[Nobben #44]

Kermit, on 15 January 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

10D, 20D, all the way up to the 50D are super solid cameras. The 60D really stepped down to a more intermediate level, and the 7D kind of took over that line of prosumer cameras.. They aren't as sturdy as the Nikon D7000 because they aren't the same material, but that's not their sports level camera.

Go up to a 1D and you could drive nails with that body.

A 1D is a fair bit more expensive than the 7D or D7000.

One of the major reasons I bought a D7000 over a 7D was it's construction. ( This is of course apart from that fact that I already owned Nikon mount lenses.)
I've had a electronic problem with it though, but that happened once and many months have passed since then.

I like how this turned into a discussion between us about Nikon vs. Canon.
It's not even a discussion really, just random camera chatter.

And you should join the Photographer club as our first Canon owner.

[Z3R0]

Keep an eye out on local classifieds (eg Craigslist). And don't be afraid to make offers lower than the asking price, so long as you keep it reasonable. You can even ask the seller if they can give you a better price. That's what I did last year and I scored a D3000 with everything it would've come with new (including kit lens), minus the USB cable, in great condition, for $215 CAD. With the remaining ~$100 you can go snag a 50mm 1.8G or 35mm 1.8G used if you look around again, or something similar to that setup. Pretty good for $300 IMO.

EDIT: oh and as for Canon vs Nikon... I was dead set on buying a T2i from all that I'd heard about it and the spec sheets I saw online. Then I compared a T2i and some Nikon in-person at a store (I want to say it was a D5000 but I'm not totally sure) and to me the Nikon just felt so much more natural. The T2i kit lens also felt really sloppy - it twisted so loosely and just felt cheap, whereas the Nikon had a smooth resistance to it that felt much better to me. I also find the Nikon settings layout easier to manage, but I guess that just comes with learning the camera.

tl;dr Nikon vs Canon is all preference and there's no way to decide between them without having both of them in front of you to directly compare

This post has been edited by Z3R0: 16 January 2012 - 02:42 PM

[Kermit]

Nobben #44, on 16 January 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

I like how this turned into a discussion between us about Nikon vs. Canon.

It was bound to happen sometime

Checking out that club now!

[Z3R0]

Also it's funny you say Nikons are for portraits and Canons are for sports - I always had the opposite impression, even before I really took a real interest in photography.

[PeanutWing]

Just now came back to this thread, thanks guys

And hi, Kermit. Haven't seen you in a while

This post has been edited by PeanutWing: 20 January 2012 - 12:15 PM

[Nobben #44]

PeanutWing, on 20 January 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Just now came back to this thread, thanks guys

And hi, Kermit. Haven't seen you in a while

There should be some useful information within the the rambling between Kermit and I.
Also, feel free to stop by the photographer club is you need any help or advice.

[Striker]

I picked up a Canon XS with lens for $350....it does the job, just need a new lens eventually

[Jalen]

Ideally for paintball you'd want a 70-200mm lens. They generally go for about $1000 used.

But since that probably isn't an option, a 70-300mm (and whatever Canon's equivalent is) goes for $300-400 used.

That's all before the camera. Depending on which model you go for, I'd say (for a decent camera) it'll run about $500 used.

Save up.

[PeanutWing]

Alright, I decided on Canon... Its ment for paintball, The reason I'm buying this is I decided my field needs more recognition along with the teams that play there, and posting around the internet has brought a lot of good on my field.

It does need to take video, though

This post has been edited by PeanutWing: 13 February 2012 - 06:58 PM

[Kermit]

Well, if you want video, you need to spend some more cash. $500 minimum for a T2i.

[Nobben #44]

PeanutWing, on 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Alright, I decided on Canon... Its ment for paintball, The reason I'm buying this is I decided my field needs more recognition along with the teams that play there, and posting around the internet has brought a lot of good on my field.

It does need to take video, though

How is Canon mean for paintball? Just asking.

Decent DSLR with video would be the T2i aka 550D.

[PeanutWing]

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh

PeanutWing, on 14 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh

Kermit mentioned that the Canon was ment more for sports

[Kermit]

PeanutWing, on 14 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh

PeanutWing, on 14 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Thats what I figured.... Saving all dat moneh

Kermit mentioned that the Canon was ment more for sports

Their high ends lean towards that while Nikon leans more towards the studio aspect(Crop sensors vs Full Frames). You can use either for either and you won't really notice a difference. I still suggest Canon's for video though.

[PeanutWing]

I'll see what quality I can get out of the "720p" On my phone... But we all know how that goes...

[Kermit]

PeanutWing, on 14 February 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I'll see what quality I can get out of the "720p" On my phone... But we all know how that goes...

No control of shutter speed or aperture, that's why you see phones fall flat.

[Nobben #44]

Unless you are buying a D800 or a D4 from Nikon, canon is the way to go with video, ONLY because of 60fps filming.
Picture quality isn't really camera based due to both being great.
Canon lenses have better IS though, but that's what we have Sigma for.


Cropped sensors aren't really better for sports, that depends on the camera.
The D3x is a studio camera, the D3s is a more sports based camera, both full frame.
So that statement is completely false and hollow. Those things rely much, much more on optics.


Best thing you can do is try out the cameras you like and see which you like best.
NOTHING will be better than the camera you are using to take pictures with as long as you like it. Framing and lighting are far more important than all those other things.

[Kermit]

That is a fact. You can get equal results with either in terms of pictures. I just prefer a crop sensor myself for sports.

[PeanutWing]

The Rebel T2i records in 1080 p and I can get it for $450 with a lenses, and my dad has an older lenses from a Canon that uses film, would I be able to use that on the rebel?

[Kermit]

PeanutWing, on 15 February 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

The Rebel T2i records in 1080 p and I can get it for $450 with a lenses, and my dad has an older lenses from a Canon that uses film, would I be able to use that on the rebel?

If it uses an EF mount, yes. The only real downside to old lenses is that they don't always have autofocus, which doesn't matter with video anyway.

[Nobben #44]

Kermit, on 14 February 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

That is a fact. You can get equal results with either in terms of pictures. I just prefer a crop sensor myself for sports.

Full format will always have less ISO noise. But other than that, yes the picture quality won't change.
And just because you prefer them doesn't mean their better for sports. Just curious, have you ever tried full format for sports? I've tried the D700 for a couple of shots and I just loved it. The only reason I haven't got a full format camera yet is due to the price tag they have.