Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Need some advice on first SLR purchase.
- Thread starter iceblade
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
haha, I like that, but I always consider holding a camera to take photos more like a sniper aiming for his perfect shot
Well Said....
A composition is as good as your skills but a photo is as good your camera's ability to capture your composition!
You can buy a pistol with the same grip as 90-150 years ago[1], your next camera in 3-5 years is probably going to be different. While it's important to have a camera you're comfortable with, I think grip shouldn't be the overriding decision point- you're simply not likely to see the same size/grip in a new model and you're going to have to upgrade a digital SLR a lot more often than a pistol.
[1] If you don't want to take advantage of any capacity upgrades the Colt Single Action Army (1871) is still in production, you can get replicas of the 1851 and 1861 Navy, and the venerable 1911 .45 is still around if you don't mind 7+1 capacity- but it's not the same handgrip as say a P-13 with almost twice the capacity.
interesting, I am going to look into this.. to the OP how are the decisions coming along?
[
[1] If you don't want to take advantage of any capacity upgrades the Colt Single Action Army (1871) is still in production, you can get replicas of the 1851 and 1861 Navy, and the venerable 1911 .45 is still around if you don't mind 7+1 capacity- but it's not the same handgrip as say a P-13 with almost twice the capacity.[/QUOTE]
But there is nothing as reliable with the knock down of the 1911 model 45 ACP. Magazine capacity has its place, but I will take knock down over "spray and pray" capacity any day.
[1] If you don't want to take advantage of any capacity upgrades the Colt Single Action Army (1871) is still in production, you can get replicas of the 1851 and 1861 Navy, and the venerable 1911 .45 is still around if you don't mind 7+1 capacity- but it's not the same handgrip as say a P-13 with almost twice the capacity.[/QUOTE]
But there is nothing as reliable with the knock down of the 1911 model 45 ACP. Magazine capacity has its place, but I will take knock down over "spray and pray" capacity any day.
But there is nothing as reliable with the knock down of the 1911 model 45 ACP. Magazine capacity has its place, but I will take knock down over "spray and pray" capacity any day.[/QUOTE]
Strictly speaking, the 1911 hasn't been all that reliable. The amount of gunsmithing work necessary to make a reliable 1911 for say ISPC is pretty involved (theory is that the newer manufacturing tolerances are too close and the old "rattle" GI models function more reliably because they rattle like Diamondbacks.)
Here's one "Reliability Package" I found online:
Extractor/ejector and feed ramp issues are relatively common with the M1911 (ejector changes tend to be the major new "thing" anyone does to the design.)
Newer models have throated barrels, but the original design's barrel throat was too narrow. The transition area between the barrel and the feed ramp often needs to be ground down. The gap between the barrel and chamber's feed ramp may need to be widened. Here's a warning from one 1911 reliability guide "In the 1911 design, the ramped barrel leaves a portion of the case unsupported, and if the ramp is too deep, it increases the possibility of a case blowout." The chamber needs to be polished without making it out of spec or messing up the headspace guide. The feed ramp almost always needs to be worked and polished. Here's another quote "A properly shaped and tuned extractor is crucial to reliability in the 1911 pistol. Most factory extractors and many aftermarket extractors need attention to achieve the optimum in reliability." You generally need to swap out the recoil spring for an 18.5lb spring for normal 1911s and 20lbs for Commanders. Heavier firing pin springs are generally recommended as well.
Premature slide-stop engagement is also possible- and the stop may need some work.
The Para-Ordnance P-13 has the same knock-down as a Colt 1911 (it's the same caliber and a very similar action,) but is more reliable and has more safety features, as well as 13+1 rounds of 230 grain ball goodness. So, you get all the benefits and none of the downsides other than increased ammo weight and a slightly wider grip. I'll take my P-13 over a Colt Government Model without any work any day of the week.
I'm a 1911 fan, and I've been looking at building up a custom 1911, but I'd hardly put the standard Colt in the reliability bucket against any modern design- there's no similar collections of lists of things to do to most other pistols.
There are lots of non-1911 designed .45ACPs, such as those from SIG/Mauser, H&K, and Glock- none of which have the stovepipe reliability issues of an untuned 1911.
Indeed, Hoya does, but if Pentax can't turn them a profit, they'll have to kill it eventually. You can't keep throwing money into a sinking ship.
It isn't a question about how much Hoya makes overall - it's a question of how profitable the Pentax dSLR division is.
You might want to read this op-ed piece written by Thom Hogan. You may or may not agree with it, but it's interesting reading.
The point is that Hoya was interested in buying it not long ago while the imaging division was not doing so well, and they have the money to turn it around.
You have no basis to assume that Hoya will content itself selling filters and Pentax medical gear.
They agreed to take over Pentax more than two years ago, even though for various reasons the deal didn't get finalized until 2007. But the world was a very different place back then, financially speaking.
I want Pentax to survive, if only for my sentimental attachment to it - my first SLR was a K1000 - so I hope you're right. But I can certainly understand why some people think the brand is in trouble.
I've been thinking about it a lot, and I think I am more open to a Nikon or Cannon. I don't really want to get into Olympus, Pentax, or Sony. They don't seem to be used as much, and they don't seem too much cheaper then Nikon or Cannon.
I was planning on going ahead and dropping the cash on a d40 as soon as I had it, but then people started saying it was a bit small... I have large hands. Secondly, people had suggested maybe getting an older model to save money and get a nicer camera, and then there were a few people saying there was a lot of ISO noise. I'd have to hold a d40 before I could say how I would fair with it. I generally do ok with smaller stuff, even with bigger hands, but I'd have to hold it to be sure. Does anyone know where they might have some DSLRs for me to hold to see what I might like? Bestbuy or something? Secondly, the whole considering older model added another wrench into it... Now I'm considering looking on ebay and amazon, but then I have to decide between even more cameras.
As for the noise, I don't know much about that, or understand that. I kinda understand what it is, but I don't know how much it will effect me, meaning, I don't know really well what the ISO does, and if I will probably have to change it or whatever a lot. The second confusing thing is focal length. Does that mean a 50mm lense on a DSLR will focus on something further away, better than, a film SLR with the same 50mm lens would? Or will the DSLR actually take a hit on lens performance, and NOT be able to focus on something as far as a film SLR? In other words, I dont' know how the difference in focal lengths on the Nikon or Cannon is effecting me, really. If thats too confusing, let me know, and I will try to explain it better. My writing is often confusing.
Let me know if I can explain anything better. My writing, like I said, is confusing. But to answer the quoted question more directly: The decision is coming a long. Its just a challenge of trying to get the best camera (and lens) for my money. I'm not looking to spend more then, $500, which I know isn't that much, especially for a DSLR, but its where I'm at right now. If there was something that for some reason was worth an extra $100, I could probably step up to $600 or $650, but probably not $700. So, thats where its at. Getting the best value for the money, in my small budget. Weighing cannon vs nikon, size, internals, lenses, etc.
Thanks.
The D40 is relatively small, but I have no trouble shooting with one from time to time when a friend hands it to me.
At this point, I'd consider a D80 if the price were right, but otherwise I'd stay with something more current.
Best Buy and Ritz camera are both good US options.
ISO is the sensitivity of the recording medium (film or sensor) to light. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive but more noisy (in terms of grain or signal amplification noise.) You want to shoot at as close to the base ISO of the sensor as possible for noise, but may need to increase that to get a picture in darker circumstances.
Focal length is focal length- a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens, what changes is the size of the thing capturing the image- an APS-C sensor is .75x the size of a 35mm piece of film, so you get a "crop" of the image circle that's 1.5x "normal" making the *angle of view* the same as a 75mm lens would be on a full frame sensor or 35mm film. The magnification doesn't change, just the angle of view.
At that price point, the D40 kit is probably your best bet- if you want a manufacturer's warranty.
It's smaller than some other SLRs out there but it is nowhere close to being too small to use. I have large hands and it fits them perfectly. The fact it is not huge means it's easy to carry around so you have it on you when so see a good photo opp. (Off topic but I picked up my P&S recently and was astounded by how much smaller it now felt in my hands!)
With a new D40 you'll get a 2 year manufacturer's warranty. Also the screen on the D40 is superb, something you might not get with older ones.
I really don't see any reason not to get the D40.
As to learning how to use it... All SLRs have a range of auto modes so you'll be able to take some really good photos from the go without worrying about the settings. However the reason to buy an SLR is the manual modes. Experimentation will teach you a huge amount and is by far the best way to learn in my opinion, (unlike with film, the cost of taking a photo is zero so you can take as many as you like and it doesn't matter how many you mess up!)
This site is great and I can't recommend strongly enough getting 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson.
Yeah, definitely try out the camera body first. I read some reviews where the the reviewer complain that the Canon XS (1000D) grip is too small, I hold it and surprisingly it fits my hand perfectly. Haven't tried a D40 or D60 yet.
Oh yea, since the D40 has no auto sensor cleaning, how do you actually clean the sensor without damaging it?
Oh yea, since the D40 has no auto sensor cleaning, how do you actually clean the sensor without damaging it?
Just because they're "not used as much" doesn't make them inferior or not able to meet your needs.
As far as the rest of your post, it seems you want a D80 for the price of a D40.
Looks like you are going to have either get the D40, or pony up the cash for D80...
Good luck to you...
Thats true. But when someone is on a somewhat tight budget, like myself, having more used lenses on the market for purchase is helpful, not even to mention the fact that having a company more solidified in the camera market (there for, not going anywhere...) would be helpful to the longevity of my camera usability.
Someone raised an interesting question about dust on the sensor and cleaning it... That got me to thinking: Should I go ahead and pay more for a self cleaning sensor in a cannon or something, or should I just go with a camera that I could afford easier (IE, the nikon d40)?
so the D40 doenst have a cleanig mode? because I just got a rubber air blower thingy and that's been enough and i used to get a lot of sensor dust. Now if the sensor needs a proper cleaning to be honest i would not touch mine i would be too scared to stcratch it i would rather pay a professional to do it for me
From my understanding the lens cleanings systems are a bit of gimmick. They WORK but you shouldn't need them if you change your lenses carefully (do it in cleanest environment possible, always aim your camera down while removing/attaching lenses, never leave camera without a lens or cover). Camera shops can clean your sensor for a reasonable fee if you end up needing it, and you can digitally brush out dust extremely easily these days.
At the end of the day, it's probably a nice feature if the camera you buy has it, but I wouldn't buy a camera based on it.
Carefully, but I don't think it's too hard. As mrgreen4242 says, avoid getting dust in there in the first place by changing lenses correctly. I read that the auto cleaning moves the dust around, rather than gets rid of it. If you're changing your lens on a windy beach then you'll have problems with or without the auto cleaning!