Hmm, never thought the Canon vs. Nikon debate would break out on a flashlight forum… I stand corrected! 
I think the actual cost of the equipment is irrelevant when you factor in the shipping charge of $40,000/ounce 
Ok that sound perfect. I wasn’t really sure which one to get.
As far as the 5100 or 3200; I went for the megapixels no other reason, 24.2mp. It’s really amazing how much lighter this camera is than even the old d50. I really like it, and Amazon rocks. Ordered it Friday at 550 pm central and had the light in my hands by 1030 am on Saturday morning. Shipping was only 8 bucks extra.
I took this the day of the the devastating tornado in Moore, OK, using the d3200. But, I’m 935 mile NE.
What a beautiful rainbow!
That picture isn’t retouched but if you bump up the saturation you can see the one above it too 
I started as Nikon guy for a short time, then changed to Canon. Some years ago I tested a lot of equipmen (that I bought 2nd hand.) At most, I had around 30+ lenses at the same time (NOT KIDDING, all bought personally). That made it possible for me to write comparison reviews, and do lots of side by side shots. Once I started to work for Canon, I had all the newest stuff all the time within the DSC and DSLR range. It was a part of my job to have the gear, learn sellers about it, and be able to answer questions from all the stores… I recently stopped working for them, but I can say pretty sure, that when it comes to photography gear I have benn through more than most!
I like photography, but when I became a gear-head, it kinda lost some of its charm. (And I became a gear-head quite fast, before I had learned a lot) Not long ago, I used a 5D MKIII, now I just use a 550D (aka T2i). But I have some decent lenses and such.
Canon vs Nikon talks are mostly useless. Every real photographer knows the differences are subtle. If gear-heads used more energy and time on photography instead of discussing gear and convincing why other should buy their “brand”, they would all be better photographers.
I have never been a real photographer, gear knowledge have been better suited for my abilities, combine that with sales.
There is a nice thread here, where people share photos.
Im not very artistic, and don’t really use a camera that much for more than documenting anymore.
When you need to test new gear all the time, you start focusing on being able to use all features, instead of taking actual pictures… 
I have been in the features stage for a long time…
Here are a few flashlight related shots though…
Taken with a simple point and shoot pocket camera.
A collection picture, not too long ago.
Some random shots
I recently upgraded to a Canon 60D, because of the great sale prices right now, and it was time for an upgrade (I used an XTi/400D for about six years).
The 60D is great for me, a real grip, good UI, nice screen (when I use it), great battery life.
Debating which camera is better is useful for heating up a room, not much else.
Comparing shots form my XTi and 60D (same lens, settings, and composition), unless you pixel-peep, they look the same. Seriously, any DSLR body produced in the last five years or so will serve the casual to enthusiast photographer just fine.
Spend your research time and money on lens selection. This is where the magic really is, and both Nikon and Canon have a wide selection.
Happy shooting
Edit: Excellent shots R86! I enjoy bird photography, when I have the time for it. I’m in the process of selecting a new bird lens. Would like to get out to 400mm, but not sure I can afford to…
hahah… So true… +1
That bird shot was taken with a 50D and a 300mm F4 L IS. I actually have not tried any of the 400mm in real outdoor situations, but im not that into large tele-lenses.
I could not justify having the 300mm, used it too little. It was also slow focusing with extender.
70-200 F 2,8 L IS was great, but too heavy for general use. I just settled for the 70-200 F4 L IS.
I prefer the slightly larger cameras too, in terms of grip, “handling” and speed and features. I did not like the XXXD series before. But after after dragging with me lots of kilos of photography gear for so long, I don’t mind a lighter model. (I got it for free too, and have not felt the need to upgrade). The higher models like 60D, and 7D, basically have the same picture quality. I have not been into car photography or any things that requires fast AF, and higher FPS lately either. So, my little camera with a good bunch of quality lenses will do.
5D mk II is sweet, and great bang for the buck. But I have gotten used to 5D mk III, and newer modes. Focusing system on the 7D and especially 5DMK III is just so sweet! :heart_eyes:
More up my alley if doing action stuff. 5D Mk III is all around just sweet! But the be honest, if going out. I would more often take a smaller lighter camera.
Sometimes you have to tried more to better appreciate less. Enjoy your 60D, its a superb all-round camera!
Absolutely correct, RaceR86. I’ve seen some wonderful shots taken with a used $30 Seagull camera.All this talk about this brand vs. that and so forth is just an exercise in one-upmanship :~
Btw, really like those images of yours. Makes me wanna go out and shoot some. At the moment my gear is sitting pretty on the shelf, most of the time
I have to admit. Im quite guilty too. But I dont feel bad.
Popular lenses don’t really depreciate once they have taken the first drop.
A camera body on the other hand, that losses value fast!
flashlights, camera with flash, seems somehow connected :bigsmile:
With you there! These days I'm not prepared to lug around my own body weight - in the 80's I used to wander round Edinburgh with a 5x4" Sinar F, a dozen or so double darkslides and the two tripods the beast needed. The shots were mostly rubbish, but the tonal gradation was awesome! But these days carrying a 50+ kilo (110+lbs) mound of kit just isn't happening.
But with those monster negatives prints of up to about five acres were a possibility. ;)
Pity phone cameras are almost invariably awful since just about everyone seems to use one of those for everything.
35mm is full frame. People who shoot digital have to pay a premium to match that sensor size.
The 50mm lens is at a good range too— mot too telephoto that neglects the dramatic effect, and not too wide that limits framing choice.
I just started using Flickr again since they give a terabyte of storage free instead of just 200 pics or whatever it was.
+1 with you on that, Don. My days of walking around with about 20 kilos on my back are over. Mind you, I love the long, fast lenses. Like this one I used to own here:
Beautiful lens, excellent images. Got it 2nd hand at a good price, but sold it off after about a year. Just to cumbersome and heavy for an old codger like me Actually, looking at all the images I ever took; the ones I like most were taken with a really simple set-up, usually with a wide-angle or short tele lens.
As for cellphones, I hardly ever use mine for taking photographs. The pixel quality is just not there (yet).
When dSLRs started becoming mainstream the prices of older used manual focus lenses plummetted as everybody thought they wanted the new AF-everything to go with the new super-whizzy bodies.
As a result I was able to pick up some incredible value older high quality glass from previous generations, for utterly peanuts. Glass that still shoots as good as it always did, and when it gets down to it, the image is what counts and the lens immensely affects that.
I love AF, though, but being a tightwad I cannot find the motivation to rook myself purchasing an AF lens with bits that will go wrong and wear out much faster than a simple MF lens. I do have a couple of them, but just enough to cover the ranges I need if I’m going out to shoot something that might actually need AF or I simply can’t be bothered with MF that day
Now, the prices of all those good old MF lenses have rocketed (although you can still find several bargains) as more people have bought dSLRs and and balked at the cost of digital glass, so looked at the alternatives. If I were to sell them, I’d clean up, but it’ll be a cold, dead day when they’re prised from my hands.
It’s the circle of life! I think I need more lights to take photos of. Then more camera gear to take better photos!
That bird shot was taken with a 50D and a 300mm F4 L IS. I actually have not tried any of the 400mm in real outdoor situations, but im not that into large tele-lenses.
I could not justify having the 300mm, used it too little. It was also slow focusing with extender.
70-200 F 2,8 L IS was great, but too heavy for general use. I just settled for the 70-200 F4 L IS.
…
Sometimes you have to tried more to better appreciate less. Enjoy your 60D, its a superb all-round camera!
[/quote]
I’m looking at the 100-400L or the relatively recent 70-300L, leaning towards the 300. I need the versatility if I’m going to pay that much for a lens.
I agree, I do not want to carry around any of the large primes, especially for the price.
70-200 F2.8L IS has one primary purpose in my mind; sports (including auto racing) photography. There are secondary uses it does well, but if you are not into sports shooting this lens is overkill, go for the F4 version.
I was considering the 7D, but the body price was almost double, and for my use I could not justify that added cost. Definitely worth it though if the added performance and functionality are needed.