[ale] OT: DSLR recommendations

[Scott]

Richard Bronosky wrote:
> The best local resource is KEH.com what ever say about the condition
> of their used gear, you can absolutely trust. I'll also say that in my
> experience, while it's good to have fast recycle time and rapid fire,
> it would make you a better photographer. It will likely make you
> worse. I do equestrian competition photography. I started off trying
> to hold down the shutter release as the rider entered a jump, and
> shoot until they cleared it.
I wouldn't be doing that, but my only experience with Digital 
Photography is with my Vivitar VivCam and I got great pictures of back 
of heads or empty coffee tables by the time the camera would take the 
picture. What would start out to be a "Kodak Moment" wound up being a 
lot of deletes. My main photo experience was with film based cameras, 
back with Minolta SRT-100, 101 & 102 with f1.2 base lens. Used a Rokkar 
Fisheye a few times, I think a 10MM, can't remember.
>  The results were a bunch of almost right
> photos. When I finally "manned up" and started waiting for the shot
> and pressing the shutter release when the shot was right, I was
> getting 3 great shots for every jump instead of 9 of garbage. So,
> unless you are going as high as 10+ releases per second, don't worry
> about 2.5 vs 3 (4,5,etc.). But then you are going to have to sift
> through 30 to get the 3 shots. I'm at above 80% with my timing. I
> really appreciate having less cruft to filter out. Especially with
> photos of my kids. It almost feel like blasphemy to delete even a
> terribly blurred shot. So I don't want to take advantage of rapid fire
> there.
>   
I've kept blurred shots, and have even gotten pretty good at moving the 
camera with the kid so background was blurred but kid was good.
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ken Cochran<kwc at theworld.com> wrote:
>   
>> I was a photographer before computers discovered me long ago...
>> I *highly* recommend the Nikon D40; anything any "better" is
>> at least twice the price.  Actually the 1/500s flash sync isn't
>> for freezing action (flash'll do that) - it's for balancing the
>> light between ambient & flash.  As far as I know there is no
>> other DSLR that syncs flash at 1/500 and the D40 is likely to
>> be replaced by Nikon before much longer.  Another plus for Nikon
>> is their dead-on flash/light exposure/balance; they're the best
>> I know of.  The D90 and D5000 are the new steps-up from the D40.
>>
>> Buying:  Get it from a *photo* shop - they have the expertise
>> & support.  Price won't be much different than the electronics
>> places.  Recommended online places would be B&H, Adorama &
>> Ritz; Ritz now owns Wolf, so that might be a nice option for
>> you if you're in the Atlanta area.
>>
>> -kc
>>
>>     
>>> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:27:17 -0400
>>> From: Scott <skotchman at gmail.com>
>>> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale at ale.org>
>>> Subject: [ale] OT: DSLR recommendations
>>>
>>> Hey guys, thanks for the opinions offered. I'm now leaning towards the
>>> Nikon D40 even though it only has a burst of 2.5fps and not the 3.0fps.
>>> The deciding factor is the flash sync shutter speed of upto 1/500 sec as
>>> opposed to 1/200 sec on the 10.x and greater megapixel cameras. This
>>> allows for freeze action flash photography and with 3 hyper active
>>> monkeys, er I mean grandkids that 1/300 sec could make a difference of
>>> smiling angel like faces to blurry devilish imps.
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>