What camera are you shooting with?

my first dslr was a sony a350. great camera for what it was back in 08. in 11 switched out to an a77. that was an excellent camera especially when paired with the 16-50 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. the translucent mirror tech was killer. unfortunately, i ran into some cash problems and had to sell it, along with all my sony gear. was without a camera for over a year, and jsut recently switched over to nikon and the d7000. its not the a77 but its still an awesome body. i also picked up a few lenses, to try and get back to that point where i left off with my sony gear.

 

Would you rather have your a77 or the d7000? These are out of question for me, but I'm just curious. I can get the Nikon d5100 with the kit lens 18-55mm for $449.00 right now and the Sony a55 with kit lens is $499, both are on sale.

 

the sony a77 is a very good camera. there are no qualms about it. if i had to choose between the a77 and the d7000. it would be a REALLY tough choice. but i would go with the d7000. the a77 shoots super quick, higher resolution, flip screen, and better light sensitivity. but the d7000 has the tranditional viewfinder, lower noise at high iso, A LOT more lenses to choose from, and more focus points. both bodies are weather sealed. another reason i chose the d7000 specifically is because it uses the sony sensor, kinda gave me that peace of mind for switching over to the dark side LOL.

in your case. those two cameras are equally matched, but in the end, i would go with the nikon, simply because the lens availability. nikon has almost 3x the lenses sony does. to me, sony dslrs are for the purists, those who have a loyalty to the brand, or those who came in from when sony bought out minolta.

 

Thanks for the feedback..I'm going to check them both out again and see which one feels better. The a57 can take panoramic photos, not sure if the d5100 has this feature. There is so many things that these cameras do that I don't understand so I'm taking a plunge into this and hoping I make the right decision.

 

definately. yeah, the whole dslr hobby can be a whole lot of intimidating at first, but just take your time and enjoy. dont be pressured to try to know everything, cause then it wont be fun. and when you start taking pics, people are bound to critique your pics, take it with a grain of salt, cause in the end your pics are of what you see and your artistic style. not every picture is going to appeal to everyone.

 

Just got my 2nd DSLR. Had a Nikon D200 which I enjoyed, but didn't use that much. Wanted to get back into photography again, so picked up a D800 and picked up a few new lenses. 80-200/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 16mm fisheye/2.8, 20/2.8. Also picked up the SB910 flash. Taking a trip to Alaska this summer so wanted to hopefully get some good images there. Haven't had much time to get into the new camera, hoping to soon since I'm getting a new truck

Jon

 

HUH: good score. i have a quick question. what made you go with the 80-200 f2.8 vs say, the beast 70-200 f2.8 vrii (or even the vri for that matter)? my next lens is going to be that focal range but i really dont know which one i want. they have about 3-4 lenses all in the same range and imo its kinda sad cause its like they are all eating into their own market share. im talking about 80-200 f2.8, 70-200 f4, 70-200 vri, 70-200 vrii.

 

Actually nothing made me go with it. I actually had this from my film camera days and my N90s. Guess I mistyped a bit of that. I had been using the 'kit' lens that came with my D200 along with my 80-200 and the 20mm lenses. The new lenses I bought for the new camera were the 28-70 and the 16 fisheye.

I do like the 70-200 vr/vr2, but since I have had the 80-200 for a long time, it's still a fantastic lens, I saw no reason to upgrade. The 80-200 may not have all the bells and whistles of the 70-200 series, but for 1/2 the cost it is something to think about. Also, in the 10 years or so that I've had that lens, it is still holding pretty close to the same price I paid for it.

I'm looking at 3-4 more lenses and I should be pretty well set. 200mm/micro, 85/1.4, 135/2DC, 50/1.4, and 14-24/2.8.

As for which lens to get, what you can afford first of all, but I would try to get one of the 2.8s as opposed to the f4. Always nicer to be a little faster.

Jon

 

5d mark ii with 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L, 24-105L, 70-200L f2.8 is ii. Use to shoot with 40D before upgrading to FF. old camera and some lens for sale on here now.

 

D3100, 18-55, 55-200, Sigma 610 flash.

Haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces yet. Just some test shots of my feet.

 

Nikon D700; more camera than I actually need.

 

That's how I feel about the 5100/7100.
Most hobbyists won't use more than the 3100/3200 offers.
And the 3100 is $449 with the 18-55, or $549 with the 18-55 and 55-200.

 

I've been shooting a little more


Little brother:


Grandma's dog:


Gecko foot:

 

Tips are welcome. I'm new to photography.

 

Awesome shots Buzzard, but the girl standing in front of the tree would have greatly benefited from a diffused fill flash with an amber filter.
The camera metered in on the setting sun, and that part of the exposure is decent... maybe even a bit overexposed (sky is a touch washed out), but the dark foreground hurts the overall shot.

 

How do you guys get such good quality professional looking pictures?

I have a Canon T4i and I don't know if it's just from editing or from a setting on the camera that you guys set it on but it looks great! Can anyone chime in on this?

 

5100 is roughly $100 more than the 3100 and $100 less than the 3200 and has very usable better specs than both for the most part. The 24mp is useless compared to 16mp on the 3200 IMO.

My opinion is that the 5100 is the better entry level when comparing the three, and with prices dropping on the 7000 you can get a considerable upgrade there. There is a refurbished on up right now for $749.

And, fancy flippy screen haha jk


EDIT: all usable for a noob IMO. http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5100-vs-Nikon_D3100

 

Oh absolutely... there is nothing wrong with the 5100. The 3000 wasn't bad, but the 3100 and 3200 are much nicer. Also agreed on the mp rating. That was important back when cameras were fighting to break 1mp... there was a huge difference between 1mp and 2mp.

Anything beyond 10-14mp is just icing on the cake. It's more important on "point and shoot" cameras because of their reliance on "digital zoom", which was quite literally simply pre-cropping. You can get a beautiful poster-sized print from a 6-10mp camera with quality glass.

 

I still want a 7k or 7100 hahah weather proofing is a big deal to me

 

Wanting a 1DX so bad now. My 5DMII is so slow.