Team-BHP - The DSLR Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiren.mistry (Post 1663357)

Thats precisely why I came into this thread. I am looking to choose between these 2 (Canon 1000D and Nikon D3000).
I have been using a Canon s60 PnS till now and now want to step up to a beginner DSLR.

cheers

Just goto a camera store and handle both DSLR bodies and see what fits in your hands better. Nikon/Canon wise you will get same value for money but in different terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph03n!x (Post 1663982)

Has anybody tried to shoot anything without a lens on an SLR?

You can shoot without a lens, in literal terms there will be nothing on the sensor just white blown out image. You can convert body cap into a pinhole or just take a normal magnifying glass and focus on the sensor, you would need to used a tube to stop the light from entering any other side, kinda like bellows work in a LF camera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k (Post 1664741)

saw some beautiful snow flakes today. And then was thinking what would be the best way to capture them. letting them directly fall down on an SLR sensor? Which brings me to my question here.

Has anybody tried to shoot anything without a lens on an SLR?

Solid Resin block with a small cut, put a snowflake and then cover it with 2% resin solution. It should set in few minutes and snoflake would be there forever lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k (Post 1664741)

you can make a small pinhole in the camera body cover and then your cam will become a pinhole camera.

Making a Pinhole Lens for SLR Cameras

don't understand why a DSLR would require video recording capability, like the yours truly Canon 500D! we've the point-n-shoot cameras like the Cyber-shot and the Ixus for that. or even the camcorders! this is ridiculous!

the age of DSLRs itself has corrupted the photographer and made him/her lazy and unskilled (IMHO), well at least the majority of them (but yes there are exceptions). earlier, one knew that one had to make every frame in the roll count (36 in auto-mount and 40-42 in manual). even the speed of film needed to be carefully chosen.

no doubt the DSLRs are a boon for the beginners as they don't need to end up burning a hole in their pocket on film rolls and developing (used to save every penny of my pocket money for this), but then majority of the people seldom grow out of that Full Auto mode. little do they appreciate the importance of aperture value, exposure compensation, depth of field, shutter speed and so on and so forth. even the continuous shooting mode we take for granted these days needed additional equipment in the not-so-recent past (like the Nikon MD-14)

some others just like to show off. sometime back i had been to a Canon workshop with my friend who got himself a new DSLR and there i was aghast to see people with telephoto lenses (the likes of 100-400mm) trying to take close up shots of objects at 1ft and wondering why the camera won't focus! :Shockked:

be bold. think out of the box. try different angles. learn new things. go where no one has gone before (and no, i was not referring to Mars)! people think that one needs expensive equipment to learn photography. this is not true. i started off with Miranda Sensomat and some B&W film (which was cheaper than colour film in the late 80s)

remember, photography is an art. one has to visualize the picture in one's mind before getting it on the film/memory card. there's no joy like framing a picture as you had envisioned it. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by it_inspector (Post 1665291)

Guess you got the quote mixed up :)

It was Vivek who had asked about shooting without a lens :D

Hey SLR gurus,

Thanks for the detailed response. I think that 500D indeed is good value for money but you also mentioned about D90 being the better camera. So we have the following now:

1. Canon 500D+18-55 IS+55-250 IS=51 K approx
2. Nikon D90 + 18-105 VR=58K approx (Lens price: 13K)
3. For more flexibility in general & telephoto: Nikon D90 (45000)+18-55 DX VR(7000)+ 55-200 DX VR (12000): 64 K to provide with the similar config as the canon, for better wildlife photography or is 18-105 deemed enough

The choice is very clear if one decided on Canon. However, if one decides on the Nikon which one would you feel is a better deal. The difference between option 2 & 3 is around 10%.

Also, if one decides on Nikkor DX lenses, I understand there could be a challenge if one decided to go a full frame DSLR in the future. Is the challenge same for canon as well.

Guru, please let us know of your thoughts and insights!

Best,

Quote:

Originally Posted by robimahanta (Post 1645376)

i feel if you are on tight budget, compromise on the body rather than compromising on the glass. Get the 500D or the D5000. I am using the 500D with the kit lens (18-55 IS) and though the lens is not tack sharp..its sharp enough. For the telephoto end, get the 55-250 IS or you can invest later on some L grade glass :thumbs up. The 500D with the two lenses would be around 51k if you are ready to opt for vendor warranty only. But the d90 body alone would cost around 45K with vendor warranty.

To confuse you further for 58k, you'll get the d90 with 18-105 VR lens.:)

Then again the d90 is a better camera..you get what you pay for!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboyslim (Post 1666046)

Hey SLR gurus,

Also, if one decides on Nikkor DX lenses, I understand there could be a challenge if one decided to go a full frame DSLR in the future. Is the challenge same for canon as well.

Guru, please let us know of your thoughts and insights!

Best,

The challenge is greater with Canon than Nikon as the EF-S lenses will have a problem working with full frame Canon bodies. The Nikon DX lenses will work fine as the full frame Nikons can easily switch to crop mode and avoid any DX vignetting. The only downside will be lesser MPs.

I got the same feeling when I saw the Kit spec. I am actually more inclined towards the D90 but nothing is final as yet. On the IS front, option 3 has lenses which are VR (So the IS part is taken care of). do you feel 55-200 mm is good enough or I need to go higher. Atleast its better than the Kit lens on offer.

Also, body with the standard lens configuration would be easier to lug around for general duties as it is expected to be lighter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronH4WK (Post 1666181)

@fatboyslim:

i personally would recommend the Canon configuration, but if you do intend to go for Nikon, then i would suggest the #3 option.

if you're thinking wildlife photography, you need uber zoom - a IS and a tripod maybe. 18-105mm just won't cut.

if you're interested in wildcats and other creatures of the nature you really don't wanna shake your hands with, then i suggest go for at least 300mm (you'll need the distance).

the above recommendation is considering you want a whiskers-of-a-tiger kinda shot. if you prefer wide angle shots, then the 55-200mm should be fine or even the standard kit lens (sorry i'm not familiar with the latest Nikor lenses).

also, if you're thinking of shoot and run (or move) then you might even consider a monopod instead of a tripod.

as for the carrying part, i think it's just a matter or routine. you'll get used to it. my kit contains a Canon 400D with 18-55mm kit lens, a 28-80mm lens, Sony HD handycam and depending on the situation a monopod or a tripod. also carry all the chargers, cables etc. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboyslim (Post 1666046)

Are these grey market prices without warranty? I got the 500D with 18-55 for 44k and was quoted another 14k for the 55-250 (with warranty) a couple of days ago.
The price for D90 with 18-105 was 64k.

If you decide to go with Nikon, I suggest you go with option 2 (especially if this is your first DSLR). Just use the kit lens for sometime and see if it is sufficient for your needs. You can upgrade anytime you feel the need.