question by private message
i love to help, i really do. a question though, to me or any of the mods, should really be something that only we can answer. otherwise, please please please post your questions in the forum, we have a community here of 4000 plus folks to draw help from :deal
another good reason for this is so that others, in the forum, who have the very same question, can benefit from the posting of the question and the responses give.
thanks everyone
another good reason for this is so that others, in the forum, who have the very same question, can benefit from the posting of the question and the responses give.
thanks everyone
anonymous pm-er wrote:Ok I'm pretty new when it comes to DSLR's.....how many activations is over the hill for a DSLR?
What do you know about a 10D?
Is 7k activations a lot for a 10D?
I was gonna get a 20D but dunno if it makes sense to spend $1100 for a body with no lens.
Rather spend $600-$650 for low useage 10D and take extra $$ for a nice lens!
No a XT is outta the question....don't like the TOY LIKE construction or the rocker buttons.
Maybe a Tamron 28-300 Di?
Am I making sense?
Thanx for letting me pick your expert brain!
0
Comments
first off - so you can win at digital photography final-jeopardy: it's actuations
secondy - no, 7,000 actuations is not too many. these shutters are good for a long life.
the lens - i've not used it but many folks report great results with it. it's certainly a useful focal range to start with, and one that will give you plenty of flexibility.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My van is creaping up on 200k now that's a long life!
Manfrotto Mono | Bag- LowePro Slingshot 100AW
http://www.graphyfotoz.smugmug.com/
ask mattias elfving, i sold him my 10d 2 years ago, and i sold it to him with probably 7k actuations on. don't fear.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"Ok I'm pretty new when it comes to DSLR's.....how many activations is over the hill for a DSLR?
What do you know about a 10D?
Is 7k activations a lot for a 10D?
I was gonna get a 20D but dunno if it makes sense to spend $1100 for a body with no lens.
Rather spend $600-$650 for low useage 10D and take extra $$ for a nice lens!
No a XT is outta the question....don't like the TOY LIKE construction or the rocker buttons.
Maybe a Tamron 28-300 Di?
Am I making sense?
Thanx for letting me pick your expert brain!"
A 10D is a very good DSLR with another 50-100K actuations left in the original shutter. As good as the 10D was when it was introduced, the 350XT and the 20D ARE better cameras, but the improvement will not be visible in most images. The newer bodies may have lower sensor noise in dim light, and will probably focus faster also. Does this matter? Depends on YOUR needs.
Lenses like the Tamron 28-300 Di, I call travel zooms. They attempt to cover approx 10-1 zoom in a single lens. They are not constant aperature; at the long end, they are slo-o-o-w frequently f 6.3 which may not autofocus with many bodies like a 20D. Or a 10D. Travel zooms are an attempt to sell one lens that a customer hopes will be all things, but really is a severe optical compromise that is not terribly sharp, nor fast. But in the right hands, that understands their limitations, they can be used to create very nice images in good lighting. I used one for years, but have since replaced it with better Canon lenses - not one lens but 2 or 3. Better glass is heavier, more expensive, and harder to carry around. No such thing as a free lunch optically
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Now on the other hand a Sigma 70-300....that's a cheap lens.
What's a recommended good coverage lens that won't break the bank?
Personally I want 1 do all lens so I'm not swapping all the time.
Oh yeah this is for Nature photography where I'll be wanting macro one min and capture a distant frame the next.
Manfrotto Mono | Bag- LowePro Slingshot 100AW
http://www.graphyfotoz.smugmug.com/
Graphy - please, pretty please, read my post again. NOW WHERE did I say anything about a lens being cheap. I talked about optical compromises neccessitated by 10-1 zoom ratio. We all would love to have one lens that is tack sharp as a macro, and a moment later will capture birds in flight at 600mm, and then shoot at sunset at f2.0 The only problem is they do not exist, or they are not nearly as good as prime lenses. Lenses that are cheaper usually are cheaper for real reasons. They have more optical and/or mechanical compromises.
Tamron's Di series of lenses is pretty good. I love the 28-75 XR DI and have rec'd it several times here on dgrin. I own it and use it. Tamron calls it "Macro" also. But anyone who shoots real macro knows that is not true. As sharp as the Tamron 28-75 Di is, it is a pretty poor macro lens.
Even the famous Canon 28-300 L is an optical compromise at $2200. And it is Canon's famous "L" glass.
Purchase a couple of good primes and you will be happier in the long run with the sharpness of your images. Maybe Tamron 90mm macro, or a Canon 100mm macro. Both are very excellent glass and about the same price. A Canon 50 f1.8 at $79 is a steal. A 70-200mm zoom is generally a lot better lens than the 70-300s - Less optical compromises again. Whether made by Canon or Sigma or Tamron. I'd rather own a good lens from Tamron than a poor lens from Canon. But I'd also really rather own a great lens from Canon in the long run.
I said in my first post, that in the right hands which understand the limitations of the lens, travel zooms can make excellent images. The key is knowledge and understanding of optics and photography. But the same knowledgeable hands can do better with better optics like first rate prime lenses also.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Manfrotto Mono | Bag- LowePro Slingshot 100AW
http://www.graphyfotoz.smugmug.com/
If you get a Tamron lens and not a Canon.....does the lens "SYNC" with the electronic functions of the camera?(Reading...focusing and all)
Or is this a case where Canon has you by the (you knows) to get all the benies of the camera buying their lens?
Back when I had my Canon A1 I had a Tamron 60-300mm worked out quite well.
But.....I was a MANUAL Guy....this auto electronic stuff has me perplexed at times.....still learning.
Sorry for what might seem like stupid questions for many here.:cry
Manfrotto Mono | Bag- LowePro Slingshot 100AW
http://www.graphyfotoz.smugmug.com/
Most optical limitations have solutions - just not inexpensive solutions. That is physics at work I'm afraid.
Graphy, I realize that lenses are a major expence for many new photographers and that they keep looking for a bargain. This is human nature. But I believe they are better served buying long term quality, than purchasing lenses they may replace in a year due to lack of satisfaction. I've been there, done that.
Buying lesser expensive lenses is frequently like buying cheap tools. They are less satisfying to use. Travel zooms have lots of compromises. I am not saying don't buy one. I am saying "Understand exactly WHAT you are buying. Not what you hope you are about to buy, but what the lens is capable off exactly." Then you can determine if it is really the good value you have been lead to believe. Remember, the manufacturer wants you to believe the lens is all capable, they want to sell you the lens.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Generally the current versions of Sigma and Tamron lenses seem to work fine with EOS bodies. There were some Sigma lenses a few years ago that did not seem to focus well with some Canon bodies, and had to be sent back for servise, so this is something to be aware of in the used market. That said, Canon does not go out of their way to help Sigma and Tamron compete with them.
Used lenses can be good purchases. Good optics don't really wear out, although iris diaphragms can wear.
Manual focus lenses can be found fairly inexpensive, but they can be very hard to focus with AF cameras that lack split image range finders in the view finder. If speed of focus is not important that is just fine, but speed of AF is one of the REAL advantages of modern DSLRs. Again that phrase compromise vs cost
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I guess what it comes down to is how much money you have to spend and what type of photography you are most interested in. When I decided to buy a DSLR, it was because of a lens I had my eye on. I was using a Sony V3 and a reversed 50mm lens for my macro stuff (I was hooked). After reading reviews, I was sold on the Canon 100mm Macro. So now I needed a camera to go with that which led me between the XT and 20D. I'm glad I spent the extra money on the 20D, but that's my preference and I was able to do it. As for other lenses, yes I'd like to have some white glass, but my needs are more simple than that. I purchased the 100mm at the time with my camera (bought kit lens because it was inexpensive). The only other glass I've added was the 50mm f1.8 for a wedding and a 100-300 zoom from a member here because I used to shoot lots of tele with my 35mm. I barely use this lens because my style of shooting isn't what it used to be. I mostly use the 100mm for both macro and medium tele work. I like it as a walk around lens as well. I use the kit lens for wide angle (not very wide).
Will I buy white glass in the future; that depends on my needs. For now, the less expensive glass works for me and I'm still growing into my 20D.
To summarize, pay the money for what you know you'll use. With a DSLR, you'll need to do some swapping of lenses. The other option is go for the R1 or something similar (which you already own - 828) which is in itself, a compromise. Maybe I'm off base here (multiple interuptions while writing this) but thought I'd just do an overall.
Now, what was that question:D,
Chris
A picture is but words to the eyes.
Comments are always welcome.
www.pbase.com/Higgmeister
there's some pretty dear "black" glass from canon, too
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto