I've seen lots of great pics in here, but little or no mention of the cameras/lenses used, what are you using, and what are you hoping to get? Currently have... Camera: Canon 450D Lens: Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS Canon 50mm f1.8 Canon 80-200 f4.5-5.g (truly awful lens ) Accessories: sigma ef 530 dg st Flash Manfrotto Tripod (rarely gets used) On the wishlist: Canon 60D Canon 70-200 f2.8 Flash triggers, stand and umbrella
Right so first of all I know very little about the technical aspect of lens etc. I kinda just point focus and shoot. I worry about the editing in Camera Raw. Camera: Nikon D90 Lens: Nikon 18-105mm f/9.0 Nikon 50mm f/6.3 Accessories: Some noname tripod Adobe Camera Raw :3
Camera: Nikon D40x (well old now) Lens: Nikon 18-55mm Nikon 55-200mm Accessories: Manfrotto tri-pod ND 10 filter ND 8 filter UV filter Polarising filter Star 6 filter Think that's about it. I need a new 18-55mm lens as mine has terrible barrel distortion.
Just added a Hoya ND400 filter to my kit. It's going to take seven days to have it sent to my address in Sydney which is a bit annoying.
Do your filters get much use? I've only used a UV filter, basically to protect the glass behind it...
I like long exposures and landscapes, so yes, they get a lot of use. Going by your kit you're into portraits and the sort? If shooting portraits outdoors with a wide aperture it could be worth investing in a CPL or ND filter to block any excess light coming into your lens.
I got a lend of the L series 70-200 f2.8 to shoot a wedding last week, blew me away, would love to post some of the pics but not sure if the bride would approve. I have to get this lens, focused so fast i wasn't sure if the AF was working at all (it was, never missed iirc), all yours for the moderate sum of £1500
So i finally got the 70-200 f2.8L, love it! got a 7d as well, its some step up from the 450D, the focus and quick burst shots are the first thing you notice, but there is a ton of features i've yet to get to grips with. The video is simply sublime, much better than my video camera (canon XL2), although the audio lets it down.
I'm just starting out photography. I'm using Nikon D3000. Perfect for beginners. But I'm also wanting to buy the Nikon D7000 but I don't have enough money to buy it yet. I have 70-300mm macro sigma. I like macro photography.
Just ordered a Canon EOS 550D for Christmas with a 55mm f1.8 lense Now shopping around for a good DSLR shoulder rig with follow focus as it'll be used quite a bit for video
I just upgraded my kit, so am now currently rocking: Bodies Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon 400D Lenses EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM EF 90-300 f/4.5-5.6 EF 50 f/1.8 Mark II EFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 Mark II EFS 50-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS Plus Speedlite 430 EX II Whilst the 400D will mostly be consigned to the bench now I have the 5D Mark II, it certainly serves as a useful second body given the 1.6x crop factor against the 5D's full frame. Next purchases will be the battery grip for the 5D body, and the ST-E2 remote flash controller; followed by the EF 70-200 f/2.8L.
There's not much in it to be honest. The 550D will perform better if you're planning on using the movie function alot, although the still image quality of the D90 is slightly better. Whilst the 550D has one stop extra available to it in ISO, it is noisier in low light conditions than the D90, which also shoots at 4.5fps compared to the 550D's 3fps, making it better for action shots, or fast moving children / animals etc. I personally prefer the Canon system to Nikon, but it really is just a case of preference. If you don't have a brand loyalty or preference, and haven't bought into a system in terms of lenses and accessories as yet, I'd probably go with the D90 for still photography. I'd go with the 550D for movies. Seperate point altogether For those who have used either of, or preferably both of the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM and the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L USM... I am currently tossing up between the two. In an ideal world I would just buy the f/2.8 IS version, but at double the cost I can't really justify it. To be honest, I'm really tossing up between the 4 stops of image stabilisation of the f/4 against the bokeh of the f/2.8. The extra stop of light from the f/2.8 is easily offset by the IS of the f/4 so isn't in itself a consideration, although native performance is mildly preferable. Yes, I should be shooting at high shutter speeds with that lens anyway - in most applications it's an action lens. But, as a utility piece with extra reach, I'd like to be able to stretch that little further in low light conditions. Gah! Decisions decisions!
Depends what you want to use it for. Both are awesome lenses, but have different advantages. For me I shoot a lot of my kids playing ice hockey and figure skating, which due to the speed of the action and the typically poor light in the arenas, means that the faster F2.8 glass is essential. Even though the F4 has IS which is great for lowlight, longer exposure photos of static objects, it is no use for action shots in low light. Having said that the F4 is a smaller, lighter lens and is possibly one of the sharpest zoom lenses money can buy. For me I really wanted the Canon F2.8 USM with the IS, but I couldn't justify spending almost $3K on a lens. Instead I opted for the F2.8 Sigma with the IS which is almost as good as the Canon and "only" cost me $1300. It also has a 10 year warranty in Canada. If you dont need to shoot low light/indoor action shots though the F4 Canon would be awesome.
I bought an f2.8L non-IS along with the 7D, I now wish i'd went for a 60D and spent the money I saved on a 2.8 IS. One thing worth mentioning, the 2.8L is heavy, and the IS will add weight, its not a fun lens to lug around all day without a tripod/monopod.
Another few things worth mentioning; If your shooting moving subjects in low light, the f4 IS won't be half as useful as the f2.8. But on the other hand, the f4 is lighter, meaning easier hand held shots
Thanks for the feedback guys. I am only too aware that the IS will not help with action shots. To be entirely honest however, I don't expect to be shooting fast moving subjects in low light very often. Most of my low-light shots are candid portraits or moody scenes, and I think in those circumstances I would rather shoot 4 stops down in shutter speed as opposed to 1 stop down in glass and three stops up in ISO. Weight isn't a major consideration. Right now, I either have a camera in my hand, or a 5kg rifle... sometimes both. I'm going to have a play with both, but I suspect the IQ of the f/4 might just win me over.
