philip_tam

June 15, 2010

I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?

</blockquote>

A 1" grouping on a paper target with an H&K P2000 pistol is undistinguishable from a 1" grouping with a Sig Sauer P226. Firearms are ultimately about groupings. But enthusiasts have a great time talking about the guns themselves.

In general, the Nikon vs. Canon discussion really isn't a huge deal, much for the reasons you mention, but it is something fun to discuss as long as people can carry the conversation with civility, be objective, and not view it as an assault to their ego (though I understand that frequently, such conversations turn ugly). It's also a huge waste of time........ but so are many forums.

You mean "old, manual focus, Nikon glass"? Oh yes, but you need a big lens-body compatibility chart. You know, some lenses will mount but not meter and focus only if you are swinging from a tree by your tail holding the camera in your teeth...

</blockquote>

Do you know how often I've used that compatibility chart? Not once. It's just something you glance at when you're curious. The fact remains that all my friends who use Nikon, we borrow lenses from each other and they all work. No chart checking. When we rent a lens? Again... no chart checking.

I will reiterate that I think Canon's move to EF was a good thing, both for Canon and for photography in general. The EF mount is a great design, and specifically for me, 'obsolete' state of the FD mount means I have all these old, well designed lenses and cameras that I can buy on the cheap.

June 15, 2010

If you like landscapes, an ultrawide lens will be very fun (albeit, challenging) to take pictures with. It also makes for interesting portraits because of the perspective distortion.

Note however, than with ultrawide lnses, you're usually not aiming to throw the background out of focus, so don't chase f/2.8 expecting that you'll get prime-like bokeh (my coworker made that mistake when he bought that Tokina lens you mentioned). The meat of these APS-C ultrawides is done around roughly f/8, to maximize sharpness, and to increase depth of field so everything is in focus. The wider you get, the more depth of field you tend to have.

Just throwing something out there: I know you're focused on landscape and people, but how about the 60mm AF-S micro? It's good as a longer portrait lens, and gets your foot in the door for macro.

June 15, 2010

To be honest, that's simply not discussing the subject in full. Canon released an adaptor for their EOS bodies so consumers could use the adapter in full. It was a bit pricy then, but now the reason for its price difference is because Canon thought, silly them, that you might finally give in and upgrade. If you want, there are a ton of ones to be had and if you can get an elephoto, its not that bad. Arguing Nikon's sake on the lens issue is just ridiculous. Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now... Have you ever taken a step back and looked at a Nikon compatibility chart?

</blockquote>

Well, yes, of course I have. It takes a bit of sifting, but for me it really boils down to two things: Every new lens Nikon lens I buy now will meter on my Nikon camera. Every new Canon lens I buy now will meter on my Canon camera (yes, I have a Canon body). If I went out and bought a 1977 manual focus lens, it will meter on my Nikon camera. The 1978 FD mount manual focus lens I have in my hand right now will not even *mount* on an EF camera (and let's be realistic, I'm not about to pay $1000 for an EF-FD adaptor).

Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now. If you really want some old glass, why not just continue to use the old camera body too?

</blockquote>

Simple question, simple answer. The FD lenses are built like tanks. Seriously. I can use old glass on a *digital* Nikon body. Somebody find me a Canon digital FD mount camera (so in short, I have no choice *but* to use it on an old camera body).

When are we going to just eyeroll at these threads. They are simply useless... Which is better? Nikon or Canon? Well.

</blockquote>

I think most certainly the differences are scant such that it really boils down to personal preference. Even if a camera is marginally, quantifiably, better than another, it rarely makes a difference in real world conditions, and most obviously, the actions of the photographer make *much* more difference than any of these comparisons. However, there *are* differences... and it can be fun to discuss them, so long as people don't get their egos bruised.

Put another way, if you throw two individuals into a gun dual, and give one guy a Sig Sauer 556, and the other a H&K 416, who ultimate dies depends vastly on who has better experience and training....... but gun nuts still have tons of fun discussing the differences!

Hey, I took this with a Canon. Can someone tell me how it would be better with a Nikon? Or if I took it with a Nikon, how it would be better with a Canon?

</blockquote>

Without knowing the baseline conditions, it's hard to speculate, althought the improvements, if any, are probably marginal. Plus, it's much easier discussing how to improve a bad picture than how to improve a good picture.

Nikon is into visual trademarks that adorn basketball shoes, and I can't deal with that

Such as basketball shoes and red rings around lens fronts? =) I jest... I probably have a looser affiliation with Nikon than you to Canon, but likewise, if Nikon imploded, I would shed a tear, shrug, and go on a Canon shopping spree. I could really enjoy either, I just happened to pick Nikon at a time when its ergonomics were key to me, and built a platform around it.

June 14, 2010

ALL EF lenses work fine and meter and AF fine on ALL Canon SLRs.

</blockquote>

I should also note that I have a Canon film camera. Back when Canon introduced the EF mount, they completely abandoned the FD mount, and all the FD camera bodies and lenses are now swimming around Ebay. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 for $40.

I'm sure the people who paid money for Canon's FD equipment way back then were extremely pissed when Canon did the big "F U," but ultimately it's been good for me, since I can scoop up this equipment really cheap (and good for Canon too, I think).

I do think that Canon's mount is more modern than Nikon's mount, but look at it another way: you can mount a 1977 manual focus lens on a D300s, and it will work perfectly. You cannot screw in a 1978 FD lens onto a Canon EF camera. There are no cheap adaptors... the adaptors require corrective optics: they are rare and *very* expensive.

This means that a 1977 Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens will go for $100 or more on ebay, because you can still use it with a D300. A 1978 Canon 50mm f/1.4 only goes for $40, because there are so few modern cameras that can use it.

I grew up with a Canon AT-1 and a total of 3 (spelled out: three) FD mount lenses. So when the EOS mount came along I obviously could never forgive Canon for letting down one seriously committed customer :)

</blockquote>

Such as this fellow right here!

June 14, 2010

I think it's fun to debate this, so long as people don't get so emotional about it. [standard opening with balanced phrases] I use Nikon, my camera buddy uses Canon. I like both brands. When people ask me for camera advice, I usually listen to what they say and have not issue recommending either (sometimes I recommend Canon).

[now begins the more partial stuff]

I like the ergonomics on Nikon better. Every Canon Body, Xsi, right up to 5D Mk. II, feels like a rickety, squeeky, mess to me, as well as their cheaper lenses.

I like the general features on Canon better. Most/all their cameras, generally speaking, have the same features, like bracketing, excellent video performance (1080P!). Nikon, at times have skimped here and there on some features. The D40/60/3000 doesn't have bracketing, for example. The 40/60 only had 3 autofocus points.

Back to ergonomics, I like how Nikon (sort of) prefers the thumb wheel over Canon's trigger wheel on budget models. Changing aperture doesn't require you to move the trigger finger with Nikon. Changing ISO on Canon required that you pushed the ISO button, move your index finger off the shutter release to the wheel, turn it, move your finger back to the shutter release, and take the picture. On Nikon, you could do all that and keep your trigger finger on the shutter release. On the mid-end, Nikon has a thumb wheel and a trigger wheel (which I prefer) over Canon's trigger wheel + menu wheel.

Lens selection: I think Canon has a somewhat broader range of lenses, but irritatingly, it seems like with every category of lens, you get your choice between a cheap, plastic, rickety lens, and a built-like-a-tank $1500 L lens. Nikon seems to walk the middle road a bit better.

D700 vs. Canon 5D Mk. II: I found it amusing that it was the menu that tilted the balance for the OP. With my friend, Nikon's 'reverse-threading' (clockwise screws the lens out) that broke the deal. But compare cameras for a sec: niether of them are very 'balanced. Yes, the 5D Mk. has a good balance between resolution and high ISO. The D700 skimps on resolution... but for god's sake the D700 is a *machine-gun*, with a super accurate autofocus. You hold the button down, and, a few seconds later, you have 15 pictures of a condor mid-flight.

Now the Canon 7D vs. the D300s: I've been thoroughly impressed with the 7D. Fast shooting, fast autofocus... overall an amazing camera.

June 9, 2010

Rachel,

The Canon 5D Mk. II is an incredibly good camera, but here's my advice: splurge on the lenses. Do not do "bang for the buck" for lenses... do that for the camera body.

If you like still photography, the 5D Mk. II is *waaaaay* overkill. This is a camera that autofocuses as fast as you can blink an eye, and can fire off snapshots like a machine gun. Your preferred subject matter doesn't move, and will wait for you.

If you think that you will want to go full-frame later, you might want to consider buying full-frame lenses, and a 7D. The Canon 7D is no slouch of a camera: I believe it's a newer model, takes video very well, and is very capable as a professional/semi-professional camera. The $1000 price difference will let you get a couple of budget lenses, or an L lens that will last you a lifetime.

Later on, when you decide to upgrade to full-frame, the 5D Mk. II will be much much cheaper, because the Mk. III or heck, the MK. IV will be out.

If you buy the 5D Mk. II and get 1 or 2 cheap lenses, you will be using very little of its capabilities, and during that whole time, it will depreciate as Canon releases newer stuff. If you get a good lens, or a wider array of lenses, and a more moderate camera body, you'll have more fun, learn a lot more, and the lenses will stay with you as you upgrade camera bodies.

Consider the 7D. It's an excellent camera, and it's $1000 cheaper. That $1000 could get you a 100mm f/2.8L USM Macro. You'll be happily snapping pics of flowers, bugs, and geckos for month after month while all you can do after the 5D is save, wait, and save some more. Just $400 would get you the Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro (which can only be used on the 7D/APS-C cameras), an excellent still life lens.

For lenses, if you're on a budget, and you're sure you want the 5D, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 would be nice, or maybe the Sigma 50mm or 70mm Macro. Wide-Angle Lenses... well.. this one is more sensitive to which camera you choose. If you get an APS-C Camera (7D, etc.), you have a range of choices: Tokina 12-24 (likely a good choice), Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, etc. If you go the 5D route, the choices are narrow: Canon 16-35mm ($1400), Canon 17-40mm ($700 - probably the most reasonable choice), Sigma 17-35, or Tamron 17-35.

June 3, 2010

You should probably take your kit lens and practice framing 35mm shots, and then practice 50mm shots, and see which one you're more comfortable with. Then buy that lens.

So far, with 35mm set on the kit lens, they have all been great, none really distorted or make him look weird. Just wondering if anyone else had any problems at 35mm with a newborn or if it worked out ok for them.

</blockquote>

It won't make him look ridiculously distorted like a wide angle. It's just a different perspective compared to a 50mm (x1.5). The relative size of the nose vs. the ears will be ever so slightly different (more pronounced as you get closer). A far greater concern is your working distance, and how tight/wide you want the background. 35mm is fine for portraits, especially since babies aren't like people and don't get buggy when your camera is 3 ft from their face.

June 1, 2010

If I may be bold enough to raise the race card, you are rather more at risk in London being of brown complexion, a bushy beard and carrying a black rucksack than being a middle aged white guy sporting a beer belly.

</blockquote>

Well, I wouldn't know. I'm nowhere near either xD

June 1, 2010

Looking at KEH.com, I'm thinking used Nikon and spend my money on lenses. Now to figure out if I want D40, D50, D60, etc. I see KenRockwell.com recommends D40. Any help?

</blockquote>

Ken Rockwell is kind of a minimalist (and he's writing a crowd that is mostly just beginning). I wouldn't recommend a D40: it's a good camera but for just a *little* more money, you can have so much more. The D40 is also very old... the only advantage the D40 has going for it over anything else is its (shockingly) fast flash sync speed, but most new photographers don't even know what that is!

A D5000 is a fantastic camera, it has more megapixels than the D40, better high-ISO performance, more autofocus points, and exposure bracketing. As Luc says, it does many of the things you want a camera to do, whether you're a pro or a beginner... except off-camera flash.

June 1, 2010

I find that people aren't nervous if you take pictures inside the airport. Just never take pictures of the security line/system, or in customs/immigration. I've taken pictures of the plane from the airport window without trouble. When you travelling, depending on the city, you will also have to be careful about taking pictures in subways, subway platforms, train stations, etc. London, which is a very uptight city in terms of security, they don't seem to care too much about photos in the subway. NYC however, you will get some grief.

I was in Penn Station, and they had a huge American flag draped over the building. I was taking a picture of that, and a police officer stopped me and asked me to show him the pictures. It was a bit ironic (here I am, celebrating American culture, and catching grief for it), but after he made sure I wasn't doing anything bad, he let me resume taking pictures.

Having camera equipment through security: never had a problem. I just put the photobag through the X-ray.

June 1, 2010

I think my biggest problem is really having a style of my own. We're constantly told about composition rules, and we see great examples of nicely composed pictures. I seem to try to emulate those compositions too much... too many tried and true composition tricks like rule of thirds, and foreground interest. I sometimes feel like I'm just playing by other people's rules.

But I think I do ok... I don't fret over details too much. It doesn't have to be perfect to be a good picture (and worrying about the details too much ruins the fun).

May 28, 2010

After reading several more reviews last night, the Pentax K-x is looking like the one for me. My main question now is do I add the extra $100-130 to get the 50-200 lens as part of the kit or save that towards a better one.

</blockquote>

Hi Kristi, the 50-200mm will get you good close ups during sports. It is however, a "slow" lens (the aperture values f/4 etc., are slow [the lower the number, the larger the aperture opening of the lens, the more light it takes in, thus the faster the lens]). It should be fine if you're in bright daylight and set your ISO high [or use the sports setting on the camera].

If however, you're doing indoor sports, or anything other than bright daylight, the 50-200mm might be a challenging lens to use. A 50mm lens f/1.8 or f/1.4 will be faster... it won't get you close, but it will get the shot.

If you don't plan in buying many lenses, the Pentax K-x is a great camera. If however, you later plan to get a ton of lenses (say 4 or more), you should give serious consideration to Canon or Nikon. Other industries, yes, it's ok to pick the not-so-popular brand, but cameras are different because 3rd party lens manufacturers will make lenses mostly for the popular brands. You will have a lot more choices if you stick to Canon or Nikon. [for example, I can pick a given Sigma or Tamron lens and see if it's available on Pentax mount, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's out of stock]. If however, you plan to get no more than say, 3 lenses, it really just is a matter of taste, and you will be very happy with a Pentax K-x if you get it.

May 27, 2010

Yeah, it's in AF-S mode, single point autofocus, AEL/AF control is set to both AE/AF like normal, I use A mode, and half depress doesn't work.

I'll send it in for servicing.

May 27, 2010

4. A sturdy carry bag/backpack/shoulder bag- I can't seem to decide on any particular brand. Any suggestions would be great.

</blockquote>

How big? For large bags, Kata 467 or similar, inexpensive at bhphoto. It carries a laptop but doesn't carry big lenses (70-200 f2.8's). Lowepro and Tenba are probably more familiar, and they have lots of inexpensive options.

May 27, 2010

I checked the Focus-Mode, set it to AF-S, and it didn't work. I tried every other mode too.

(I'm not sure the D60 can set the AF/AEL button as AF only... can it?)

May 27, 2010

I'm finding that I'm having an autofocus lock problem on my D60.

Usually, I use point autofocus, point at what I want to focus on, half-press and hold, and re-frame. Lately however, I've been noticing that even though I hold the button down, as soon as I re-frame, the camera will try to refocus. Sometimes it will hold the autofocus, but after I reframe and do a full-press, it will attempt to autofocus again (often taking its sweet time to do so).

I reset all the settings and changed them back (AF-S Single Servo AF, AF-Area Mode: Point), and it still doesn't work. When I use the thumb button for AE/AF-Lock, it works... but 1. sometimes I don't want to have both exposure and focus locked, and 2. holding the AE Lock thumb button is rather awkward for me.

I also tried switching lenses... same result.

What could be wrong with the camera?

May 26, 2010

I think you've got a great kit planned for London.

It's really different for everyone, but I found myself using my ultra-wide (10-24mm, on APS-C) 60% of the time I was in London.

Remember, it's bright outdoors even when it's cloudy, so it's not really low-light, but the 50mm 1.4 will be great for all those museum crawls and dark pubs.

Posted May 26, 2010 · May 26, 2010

To me, when you get a 2nd lens (assuming it's significantly different from your first lens), you *enable* many more pictures than you will miss by having the wrong lens on.

When you pick a lens and snap it on, and hear it click, you're doing the hunting... you're on the offense. When a shot opportunity appears that you didn't anticipate, and you have the wrong lens on, you're reacting... you're on the defense. This isn't to say that reacting can't produce great pictures... it often can. But being on the hunt is a lot more fun!

May 19, 2010

Regarding Bokeh:

If bokeh quality is a major desire, the cheaper Canon primes may be poor in this regard. I think they tend to have less or cheaper diaphram blades so the bokeh doesn't come out so nice. Sigma's 30mm or 50mm primes might be better. The 30mm in reviews seems to get ridiculed for corner softness, but the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a quality lens that you can carry around forever.

May 19, 2010

Hi Liz,

If your significant other has Canon, I really recommend you stick with that. In the long run, it will save you a lot of money, and it will let you really share the photography experience. The only reason you should shy away from Canon is if there's something really compelling about another brand to you, or you don't like Canon's ergonomics.

I actually recommend the 18-55mm kit lens as a starter lens. You seem to have an interest in macro/flower photography, and the kit lens is quite decent in this regard. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an excellent lens, but doesn't do as well as the Canon kit lens in magnification/close focusing, I believe.

The kit lens is just $100, it won't hurt your wallet to scoop it up. Later on, if you don't like it, you can invest in the Tamron, and a dedicated macro lens, but the kit lens is a great place to start. Any macro lens is going to put you back $400 minimum, so if you want to dabble in macro early on without dumping a lot of cash, the kit lens is a good way to go.

For low-light/event photos, it would be great to get a prime lens. Canon has a very affordable (but plasticky) 50mm f/1.8 ($100), and a 35mm f/2 ($240). The latter is probably better for group photos, as 50mm can be a bit tight on APS-C/cropped frame cameras. They also have a 28mm f/1.8 USM, but I think the 35mm is a good balance of focal length, image quality, build quality, and cost.

Just a word of warning: I don't use Canon. Anything I say is really just what I read from reviews and interacting with photography buddies who use Canon.

May 19, 2010

If you want to use a GND filter, it has to be a square filter. I simply could not imagine using a GND filter as a screw in filter... it would be a major handicap if I weren't able to shift the transition line up and down like you can with a square filter.

The CP can be screw in or a round one that fits into a slot (on the Cokin holders). I rarely use both a CP and a GND, but if I had to, I can screw the CP onto the lens, then screw the square filter holder onto the CP. It is awkward to use but there are wider ranges of CP's available as screw-in types (and I tend to stick to Hoya for CP's). You could of course go with the round ones that fit into the filter holders.

May 19, 2010

The D3000 kit lens actually does ok as a macro lens, and the Sigma 17-70mm probably won't do significantly better. The only lenses that'll do much better are macro primes. Your kit lens is decent as a scenery/landscape lens. 18mm is quite wide, and for landscapes you tend to stop down anyways.

The Nikon 60mm f/2.8 and the Tamron 90mm (make sure it's the one that autofocuses on the D3000) are good choices. They can be used as portrait lenses too (60mm especially) but it can't be a goofy focal length to work with for landscapes.

May 17, 2010

I always take off the 'protection' filter, but when I am walking around the State Fair and some kid shoves his iced milk into my lens (his dad wanted me to buy the kid a new one) it's really nice to have the protection.

</blockquote>

Wow. What a jerk. I'd have said: "Sure I'll buy your kid a new one... after you buy me a new lens."

May 12, 2010

Yeah, I don't shoot RAW unless it's something I'm sure I'm going to do post-processing for. Shooting 200+ pics a day, it would be insane to even pick out the best 20 and photoshop them all.

Plus I tend to keep everything, so RAW files would just eat up lots of hard drive space.

May 10, 2010

Thanks for the help. I'm going to get a CLA done, and I've already ordered a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hopefully it'll be on its way soon.

The camera seems well taken care of: the shutter actuation doesn't sound problematic, but I definately see most of the bumper next to the focusing screen worn away.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by philip_tam