I don't think mods love us enough for a sticky. We're the misunderstood failure child that decided to take up photography.

>>896010
>Using Cnet as a buying guide
:l come on man. really?

We could make an image that helped, but it would have to be completely objective. Most fags just tell people to buy the entry level of their brand for whatever reasons. The sticky should just advise OP to try his own while listing potential advantages and disadvantages (which can be a problem, since many of these things are objective).

If there is a sticky, as a Nikonfag, I implore that a provision to "don't buy the D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D5000 due to lack of in-body focus motor" be added.

in the chart:
>Low end: 6 megapixels
>High end: 21 megapixels
>LOLOL MEGAPICKLES R IMPORTANT

>Low end: about 1.5fps to 4fps
>High end: 10fps
wat

It's easy
-Kx if you want the best price/quality ratio and cheap but good glass (or can't afford the other two)
-550D if you want the best video and being able to use almost any lens on it
-D90 if you want the best overall still camera between the three
-Used cameras if don't need modern features and don't care about megapickels and want a solid body

>>896021
It's so... correct!

>>896021
i second this

I was gonna say that the sticky needs to just be

"entry level canon, entry level nikon or pentax k-x. stick with kit lens and a fast prime for the first 10,000 shots"

and dont worry about sony or lolympus to keep things simple

>>896029
As a Nikonfag, tell people to avoid Nikons lacking in body AF motors.

Just sticky this image.

>>896034
SOZZARZ forgot to select the damn image.

>>896010

>Can we get one too?
>Try end all this hurr durr hurr derp what shud i buy lol?

Sure good idea

>reviews.cnet.com

umm........


>Low end: 6 megapixels

no

>Low end: about 1.5fps to 4fps

no

>Low end: 4 to unlimited shots
>High end: 7 to unlimited shots

ummmmm wat? 7 is very bad, 7 jpegs is fucking horrifically bad

basically what they're saying here is

>hurp durp 10fps is good but buffer for only 7 images is also good

>Low end: 1- to 6-second delays
>High end: Virtually instantaneous

oh I see... they're talking about digital compacts/bridge cameras too.... still no

>Low end: 24 or 30fps 1,280x720 video encoded with Motion JPEG as an AVI file.

derp crappy 720p video shitty slow 24fps is bad and only on low end cameras !

>It's easy
>-Kx if you want the best price/quality ratio and cheap but good glass (or can't afford the other two)
>-550D if you want the best video and being able to use almost any lens on it
>-D90 if you want the best overall still camera between the three

I understand the Nikon and Pentax points, both good. I also agree we need to add to Nikon avoiding the no focus motor bodies as well. I also understand the Canon video part.

What I need to get a clear picture of is the Canon statement about using any lens on it. This confuses me. I understand that is a Pentax thing, that compatibility goes back to the 40's, but how does Canon rate that statement? Especially with the whole FD mount thing? You can't actually even use old Canon glass, much less anyone elses.

Not averse to putting in good points about all the cameras, but lens compatibility for Canon? Please.
Pentax has it, and Nikon COULD have it if they chose not to boobytrap the cameras, but Canon never had that.

>>896031
>As a Nikonfag, tell people to avoid Nikons lacking in body AF motors.

no, d90 used still costs more than a d5k brand fucking new and they both produce the same image quality have the same noise etc etc

in body focusing is nice and all but it isn't the only thing to consider

>>896021
This, exactly this. Though you might buy one of those three used too.

>>896051
What this means this is that you can mount (almost) any lens to canon mount, not about with the compatibility with older canon glass. Pentax is amazing for Kmount glass, but I'm not sure about the rest of the mounts.

>they both produce the same image quality have the same noise etc etc

No, they don't. Not even Dxomark - the lameass fallback for when people don't have actual arguments to go on - will back up that statement. Only people who inadvisably bought one and don't want to admit making a mistake even want to believe that statement.

>in body focusing is nice and all but it isn't the only thing to consider

It is if you take photography seriously, If not and you only want to stick with the kit lenses, then you don't need an SLR in the first place now do you?

>So sick of gear threads.
>Want one at the top of 0 permanently.

Such a stupid idea. They get sent to 15 quickly as it is.

>>896061
How is it stupid... have one at the top that eliminates the need for the other 6 below it

>What this means this is that you can mount (almost) any lens to canon mount.

I would assume you mean by using optical adapters.

Unfortunately, by that definition any camera can mount any lenses. If you make the definition broad enough to include Canon, then it also includes pretty much every camera ever made, including Pentax and Nikon.

The only camera I would even think of including adapters in the standard array of lenses would be with Leica M mounts and Pentax K mounts, and only because those bayonet mounts were specifically designed around the idea of seamlessly attaching bayonets to the previous lines of screw mount lenses with permanently mounted non-optical rings, not some lame intermediary spacer with optics.

>>896066
Nikon really reduces the options of doing this. I don't know about pentax, but canon sure is known for it's compatibility when mounting other lenses on.

>>896066

What's meant is that canon EOS has the shortest register distance of the easily available D-SLRs allowing the user to mount a vast range of old mounts using adaptors with no glass in. Therefore no optical degradation.

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html

>>896063
You really think it'll stop people from making them anyway? There'd be a lot less trouble with them if people knew how to sage them.

>What's meant is that canon EOS has the shortest register distance of the easily available D-SLRs


Sony Alpha, Canon EOS, and Pentax K all have mounts within a millimeter or so of one another, close enough no adapter can be thin enough to move between those mounts and keep infinity focus without optics.
Nikon is longer than the rest, but only by another millimeter and a half.

This means that Canon and Pentax can sometimes mount F-mount glass with no optics, and then only stop-down metering only and no AF of course. However, nothing else I know of will mount on any of those three other than f-mount without the same onerous and quality inhibiting adapters as anyone else has to use, and they will not mount each others.

As an interesting aside, Pentax K will take F-mount lenses in the K bayonet mount without adapters, but only upside down(!). While they will focus to infinity as the mount is slightly shorter, they lose close focus ability so you cannot focus on objects as near as if mounted on a proper F-body.

>>896078
>Sony Alpha, Canon EOS, and Pentax K all have mounts within a millimeter or so of one another, close enough no adapter can be thin enough to move between those mounts and keep infinity focus without optics.

Exactly, and it is these millimeters that matter. An adapter only has to be a milimeter thick, and sometimes doesn't can even be recessed into the mount because Canon's mount has a large mouth.

tl;dr: You're ignorant and have no knowledge of what you're talking about, at least take your time to google for instance. GTFO.

>someone disagrees with my irrelevant and incorrect assertion and therefore must be ignorant.

WTF? Quite frankly, if the best thing you can come up with as a reason to buy a Canon is that you can possibly use lens adapters to mount other peoples lenses and stop-down like it was 1955, then it is a pretty sad fucking statement even if it was actually correct, which for the most part it isn't.
Even if it were a relevant aspect to peoples purchasing decisions, which for the most part it also isn't.

>>896129
That was my first post in this thread, nowhere have I ever adviced buying a canon soly because of that reason, nor have I actually ever adviced anyone buying a Canon.
Just stating that you're statements were incorrect, and remain to be, next time at least bother to write some arguments instead of "which for the most part it isn't." idiort.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:05:11 17:45:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	350
Image Height	357

>>896129
Lots of people already have older lenses from film bodies (dad's or whatever) and they want to use them on a DSLR. Canon would be the way to go in this case. It's not the first reason to buy canon obviously, but in the entry level section, the compatibility plus the better video system are probably the only advantages over Nikon. IQ is gonna be really similar and ergonomics is going to be personal preference.

>>896029
Actually I'd go as far to recommend buying just the body and using the extra money saved from not getting the kit lens to getting a nice 50mm prime. Which I don't know of any bad 50mm primes and they're fairly cheap anyway. By far the best lens to begin learning photog.

>>896129
The butthurt is strong in this one

if you want a cool image to post then make it. go to /fit. and the computer board and look at theirs. then slap something together and post it up for c+c.

no one's going to do it for you

>>896010
How are you going to ask for a sticky on OTHER peoples (you know, those people that are paid for them) reviews on cameras when its a personal, and i really mean personal, choice?


GTFO off my /p/

>>896163
A 50mm as only lens on a crop body is the fucking worst advice ever.

>>896227
IF ITS THAT PERSONAL THEN WHY ASK SOMEONE ELSE BRO?

>>896232
the same reason everyone hops on the canon,pentax,nikon wagons and the slob fests.
i tell almost everyone that asks sound advice, you wanna get a good camera? find out what your budget is, what you want to shoot, find the body that you like and then get the lenses to do what you want to do.

picture related

>>896234
fail post

>>896232
>A 50mm as only lens on a crop body is the fucking worst advice ever.

Indeed it is, get a 35mm instead.

>>896232
>A 50mm as only lens on a crop body is the fucking worst advice ever.

Seriously, though. Hurrdurrrrr nifty fifty.

Get a 35mm prime.

>>896234
thissss

Yeah, what is up with that awful fifty advice? Why do people keep giving it? 35mm or even fucking 28 is the way to start.

>>896021

I like this post, but we can't forget the 7D.

More expensive than the D90 but I feel that this is alright, since the 550D is basically a watered down version of the 7D if you have the money I'd just go get the 7D.

>>896343
they think all cropfags are into portraiture

>>896345
naw, not really worth it unless you photograph sports a lot

>>896343
Because they're cheap, good quality, and fast lenses. Yeah, a 35mm or 28mm would be a definite better choice to start learning on but 50 is about 85mm on a crop sensor and makes a pretty good cheap portrait lens.

>>896352
I don't disagree that it is a good portrait lens, I disagree that it should be what everyone tells them to get for a first lens.

>>896357
Yeah it probably isn't a good first lens. But if you already have a kit lens which probably covers a good number of focal lengths(as I had) it is a very helpful lens to learn more with. At least it helped me alot when I was starting out because in addition to having much higher quality glass than my kit, it forced me to move and change my style which let me see things differently and actually think before I shot.

tbph There's too broad of a spectrum of information with DSLRs to have a recommendations thread. We MIGHT be able to collaborate on a chart for recommended entry level gear based on brand and goals, and perhaps do the same with a (camera) brand-based lens chart.

So those are two charts as images.

Beyond that, there are a few:
* Hyperfocal distance chart
* Exposure triangle, but that changes slightly based on the camera (crop or not, and even specific models, at least for age) So perhaps an exposures basics chart/tutorial.
* Composure basics

I think if we cover those bases, we'll have a well rounded sticky that bypasses gearfaggotry since each (major) brand will have its place on the chart.

Some other ideas: a P&S chart based on both brand and budget.

>>896364
>Some other ideas: a P&S chart based on both brand and budget.

That's something we can do too.

>* Hyperfocal distance chart
>* Exposure triangle, but that changes slightly based on the camera (crop or not, and even specific models, at least for age) So perhaps an exposures basics chart/tutorial.
>* Composure basics

I understand the desire to get out from under the brandfaggery, but this brings up another issue issue just as nasty as the first if not more so.
Things like Hyperfocal charts and an exposure tirangle mean you are bringing up theory, which is generally even more hated here that anything else. ("LOL use AF, faggot").
Same thing with composition, as that gets into those that think composition has been obsoleted and is no longer necessary. ("LOL we use Photoshop now, faggot")

I would tend to agree they would be useful, but I am clearly in the minority, and the ignorant ones also tend to be the ones that get loudest and won't let it go until they ruin any thread theory or technique are mentioned in.
Add then at your own peril, as it will just mean the thread is spammed into uselessness rather rapidly.

>>896386
>"LOL we use Photoshop now, faggot"
Except those retards never realize that when something is being shooped, the crop still relies on proper composition, and some things can't so easily be repaired in post processing (such as chopping off limbs in the original shot) without manufacturing bits.

(part of the whole "could not be posted" so I'm going to break this down to see what I need to change)

Auto focus does NOTHING for the hyperfocal distance, and that's why I think it needs to be included. AF will choose a distance, and the photographer will accept that. If I were a total n00b trying to shoot a landscape, I'd let the AF focus on the horizon. And guess what? Everything ends up fucking blurry except in the far distance. Whereas if I had an idea thanks to the hyperfocal distance chart, I'd know that at Xmm, f/Y, I'd manually set the focus to Z to focus from close to infinity.

I'm well aware how posters here often HATE having to know anything. But isn't that in part the point of the sticky? Give some of the basic information on photography. Either they'll read it and realize there's more to know, or they'll be told to STFU and RTFS.

And no, I'm not trying to eliminate brandfaggotry. That's impossible. But comparative charts within brands, with an advisory to physically hold and try the cameras in person before purchase, will eliminate some of the "Is this Nikon better than that one?" questions. "Nikon or Canon?" threads will still be answered with "Just get a K-X."

>* Hyperfocal distance chart

THIS.

>* Hyperfocal distance chart

Hyperfocal? Fuck that;

JUST BORKEH EVERYTHING!
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:07:04 15:49:45
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	715
Image Height	1114

Cameras are for faggots