Camera help please

andygb

I have around thirty years photographic experience, and I am a late convert (1 year ago) to digital pleasure. There is more to consider about a digital camera than size or ease of use. If you just want to take snaps then stick to a camera phone or a basic compact camera.
If, as the OP seems to want, is to take better photos, then I believe that the DSLR is the way to go, because even the cheap models will take stunning images. I have a Sony 700 DSLR, and the reason I purchased it, was because I had a few more Minolta lenses than Canon ones, and the specification of the Sony was far better than its competitors.
At the £300 end of the market, I would go for any of the major brands - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax.
If you consider buying used, then be careful, because modern cameras are very complex, and some faults may not be immediately obvious. I would not hesitate to buy a used lens, but a used camera body is far more risky.

Andy

isofa

I think you need to read a bit more around the subject, What Digital Camera would be a good start. And for technique and advice, Practical Photography.

Comparing a picture taken from a small compact to that from a good DSLR is like comparing a Ford Ka and a Ferrari Enzo.

Personally if you are wanting to get into photography seriously, Nikon or Canon are the only 2 real options, but an expensive camera doesn't make you a better photographer.

And as you are enrolling on a photography course I'd look at the Canon 450D, 1000D, and Nikon D60 and D3000. Canon and Nikon have the largest range of lenses and accessories for serious amateurs and professionals. And although the kit lenses are fine for starters on the Canon and Nikon range, when you compare with a high end lens then picture quality is a world apart.

The Canon G11 is a stunning high end compact, and many professionals are now buying one to use for travel purposes, myself included, sometimes huge SLRs and lenses aren't practical in all situations. You may be able to get the G9/G10 are a cheaper price now the G11 is around. Providing you know how to take a good photo you'll be able to take shots as good as with any consumer level DSLR with this camera.

pault123

WIthout a doubt i've yet to find a better bang for buck DSLR than the Sony A200.

Can be had for £280-£320 ish INCLUDING kit lens, (i don't think any other camera can claim this?)

The camera itself has image stabilastion built in too. Battery life of over 700 pics and the pictures it can take on Auto are truly stunning. Its very simple to put it in landscape mode, or portrait mode, sunset mode etc so even beginners can use it out the box and then learn the other features as and when desired.

The missus has a £150 Sony compact camera and i'd choose the A200 Dslr to take out with me anyday.


Two reviews here >
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dslra200.asp

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA200/AA200A.HTM

cazarol

The above makes interesting reading, my daughter has just said that she would like a Nikon D3000 for xmas and birthday. Would anyone be able to recomend the best place to purchase. Many Thanks

andygb

isofa wrote: »

Personally if you are wanting to get into photography seriously, Nikon or Canon are the only 2 real options, but an expensive camera doesn't make you a better photographer.

Wow, nothing like a good bit of "elitism" is there. There are plenty of top professionals who use other makes, both camera bodies and lenses, and as you correctly point out, an expensive camera will not make you a better photographer.
I should point out, that many colleges actually teach students how to use film before going onto digital, to learn the basics of photography - light, depth of field, framing, perspective.
I have both Canon and Nikon 35mm film cameras in my collection, as well as Minolta. I started off on a Practica, and progressed through an Olympus OM1 to a Nikon F2 and Canon A1.
Any of the top manufacturers will allow you to take stunning photos, and I would urge the OP to have a look at some photography forums, such as "Talk Photography", to look at the results achieved with different cameras. You will also get a good idea which cameras and lenses are the ones to go for.

Good luck,

Andy

darich

CvPiper wrote: »

I recently bought a used Olympus E500 from eBay, mainly because it had the kit lens 14-45 mm and the 50 - 150 mm lens. This came to about £250 with a load of memory cards, batteries etc. The reason I did it that was is th current E520 or an equivalent will costs you £400 plus £100-150 for a second lens, and thats before you think about the small things that will add up quickly, filters, tripod, spare battery, memory cards etc.
So it was a cheap way to get into SLR photography, and if I enjoy it, which I do currently I can then get a better Olympus body, or sell it on and buy again.

One benefit of the Olympus, they have what is called the Four Thirds system, basically for the user, this means a smaller body due to smaller sensors etc, that is lighter to carry around, and an ever growing availability of lens etc as about 5 manufacturers use the same system.

Good luck looking, the choice is bewildering, but an SLR is way better than a compact as it provides quicker focus, shutter speed, depth of field which you don't get ona compact but enhance the photos you take - and thats before you learn about it an get the camera out of auto mode.

You get what you pay for.
If the Olympus has a smaller sensor then it partly defeats the purpose of a DSLR. The main point of a DSLR is for the quality of image. Smaller sensor means lower quality image. That's why your phone takes a grainy picture with purple edges round the dark shapes with bright backgrounds eg trees against the sky.
DSLR has larger sensor and better quality lenses so removes many, if not all, of the effects you see on a phone or small compact.
The sensor on the four thirds olympus is quite a bit smaller than the APS-C sensor you get on a Canon and Nikon cameras. Smaller sensors means increased noise and grain...and therefore reduction in quality.
There are also adaptors on the market (although I've never used them) that allow Nikon lenses to be attached to Canon and vice versa so the four thirds system isn't necessarily a huge carrot in the hunt for a camera.

My small camera is a Panasonic DMC FZ28 and have been well impressed by it. Itcan focus so closely that you can put the camera on a piece of paper, actually touching it, and it'll still focus on the writing...millimetres away. Amazing for macro photography.
It has a good 18x optical zoom lens, RAW images and a li-ion battery so it lasts longer than AA or AAA rechargeables.
Full auto mode or aperture/shutter priority modes and an HD move mode thrown in too.
All in all, if it's in your budget, it's a great camera.

If you're getting a DSLR, then don't get too hung on megapixels. You'll get a better result with a lower resolution and a good quality lens. The camera also depreciates MUCH quicker than any lenses so you lose less if you decide to sell the camera on....and you get to re-use the quality lens you bought to start with.

You do get many of the features you mention (eg quicker focus, shutter speed, depth of field) on a compact or bridge camera but the range isn't as large. eg SLR with a good lens might go from F1.8-f22......but your compact will only go from f3.5-f8.
The aperture range, depth of field etc, depend on the lens, not the SLR body.

My Canon DLSR and lenses can focus almost instantly, probably quicker than the Panasonic but it's horses for courses....sometimes I prefer to use the panasonic bridge camera. Other times I've got my rucksack and all my gear and want highest quality images I can capture so will "put up with" the burden of changing lenses etc.

EDIT: Also just remembered, the smaller sensor on the four thirds system, apart from making it more difficult to get a narrow depth of field(blurry background), it makes wide angle landscapes more difficult or impossible without spending money on a lens specifically for the purpose. Hence the reason Canon brought out the 10-22mmEF-S lens to go with their APC-S sized sensors.

darich

andygb wrote: »

Wow, nothing like a good bit of "elitism" is there.

I don't think it was "elitism"
I think it was pointing out that if you're starting out then what better palce to start than with one of the 2 largest camera manufacturers out there.
Most people know someone who has one and can call on for advice.
Largest range of lenses and accessories.

Might be more expensive than some but you're buying into a quality brand name in either case and plenty of places for good support.

EDIT: Next time you see a football game on tv check out all the guys behind the goals with white lenses - they're all Canon. If you assume a similar number are also using Nikon you'll probably find that makes up about 80-90% of the photographers there.

pault123

Thats why I reccomended the Sony A200 - does it all for the lowest price with a lens and supports all the Minolta lenses to boot (which can be had cheap off ebay!) - extremely intuitive to use as well

m_13

Interesting discussion. We bought a used Canon EOS 300D a couple of years ago because we were taking a lot of publicity and concert photography and our camera just wasn't up to the quality and speed needed.

We went on a cruise earlier in the year and found carrying a Digital SLR round to be very cumbersome particularly when we were on top of a glacier and our hands were cold!

We're now selling our Canon and going back to a compact (not sure which one yet). They've moved on a pace whilst we have had our SLR and we don't do the same images we used to.

It's horses for courses really but we've been really happy with the quality of the photographs on the Canon EOS 300D and my brother in law's 400D is smaller, lighter and very nice too!

[Deleted User]

The biggest improvement to my 'home photography' was through the purchase of a external flash gun

Frankly, the whole 'you must by a cannon or nikon' diatribe is pathetic - the lighting and composition of the image is far more important than the kit you are using. For a beginner who is unlikely to use anything more than the kit lens and a cheap zoom lens, there will be sod all 'end product' different between the brands.

When i go on a cruise, i tend to take my Panasonic L10 dSLR and a compact digital.. you're right, you don't want to lug an SLR around all the time and 'capturing the moment' is easier when the camera fits in a shirt pocket