FAO camera people

Anonymous

i have noticed a few folk are into photography, i suppose outdoor pursuits and photography must go hand in hand eh?

i need some advice (i know i could go to a camera forum or summat of the type but i gathered there is plenty of experts around these parts.)

i bought the wife something i belive to be called a bridge camera (slr looking but basicly a big compact camera) and she is really enjoying it, starting to learn about the difference in settings and getting a much steadier hand for shots.

i think i might treat her to something a bit more advanced at some point in the near future and want advice as to where to start.

how much do i need to spend in order to buy a good starter (if the 2 terms arent mutually exclusive ) dslr type camera.

is something like this any good, we have seen it in the flesh and the wife really liked it but we know nothing

CraigXXL

Sony Alphas are very good cameras but lense choices were a bit lacking to start with. IIRC they use built in image stabiliser rather than the one in each lens which makes the lenses a bit cheaper. Best way as with bikes is to let her try a few to see which she prefers, once you've committed to the camera manufacturer you are tied in due to the lens mounts used.

I use a Canon EOS400 but used to use a Nikon before digital. Don't get sucked in with keeping to the manufacturers lenses as likes of Tamron and Sigma make some great lenses

John Stevenson

Canon or Nikon is the way to go because the range of lenses, flash guns etc for them is vast. The Nikon 3000 and Canon 1000 are only 50 quid more than the Sony and open the door to a truly mind-boggling range of possibilities.

That said, the most important thing in photography is the skill of the photographer

http://www.dpreview.com/ is a useful site for uber-geeky camera reviews, and our sister site http://www.photoradar.com is full of useful technique tips.

GHill

Got to echo the Canon or Nikon sentiments. Much easier to pick up extra kit.

missmarple

Have you considered Micro Four-Thirds? Size of a compact with interchangeable lenses.

camerauk

would have to say go for the Nikon or Canon route
I take pics for a living and they are only the two makes to consider as the choice of lenses flashes you can get and dont stick to canon or nikon for the lenses as already said sigma, tamron, and tokina are all good but maybe not as sharp(but thats up for debate lol)

a.palmer

Yeah I will echo the others, go Canon or Nikon. Although saying that I believe all the old minolta lenses will work with the Sony Slrs. If i'm honest i'm more fond of the feel of my sigma lenses than I am of my Canon lenses, so yeah don't just be blinkered by the camera manufacturers lenses.

missmarple

A.Palmer wrote:

Yeah I will echo the others, go Canon or Nikon. Although saying that I believe all the old minolta lenses will work with the Sony Slrs. If i'm honest i'm more fond of the feel of my sigma lenses than I am of my Canon lenses, so yeah don't just be blinkered by the camera manufacturers lenses.

Agreed, my Sigma lens feels a lot more sturdy than any Canon I've tried in the same price range.

joec1

Get an EOS end of. lol.

either a 450d (as its like what she already has but also has the manual zoom and slr features that she could learn. or step into a 5d (but they are almost into good FSR money lol.)

ALaPlage

Advice already given is fair enough. Canon or Nikon will give the system support for future ie lenses/flashes etc although that said the common requirements are available for all the other current brands; Sony/Olympus/Pentax/Samsung....

Confirmed and long time Canon user and former professional Photographer so I would wholeheartedly recommend Canon.

The key though is to get your wife to have a play with the different cameras to find out what feels right in the hand and intuitive to hold. Olympus run a 4/3 sensor system which is a sensor half the size of a 35mm film camera. The beauty of the Olympus system is that for general use the cameras produce good quality images off a 10mp sensor - certainly up to A3 print size without interpolating the image too much - and the cameras are that bit smaller and easier to handle. In addition they represent great value for the beginner in SLR photography as something like the E520 can be picked up with 2 lenses for around £400 with coverage from 14mm to 150mm (in 35mm angle of view this equates to 28mm wideangle to 300mm telephoto - as you have to double the lens mm designation on Olympus to get the quivalent in 35mm terms - Nikon crop sensor is 1.5x and Canon 1.6x for the pro-sumer cameras - confused!!).

Canon EOS 500D is a lot of camera for the money and has built in HD video as a recording option and is another camera to consider. For Nikon I would look at the D90.

Consider what use and output is required as you can pay thousands for a full frame, high quality outfit but if its for general interest, hobbyist use then does not justify the outlay unless you have money to burn.

Price, intended use etc and what feels right in the hand are your starting point. If you need any other advice or further explanation then get in touch.

Paul.

craker

Can I just chip in to suggest you find out what the limits of your current camera are, then you can decide what you want from your next one.

A decent compact is nearly as flexible as a starter DSLR - what you get with the SLRs is generally better glass and a bigger sensor, so you can work with less light, faster subjects, greater depth of field.

Anonymous

that is some ace advice guys and thanks for the recommendations as to what cameras are worth investigating.

alaplage: you lost me in their somewhere but i like the look of the e520, it can be had for the same money as i was looking at for the sony i linked to originally.

mr si: that makes good sense too, the honest truth is at the mo that i know the wife is enjoying th hobby more and more in the couple of weeks she has been practising and im under the impression a better camera will be more enjoyable so once she is more confident and knowledgable herself, i will see what fits the bill as an upgrade (no doubt by coming back here and asking )

supersonic

mr_si wrote:

Can I just chip in to suggest you find out what the limits of your current camera are, then you can decide what you want from your next one.

A decent compact is nearly as flexible as a starter DSLR - what you get with the SLRs is generally better glass and a bigger sensor, so you can work with less light, faster subjects, greater depth of field.

I agree, very well said.

Tis the person that takes a good pic!

ALaPlage

It is absolutely true it is the person behind the camera that makes the picture - the camera being the recording device whether that is onto film or a digital sensor.

That said, as in any discipline the tools you use have some consideration to the end result. Wiggins on a Raleigh Chopper might not have done quite so well last July

A DSLR, even a budget/beginners model will give far superior image quality to any similarly priced or cheaper compact/bridge camera due to the larger sensor size and quality of lens. I accept though that this only comes evident at higher ISO settings (sensor sensitivity) or printing larger than say 10"x8".

Most people assume that the higher the megapixel count the better the image quality will be. This is only part of the story as it is the physical dimensions of the sensor (how many pixels you are cramming into the space - the closer together the pixels are the more electrical interference which is seen as "noise" in the resultant image (grainy looking) and this is increased as the ISO is increased), the lens itself and DSLR lenses being interchangeable allow greater flexibility as well as the lens themselves are of a beeter quality than those in compact cameras and of course the person behind the camera knowing how to use the equipment to capture the image at its best as well as the creative eye in seeing the picture and composing it well.

DSLR will allow more creativity and help the user develop their photographic skills and understanding further. In addition, many people also find that the larger SLR camera slows them down and makes them think more about the picture they are creating over the point and shoot effect that a small compact gives.

Like anything to improve you have to practise. Read up on all the technical aspects and view as much photography as you can to understand what you like and dont like in an image which in turn will help shape your own photographic eye.

Then of course there is the processing side - understanding photo software such as photoshop or elements and what it can do to help you finish the image making process off.

It all starts with "I think I'll buy myself a better camera..." If you get hooked then it becomes a passion, an obsession!

The Olympus E520 is a great starter camera and excellent value. Olympus make good lenses and offer a system to build into. The camera is smaller than most other DSLR's which can also be an important consideration.

If you can spend a little more I would go for the Canon 500D but to be honest the best thing is for your wife to handle the cameras you shortlist to and decide from there on what feels right. As all the £400 to £500 cameras are very similar in technical specification.

Paul

counterculture

consider buying 2nd hand, sign up to a phtotography forum (talkphotography.co.uk is a good one) and trawl the classifieds,i got an ace deal on a canon 400d, it was pretty much like new, the folk your buying from are all enthususiasts who are upgrading and have looked after their kit and arent trying to profit from selling on their old stuff, and you get aweseom dumbed down advice (which helps me greatly)

ALaPlage

counterculture wrote:

consider buying 2nd hand, sign up to a phtotography forum (talkphotography.co.uk is a good one) and trawl the classifieds,i got an ace deal on a canon 400d, it was pretty much like new, the folk your buying from are all enthususiasts who are upgrading and have looked after their kit and arent trying to profit from selling on their old stuff, and you get aweseom dumbed down advice (which helps me greatly)

Sound advice. Ephotozine.com is another website where you can get loads of good advice and view galleries of work submitted including filtering into the types of Photography you are interested in. You can submit your own pics for critique and advice too.

Second hand is a good source of getting quality equipment at a low price and Ebay is an obvious source. Lots of people upgrade their camera when the next best thing comes onto the market so recent cameras such as the Canon 400D, 450D and 500D as well as Sony Alpha's, Olympus E420 and E520's and Nikon D3000, D5000 and D90 can be sourced with very little use at good savings.

Hope you find what you want and your wife continues to enjoy her photography.

Paul

supersonic

I think it is always good to have a compact in yer pocket for those moments too. As above, don't need to go silly on the MP: 5mp is enough.

It does amuse me that some with very expensive cameras will still photoshop the death out of the result! I sometimes thing it is obvious they have been doctored, and takes away the naturalness of the shot.

missmarple

supersonic wrote:

I think it is always good to have a compact in yer pocket for those moments too. As above, don't need to go silly on the MP: 5mp is enough.

It does amuse me that some with very expensive cameras will still photoshop the death out of the result! I sometimes thing it is obvious they have been doctored, and takes away the naturalness of the shot.

Sometimes photoshopping is the only way you'll achieve the photo you desire. Especially something like HDR, you can't not Photoshop it!

supersonic

HDR is a bit more arty I suppose - I think most of it looks awful!

Anonymous

whats hdr

GHill

sheepsteeth wrote:

whats hdr

High dynamic range

supersonic

HDR is how to take an image and totally destroy it in the name of beardy art/photo convos.

PaulBarman

often you wouldn't know it'd been done
a very usefull technique when the dynamic range (ie range of light intensity) of the subject exceeds that which the sensor or film can capture

ALaPlage

supersonic wrote:

HDR is how to take an image and totally destroy it in the name of beardy art/photo convos.

Often overdone and creates a cartoon like quality in colouring to the image. Done well it allows the tonal range of the scene (as seen by the human eye) to be reproduced onto the image. Most camera sensors can deal with a limited exposure range and dependant on the exposure will not capture all the detail seen by the human eye.

In its simplest form - you see a lovely landscape in front of you with a dramatic sky featuring heavy clouds and beautiful light cascading onto the scene. You take a pic - the camera exposing for the hills and fields. Result is a well exposed image with detail in the fields and hills but that lovely sky lost and bleached out. Altenatively the camera (or user) has exposed for the sky. Result lovely detail in the sky but the lanscape is dark and in silhouette.

HDR allows you to take two (or more) images of the scene exposing for the different elements you want to reproduce as you saw them and using some software such as photomatix or photoshop you combine the pics to recreate the scene as you saw it with detail in all areas.

Google HDR and you will find examples of what it is all about. Some great and some dire examples available!

Paul

butcher of bakersfield

Her current setup is probably more than enough for her needs at the moment, but if you insist on a new camera, as the others have said, Canon or Nikon are boss in the current world.

A few years ago there was loads to choose from, but during the switch to digital it Canon and Nikon dominated the market and the others are left hanging by a thread. Mainstream corps like Sony are certainly producing quality kit, but one of the main reasons for an slr is the choice of lenses and Canon and Nikon are going to win that one every time, hands down. And be prepared, a decent range of lenses will cost a hell of a lot more than the camera itself.

Nikon has one over Canon in that respect, in that you can use pre-digital age lenses. You'll be without auto focus, and even in-camera light metering I think, so you're going back to the stone age, but you'll have a huge amount of cheap...ish lenses available on ebay, etc. And despite the lack of 'technology' thay can be great fun to use, as well as educational.

Bear in mind that the 'standard' lenses that come with the camera are the extreme low-end budget models too. It's an expensive hobby...

Another thing, is that digi slrs often won't produce great out of the box results. Compact cameras and those aimed at the mainstream market boost contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc, in the camera itself. The digi slr user is expected to process their images in something like photoshop, giving them control, but more work.

Cunobelin

mr_si wrote:

Can I just chip in to suggest you find out what the limits of your current camera are, then you can decide what you want from your next one.

A decent compact is nearly as flexible as a starter DSLR - what you get with the SLRs is generally better glass and a bigger sensor, so you can work with less light, faster subjects, greater depth of field.

I have used a Fuji FinePix bridge for several years and to be quite honets it is to all intents a digitla SLR. In fact it has more features than my Olympus E Series DSLR.

I would as suggested explore the one you have and then find out what you need to refine or add before spending out on a true DSLR

rowlers

camerauk wrote:

would have to say go for the Nikon or Canon route
I take pics for a living and they are only the two makes to consider as the choice of lenses flashes you can get and dont stick to canon or nikon for the lenses as already said sigma, tamron, and tokina are all good but maybe not as sharp(but thats up for debate lol)

surely this is only relevant if you REALLY get into photography and need a massive array of lenses to choose from. From what I've read, Sony use the same mount as Minolta/Konica? so you have a massive back catalogue of lens choises here.

Sure the Nikon/Canon route is probably the most future proof, but don't rule out all the other major player because "you don't have a decent choice of lens".

This is a good deal, looking at it myself, seems to get good reviews too:
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/3493862 ... 40-15.html


FWIW

macboy

I'm a reasonably keen photographer and have an Olympus SLR myself (with the 4/3rds sensor) and get great results from it. I bought my wife an E-420 Olympus which she loves - small size, a mixture of auto programme functions and manual settings and easy to use and understand controls.

We have five or six lenses we both use but she has a so called pancake lens for hers much like a 35mm format standard lens (50mm focal length) but absolutely tiny so that the camera can be put in a coat pocket lens attached. I don't do large blow-up beyond A4 so have no need for high MPs but we are more than happy with the camera and my wife finds the compact size and low weight a real advantage. As pro-photographer Doug Menuez says: "the best camera is the one you have with you" and often a larger, heavier SLR just gets left behind.