DIGITAL SLR CAMAREA ADVISE help snookn out!

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I've read the D3000 isn't very good. The D5000 costs a bit more; I think the D90 has a much more comfortable grip but it costs $400 more.

B&H photo, Adorama and Amazon have the best reputations among online camera dealers.
 
FSM;4430912;4430912 said:
I've read the D3000 isn't very good. The D5000 costs a bit more; I think the D90 has a much more comfortable grip but it costs $400 more.

B&H photo, Adorama and Amazon have the best reputations among online camera dealers.
Click to expand...
i think the discontinued D40 is a better option than the D3000 replacement. But you may not always be able to find them new unless you're willing to buy one online.
 
It would probably help to let people know what your budget is.
 
I've always been a fan of the D70, very nice camera at a great price, and as stated, I use a 50mm 1.8 lens(canon) or you can use overhead flash (im not into flash but ive seen great things doing this)
 
zypher;4431104;4431104 said:
Nearly identical? Really? I don't think so! Consider the focus tracking, sensor size, the fx lenses. There are so many things!..
Click to expand...
yeah, if you're an all out professional photographer that shoots news or sports for a living...or Li :D

for an average amateur that just wants to take pictures of his fish, suggesting the D3S is just plain absurd, i'm sorry. and to that, somebody who's new to DSLR photography will take the same pics, whether it be a $500 or a $5000 camera. on paper the D3S is absolutely the better camera, but if you dont know a thing about DSLR photography, or wont take advantage of it's features, then it's a waste of money.
 
zypher;4431104;4431104 said:
Nearly identical? Really? I don't think so! Consider the focus tracking, sensor size, the fx lenses. There are so many things!..
Click to expand...
and FX lenses, like what? the 24-70mm f/2.8? add another $1700 on top of the camera. or maybe the $2,300 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII? now you got a $7,000+ setup for a newbie to photography. come on man, do you honestly feel you're giving useable advice here?
 
jcardona1;4431233; said:
yeah, if you're an all out professional photographer that shoots news or sports for a living...or Li :D

for an average amateur that just wants to take pictures of his fish, suggesting the D3S is just plain absurd, i'm sorry. and to that, somebody who's new to DSLR photography will take the same pics, whether it be a $500 or a $5000 camera. on paper the D3S is absolutely the better camera, but if you dont know a thing about DSLR photography, or wont take advantage of it's features, then it's a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Im just thinking future uses of the tool...
but good point!..

you shoot professionally?
 
jcardona1;4431240; said:
and FX lenses, like what? the 24-70mm f/2.8? add another $1700 on top of the camera. or maybe the $2,300 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII? now you got a $7,000+ setup for a newbie to photography. come on man, do you honestly feel you're giving useable advice here?
Click to expand...

he would only need a macro for those fishies...
but in the long run he might spend $$ for those 24-70, 70-200, 200-400,
300 2.8, 400 2.8..just thinking future purposes...

btw i emailed john about something else other than a d3s...
 
zypher;4431290;4431290 said:
Im just thinking future uses of the tool...
but good point!..

you shoot professionally?
Click to expand...
no, just a side hobby whenever i have time. checked out your flickr album, you do some great work :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom