Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Is this a good setup?

profile picture
RZcrew
Posts: 366 - Karma: 2,209
Hey guys i am looking to upgrade my camera setup sometime this winter, and im wondering if this is a good setup to purchase.





Im not super educated on cameras and i just wanted some feedback.
Dec 2 2011 11:44PM
0 0
profile picture
[evan]
Posts: 5628 - Karma: 119
No.

Get a T2i, unless you ABSOLUTELY need that articulating screen.

Get a Tamron 17-50 or a 18-135 (I think thats what DTF has)

Get a nice tripod setup. (Durable, lightweight, small)

Don't get either of those stabilizers, i have the Opteka handle and it doesnt stabilize shit. And that ring looks utterly useless. Get a glidecam 2000 pro/hd.
Dec 2 2011 11:55PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted2
Posts: 958 - Karma: 107
No, zac has the 24-105 which is most likely out of his price range, the 17-50 is a dope as hell lens, so thats good.
Dec 2 2011 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
[evan]
Posts: 5628 - Karma: 119
Yeah but the 17-50 isnt much of a focal range compared to what i think hes looking for. i dont know shit about canon lenses so ill leave that part to greater minds.
Dec 3 2011 12:01AM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
consider whether you need the articulating screen, if not, go t2i. then get a tamron 17-50, some class 10 cards and more batteries. scratch both of those two stabilizers, just about useless. do you have a good fluid head tripod? that's first order of business when it comes to stabilization. then consider a glidecam 2000 pro or hd.
do you know and accept the downfalls of shooting a dslr? its a tricky business, but it can reward you with great footage if you know what you're doing.
Dec 3 2011 12:02AM
0 0
profile picture
deleted2
Posts: 958 - Karma: 107
true, but for the price of the 24-105, he could pick up the 17-50, then the 70-200 f4. which one then give him a bigger focal range, even though it would be lack the 51-69 range, but that really should not make to much of a difference. He could also grab a set of primes lets say, the 14mm rokinon, then the 30mm sigma, then the 50mm 1.4 or the 1.8, then the 85mm canon or rokinon and he be set for a good amount of time
Dec 3 2011 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
[evan]
Posts: 5628 - Karma: 119
Primes?

This sounds like OP's first DSLR, i dont know if he knows enough about manual aperture to be able to work a prime to its full potential. Besides, if this is for skiing, hes not going to be switching lenses on the lift.
Dec 3 2011 12:10AM
0 0
profile picture
deleted2
Posts: 958 - Karma: 107
Primes don't mean manual aperture...... Those are vintage pimes with adapters from different mounts buddy.... and just making suggestions...
Dec 3 2011 12:12AM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
don't complicate this too much for him, he's new to cameras sort of. i think a 17-50 then maybe a 70-200 would be better for the money. also l-o-fucking-l at that fig rig thing, the center circle is made out of a god damn hockey puck.
Dec 3 2011 12:12AM
0 0
profile picture
RZcrew
Posts: 366 - Karma: 2,209
i have the opteka stabilizer and i find it works perfectly, i mostly just wanted to see how well it would work with the t3i, and thats why i need the articulating screen. pretty much the only reason i considered the fig rig is because i saw an edit of mike hornbeck filming the meltdown and all thier sohts look super good so i figured it must work.
Dec 3 2011 12:23AM
0 0
profile picture
RZcrew
Posts: 366 - Karma: 2,209
http://vimeo.com/30452007 around :35 into this edit mike hornbeck is using that fig rig.
also i want to use this camera mostly for video and skiing but also for other thing and photos
Dec 3 2011 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
deleted2
Posts: 958 - Karma: 107
Tokina* 11-16, but all aside, thats such a specialty lens, he should really just think about getting that later and try to get a good focal range going, because you can do follow cams at 17, its really not that hard....
Dec 3 2011 9:19AM
0 0
profile picture
RZcrew
Posts: 366 - Karma: 2,209
up
Dec 4 2011 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
Who cares what anyone else has? If you know what you're doing, the 18-200 will give great results. In the wrong hands any lens can produce shitty images, DTF has a 24-105 I believe, which gives him good results because he uses it well. Why would you recommend an 18-135 over an 18-200? Both of those lenses' main goal is to provide a large focal range, the 18-200 being the better of the two.
Dec 5 2011 12:32AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
Uhh, isn't the 11-16 meant for crop sensor? Unless you're comparing it to a 35mm equivalent (but i don't know why you would do that since I don't think OP understands that concept), it will be just about 11-16 on a T2i.
Dec 5 2011 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
p.hawks
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
no, it will be the equivalent of 17.6-25.6. It only covers a crop sensor, but the physical focal length is the same regardless of the camera. When i put a 58mm lens on my gh2, it becomes the equivalent of a 116mm field of view (compared to full frame), but gives the same dof and the same compression (telephoto lenses make things look more flat) as a 58mm lens on a full frame, it is just like taking a center crop. the larger sensor is better for being able to get a shallow dog at a shorter focal length (as well as low light, resolution, etc.).
Dec 5 2011 1:14AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
it would be the same as a 17-25 FF lens on a FF body I believe. If you put a 17-25 FF lens on a APS/APS-C body, it will be tighter than a 17-25 DX lens
Dec 5 2011 1:18AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61136 - Karma: 118,553
You guys are saying the exact same thing, just in different ways. A lens is always the same focal length, it field of view is different on different crops.
Dec 5 2011 1:53AM
0 0
profile picture
p.hawks
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
ya, when I first saw it, i thought he meant that lenses for crop cameras show their focal length in FF equivalent
Dec 5 2011 11:52AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)