Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5, 2007, 12:25 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
"low budget" and " digital slr" should not be in the same sentance.
EXACTLY!!!!! (Though used with Pentax lens (some BETTER than currewnt) CAN be done but rapidly disappearing with the likely eve to Pentax STORM of K100D and K10D popularity scarfining them all of Ebay)
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 10:58 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 143
Default

For true wide angle shots of interiors you will need an ultrawidelens that will go into the 10-15mm range on a DSLR. The cheapest (though good) lens for this is the Sigma 10-20mm as already mentioned (equal to a 15-30mm on film cameras). Most standard wide angles go to 17 or 18mm which is equivilent to a 28mm lens on your old 35mm SLR. I would suggest getting a Pentax K110d and this Sigma lens or look for a good internet deal on a Canon Rebel XT. That combo should cost around $900. While not exactly cheap, it's as cheap as it gets for this wide angle coverage. Believe me you will want the widest lens you can get. I shoot interiors with a lens that goes to 11mm and often wish I had wider. You can always crop tighter.

You will also need tripod for the best quality and sharpness but they are cheap.
gipper51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 2:42 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

This is one of my dilemas as well. My favorite lens for 35mm is my 17mm tokina wich will only give me the view of a 25mm on a dslr. (Not to mention no meter functrion.) I'm scrimping and saving to get a camera I can't double the money for a new lens as well. Thats why I'm concedering a fuji s9100 with a wide aux lens. wich combined will be less than a dslr. The quality will not be the same but that dosen't mean it will be bad. That will fulfill my jones to go digital until I'm in a better posision to upgrade.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 11:20 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 143
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
This is one of my dilemas as well. My favorite lens for 35mm is my 17mm tokina wich will only give me the view of a 25mm on a dslr. (Not to mention no meter functrion.) I'm scrimping and saving to get a camera I can't double the money for a new lens as well. Thats why I'm concedering a fuji s9100 with a wide aux lens. wich combined will be less than a dslr. The quality will not be the same but that dosen't mean it will be bad. That will fulfill my jones to go digital until I'm in a better posision to upgrade.
The Fuji you are considering only goes to a 28mm wide angle, which is the same as most DSLRs with their cheap kit lenses. The Pentax K100d with the 18-55 kit lens is equal to a 27-82mm and is about $600. The K110d kit is about $100 cheaper but you lose the image stabilization. Granted this setup would not give you the 83-300mm range the Fuji would, it's still a start and you can always buy more lenses as funds permit. Plus you have the better IQ of a DSLR.

The Fuji is a great camera but you are still stuck with the limitations of a fixed lens, small sensor camera.
gipper51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 1:36 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
1eyedeer wrote:
Quote:
If you want a DSLR with a wide angle lens, the D40 plus the Sigma 10 - 20 mm lens is a very good combination.=
Of course you forgot to mention very COSTLY (More than Cam for the lens)
The Pentax 12-24 is the closest equivalent of the Sigma 10-20 is $719 minus a $100 rebate going on right now. The Sigma 10-20 is $499.

I don't think it takes a math wiz to figure out what is more costly.

D40 with Sigma 10-20mm it is. Manually focused on a tripod. Sounds like the ticket to me.


vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 1:39 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
If economics are absolutely critical, please take a look at a the Olympus E-500 two lens kit. It is very hard to beat. or the Nikon D-40 with the kit lens and the 55-200mm VR lens. Both are very ecomical alternatives.

MT/Sarah
If indoor shots are the norm (like the one posted) Oly probably isn't the best choice. The 2x crop factor really works against you.
The kit lens for the Oly offering starts at 14mm which as JohnG stated with the 2x crop factor makes it 28mm in 35mm film terms.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 2:53 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23
Default

vIZnquest wrote:
Quote:
The Pentax 12-24 is the closest equivalent of the Sigma 10-20 is $719 minus a $100 rebate going on right now. The Sigma 10-20 is $499.

I don't think it takes a math wiz to figure out what is more costly.
Indeed. The Pentax 12-24 is in a different league than the Sigma, though.



May I suggest the Pentax K100D and Zenitar 16mm manual focus fisheye lens?

The lens has a 180* field of view and, by all accounts, is a decent lens. It goes for $135 brand new on eBay. The K100D is also crazy cheap right now and easily competes with any of the cameras mentioned so far in this thread.

With this setup, you'll have image stabalization, a pretty fast lens at f2.8, and 180 degrees of view. The downside of the fisheye lens is you'll have to run your images through a defish application if you don't like that look.


Tom Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 3:32 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Then again just picked up a 18-55mm Pentax kit lens for a bargain.... off Ebay.....

And pleasant surprise even with my 0.45x WA front lens on it bringing it down to near 9 mm.... sure curved (as the kit les itself is at 18mm) but still far from fish eye and for landscape/non staight perpedicular line things even with the WA, just fine really for $30 cost vs $300+..
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 10:10 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
Then again just picked up a 18-55mm Pentax kit lens for a bargain.... off Ebay.....

And pleasant surprise even with my 0.45x WA front lens on it bringing it down to near 9 mm.... sure curved (as the kit les itself is at 18mm) but still far from fish eye and for landscape/non staight perpedicular line things even with the WA, just fine really for $30 cost vs $300+..
This is a post by someone that is a realtor. Someone that is making a living asking this question. I don't think the work around you suggest will suffice for the general audience that want to look at pictures of their new prospective home.

Work arounds to save money is cool but I don't think that this is one that would be in this persons best interest.


vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 3:04 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Perhaps the least expensive alternative might be a Kodak P-880 which features a 24mm Schneider lens and has gotten good reviews. It is not quite as wide as the Nikon D-40 equipped with a Sigma 10-20mm lens, but the P-880 is a lot less money and probably will do a reasonable job for less $$.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 PM.