Just after some advice on some cameras to consider. Just after a decent cam to take some action shots down my local, nothing serious.. Got around a grand to spend but would be better if I could get away with it cheaper.. Is that possible.? Checked
Out eBay and overwhelmed with all the slrs on there as I don't know what I should be looking for... Any advice would be great
Cheers
We've had nikkon D90 and cannon EOS 450d
happy with results from both. Nikkon is my fav.
but look at the new gen bridging cameras. massive zoom range equiv 28-400mm in some. Good quality pics, no need for changing lenses.
That's what i'd be doing with $600-$800 and few accessories.
I think colinwill has a point. The problem you may have with an SLR at the beach is that you risk getting sand, dirt and water in the innards every time you swap lenses. The quality digital bridging cameras are good that way because you don't ever open them up. Plus you have the option of taking video plus you can easily get a good one for under a grand.
The more megapixels you can get for the same bucks, the better. Same for optical zoom. If it came down to it, I'd probably trade some pixels for wider zoom range but that's just me.
agree with the above
for someone running around on the beach in good daylight, the all-in-one superzooms are so close to offering what the base model slr's offer, it's not worth the slr headaches, unless you are doing more serious photographic stuff
if you go with a superzoom, just be prepared to accept that you will experience more sensor noise in low light conditions than most slr's, and therefore you will most likely experience the "water colour painting" effect as a result of the camera's built in noise reduction
in general;
superzooms (and most point-n-shoots) have smaller sensors than slr's
smaller sensors with high megapixels = more noise
therefore, more noise = greater amounts of noise reduction needed in order to please the public
more noise reduction needed = more "water colour painting" effect (less detail)
there is also the argument about depth of field, but most people who buy low end slr's mate them with low end lenses, and cheap lenses generally don't give much more control over depth of field than a superzoom, so it's pretty much pointless anyway
if you are considering an slr, canon and nikon appear the obvious choices, but sony have some market altering technology being developed and added to their new cameras, which will possibly (dramatically) change the way cameras are manufactured in the near future
SLR's are great and can give you another no wind hobby to add to the collection. I have a Nikon D90 with a few different lenses and have taken some great shots I would not have been able to with any other type camera
now saving my $$ so I can get a tilt shift lens to try and make vids like this
@ maxm: Our D90 will do video with sound, and i think the new canon will too.
Focusing using the SLR lenses in a movie can look really cool too.
great vid above......yes, i realise it's not a "movie"
that depth of field over such a long distance gives it the feeling of a model / stop-go flick. really cool effect. wish i'd thought of it
Ben seeing as you only have a grand to play with, go for the super zooms as suggested above, you'll be happy as
I've got a Panasonic which zooms to 420mm, takes great photos for what it is. As haircut says noise becomes a problem at higher ISO's so mine is set low and not auto. I made sure the camera I got had a flash hot shoe, I then got a nice powerful flash for low ISO low light photos.
I'm guessing you're new to this so my advise is go the superzoom, learn to take photos and when you have the money and still keen spend the bucks on a DSLR. In my opinion with a DSLR the real important bit is the lens and good ones cost poop loads.
Read this review of several superzoom camers, I'd go the Canon or Panasonic www.dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup
The Panasonic I have has been great but has just died (smudge mark on sensor) and I have out grown it, I'm now looking at DSLR's myself, just don't know where to get the money
I got some great advice here on a thread I started a while back. I was very close to going with a Canon EOS 450d for <$1k, but just last week bought the missus the 550d (with twin lens kit) on special. The advice was to get a 'premium' lens 15-250mm, but as it is over $1k on its own, we went with the twin lens kit...cost an extra $100 more than the camera on its own...now we just have to work out how to use it!
Check out www.digital-slr-guide.com
I found this a great starter for the noob photographer. Nicely written and unbiased recommendations.
The biggest thing I've learnt is to choose a camera for the type of photography you are going to do...
I am currently looking into an DSLR myself, and for me the types of photography I plan on taking is Action related - plenty of the beach and plenty of my little daughter running around. My other personal requirement is to be able to take photos in low light quick and easy. Theres nothing I hate more than the 'orange' under exposed photos I get indoors or the washed out bright photos you get with the flash on - all with my high end point and shoot.
With this in mind the key features I'm looking for in a camera is Fast AutoFocus and a solid ISO range (the link above gives a good run down on what this means).
Now any purist will tell you its about learning how to use your gear to take good photos...Entirely true. But I'm no pro and If I can get a camera that gives the greatest control with the least amount of work and produce good photos to hang up on my wall - I'm sold...
FYI - I have my eye on the new Nikon D7000 or the Canon 60d. Superfast autofocus and awesome ISO range probably a bit out of your price range however.
If you can - I highly recommend the Nikon D90 . It has actually just been superseded by the D7000 so i would keep and eye out for a good clean up prices. You could probably get a Starter kit (twin lense) for about $1500 maybe less is the next month or so...
What the guys say is true about the lenses...in that you can have a low spec body with a really good lense and take fantastic shots - but Personally if it's your first SLR i would get too bogged down in that.
Pooman, I'm saving for a 60D with the Canon 15>85 zoom, then a Canon 70>200, a 1.4X converter and a good flash when I can, can't wait it's only money Like the swivel LCD, over 5fps and great HD video www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60d
I still think for under $1000 get the superzoom Ben, learn to use it, use your head and enjoy it, then when you have the smarts and money go for a DSLR with a decent good quality lens or two. You will still be able to use the superzoom as a knock around camera.
Awesome guys thanks for the feedback.
Been looking around at a few superzooms now and they seem right for what I want/ price range.
Thanks again
All good advice...
If I was going to get a
Brdige cam: Canon SX30, Panasonic FZ38 or Fuji FinePix HS10
Budget DSLR: Nikon D5000
Intermediate DSLR: Canon 60D
Micro 4/3: Panasonic GH2
Micro System: Sony NEX5
If you want a camera now for a good price that is probably mo'than u need it would be Panasonic FZ38... go to JB HiFi and say a mate got it from you for $430.
DSLR is gona cost you $1500 with any decent lense cos the CMOS is bigger and needs better optics.
Graceful I've just did a quick search and found it for $363 in Aus (+ delivery I guess) www.dwidigitalcameras.com/ It's imported stock, this means the warranty is covered by them but at lest it has it
The FZ38 is the same as a FZ35, depends where it's sold, do your own search I take no respectability
Cheers Uncle Bob.
Damn you's!
I didn't even need a new camera and you's made me go looking, and now I've ordered a Canon 60D.
So which lense should I get for it????
fixed lenses :
sigma 30mm , canon 50mm 1.8s
teles - dunno! remember - the 1.6 crop factor - so a 100mm becomes a 160
great for the long shots - not so good if you want to go wide.
Reflex: looking at my latest pics http://picasaweb.google.com.au/rayone/GalapagosAbove?authkey=Gv1sRgCIu4ib3Oi5u-QQ#
My focal length is all over the place... I don't think a 30-50mm (48-80mm) is going to cover it.
Are variables really that bad (Canon 18-200 IS)? ... what about Tamron (SP 17-50mm F/2.8 VC)?
If you had to choose just 1 lense to last you 1 year and money was an issue which would it be?
Firiebob: 70-200IS is +$2000 and huge... you'd never take it out, and if you went without IS you'd then need a tripod.
Hiya.
The HS10 with a few intial shots mucking around at Yallingup (where the road comes down and the lookout carpark is).
1st shot at 28mm - you can just make out a spec of a kiter around +1.5 kms away?
2nd shot at full 700mm zoom.
Sure it's not the sharpest but was hand held with wind buffeting me and just a quick point n shoot. Impressive zoom for a $400 camera i reckon.
3rd shot mucking around with hyper filters inbuilt into camera (chrome mode).
BTW - no photoshop, cropping etc - just straight outta the camera. With some more knowledge and patience with the menu structure i reckon I will get everything i want out of this unit.
Funky you have to be happy with that
FlySurfer, unlike their cameras, Canon have international warranty on their lens's, this is the 15 > 85 which will be my first lens www.topbuy.com.au/
As for the 70 > 200 f4 IS I know I'm dreaming, it's big, it's an indulgence and it's a long way off but it's about $1200+ and I will get it one day as it'll be a keeper www.topbuy.com.au/tbcart/pc/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f4-0L-IS-USM-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-international-warranty-p6632.htm
Is it all worth it, buggered if I know but I enjoy taking photos and I think it's time to step up before I go leg up