Help Wanted in Choosing a New Camera.

Like others have said, I think changing lenses is a pain but we should probably explain why it is a pain for those who haven't used DSLR's before. The switching over is actually very simple - push a button on the camera body, turn the lens a few degrees and it pops out, line the markers on the lens with the one on the camera, push the lens in and turn to lock (or if you're like me - just put the indicator somewhere near where it should be, push and turn until it slips in and locks). Simple.

It's a pain because we only have two hands, and with a body and two lenses you either need three hands, or a flat and preferably stable surface to change on - in front of an animal exhibit is not a really good place. Secondly, the idea is to make the switch as quickly as possible as you want the interior of the camera - and the back of the lens - open and exposed for the shortest time possible. Because when they are exposed dust and grit and anything else can get in and once inside your camera it will put marks on all your images, and you may have to pay to have the camera serviced. Ideally, you should only be changing lenses inside.

:p

Hix
 
LaughingDove said:
...A lens for a DSLR won't have an equivalent focal length written on since it depends on the body, but for the ones you'll be looking at it is x1.4...
Click to expand...
Technically it is 1.6x for Canon and 1.5x for Nikon. For those who have no idea what we are talking about, "equivalent focal length" means how a lens looks on your specific camera in relation to what lens would give the same look on a 35mm film camera (or a full frame sensor digital camera). I forget if I already went over this on an earlier post, if so please indulge me.

The size of a digital sensor (or piece of film) affects how magnified the image is. Any lens projects a given image size, but if you project that onto a smaller sensor you are only seeing a portion of the image, making it look magnified or "more telephoto" for lack of a better phrase. So if we are used to what a 300mm telephoto looks like with our old film camera and we buy a Canon crop sensor body like the one being discussed (whose sensor is smaller than a 35mm negative), it will look like it is a lens 1.6 times stronger than 300mm, becoming the "equivalent" of 480mm. Of course it is still a 300mm lens, it just looks like a 480mm on your camera (unless you have an expensive camera with a "full frame" sensor that is the same size as a 35mm negative).
 
Having gone thru this same process about 18 months ago, I'll throw my 2 cents into this. Everything I've read in this discussion is spot on and excellent advice. I used a Minolta film SLR system for 30 years until 2007, then went digital with a Kodak superzoom that allowed me to take advantage of a lot of the SLR features. About a year ago I finally pulled the trigger on a DSLR system and am so glad I did. I too looked at all the options available (within my budget) from Nikon, Canon, and Pentax. I finally chose the Pentax K50, 16.1mp 1.5x crop senor (big enough for a 11x14 print). I chose Pentax for 5 reasons. It just felt the best in my hands, it has image stabilization built into the body so any lens I put on it is stabilized, it will take any K mount lens made since 1975 without an adapter, it's well built and weather sealed, and compared to Nikon and Canon it was a mid level camera at an entry level price. I got just the body new, picked up a 55-300 Pentax DA zoom used in mint condition, and a Pentax 28-70 FA zoom used (made about 1996 for film camera) all for under $425usd. The only things I have added to this setup is a circular polarizing filter and a set of neutral density filters (already had a tripod). I think now I want to add a macro lens, about a 35mm or 50mm fixed focal length.

Having used this for about a year now and taken about 5,000 shots with this setup, I must say I have only learned to use about 25% of it's capabilities. Every day I learn something new the camera can do. I have not found anything I wanted to do that the camera couldn't. The only thing that will limit you with any camera system will be your own creativity and technical skill. The best advice I can give is the same that was givin to me about 15 years by an IT professional when I was looking for a new computer, and also applies here. Cameras and lenses are evolving so fast the only thing you can do is do your research and decide on what meets your needs now and what you think will meet your needs in the near future, buy it and don't look back. Don't even look at another camera advertisement for a year. Learn to use your new camera fully and work on improving your creativity and skill, which could be several years, then if you find something you want to do better and can't, it might be time to look for a better setup. I have not even gotten close to that point yet.
 
Very good advice above. A bit off topic, but just for your information RetiredToTheZoo, I worked at a photo lab and you can print images from your camera larger than 11x14. (Any good lab can upsize the file for you).
 
I have just returned from South Africa having taken with me a Nikon P900 (2000x) bridge camera and a Canon 5 D. My partner took a Canon SX60HS Powershot Bridge and a Nikon D7200. I used the P900 almost exclusively only occasionally going through the tedious task of changing lenses and using the 5D and my partner used her D7200 mostly with her 150/500mm lens. I have got used to the P900 so generally get great results. What I find useful is the ability to get very close with the superzoom, however it has its downside, some shots can be distorted, its not good at low light, the auto focus can sometimes focus on the wrong place, for example a branch in front of a bird. Since most of my shots are digitally manipulated I do not mind jpeg or slightly out of focus. Of course, if you need RAW forget the P900, it is not suitable. I use Piccure+ in Photoshop and this does a fine job of sharpening the photos and reducing lens distortion and motion blur, so much so people will think you have a super expensive lens. One word of warning, Superzooms are not as robust as a decent SLR, I have damaged mine twice and have had great service from Nikon UK.
 
@Gareth Parkes I too use the P900 and like you find it a great camera. I will have to disagree with you though regarding distortion and miss-focusing. Really as long as I'm using the focus spots correctly I don't have a problem. I do agree with the complaint about low light capabilities (without flash, that is).
 
savethelephant said:
@Gareth Parkes I too use the P900 and like you find it a great camera. I will have to disagree with you though regarding distortion and miss-focusing. Really as long as I'm using the focus spots correctly I don't have a problem. I do agree with the complaint about low light capabilities (without flash, that is).
Click to expand...

I guess I could use the lens manually if I really needed to focus on my chosen subject, however there is a big difference photographing at a zoo or in the wild. In the wild birds often fly off so quickly that its hard to get the shot right. All the same, I enjoy my P900.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top