How you see things
I have been reading and learning a ton here about upgrading my equipment. I appreciate all the views and advice given me and others in the decision process. In the end, I think the right answer always is "it depends" and the it depends depends on you!
I was into film many years ago. I still have all the equipment and it all still works pretty well. As someone pointed out to me ( and I was chagrinned!) that that was 25 years ago. I was just out of school, longed for Nikon, but on a starting salary, bought Minolta and Vivitar. I have what worked for me: a 70-210mm Vivitar zoom, a 90mm Vivitar Macro, and a Minolta 35mm 1.8 wide angle.
I found over the years, that I never used the wide angle. I think that when I look at things, my eyes tend to focus on a small part and see just that. For this reason a wide angle never appealed to me. I did love the macro lens, and found I would use it for all my portraits, close and near. I zoomed (and focused) with my feet and became prettty good at it.
Fast forward to today. I have had two or three P&S cameras and my current one is the Canon S1, with, you guessed it, a strong zoom feature! I am pretty happy, but my shots are never really sharp. I simply dump them into smugmug (which I love) or drugstore print 4X6 for the family.
The family thinks I am a great photog, and enjoy the prints. I know in my heart that they are better than average in composition and really lousy quality. I also know that the true secret to good photography is to shoot tons of film and just showcase the best shot. To me this is where digital really shines - little to no incremental cost to shoot more.
OK, now the decision. I have beeen reading two ideas in threads that I am digesting and wanted your comments.
First is that I believe (and this has been discussed) that Canon has caught up to Nikon and going Canon in digital SLR photography is not taking a back seat to Nikon any longer. I have no legacy system or accessories that would drive me to either, but think Canon has the widest range of options, availabiltiy and price.
Second, it the constant discussion on optimal zoom ranges. Come back to my comment of how I see things. I look at little details, so I'll never be a good wide angle photographer. I do like tight crops and fine points. A 10-20mm zoom is lost on me and a 200mm zoom is great. I think this is an overlooked point in the discussion - how you see the world and how you'll use the lens.
Others take outstanding wide angle shots, one I saw in the last few days was an entire city water fountian up close with a 10mm lens. I would never see that, but I would have a great shot of the point where the water exits!
I am thinking about the Canon Rebel XT with the 28-135 USM IS lens. I might get a 50mm 2.5 or 1.8 for indoor as well. Most of my shots will be family in the yard and kids sports and things I see around. I might try a macro and think the Tamron 90mm macro looks good in reviews. I also may get or eliminate the kit lens - save $100 bucks on body only or have the kit lens for indoor and party use.
One lens I am tempted with is the new Tamorn 18-200 DII for digital. I like the size and range and that it goes macro as well. Lots of reviews with questionable results, but I cant tell if its the gen 1 or gen 2 lens or if its on the older 28-200 zoom. Again as a not really professional, just a pretty good amature is this good enough?
OK, this have been a bit of a ramble. It helps me collect my thoughts and thought that others might have the same process. I also like the overriding advice given here is just buy something and get out there and shoot. F8 and be there is the best advice anybody gives anytime!
Any comments on the logic would as always be appreciated.
Z
I was into film many years ago. I still have all the equipment and it all still works pretty well. As someone pointed out to me ( and I was chagrinned!) that that was 25 years ago. I was just out of school, longed for Nikon, but on a starting salary, bought Minolta and Vivitar. I have what worked for me: a 70-210mm Vivitar zoom, a 90mm Vivitar Macro, and a Minolta 35mm 1.8 wide angle.
I found over the years, that I never used the wide angle. I think that when I look at things, my eyes tend to focus on a small part and see just that. For this reason a wide angle never appealed to me. I did love the macro lens, and found I would use it for all my portraits, close and near. I zoomed (and focused) with my feet and became prettty good at it.
Fast forward to today. I have had two or three P&S cameras and my current one is the Canon S1, with, you guessed it, a strong zoom feature! I am pretty happy, but my shots are never really sharp. I simply dump them into smugmug (which I love) or drugstore print 4X6 for the family.
The family thinks I am a great photog, and enjoy the prints. I know in my heart that they are better than average in composition and really lousy quality. I also know that the true secret to good photography is to shoot tons of film and just showcase the best shot. To me this is where digital really shines - little to no incremental cost to shoot more.
OK, now the decision. I have beeen reading two ideas in threads that I am digesting and wanted your comments.
First is that I believe (and this has been discussed) that Canon has caught up to Nikon and going Canon in digital SLR photography is not taking a back seat to Nikon any longer. I have no legacy system or accessories that would drive me to either, but think Canon has the widest range of options, availabiltiy and price.
Second, it the constant discussion on optimal zoom ranges. Come back to my comment of how I see things. I look at little details, so I'll never be a good wide angle photographer. I do like tight crops and fine points. A 10-20mm zoom is lost on me and a 200mm zoom is great. I think this is an overlooked point in the discussion - how you see the world and how you'll use the lens.
Others take outstanding wide angle shots, one I saw in the last few days was an entire city water fountian up close with a 10mm lens. I would never see that, but I would have a great shot of the point where the water exits!
I am thinking about the Canon Rebel XT with the 28-135 USM IS lens. I might get a 50mm 2.5 or 1.8 for indoor as well. Most of my shots will be family in the yard and kids sports and things I see around. I might try a macro and think the Tamron 90mm macro looks good in reviews. I also may get or eliminate the kit lens - save $100 bucks on body only or have the kit lens for indoor and party use.
One lens I am tempted with is the new Tamorn 18-200 DII for digital. I like the size and range and that it goes macro as well. Lots of reviews with questionable results, but I cant tell if its the gen 1 or gen 2 lens or if its on the older 28-200 zoom. Again as a not really professional, just a pretty good amature is this good enough?
OK, this have been a bit of a ramble. It helps me collect my thoughts and thought that others might have the same process. I also like the overriding advice given here is just buy something and get out there and shoot. F8 and be there is the best advice anybody gives anytime!
Any comments on the logic would as always be appreciated.
Z
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
0
Comments
I'm not a big fan of the 28-135. Many are, I'm not. It's too slow.
To me, the 18-200 is like making your dslr a better point and shoot and not a quality dslr.
I think the Canon 100 or the Sigma 105 would be better choices for a macro lens.