I got a new toy

[cstreu1026]

I got a new toy tonight. We stopped to pick up some scrap book paper for the wife at Cord Camera by the Dayton Mall. So while she was finding what she needed/wanted I was checking out the camera. Well an hour and half later I got a new camera. I was looking at the Nikon D50 and D80, an Olympus, 2 Cannons, and a Pentax. I ended up getting a Cannon Rebel XTi. I liked the D80 but it was very similar to the Cannon just $300 more expensive. Now I just can't wait to get out to the track and try it out on some nice racing action.

[Paul408Notch]

Don't know if you've had an SLR before, but you think buying car parts is expensive? Wait til you get into buying lenses. :o :D

Congrats though. I love my Canon.

[mustang8998]

Don't know if you've had an SLR before, but you think buying car parts is expensive? Wait til you get into buying lenses. :o :D

Congrats though. I love my Canon.

Here's a question I've had, but never asked. Are the lenses for the digitals the same as all the old SLRs (as in, they can be used on either one)?

Just curious.

[cstreu1026]

The answer I got was maybe yes maybe no. Depends on the lens. It may or may not funtion totally correct....that is if it is an auto focus deal. I really don't understand it all yet though.

[mustang8998]

I guess I should have been more specific. All I have ever used are manual focus. I'd bet most all digital are auto, so I guess the answer would be no (at least for lenses I own).

[Paul408Notch]

Depends on the series of lens. All of the newer Canons are EF or EF-S mount, so it would have to be one of those.

[03trubluGT]

I just got into digital photography about 6 months ago.

I found a Nikon D100 almost NIB (had 36 exposures) for $500. The body alone retailed for $1995.

I've since bought some lenses, an 80-200 f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8 DX, and an 85mm f1.8

With my SB800 flash, bag, tripod, monopod, flash cards, etc, I think I've spent about $4k so far.

If your Canon takes Compact Flash, check out B&H. I just bought some 2GB Lexar 80x flash cards for about $30 each.

Matt

[cstreu1026]

Hell I have been in to this since Friday and have already spent close to $1600. I picked up a 70-300mm lense and a flash yesterday. Hopefully that should be enough to play with for a while. I am thinking I might look into taking a class or two though so I can actually learn to use all the capabilities of my new camera.

[bestracing]

Hell I have been in to this since Friday and have already spent close to $1600. I picked up a 70-300mm lense and a flash yesterday. Hopefully that should be enough to play with for a while. I am thinking I might look into taking a class or two though so I can actually learn to use all the capabilities of my new camera.

I've had a Canon EOS Rebel II SLR with a 35-80mm Canon lens for many years now but film and processing can get quite expensive. Reciently my wife bought me a Canon XTi which my lens is compatable with. I also bought a 70-300mm lens but I got cheaped out a little and got a Tamron. A friend of mine bought one and the picture quality was really good but it has a f-4.5 so low light pictures are difficult.

Also I'm not sure you know this unless you get a digital lens the size of a standard lens is slightly off because of the digital aspect ratio is different than a SLR camera. So if your lens is a standard SLR lens it will be near not quite ~100-450mm on a DSLR.

[cstreu1026]

I bought the Canon lenses. I got a pretty good price on it. They had it priced wrong iin the display case so I got it for $199 instead of the $229 it should have been. The Tamron lens was $159 so I figured for another $40 I would just get the Canon.

[03trubluGT]

Hell I have been in to this since Friday and have already spent close to $1600. I picked up a 70-300mm lense and a flash yesterday. Hopefully that should be enough to play with for a while. I am thinking I might look into taking a class or two though so I can actually learn to use all the capabilities of my new camera.

I would suggest one of these to work with your flash:

http://store.garyfonginc.com/liiido.html

It has helped with indoor flash tremendously.

Also, $1,600 is nothing. I'm not downplaying your investment, but this can get just as addictive as modding and just as expensive. The next lens I'm saving for is $2,699 plus shipping and that's for a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. The Nikon (Nikkor) version of a prime 300mm f2.8 is about $4,599.:mad:

I'd also like to get a couple of flash heads, umbrellas, and remotes for some indoor portraits. You're looking at about $1500-2000 there as well.:rolleyes:

[IWRBB]

I would suggest one of these to work with your flash:

http://store.garyfonginc.com/liiido.html

It has helped with indoor flash tremendously.

Also, $1,600 is nothing. I'm not downplaying your investment, but this can get just as addictive as modding and just as expensive. The next lens I'm saving for is $2,699 plus shipping and that's for a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. The Nikon (Nikkor) version of a prime 300mm f2.8 is about $4,599.:mad:

I'd also like to get a couple of flash heads, umbrellas, and remotes for some indoor portraits. You're looking at about $1500-2000 there as well.:rolleyes:

I'm a newb, what does the $4600 lens do that's so much better than the $200 lens? Is it solely for increased distance?

[03trubluGT]

I'm a newb, what does the $4600 lens do that's so much better than the $200 lens? Is it solely for increased distance?

It gathers light much better.

There might be more groups of lenses and/or the lens is of much better quality.

Here's the Nikon lens:

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2154

Here's the Sigma lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3274&navigator=3

Most "average" lenses start with an apeture of f4-5.6 and do well in copius light, but you need a lens that will go f2.8 or better for low light situations. Personally, since I shoot a LOT of indoor ice hockey, I refuse to buy a lens that is more than f2.8 minimum.

There are some 800mm lenses for $10k or more. Those Canon lenses you see at pro sporting events are at least $5-6k.

Matt

[cstreu1026]

Yeah I realise its gets way expensive. I am already looking towards a faster camera down the road so I can besure to capture the wheels up antics of all my friends at the track. There were a lot of bodies that were a lot more than I have spent so far so I know I have just hit the tip of the iceberg.

[03trubluGT]

Yeah I realise its gets way expensive. I am already looking towards a faster camera down the road so I can besure to capture the wheels up antics of all my friends at the track. There were a lot of bodies that were a lot more than I have spent so far so I know I have just hit the tip of the iceberg.

I bought a used (but damn nice) camera and chose to sink my money into lenses. I've taken some great shots so far, but I know if I took some classes that my product would be much better.

I've taken some cool shots while holding the shutter down at my son's hockey games. I'm planning on processing them and making them into murals.

[bestracing]

I bought the Canon lenses. I got a pretty good price on it. They had it priced wrong iin the display case so I got it for $199 instead of the $229 it should have been. The Tamron lens was $159 so I figured for another $40 I would just get the Canon.

If I would have seen the Canon lens that low on line I would have bought it too. I got my stuff from B&H photo on-line since the Pete's Photo World closed in Florence I wasn't sure who would have the stuff around here.


Most "average" lenses start with an apeture of f4-5.6 and do well in copius light, but you need a lens that will go f2.8 or better for low light situations. Personally, since I shoot a LOT of indoor ice hockey, I refuse to buy a lens that is more than f2.8 minimum.

It would be nice to get a f2.8 lens but I do mostly outdoor photos and I didn't want to spend too much money on a camera when I'm trying to put it into my car :bigthumb

[Paul408Notch]

Just to be clear... just because it's a Canon lens, doesn't mean it's the best there is. I have 4 Canon lenses and 1 Sigma lens, and the Sigma lens takes clearer shots than half of the Canons do.

[bestracing]

Just to be clear... just because it's a Canon lens, doesn't mean it's the best there is. I have 4 Canon lenses and 1 Sigma lens, and the Sigma lens takes clearer shots than half of the Canons do.

Yea, there are a lot of Pro/Am's in Yellowstone using a Sigma 500mm lens which they dubed the "Bigma".

[03trubluGT]

It depends on the lens. If you have a Canon lens that is mediocre, and a third party lens that is a peach, then the third party lens will outshine the cheap Canon.

That said, the Canon 70-200 IL USM f2.8 is one of the best and most widely used lenses on the planet. I have a Nikon Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 lens without the image stabilization (it was about $600 cheaper than with the VR /Nikons version of Image Stabilization called Vibration Reduction/).

Matt