Camera purchase recommendations

[dallasimagery]

Hi, I'd like to post in this area to offer some advice on camera purchases for new people.

I see a lot of people these days fall into "marketing hype" and buy the newest stuff, not realizing it very well may not be what they should be buying.

For one, check yourself - are you at a level where you "need" to buy a 1-series canon? If you have only been shooting at year and your stuff is atrocious, save yourself some money.

If you do decide to get a good camera, please - look at the used market. Bodies hold their value VERY well. In fact, I bought a Canon 1ds2 used almost 2 years ago, and it's selling for MORE now than when I bought it! So is my wife's "little brother" 5d.

Consider WHAT you shoot - do you need the AF performance of a 1 series, or the noise capabilities of a D700? If you don't save yourself some money.

IMHO the best "buy" for a body on the market today is the Canon 1ds2. You can pick one up for around $1900. I've shot with it for over 2 years now, and absolutely llllove it. I would never sell it, unless I could get a 1ds3 for the same price It's 17+mpxl of full-frame goodiness, and the world class AF performance of a 1 series body. There's "something" about the shots that come from this body that are truly unique and remarkable. The results are one of the most "film-like" digital cameras I've ever seen or used.

"Sisters":

One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

If that body is too expensive, consider a used Canon 5d. They go for around $1000 these days, and the're basically the same, but with less Mpx and without the 1 series body.

 

[SabrinaO]

Picture is blown, focus is soft, black and white conversion is not good and neither is the composition. You are shooting up the baby's nose. I don't think this picture is gonna persuade anyone to buy a canon. Just saying

 

[MWG]

Picture is blown, focus is soft, black and white conversion is not good and neither is the composition. You are shooting up the baby's nose. I don't think this picture is gonna persuade anyone to buy a canon. Just saying

:lmao:

zingggggggggggg

 

[angeloflight316]

So I have kind of a small budget. And in all honesty. I am just starting. I wanted to get a new camera. I was looking at the Canon Rebel XS. Mostly because its cheaper and also because it's a Canon, Which I prefer anyway. I wanted to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens for it. In my opinion, since I am just starting out and have a lot to learn, I think this would be okay. But what do you think? I would really like to advance in this and make it more then a hobby.

 

[SabrinaO]

So I have kind of a small budget. And in all honesty. I am just starting. I wanted to get a new camera. I was looking at the Canon Rebel XS. Mostly because its cheaper and also because it's a Canon, Which I prefer anyway. I wanted to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens for it. In my opinion, since I am just starting out and have a lot to learn, I think this would be okay. But what do you think? I would really like to advance in this and make it more then a hobby.

What do you like to shoot?

 

[angeloflight316]

So I have kind of a small budget. And in all honesty. I am just starting. I wanted to get a new camera. I was looking at the Canon Rebel XS. Mostly because its cheaper and also because it's a Canon, Which I prefer anyway. I wanted to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens for it. In my opinion, since I am just starting out and have a lot to learn, I think this would be okay. But what do you think? I would really like to advance in this and make it more then a hobby.

What do you like to shoot?

Mostly nature and animals. Iv tried photographing my daughter, but she never cooperates.

 

[angeloflight316]

My goal is to be a good photographer in the next few years. I want to be able to photograph people and events as well.

 

[SabrinaO]

So I have kind of a small budget. And in all honesty. I am just starting. I wanted to get a new camera. I was looking at the Canon Rebel XS. Mostly because its cheaper and also because it's a Canon, Which I prefer anyway. I wanted to get the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens for it. In my opinion, since I am just starting out and have a lot to learn, I think this would be okay. But what do you think? I would really like to advance in this and make it more then a hobby.

What do you like to shoot?

Mostly nature and animals. Iv tried photographing my daughter, but she never cooperates.

haha... how old is your daughter?
What lens does the XS come with? The 55-250 is good for outdoors, but indoor it might be a little too long (if your house isn't huge)

 

[djacobox372]

One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

I had a chuckle at that statement... that's ridiculous. Trust me you cannot really tell the difference between comparable camera models/lenses--that's just in your head.

If you "feel" better about canon, then you should get it. That "feeling" will make your photos turn out better.

 

[MWG]

^ Maybe so, but Nikon is better.

 

[angeloflight316]

What do you like to shoot?

Mostly nature and animals. Iv tried photographing my daughter, but she never cooperates.

haha... how old is your daughter?
What lens does the XS come with? The 55-250 is good for outdoors, but indoor it might be a little too long (if your house isn't huge)

Okay, thanks for the advice with the lens. I did not know that.
It comes with a 18-55mm lens.

My Daughter is 2. She doesn't like to sit still ever. And she will never ever look at me when I have a camera with me lol

 

[Derrel]

SNIP> ...the Canon 1ds2. SNIP> There's "something" about the shots that come from this body that are truly unique and remarkable. The results are one of the most "film-like" digital cameras I've ever seen or used.

"Sisters":

One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

You've absolutely GOT to be kidding!!! Look at that horribly blown-out cheek area on the bottom baby, and the horribly blown-out nose and upper lip of the baby on top. Plus, the crude attempt to burn-in the hand of the baby on the top, to replace the blown-out white areas that should have been the edge of the hand. If ever there was a photo that screamed "digital shot", this is that photo; the way the highlight values are bright, and then simply "blow out" to detail-less, paper-white, over 255--yuck! This image exhibits limited,crude tonality, meaning basically three tonal values; very light gray, extremely light gray, and then an immediate transition to TOTALLY blown-out, detail-less white. This image illustrates the quintessential FAILURE of digital capture: highlight values that go up,and then abruptly clip to detail-less white. There is no B&W film I've ever shot (Tri-X, Tri-X Pan Professional, Plus-X, Panatomic X,T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Verichrome Pan, HP-4, HP-5) that would render the highest tonal values as shabbily as this Canon 1Ds Mark II's digital capture does. This image is a weak example of a "digital" image, and it's about as far from a "film-like image" as one could hope to have to suffer through.

The clipped highlights, and the narrow tonal range shown both serve to make this a poor and "digital-appearing" image. Even the worst B&W film has a shoulder area that handles different highlight densities without clipping suddenly, just above extremely light gray; this capture has no shoulder whatsoever, and clips right to oblivion after the extremely light grays. This image is a massive failure as an attempt to show what a "film-like" high key image actually looks like.

 

[SabrinaO]

LOL. Oh Derrel... even though you are 100% right... we are gonna catch some massive hell today! Hopefully we don't and he can take an honest critique like a man instead tantruming like a child. I was wondering why the hand was glowing....

 

[dallasimagery]

Picture is blown, focus is soft, black and white conversion is not good and neither is the composition. You are shooting up the baby's nose. I don't think this picture is gonna persuade anyone to buy a canon. Just saying

ROFLMAO!!!!!

 

[dallasimagery]

SNIP> ...the Canon 1ds2. SNIP> There's "something" about the shots that come from this body that are truly unique and remarkable. The results are one of the most "film-like" digital cameras I've ever seen or used.

"Sisters":



One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

You've absolutely GOT to be kidding!!! Look at that horribly blown-out cheek area on the bottom baby, and the horribly blown-out nose and upper lip of the baby on top. Plus, the crude attempt to burn-in the hand of the baby on the top, to replace the blown-out white areas that should have been the edge of the hand. If ever there was a photo that screamed "digital shot", this is that photo; the way the highlight values are bright, and then simply "blow out" to detail-less, paper-white, over 255--yuck! This image exhibits limited,crude tonality, meaning basically three tonal values; very light gray, extremely light gray, and then an immediate transition to TOTALLY blown-out, detail-less white. This image illustrates the quintessential FAILURE of digital capture: highlight values that go up,and then abruptly clip to detail-less white. There is no B&W film I've ever shot (Tri-X, Tri-X Pan Professional, Plus-X, Panatomic X,T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Verichrome Pan, HP-4, HP-5) that would render the highest tonal values as shabbily as this Canon 1Ds Mark II's digital capture does. This image is a weak example of a "digital" image, and it's about as far from a "film-like image" as one could hope to have to suffer through.

The clipped highlights, and the narrow tonal range shown both serve to make this a poor and "digital-appearing" image. Even the worst B&W film has a shoulder area that handles different highlight densities without clipping suddenly, just above extremely light gray; this capture has no shoulder whatsoever, and clips right to oblivion after the extremely light grays. This image is a massive failure as an attempt to show what a "film-like" high key image actually looks like.

ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!! I read about ONE line of your post, then ignored the rest, you UGLY, four-eyed, hating FREAK! You only WISH you could create such a beautiful portrait of two little girls as this. Do you have any idea how many people have said this is the best baby portrait they've ever seen?

Your HATE wouldn't have anything to do with your online buddy "Sabrina-O" woudl it? LOL@YOU!!

You don't even POST photos on here and you aren't even good enough to have a web site - you are PATHETIC!

GET RREEAL! LMAO@YOU!!!!!!!!!!! You only WISH you could create anything even LIKE this!

And sabrina, you have caught ENOUGH hell for your HORRIBLE, atrocious, piece of crap "photos" by MANY others on this forum, on several threads. So don't even make me post up some of your trash!!