Great. Nikon already replaced the shutter in my D600, so I guess I can’t exchange it for a D610. Maybe if I snap another 2000 photos, the oil will return.
At this point, I’d rather own a D610, mostly for the higher resell value.
More details:
Only if you signed up for the lawsuit can you participate and exchange your D600 for a D610.
Otherwise, you can request to exchange your D600 for a D610 from Nikon if you’ve had sensor dust issues more than three times.
D600 owners get free sensor cleaning for life from Nikon.
That last part is interesting. Free sensor cleaning for life… maybe keeping the D600 is the better deal.
Link:
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/01/how-to-replace-your-nikon-d600-camera-with-a-d610.aspx/
I’d rather just get the 610. Sensor cleaning is annoying as hell and there’s no guarantee you’ll get it all, then you got to do it all over again maybe a thousand or two shots later. For an active photographer you can rack that up pretty quick.
— Alan
This isn’t really the ideal thread for this, but I hope that someone here might be able to give me some advice…
On my last trip I noticed that the zoom lens (EF-S 18-135mm 1:3,5-5,6 IS) on my Canon 600D was starting to act up. Every once in a while it “sticks” a bit while I’m turning the zoom lens, if I try to autofocus at that moment the motor also struggles to get past a specific “spot” on the circle. Once I manually turn either ring a bit, the resistance goes away again and the lens behaves normally.
I’m guessing I got some sand or something in there somewhere? Any tips, short of sending it in to Canon for a pricey service/repair? How bad would it be to just ignore it and live with it and hope it doesn’t get worse?
Sending it in to Canon is probably your only real choice. Since it’s a specific spot, it’s clearly internal to the lens. Modern lenses are made up of a large number of internal lenses (referred to as “elements,”), and almost all of them move in a specific pattern as you rotate the zoom ring. I imagine that one particular segment has developed a rough spot, or has been knocked out of alignment and is now rubbing. You’re probably damaging it further every time you force it past that spot.
Thanks for the Input… Guess I’ll have to bite the bullet and send it in. Hope the repair is not too pricey.
How the hell have I not seen this until now???
It wasn’t clear at the end, did Canon win?
Been looking at a new DSLR or Mirrorless system and I’m looking for some help.
Amazon has some seemingly good deals right now. Sony a3000 for $250, NEX5-TL for $350, or a Canon Rebel T5 EFS for $400.
$250 for the a3000 seems a great deal, but I had originally been looking at the NEX systems.
Uses: general family pics kinda stuff, but working towards more outdoorsy/arty pics in the near future.
Want a flexible changeable lens system of some sort and have read that the Sony’s are good for this with their lenses and easy adapters for other brands.
Any advice for a rank newb would be appreciated.
I have a Canon DSLR and three lenses. I’m happy with it, and my two fast primes are great for nice portraits of my daughter.
If you want pictures of your kids playing sports, the basic Nikon or Canon two-lens kit will likely be cheapest. Add a prime for portraits and you’re done. However, if I were to do it again I would look at the cheapest Fuji ILC, as Fuji has great colors out of the camera.
That said, 90% of the pictures I take are with my iPhone due to convenience and, to be honest, perfectly good quality. Also iPhone videos are superior to my DSLR (picture, audio, stabilization, frame rate, artifacts, even low light), so I wouldn’t let video mode sway you at all. Note the latest Samsung S6 is also good, other Android phones always seem a generation behind in cameras.
A smartphone is on you all the time and is definitely handy, but the lens is definitely a big issue for me. It’s great for shooting people up close and such, but good luck with any kind of objects in the distance.
I recommend an entry-level DLSR. There’s no point blowing $3,000 on a body if you have no idea how to use it. I shot for years on a Rebel before I “graduated” to a 7D (a “prosumer-level camera”) and there was a whole new learning curve on top of that.
I also recommend an entry level DSLR, but no denying there’s caveats these days. DSLR sales are down again and again, http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/first-sales-results-posted.html, the question is why? The answer is that high-quality imaging is democratized, everyone has it everywhere all the time. You don’t need a DSLR to take great photos.
Which does lead into a thread derail. Absolutely amazing pictures are generally worthless these days, in the sense of actual money if not photographer satisfaction. The internet is full of people posting hauntingly beautifulpictures with the only reward being three other people saying ‘nice photo!’. It’s all good, the hobby is about doing something you enjoy and getting out of the house, but it is something to keep in mind before spending significant money. Go in with eyes open I say.
Anyway lostcawz’ post has some hesitation on a DSLR. I’m saying his hesitation may have merit. DSLRs are big, bulky, expensive (lenses) and out-of-date in terms of connectivity and online backups etc. It’s 2015, DSLRs have had great quality and relatively low cost of entry for years, I’d say that anyone that doesn’t have one (unless you’re coming out of high-school or similar) probably shouldn’t get one.
He could also consider the high-end compacts such as the Sony RX100 or equivalent, or the mirrorless options though again lenses get expensive. Also the secret to good indoor photos is bounce flash; that is difficult to get with non-DSLR, but not impossible.
I think an entry level dslr is a good place to start and a few decent lenses can be had cheaply.
I use a Nex-7 which is amore expensive mirrorless camera and is excellent for what I wanted, great quality, lightweight if needed etc but my next camera will be a more expensive dslr as my kids are now older.
However there is something to be said for having a lightweight camera with you, I take my Nex-7 with me everywhere which i’m sure I would not do with a dslr which is why I will keep my Nex when getting a new dslr as well. Sometimes you don’t need all the gear just some gear.
If you look in the pictures thread in everything forum there are lots of pictures from lost of cameras which can give you an idea what you can do with a normal camera,
I grabbed a Sony NEX7 mirrorless a year or so ago. My requirements were (relative) ease of use, compact, interchangeable lens, wireless connectivity and inbuilt viewfinder.
The camera takes pics orders of magnitude better than any of the mobile devices I have access to - recent ipads, iphones and Samsung devices.
You certainly cannot beat a really good phone camera for the convenience factor, but I am a convert to the ‘real cameras give better pics’ train of thought. When you add the fact I can tailor focus and exposure to suit my needs, a mobile device falls way short and once you learn your camera, adjustments can be made reasonably quickly.
I will wholeheartedly second the recommendation for a half decent fast prime lens if your use-case is capturing the family stuff. The kit 18-55 lens that came with my camera is soooooo inferior to the inexpensive OEM 50mm Sony prime as to be a joke. The prime just runs rings around it for everyday around the house lighting conditions - environments where you can usually deal with the fixed focal length easily. So much so that my wife even commented it produces better pics and she barely cares about such things.
Compact DSLR for me, all the way.
The NEX-7 is a great compromise between (big, heavy, expensive) full-frame cameras and (shitty image making) compacts. I did eventually upgrade to the mirrorless full-frame Sony Alpha 7R because I couldn’t get quite enough light here in Germany with its eternal Mordorian darkness, but that’s a big jump in price and chances are you’ll be happy with the NEX-7.
- I suggest the EOS 550D but really the cameras in this prize class is about the same.
- bing search for articles that compare cameras, it is all over the internet.
- Every camera is different, sometimes is Nikon just an inch better and sometimes Canon is better. But in the end there are no big differences that you will notice.
Choose the one that fits you. Will you take photos of sports, animals and a lot of fast stuff, get the one with most FPS. Taking more model or landscape photos, get the one with most megapixels(if you are planning on printing, if not, megapixels is not important).
Lens is more important than camera in my opinion. I recommend the super cheap but super good lens Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II or just I. Cost like 120dollars and takes amazing pictures with nice depth of field.
You will see this advice repeated all over the internet for good reasons. The depth of field is something you will love and fight at the same time but it does lead to some great portraits and focused pictures.
Get ready to love a new word in your vocabulary: bokeh
This. So much this. I don’t think there’s any better value for the money than this very lens. If anyone has a Canon camera and can’t or doesn’t want too much money on equipment in addition to the standard kit (usually: 18-55 f3.5-5.6), this is the first lens to get.
Before I had my own DSLR and better knowledge of photography, I never really got why anyone would don a fixed 50mm instead of something like the 18-55mm lense oder something that even has a higher range. It’s far less flexible, no? But once I had the 50mm it dawned on me. It wasn’t just the depth of field - it was the immense flexibility in low-light situations that made me fall for this lens. It’s just great for people who prefer available-light photography over flash. And there’s nothing else in that price range that comes close with the exception of the cheaper Yongnuo 50mm, which did fairly well in some of the reviews I read. Getting the lens really helped me improve my skills as it was just much more fun to do portraits, but also gave me aforementioned flexibility in low-light settings.
I don’t know guys. The 50mm II was great a few years ago but is really showing its age (though agreed the fundamentals remain good). Now you can get the 40mm 2.8 STM and have a much smaller, lighter optic, with more curved aperture blades and better focus performance and movie capability for $140 on ebay, or $180 if you can find it on sale. The similar but smaller, even lighter 24mm STM is even cheaper. Both are great focal lengths on APS C. If you’re willing to spend a bit more the new ultra-wide and the 55-250 STM actually provide new perspectives in addition to great quality for the price.