Printable View
I'd like to, one day, get myself a camera. I am interested in photography but I've never before owned a real camera.
There has been a lot of times when I've seen a beautiful scenery and have felt the urge to take a picture, but having only my mobile phone camera at hand the resulting pictures always leaves me disappointed (of course).
So if I ever decide to get one, what would you recommend?
I'd definitely go for this.
Seriously though, I just had a quick look on Amazon, and there was this 10MP Samsung camera for £60, which I think is pretty good value after seeing some other bulky cameras with similar megapixels for >£200. Personally, I don't really know enough about cameras (nor am I too bothered) to know enough about all these cool things you can do with the cameras.
On the other hand, if you are just interested in taking pictures for now, the reviews I've seen say it's really good picture quality, but it does take AA batteries, and it has been known to chew up batteries a bit. Also, it apparently has a "cheap look and feel", but that is what I'd expect from buying something ~£150 cheaper than the rest.
Nikon D40. I bought mine because I liked the photo's Mendhak took with his D40.
Brilliant camera, loads of compatible accessories, great price, very good design.
I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Nikon D40 eh! Its got a very reasonable price tag..!
Would I be wasting my time with the DSLR? Just trying to save a couple of bucks to afford more batteries.
If you like a scene and want to do it justice, get an SLR. Doesn't matter how many megapickles a point&shoot has, your photo will still appear washed out.
I chose the D40 because of its price tag and because it's being touted as the SLR for beginners. This one's one of my favorites and I'm glad I had an SLR then to preserve the scene - it looked exactly as you see in the photo.
Yea get a Nikon DXX. Though megapixels don't matter much, I'd still try to aim for 8 mp or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
If you don't want an SLR cause of the bulk, you can get the Canon G10, which works decent in well-lit situations but around as bad as every other Point and Shoot in dark areas w/ high ISO.
Of course G10 is a large Point and Shoot, but there isn't a giant lense poking out, and you can fit it into your pocket if you like baggy pants.
I also recommend SLRs. I had a Canon SLR back in 2005 which I eventually sold when I stopped taking photos. You can switch lenses with SLRs so you could have a wide angle zoom and then a telephoto zoom and that way get a wide range of shooting abilities.
Have you ever used a Nikon SLR? How do they compare with Cannon? Or Olympus? If any of you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
I still haven't bought an SLR, thinking about it. Nikon seems the most popular.
To illustrate the main difference between a P&S and an SLR...
SLRs generally have MUCH larger optical elements (lenses), this permits a great deal of light to pass through the system to subtend upon the sensor.
P&Ss on the other hand very often have much smaller optics (due to the "pocket-sized" form factor that seems to be so popular). P&S cameras are designed to be portable, small and "no fuss" to use.
SLR cameras are designed to take photographs, they require some skill to operate.
But of course there is a middle ground. Lumix seems to be a very respected manufacturer at the moment. Some of their cameras are more technically competant than P&Ss and less technically competant than SLRs. The photos they take are very high in quality, certainly worth a look, but you still lack the flexibility of a SLR and you're still forced to think about the shots you take more than you would if you were using a P&S
But photography is not about hardware, you can either take a good picture or you can't, no amount of hardware will improve your aim or compositional skills. The internet is crammed with photographs taken with very nice cameras, but turned out half-exposed, blurry and with chopped-off heads (see my Flickr pages), because the guy pressing the button has no sense of what makes a good photo.
One thing I will say is that a half-decent photographer will get better results with a regular SLR than he will with a regular P&S, simply because the SLR has more configuration options.
A "photographer" will be more interested in getting a good shot than what hardware he is using. If his hardware gives him more options, then that's all to the good, but it's just a bonus. Some of the greatest shots in history have been taken on a crappy instamatic on slow black & white emulsion, while under artillery fire in a ditch in the middle of a warzone, being there is usually enough.
Getting there is the hardest part, naturally. ;D
What camera was used to take the Afghan Girl photo? I think it's among the most famous, and vibrant photos ever taken (in terms of color).Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
It depends on your budget and whether you want a point-and-shoot camera or one that you need to buy lenses for. Some of the point-and-shoot cameras are quite good and you can get one for less than $250. All the photos I've submitted so far in our photo contests were shot with a Canon Powershot G2 which is essentially a point-and-shoot. I've since bought a Canon EOS xSI 450D which is digital SLR but I need to practice with it before I "go public".
Nikon FM2. :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM2
Thanks for the replies.
I'm considering the following:
Nikon D40,
Nikon D60,
Canon EOS 450D
I had a look through the retailers in the area but found that not many have the Nikon D40 in stock, looking at Nikons site, the model is under the "older models" section. Is it discontinued?
The D60 was far more common in the stores though. It has a slightly higher price tag but still very reasonable.
The Canon 450D... its on my list mainly because my father preaches the greatness in Canon, and well... I just get the feeling that I wont get disappointed if I decide to purchase the 450D. However it is a whole lot more expensive than the D60, but ive found one on the second hand market for 6200 SEK...altough it'll probably be gone by the time I have money.
I just bought a Canon EOS xSI 450D but I wouldn't suggest it for a beginner. It's a complex camera that a beginner could use it in point and shoot mode but that would be a waste of money since the camera is fairly expensive and you need to buy lenses. I'd suggest the Canon PowerShot SD1200 IS ELPH which you can get for about $225.
Really? Most of the tests I've read have praised it as an excellent camera for those just starting out. I tried searching for the Canon PowerShot SD1200 but couldn't find it, not even on Canons homepage.
Let me ask you people this...
Pretend that for a moment, the 3 cameras I am looking at all cost the same. Which would you buy then?
Nikon D60, if i'm not mistaken it is slightly larger for those of use with larger hands, it also sports a higher spec than the D40.
Cannot really comment too much on the Canon, used a 350D many years ago, but been a Nikon user since then :)
A friend of mine has this Olympus camera.
This camera is a lot simpler to use than a SLR.
If the aim is to produce good photos, the ease of use is a lesser concern, photographers generally want capability over simplicity (at least I do anyway).
Yeah I'm only interested in SLRs at the moment. Reading reviews on the internet isnt making the choice easier. On one website they gave the D60 9/10 in picture quality and the EOS 450D 8/10... and on yet another website the scores was the complete opposite.
My friend has the D60 and when asked how he likes his camera he said that it wasn't exactly bad, but it wasnt all great either. Now the 450D could be worse, or it could be better... but somehow I'm tempted at buying it.
Me and making choices goes together as good as wossname and vb6 ;)
You may not be interested but here. (Skip by the ad)Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
The Canon vs Nikon debates are irresolvable. The 450D has a lot more features than the D40 which is obvious because of the price difference. It has sensor cleaning, 9 points focus, ISO button, DoF preview, live view (yes, like p&s cameras), bigger LCD screen, white balance button. It also has bracketing, which you'd find very useful for HDR images. The equivalent of this in the Nikon world is D90, which is quite expensive.
Thing is, these features may not be entirely relevant to you in the beginning. Don't worry about what websites say, they're usually biased, but I can tell you that Nikon cameras have more 'color saturation' in the photos, so the photos appear more vibrant. Canon photos appear more detailed. You won't be disappointed with any of the 3 cameras on your list.
Yes, choosing is tough and I spent about 1.5 months looking and reading.
Have a look through grilkip's, wossname's, penagate's, ILMV's and mendhak's photostreams. Grilkip and Penagate use Canons, wossname and mendhak and ILMV use Nikons. I think, between us, we cover several areas of photography (flowers, landscapes, stupid cars, close ups, people).
I have a question about the lenses for the digital SLRs... I assume since they are SLR, that the lenses can be removed and different ones put on, macro, tele, etc... are they the same kind of lenses used on a "analog" (for lack of a better term) SLR? I have an "classic" Cannon SLR that's got several lenses for it. If they are compatible with digital SLRs I might be able to make the jump to digital a bit easier and cheaper.
-tg
I purchased a Canon, because someone told me that Nikon lenses are slightly more expensive than Canon lenses.
In many cases, yes... but always do a search to see if the lens you have will work with the SLR body you have or want. You can also get mount adapters which act as COM Interop library wrappers for legacy objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I think so but don't take my word for it. Go to a good camera store with one of your lenses and ask a salesperson and/or try it. In any case here is a beginner's guide to lenses that I found very helpful in choosing the two lenses that I bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
In the dSLR category Consumer reports gives top marks to the Nikon D90 and it ranks the Canon EOS Rebel xSI 4th but as a best buy because it's $400 cheaper than the D90. The Nikon D60 and D40 are ranked 12th and 13th respectively. The Canon at 18.5 oz is also 7 ounces lighter than the D90 and also a bit lighter than the other two Nikons.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
You don't always have to get the latest and greatest. Maybe if you go with Canon you could buy something less expensive than the 450D. I had a Canon Digital Rebel back in 2005 but I don't remember the exact model number. I know there are a number of different Canon Rebels that have come out. ebay might be a good place to get a good deal. That's where I bought mine and that's where I got some good lenses for it. I had a zoom that went from 28mm - 300mm if I'm remembering correctly. I also used it with closeup lenses. Get a good set of closeup lenses. They're not expensive and screw on to your standard lenses. That's how I got that 3rd place photo winner in the last photo contest (picture of the bee).
I just found out that I can modify one or more of my EOS' picture styles or create a custom one that allows for more (or less) color saturation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Alright guys,
So I was looking at the EOS 450D, when I, purely accidentally, noticed that the 500D had the ability to record videos. And now I've fallen in love.
For only a moderate extra sum above the 450D, one gets the 500D with HD video recording capability.
How much of an idiot would I be if I owned one of those?
Do you really need live video in a SLR?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
Do I need the ability to record video? Well the answer would of course be no, I do not need it. Just as little as I actually need to even take photographs in the first place. I just think it would be great fun, and I'd be able to record me and my brother when we "perform" songs ( musicians, see! ;) ).
You'll be fine. Stop fretting and buy it. There's going to be a learning curve, get over it and soon you'll be coming in second place to me in the VBF photo contests! :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
The other VBF photo contestants may have something to say about that. Not that it would be me that would ever win 1st place. I'm much happier remaining in the background and losing. Please make sure not to vote for any of my photos.
An SLR that records video is like a Rolls Royce towing a caravan. As design compromises go, that's a biggie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
But... but...I wanted second place :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
What SD card speed would be required in order to be able to record HD video though?
The available adjustments on the EOS 450D are mind boggling. I think you can even upload your own sound effects (anorak required).Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
Had this come out before I bought my 450D I would probably have got this instead. Presumably it also records sound ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
However, there are advantages to using a seperate camcorder. For example, a SLR body is heavy and not designed to be held by one hand nor does it have a swivel screen - useful for awkward positioning.
Note: If you have a TV card (with record facility) in your PC/Laptop or something else such as a television DVD/HDD recorder, you can hook it up to the 450D via an AV lead to record using it's live view.
Very fast and probably expensive. You'd need 4GB++ cards for useful recordings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
This is a difference in the default "picture style". The Canons tend toward a flatter exposure curve by default. You can adjust the picture style to produce more vibrant images out of the camera. If you use the raw format then you can control the exposure curve of every image when you process it; in other words, you can make things as vibrant or dull as you like with either a Canon or Nikon.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Canon lenses come in EOS and FD mounts. All digital Canon bodies have EOS lens mounts but film bodies can be found with either. FD was discontinued some time in the early 1990s so older lenses will be FD and newer ones EOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Indeed it does, although there is no input for an external microphone, so the internal one will have to do. Thats fine by me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
I found this.. "SANDISK SECURE DIGITAL EXTREME III 4GB", it said to have 20mb/s read and write. I tried finding cards with more storage that had the same speed or better, but I found very little..and the ones I found was insanely pricey. I paid about 28 USD for this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
A Canon SLR uses Compact Flash cards, instead of SD cards.
Not this one - it uses SD/SDHC cards only.
That's an improvement over the one I have.
Something to consider when buying a camera capable of recording, is whether or not it allows external microphones to be used. Built-in microphones are absolute rubbish. Their capture levels are too quiet, they are too staticy/noisy, and they have a reverb effect that sounds awful. For the video capturing ability to be worth anything, the camera needs to allow external microphones to be attached. Does that camera allow this?
Nope it doesn't. Doesn't really bother me though because:
- My main interest is still to take photographs, the video is just a plus (a big plus!).
- One of the things I'll be using the video recording for would be to record me and my brother playing music, for possible youtube-uploads. In this case we would plug our instruments directly into the computer and record the audio that way anyways.
- I have watched some sample videos on youtube taken by the camera, and I dont think it sounds all that bad.
I ordered it earlier this morning, so I'll just have to see how it performs when I get it :)
How many point & shoot cameras have this feature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrow_Raider
None that I know of, but I know some camcorders do.
I don't use photography cameras to record video.
I have a Fuji F50fd P&S that records movies with sound, in mjpeg format. You need to convert it to be more useful.
It's pretty handy at times, as it's shirt pocket sized and has a good resolution. I tend to carry it around everywhere, just in case I see something interesting.
My son used it recently to get a reasonable shot of a Lancaster bomber flying over Saddleworth. Only had a few seconds to jump out of the car (I was driving / doing an emergency stop) and take a snap. When I looked round to apologise, every driver in sight (about 40) had hit the brakes and were jumping out in the middle of the road looking at the bomber - many with P&S cameras and camcorders :eek:
Did any of the drivers get tickets or citations?Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
:eek::eek:
The camera has arrived :thumb:
Altough I am at work right now (working night shift as usual), so I havent been able to touch it much yet. I cant wait until tomorrow!! :D It's having its batteries charged at the moment!
Flickr.
Atheist maybe you can take a picture or two in the next 24 hours that's good enough to enter into the contest. Only one more day for photo entries for the contest. I think maybe noon is the cut off time and if so then you would have less than 24 hours. Anybody who wants to get their photos in the contest, don't wait. Time's almost up.
Nice choice Atheist, do keep your camera in 720P mode when you're shooting video as the 1080P mode is only 20fps. Quite useless.
Thanks. Yeah I've been testing it out a bit and I've got it set on 720p mode, it looks quite nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip