can't use EF-S lenses so you're stuck with paying out the nose for an expensive ultrawide if you want any sort of wide angle.

Rebel, Rebel XT, 20D, all good. Sounds like the original Rebel (300D) is the only one really in the price range you're looking for, though.
>> Anonymous
>>167947
Not to mention the fact that the 300D/Rebel is the only entry level canon with a usable grip. My vote definitely goes to this cam, as the best price/performance. However, it's also worth looking at the olympus e-300, as it's really dirt cheap (I've seen it used, with kit lens, for around 150USD), and produces fairly decent pics with the kit lens.
>> Anonymous
olympus is mega gay.
in b4 euro fag.
>> t00t !!WxcmpSioRQS
>>167947
And once again, because of this reason alone, Nikon triumphs.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167989
Seriously? Three long-discontinued models can't use digital-only lenses and Nikon wins for that? When two (three? I forget whether or not the D40x is officially discontinued) of their currently-shipping models can't autofocus with most of their currently-shipping lens lineup?
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>167947
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Sharp as hell and sells for $400.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>167989
Oh, and also I just remembered something: There are third-party digital-specific wides that'll work with it. So you can get something like the Sigma 18-50 ($129) for your wide needs. I just don't think about those that often because I'm a brandwhore.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168020
Annnnnd I fail at reading the thread. D'oh.
>> Anonymous
>>167996
Hate to nitpick, but...
According to nikonusa.com there are 46 autofocus nikkors of witch 26 are AF-S...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168039
Noted
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
Hay guise, wuts goin on in here?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Fucking nikonfags.

7D is/was somewhere near the D200 (in before massive flaming) but due to the collapse of minolta will be a lot cheaper to get now. Sony provide you with 100% fully functional _EVERYTHING_ (bar batteries and VG, which minolta provided).

Has a massive back cat of lenses that work 100% (bigger than canon or nikon)

7Ds are quite tough too.
>> Anonymous
>>168074


the 7D is far better than any of the other Canikon shit that's being recommended in this thread.

And sony still offers 100% support.
>> Anonymous
Pentax K10D
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168074
>Has a massive back cat of lenses that work 100% (bigger than canon or nikon)
Troll alert. GTFO.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168094
PROVE ME WRONG.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>168142

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount

>The large variety of F-mount compatible lenses makes it the largest system of interchangeable flange-mount photographic lenses in history.

proven the fuck wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>168144


trolled ;_;
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168142
Going by the wiki pages for Minolta AF and Canon EF, there are 63 distinct Alpha-mount lenses and 70 distinct EF lenses. This isn't counting distinctions between original, RS, etc on the Minolta side, since those are primarily just cosmetic changes, but also isn't counting distinctions between versions (not even IS vs. non-IS) on the Canon side. Just combinations of zoom range and aperture. And before you ask, no, this isn't counting EF-S lenses on the Canon side, either. If you count in EF-S, the number increases, but you're talking about lenses that work 100% with every single body. Just to throw you an additional bone, I *did* count the Sony/Minolta DT digital-only lenses, since they will technically mount on film cameras, they just will vignette like a bitch.

Additionally, this doesn't count Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. If we did, Canon would come out even further ahead since Alpha-mount is often not a big enough market for the third parties to bother making a version for, but there's also the issue that sometimes older third-party lenses only work with the older cameras unless you have them upgraded. So for simplicity's sake, I just ignored those.

Additionally additionally, Given that the Canon EOS system has now and has throughout most of its history had a larger market share than Minolta's alpha-mount, there are a lot more Canon lenses in the wild available on the used market.

So. I have fulfilled my burden of proof. And I repeat: GTFO Troll.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168149
>>168144
Squee <3~ i love you ac.

fence i said 100% with metering etc etc w/e.

70 lenses is a lot less than I expected actually, or its a lot more. I dont think i even expected anything.
>> Anonymous
>>168074
>Has a massive back cat of lenses that work 100% (bigger than canon or nikon)

But still smaller than Pentax.
>> Anonymous
>>168074

Dear Everyone,

Please report this post to the mods.
Trolling is against the rules of /p/ and Butterfly keeps trolling again&again&again.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168169
No not really, also we saw what happened last time you tried to do that.
>> Anonymous
>>168169
I don't think she was trolling. I think she was just wrong.

Also, removing the stick up one's ass always helps things.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168174
Ah, but when she's wrong about something, she usually claims that she was just trolling us to try to cover it up. Either that or she is always just trolling us. The two states, as I've discussed before, are basically indistinguishable so I say we take her at face value and assume she's a troll.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Fuckin' reported.
>> Anonymous
Butterfly is unpretty!!
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168187
That wasnt meant to be trolling, i had assumed (lol never assume anything, 2nd lecture of engineering) that since the dynax mount was older it would probably have more lenses than EOS considering while minolta were doing well in film, they were making some really weird lenses.

So no, im just wrong, if i was trolling i would have changed the subject and continued.

You guys really need to pick your fights better.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168191
Posted a clearly partisan screed in favor of the brand you're on record repeatedly admitting to trolling for, including facts that are verifiably wrong that you didn't actually check. The only obvious reason to have posted that without checking first, especially with the "PROVE IT!" after I pointed out you were wrong, would be to attract flames.

Occam and Hanlon's respective razors are somewhat at odds in this particular case, but you've done enough trolling here that I'm disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're just a blathering moron.
>> Anonymous
>>168193
Does it really matter if Butterly trolls?
>> Anonymous
>>168194
>Does it really matter if Butterly trolls?

Yes, because Butterfly is the worst tripfag on /p/, constantly gives out misinformation, constantly boasts about trolling, and TROLLING IS AGAINST THE RULES OF /P/.
>> Anonymous
>>168196
Who cares? The only misinformation she's really given out is meaningless "Dynax has more lenses" and things along those lines. Facts that don't matter at all to 99% of photographers and the 1% it does matter to know what they're doing, e.g. "A client hired me to shoot this building. Well, gosh, I need a tilt-shift lens. Better go for some Canikon option." (If the Dynax mount has a tilt-shift lens, pretend it doesn't for the sake of the example.)

It doesn't harm the board, and if you don't want someone's trolling, just DON'T FUCKING FEED THEM instead of resorting to blabbering about the rules.
>> Anonymous
>>168200

It does harm the board, because Butterfly is an awful poster and should be B& from /p/.
Her endless OMG ZONY BEZT I LURVE threads and other bullshit are the cancer that's making /p/ worse than it already was.
>> Anonymous
>>168030Sigma 18-50 ($129)
>> $129

Yeah.. no.
>> Anonymous
>>168204
I don't think she's an awful poster. No better or worse than the norm. Just more visible because she has a trip.

I also can only recall a few examples of her actually starting a thread to blab about Sony. Over the months she's been her. While others start threads about all sorts of gear, she's just consistant.
>> Anonymous
why is the sigma 18-50 for Pentax ($280) almost $150 cheaper than the 18-50 for Canon/Nikon ($420)?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168205
http://www.adorama.com/SG185035EOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2018-50&item_no=13
Not the 18-50 f/2.8. This one is basically just a kit lens for Canons that can't use the EF-S kit lens.
>> Anonymous
>>168149Additionally, this doesn't count Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. If we did, Canon would come out even further ahead since Alpha-mount is often not a big enough market for the third parties to bother making a version for

That's really not true. You'll be hard pressed to find a Sigma lens that is only Nikon or Canon exclusively.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168213
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013106sigma70300hsm.asp
Took about five minutes.

I'm not saying it's common, since they design things such that it's trivially easy to slap a different mount on the basic Sigma lens. But it does happen.
>> Anonymous
>>168217

Awesome.. that's because those are designed specifically for castrated Nikons.

The Canon, Pentax, Sony and non castrated Nikon ones already exist.

Good try though.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168220
Fine, fine. I should've looked at Sigma's website first anyway, I just remembered seeing announcements on dpreview about Sigma having mount-limited lenses.

So:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_chart.asp
The "Corresponding AF mount" is the group of columns to look at. At a quick glance, I see:
50-150 f/2.8 DC (and the APO HSM version)
70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO MACRO HSM (although the second version of this works on Sony)
80-400mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG APO OS
120-300mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM IF
300-800mm F5.6 EX DG
4.5mm F2.8 EX DC Circular Fisheye HSM
10mm F2.8 EX DC Fisheye HSM
150mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM

So hey, looks like it's a hell of a lot more common than I had assumed. Thanks for making me do the research.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168200
(which they do, two of)

Also, i dont go out of my way to baltently promote the sonys over the other cameras, you probably dont notice this but im sure thats not important. Im not any different from what ac and the nikon fag do, i just started with more presence.

Also you lot could just, IGNORE ME, its not that hard.
>> Anonymous
Next time don't assume and don't stop at a 5 minutes Google.

In Pentax and Sony's defense, these are all specialty lenses and Sigma _does_ offer a version that is not far off from the one not available to their mount.
>> Anonymous
>>168254

ac: get dslr or die
nikonfags: get used d50 d70, shit is more expensive because it's better
butterfly:SONY SONY SONY
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
A quick look on http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp searching for all lenses shows we have just over 300 avalible.

A lot of those are now discontinued and rebranded minoltas into sonys but thats still 300~ "unique" lenses.

I know its not a very accurate number, but you'll excuse me from seeing how we have lots of lenses as thats my standard resource for gear.

You're welcome.
>> Anonymous
>>168261

you realize pentax and nikon make your paltry 300 meaningless, yes
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168262
Thats native mount to the dynax, not including any adaptors. Im sure if we went back to when minolta first started making lenses, and konica, and sony and zeis and well fucking everyone because with a weird enough adaptor everything mounts onto everything we could care.

Also when pentax have a good camera to put their lenses on they can join in.
>> Anonymous
>>168266
>Also when Sony have a good camera to put their lenses on they can join in.

fixed, cunt
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168277
0/10
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168261
>A lot of those are now discontinued and rebranded minoltas into sonys but thats still 300~ "unique" lenses.
Your 300 is achieved by selecting 'all' as the manufacturer. That gets you all of the third-party lens manufacturers as well who, as I've mentioned, sometimes make lenses for JUST Canon and Nikon, but (almost? Find a counterexample, I'm too lazy) never make lenses for JUST Sony/Minolta.

If you do a search for just Minolta and just Sony lenses, you get 94+20 = 114.

Now, of those, a good number of them are RS lenses or sony rebadges of Minolta lenses, both of which are *not* unique, they're just the same lens with the same optical formula and the same focal lengths and apertures, just with a different color scheme and logo. I.e., they don't count. I.e., GTFO troll.

Not to mention that, checking Sony's site, there are a grand total of 25 lenses you can buy new for the Sony alpha mount compared to 58 from Canon. And that's, again, counting Sony DT lenses but *not* counting Canon EF-S.

So, you don't have the back catalog you're claiming, and the current catalog is less than half as big.

>>168266
Annnnd reported for trolling.

You said the same thing the Pentax guy did, just with Sony swapped for Pentax, and with exactly the same amount of accuracy, and you rated him as a 0/10 troll. Therefore, by your own admission, your post was a troll. And not a good one.

>>168255
>Next time don't assume and don't stop at a 5 minutes Google.
Wasn't an assumption, and wasn't a five minute Google. I remembered reading articles on dpreview about nikon-only and nikon/canon-only Sigma lenses, so I went there first. Didn't touch Google at all until afterwards when you discounted the made-only-for-crippled-Nikons lens...and then slapped my forehead and realized that the information was probably easy to find on Sigma's site. Which it was.

And what the fuck? *You* were the one who assumed, and you assumed wrong.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168315
ac, why are you bothering? I didnt even try to say they were all inhouse lenses, you seem to want to argue with me a lot more than anyone else (including me).

I was explaning why i thought there was a much higher number than there is, thats all.

0/10 is a joke, it was for the
>fixed, cunt
much more than anything else.

And constantly reporting my posts is probably going to get you banned for spamming reports much faster than its going to get anyone else banned.

And if i am trolling, it means your getting trolled, which is just as bad.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>168320
>your getting trolled
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>168324
DYSLEXIC ENGINEER

god be thankful my posts are actually readable to any degree.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168320
>ac, why are you bothering?
Because I have an overpowering need to always be right about everything. It makes me extremely popular at parties. See http://xkcd.com/386/

>you seem to want to argue with me a lot more than anyone else (including me).
You pissed me off one too fucking many times.

>And constantly reporting my posts is probably going to get you banned for spamming reports much faster than its going to get anyone else banned.
I am willing to take that risk. When you get banned for that sort of thing, you're generally get an opportunity to appeal, and I think I'd have a pretty good case.

>And if i am trolling, it means your getting trolled, which is just as bad.
I'll grant you that constantly responding to trolls like I'm doing is almost as bad but, at the risk of sounding like a petulant fifth grader, you started it. And there is still a part of me that clings to the hope that you're *not* just trolling, that you *are* just stupid and that you *can* be taught to fucking stop it. What can I say, I'm an optimist.
>> Anonymous
>>168315And what the fuck? *You* were the one who assumed, and you assumed wrong.

Um, what?

You said "Canon would come out even further ahead since Alpha-mount is often not a big enough market for the third parties to bother making a version for"

I replied "That's really not true. You'll be hard pressed to find a Sigma lens that is only Nikon or Canon exclusively."

Then you posted those 2 HSM lenses proudly because it took you 5 minutes and went "TAKE THAT!"

I said that was cute. But pretty damn attempt.

You went on the Sigma website to find those lenses not available on Sony and Pentax.

Hence, "you'll be hard pressed to find a Sigma lens that is only Nikon or Canon exclusively."
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>168331Because I have an overpowering need to always be right about everything.

hey, what's up man
>> Anonymous
>>168334
wait, what? he went onto the sigma website to find the correct information and corrected himself, and that makes it "hard pressed?"
>> Anonymous
>>168326

YOUR/YOU'RE

Not a case of dyslexia.
You're just fucking horrible at English.
>> Anonymous
>>168324
can you make one for "were" and "where"?
I have problems with that one
>> Anonymous
Don't forget their, there, and they're.

Uh oh, three variables! *asplode*
>> Anonymous
>>168334
>>168336
>>168338

Sage for Butterfart posting as Anon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168334
>I replied "That's really not true. You'll be hard pressed to find a Sigma lens that is only Nikon or Canon exclusively."
Which was not actually true, and was easily proven false, hence the "you were the one who assumed" part of my reply.

>Then you posted those 2 HSM lenses proudly because it took you 5 minutes and went "TAKE THAT!"
>I said that was cute. But a pretty damn weak attempt.
>You went on the Sigma website to find those lenses not available on Sony and Pentax.
>Hence, "you'll be hard pressed to find a Sigma lens that is only Nikon or Canon exclusively."
Going to Sigma's web site, clicking "lenses", and clicking "lens chart" is not exactly rocket science.

The only reason that wasn't my first destination was that I had clear memories of seeing Nikon/Canon-only lenses mentioned on dpreview. I.e., I knew they existed, I knew that they were released recently, and I knew where to find them.

I wasn't just assuming that Sigma released lenses in mounts that didn't include Sony. I knew it for a fact. I just didn't know how frequently they did it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168336
Fine, fine.

Correction: I have an overwhelming need to be right when I actually am right, but will happily accept defeat if I am actually wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>168347I had clear memories of seeing Nikon/Canon-only lenses mentioned on dpreview. I.e., I knew they existed, I knew that they were released recently, and I knew where to find them.

Yet you posted the wrong ones, going "Look, ma! Took me 5 minutes!"
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168353
>Yet you posted the wrong ones, going "Look, ma! Took me 5 minutes!"
I'll cop to that.

However, I'd also argue that it was no worse than your sarcastic "Good try though."