Is anyone here are D-SLR camera pro?
07-07-2006, 11:54 PM
#31
you can check out this site for used camera and lenses http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
07-08-2006, 08:02 AM
#33
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,737
Car Info: 2009 A3 2.0T quattro
I'd recommend a used one as well - you can find a great deal and get the same body cheaper, and have more money for lenses! 
(have I harped on the lens thing enough? 
)
Look at the body, make sure its not cracked. Look closely at the lens mount, and make sure its not worn.
Bring a laptop with card reader. Take a few pictures with the camera - one with the lenscap on and the camera set to its lowest ISO. Another shooting a BRIGHTLY lit wall with the camera stopped all the way open. Open these on your computer, and look for things in the image that dont belong. Some noise in the black image is normal (though not excessive, and it shoudl be somewhat uniform, no hotspots).
If you know how, put the camera in sensor cleaning mode to briefly inspect the sensor for obvious damage.
Put the camera in rapid fire mode, and test that out with as fast a shutter speed as the camera can do (1/4000th probably). Make sure nothing binds. Now do a sustained (aka bulb) exposure, and make sure nothing binds after holding the shutter open for like 10s. Inspect the shutter for oil deposits.
Here is a good link for inspecting a lens:
http://reviews.ebay.com/How-To-Detec...00000001005542
(have I harped on the lens thing enough? )Look at the body, make sure its not cracked. Look closely at the lens mount, and make sure its not worn.
Bring a laptop with card reader. Take a few pictures with the camera - one with the lenscap on and the camera set to its lowest ISO. Another shooting a BRIGHTLY lit wall with the camera stopped all the way open. Open these on your computer, and look for things in the image that dont belong. Some noise in the black image is normal (though not excessive, and it shoudl be somewhat uniform, no hotspots).
If you know how, put the camera in sensor cleaning mode to briefly inspect the sensor for obvious damage.
Put the camera in rapid fire mode, and test that out with as fast a shutter speed as the camera can do (1/4000th probably). Make sure nothing binds. Now do a sustained (aka bulb) exposure, and make sure nothing binds after holding the shutter open for like 10s. Inspect the shutter for oil deposits.
Here is a good link for inspecting a lens:
http://reviews.ebay.com/How-To-Detec...00000001005542
07-08-2006, 09:58 PM
#36
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 405
Car Info: a car with 4 wheels
I was wondering is it possible if one of you guys go check out with me, and test it out? I do have a laptop, but I don't have the CF card reader.
I might able to get him to the uckk meet, haha.
alan'06
I might able to get him to the uckk meet, haha.
alan'06
07-08-2006, 11:38 PM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 405
Car Info: a car with 4 wheels
07-09-2006, 11:26 AM
#39
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,737
Car Info: 2009 A3 2.0T quattro
Not qa bad deal, but do you really want to go that big on your first camera?
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
07-09-2006, 11:34 AM
#40
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: EastSFBay
Posts: 344
Car Info: Not a WRX any more . . .
Random additions just to make the decision more confusing.
I do a lot of photography but for stuff I'm serious about, I still use an old fashioned film SLR. I make really really expensive electronic cameras for large scientific instruments for a living (if you've got an extra $1m sitting around, come talk to me) and getting them to perform as well as good film usually involves something like liquid nitrogen. So I'm biased.
But film is a huge pain, so for stuff I don't care that much about I have a few low end digital cameras. Of the ones I've tried, I have to agree with other here, Canon and Nikon really stand out. I have 3 low end digital Nikons right now but as far as ease of use, I've borrowed a lot of Canons (my brother has one) and I like them just as much.
As others here have said, for SLRs the lenses are really important. Years I go I worked on a project where we needed to put a telephoto lens on a thermoelectrically cooled digital camera, and we evaluated a lot of lenses, from small Televue telescopes to normal consumer photography telephotos. And, to be honest, I was amazed at what a piece of junk the Nikon was. It was everyone's favorite going in, but it scattered most of the light from a point source into a large halo -- if we took a picture of the night sky, every star looked like a comet. (For normal pictures this would translate into really poor contrast.) The winner ended up being a Canon telephoto, which was as good as the much more expensive small telescopes we were trying. I borrowed a friend's Canon SLR so that I could try it on a normal camera, and it was a really nice lens. Throw in that Nikon didn't want to tell us anything about their lens, and Canon was really helpful, and that pretty much sold me on Canon lenses. It's a small sample so it's probably not a fair comparison, but it was certainly clear that with Nikon you're not always getting what you pay for.
I do a lot of photography but for stuff I'm serious about, I still use an old fashioned film SLR. I make really really expensive electronic cameras for large scientific instruments for a living (if you've got an extra $1m sitting around, come talk to me) and getting them to perform as well as good film usually involves something like liquid nitrogen. So I'm biased.
But film is a huge pain, so for stuff I don't care that much about I have a few low end digital cameras. Of the ones I've tried, I have to agree with other here, Canon and Nikon really stand out. I have 3 low end digital Nikons right now but as far as ease of use, I've borrowed a lot of Canons (my brother has one) and I like them just as much.
As others here have said, for SLRs the lenses are really important. Years I go I worked on a project where we needed to put a telephoto lens on a thermoelectrically cooled digital camera, and we evaluated a lot of lenses, from small Televue telescopes to normal consumer photography telephotos. And, to be honest, I was amazed at what a piece of junk the Nikon was. It was everyone's favorite going in, but it scattered most of the light from a point source into a large halo -- if we took a picture of the night sky, every star looked like a comet. (For normal pictures this would translate into really poor contrast.) The winner ended up being a Canon telephoto, which was as good as the much more expensive small telescopes we were trying. I borrowed a friend's Canon SLR so that I could try it on a normal camera, and it was a really nice lens. Throw in that Nikon didn't want to tell us anything about their lens, and Canon was really helpful, and that pretty much sold me on Canon lenses. It's a small sample so it's probably not a fair comparison, but it was certainly clear that with Nikon you're not always getting what you pay for.
07-09-2006, 11:34 AM
#41
Originally Posted by mcowger
Not qa bad deal, but do you really want to go that big on your first camera?
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
i second that.
even though i hate the feel of the XT. imo it just doesnt feel right. and i can't get used to the controls. i love having a dual wheel design for manual mode shots.
but still for the same price as that 30d kit you can get a XT w/ a very good lens already.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/ele/179935776.html
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/ele/179859399.html
Last edited by x002x; 07-09-2006 at 11:40 AM.
07-09-2006, 11:35 AM
#42
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: EastSFBay
Posts: 344
Car Info: Not a WRX any more . . .
Originally Posted by mcowger
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
07-09-2006, 11:41 AM
#43
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
Originally Posted by mcowger
Not qa bad deal, but do you really want to go that big on your first camera?
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
If this were my first DSLR, I'd be Going for something bit lower end like a Rebel XT and spend the extra $600 on a really nice USM+IS lens.
07-09-2006, 02:45 PM
#44
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 405
Car Info: a car with 4 wheels