Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-800.html)

Rudra da, I meant Chromatic Aberration and not flare. Not sure about the flare aspect.

True 65K for 12-24 is pricey. I got my 10-22 Canon last Sep or so. Then it was 45K. (Surely not rubbing salt here! :) ) But wow, I did not realise prices have gone up. But is there anything fundamentally different between the two (Canon and Nikon ?)

I just saw that 12-24 gives a constant F4. Canon 10-22 does not. I think that may explain the difference in pricing between the two, even after correction/increase.

Zoom lenses with fixed aperture will most certainly cost more as compared to lenses with variable apertures.

On a comparative level a Nikkor 70~300 with f/4-5.6 costs much much lesser than the 70~200 f/2.8.

:) The sales guys is quite obviously pushing Canon, and that too not very smartly.

Image Stabilization in Canon is called IS. Obviously Nikon doesn't have IS because they have VR (Vibration Reduction), which is Nikon's word for image stabilization. Both do the same thing - try and get sharper images at low shutter speeds. At high shutter speeds image stabilization doesn't matter. At very low shutter speeds - like keeping shutter open for 30s - it again doesn't matter.

The Tokina's minus points include somewhat high CA, and lens flare when shooting into the sun. But I am thinking that the pluses outweigh the minuses. I haven't researched, but Tokina's CA should be fixable with software - many folks use that Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

DXOmark, Thom Hogan, Ken Rockwell (sometimes he does talk sense) all say that the Tokina 11-16mm is great VFM.

Spending that amount for an UWA is, for me :). I would rather save and spend more on the wildlife lens upgrade than spend more on the UWA, given my nature of shooting.

Did not read much about the Tokina's CA issues. And I would give that a pass -- CA is fixable though software but lens flare is not easily.

Just to give you an example, this is something that the Tokina 11-16 would not have been able to handle. Canon 10-22 did it commendably. The Nikon UWA would have also handled it better.

Dont know about the Tokina, but can vouch for that 10-22. Have been using for a year and absolutely love it. Later I was thinking, when do we need a fixed F4 (as in Nikkor 12-24) for a wide angle. And all I could come up with is a portrait at home. For outdoors, I dont know how much a need that would be.

What he must have meant is that the entry level Nikon do not have an auto focus motor in the body. Hence you have to buy Nikon lenses with motor in the lens. The Nikon older lenses "D" types have no motor hence require costlier bodies. The latest Nikon "G" type lenses have motors but are at least twice as expensive. Canon has no such problems as all their lenses have built in motors.

The whole rationale of getting a DSLR is that you will be using at least two or three lenses with it. So if you are not going to use your DSLR much and not acquiring more lenses, then there is no justification for getting a DSLR. A high end point & Shoot with a wide range Zoom is a much better buy.

DSLR is all about using the best lenses you can afford. As lenses rarely go obsolete (unlike bodies), with time your lens collection grows while your bodies keep getting upgraded. With Nikon if you are on a very tight budget, you can get and use older Manual Focus lenses which will cost you a fraction of the new lens cost. This is not possible with Canon as they changed their mount when they implemented AF.

So think again about getting a DSLR (and not acquire one just because that is all you can afford). Search the Net for articles on lenses and then decide what type of lenses you want. In the long run the DSLR body is the cheapest component of your kit. It is the lenses and other accessories which will suck up your hard earned money.lol:

Recently I have also been thinking of getting a Wide Angle Lens for landscape. What I realized is that you rarely need AF as you are any way going to focus at hyper focal distance most of the time. So I started looking for decent manual focus lenses. I was surprised to see that Nikon still manufactures manual focus lenses. http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product...tLink=gp11zkzg

As there is no point in having fast lens for landscape I have found the 24mm f2.8 AIS lense the best bet. http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product...tLink=gp11zkzg

For wafer thin DOF - portrait work the 50mm f1.2 is aclaimed as one of the better Nikon lenses. http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product...tLink=gp11zkzg

What is interesting (and at the same time reassuring) is that these lenses have an extremely good resale value.

Has any one used either of these?

Hi, This is from a shop in Fort, Mumbai.

Mafsee Cameras
22069221


Canon 1100 D with 18 - 55 IS II lens was quoted for 19,000 INR
Nikon 3100 with same lens was for 23,000 INR

If you plan to buy, let me know. We can negotiate more :)

Thanks for the clarification.

According to your post, Canon makes more sense for me then. Thanks for the elaborate clarification.

Hi Aroy,

Can you pl suggest sony/ cannon in range of 10-20k

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for the info

Definitely we can work out, sending you my no to discuss further

I'm planning for 1100D (with Double Lens Kit (EF-S 18-55mm IS II + EF-S 55-250mm IS II))

Now going through Aroy's clarifications above...what's your view?

The Nikon Coolpix P510 is a decent camera. This has a 42x zoom (24mm - 1000mm FF equivalent)
http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product...0&currentLink=
Here are some reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p510
http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...x_p510_review/

If you want a totally waterproof camera then
Coolpix AW 110. This has 5x Zoom (24-110 FF equivalent)
http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product...oryID=gp11zkyp
Here are some reviews
http://www.cnet.com.au/nikon-coolpix...-339344349.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-aw110
In general a good camera if you want a rugged water proof (and under water camera)

There are equivalent cameras from both Sony and Canon. As I have no experience using them, you can select a camera from the manufacturer's site and read a few reviews to get an idea how they compete with each other.

Hey,

I have been looking to buy the same system as what you are planning. Incidentally i was at Fort on Saturday looking for quotes. My dad's friend who is a professional photographer suggested to check at People's Camera shop, which is exactly on the opposite lane of Mafsee's. They gave me the following quotes which is obviously with Bill and Warranty:

1. 1100D with kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS) = Rs. 17500 (includes the canon bag and 4 GB card)

2. 1100D with double kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS II + EF-S 55-250mm IS II) = Rs. 24500

3. 1100D with kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS) = Rs. 19500 (includes canon bag, 4 GB card, UV protection lens, 8GB class 10 card, lens cleaning kit and some more stuff which i cant recall at the moment)

I am still reading through the entire thread (currently on page 177) to be sure of my decision to go with Canon 1100D with double kit lens (option 2 above). This would be my first DSLR and would be mainly interested in landscapes and portrait photography.

Cheers!

I had opted to 1100D with the double lens kit over a year back and am very happy with the decision. However, if you are mainly into landscapes and portrait then I would suggest go for 18-55 + 50 instead. The 55-250 is an awesome lens, so it makes good investment. If you decide to pick it up later, it's around 18K.

Cheers!!!

Mafsee quoted me, 19000 with the 3rd configuration. It also includes a filter.

On the above recommendation, i am having second thoughts about waiting (Read saving money) and going for the D 3200 by Nikon. It would be future proof as well. But with the 1100 D and the same price as D 3200, you also get the 55- 250 IS II lens which IMO is also worth it.