aB
The canon i want is 12.2 mega pixels and it cost around $899 is that expensive or affordable for an 18 year old girl like me?
Answer
There isn't a better brand.
I use Canon for specific reasons.
The big question is Canon vs Nikon; to which I reply:
Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Nikon, Canon... the great debate stretches on and on and on.
There isn't a better brand. Sure, Ken Rockwell likes Nikon... Sure, other pros might use Canon... (Note: Yes, I think Ken Rockwell is wrong at times and just plain biased in others, but he does have a disclaimer and he does explain why he prefers Nikon...)
You'll notice that almost all sports and action photogs use Canon because when the AF systems were new back in the 90's, Canon's was a lot better than Nikon. And of course, it's not cheap to change...
Now, both are tied. In the beginning it was Nikon and pros. Then Canon caught up. The digital era brought Canon to the throne, and now... yes, there are subtle differences in their different lenses, but you can't compare it directly unless you have the same camera body. Oh, put the camera body to the test as well, but no, it doesn't work that way - they both are excellent brands.
Sure, sometimes Canon's a bit soft; etc. etc... but here's the *general* run down.
Sony = best image quality (in fact, makes sensors for Nikon)
Nikon = best ISO handling
Canon = best of both
Some may not agree, but that's it. Some don't really mind a tiny, tiny, unnoticeable difference in Image Quality and therefore choose Nikon, as its ISO handling is superb. Especially photojournalists, you'll notice.
Personally, I like Canon. But think about the differences, what the lenses are and if you are thinking about getting one, what you're going to do.
Canon makes great macros... etc. etc.
They all have their 'top' lenses:
Canon ~ L
Nikon ~ ED
Sony ~ Carl Zeiss (the most expensive)
In fact, if there was a better brand, the rest would be out of business by now.
So you see, you cannot really compare them.
There isn't a better brand.
I use Canon for specific reasons.
The big question is Canon vs Nikon; to which I reply:
Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Nikon, Canon... the great debate stretches on and on and on.
There isn't a better brand. Sure, Ken Rockwell likes Nikon... Sure, other pros might use Canon... (Note: Yes, I think Ken Rockwell is wrong at times and just plain biased in others, but he does have a disclaimer and he does explain why he prefers Nikon...)
You'll notice that almost all sports and action photogs use Canon because when the AF systems were new back in the 90's, Canon's was a lot better than Nikon. And of course, it's not cheap to change...
Now, both are tied. In the beginning it was Nikon and pros. Then Canon caught up. The digital era brought Canon to the throne, and now... yes, there are subtle differences in their different lenses, but you can't compare it directly unless you have the same camera body. Oh, put the camera body to the test as well, but no, it doesn't work that way - they both are excellent brands.
Sure, sometimes Canon's a bit soft; etc. etc... but here's the *general* run down.
Sony = best image quality (in fact, makes sensors for Nikon)
Nikon = best ISO handling
Canon = best of both
Some may not agree, but that's it. Some don't really mind a tiny, tiny, unnoticeable difference in Image Quality and therefore choose Nikon, as its ISO handling is superb. Especially photojournalists, you'll notice.
Personally, I like Canon. But think about the differences, what the lenses are and if you are thinking about getting one, what you're going to do.
Canon makes great macros... etc. etc.
They all have their 'top' lenses:
Canon ~ L
Nikon ~ ED
Sony ~ Carl Zeiss (the most expensive)
In fact, if there was a better brand, the rest would be out of business by now.
So you see, you cannot really compare them.
Recommendations for Canon EOS/Canon compatible lenses?
mislanaday
Found one, the 10-22 wide. That's a $700 dent in my budget.
I'm looking for another, either a good zoom or a good walk around lens, perhaps a combination of both, nothing above 500 bucks as my lens budget has depleted quite a bit.
Any ideas on third party lenses? I'm eyeing a couple Sigmas.
Any suggestion will be much appreciated.
BTW, I shoot city scape, macro and portrait. So I'm in a bit of a pickle. Hard to find a good all around lens for 500 bucks or under.
Quite a few to choose from, I've looked at some, wondering about hands on experience.
Thanks a bunch for your suggestion, Fhotoace.
I'm not in a hurry, it's an investment and I don't want to make a rush decision.
Extending a budget is not completely out of a question.
Haven't considered Tokina, will have a good look at the lens.
Answer
Another Tokina wide angle lens would be the 11-16mm F2.8. It costs a little less than the Canon lens but is a faster constant aperture lens. All the reviews I have seen on it are very good. Ken Rockwell recommends it over the Nikon equivalent. He does say that the Canon lens is a bit better though. If you do alot of low light wide angle shots it might be worth considering.
As for a walk around lens that is less than $500 check out the Canon 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS USM. Price is about $400. It is a very sharp lens with a good focal length range. With the 10-22 or 12-24 there is only a small gap in range.
Another Tokina wide angle lens would be the 11-16mm F2.8. It costs a little less than the Canon lens but is a faster constant aperture lens. All the reviews I have seen on it are very good. Ken Rockwell recommends it over the Nikon equivalent. He does say that the Canon lens is a bit better though. If you do alot of low light wide angle shots it might be worth considering.
As for a walk around lens that is less than $500 check out the Canon 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS USM. Price is about $400. It is a very sharp lens with a good focal length range. With the 10-22 or 12-24 there is only a small gap in range.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment