Do I really need an SLR camera?

donderhaas said:
The Nikon D3000 looks ok, but hear that there's no image stabalizer so you need to have a tripod with you?
Click to expand...

The camera has nothing to do with the stabilizer (at least not in Canon and Nikon's case) - it's the lens. And you don't necessarily need a tripod without stabilisation in the lens. It just means that you'll encounter camera shake at slightly higher shutter speeds than you would with it. But practise makes perfect. I generally prefer to have IS, but I have hand-held shots at 1/4 that is nice and sharp.
 
donderhaas said:
I'm also starting to look at dSLR cameras - not sure which one to go for...

The Nikon D3000 looks ok, but hear that there's no image stabalizer so you need to have a tripod with you?

What in your opinion is a good dSLR camera for R4000 - R7000?
Click to expand...

On the kit lens (18-55mm) you can get a VR (image stabalized) or non-VR version. I don't really think that it is of much use on such a short lens. On the 55-200mm or 70-300mm, image stabilization is much more useful.

From Nikon, I'd recommend the D3000 or the D5000 (if you want the extra Movie modes and live view).
 
Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and I think Sony (I could be mistaken) have dSLR's with image stabilisation in the camera body itself, "Sensor-shift image stabilization".

Canon and Nikon dSLRs use image stabilisation in the lenses themselves, "Optical Image Stabilization". None of their bodies have image stabilisation in them. Canon lenses with IS in the name, and Nikon ones with VR in the name, offer image stabilisation.

Image stabilisation will help if your photos are blurring from your hands shaking (i.e. if the light is poor and the shutter has to stay open longer), but IS cannot do anything if your photos are blurred because the subject is moving. I'm told that IS is a blessing in poor light when you don't have time to use a tripod :)
 
donderhaas said:
I'm also starting to look at dSLR cameras - not sure which one to go for...

The Nikon D3000 looks ok, but hear that there's no image stabalizer so you need to have a tripod with you?

What in your opinion is a good dSLR camera for R4000 - R7000?
Click to expand...

Very happy with my D3000 :) And mine came with a VR lense so there is IS.
 
Thanks swift...your replies have been most helpful! Seem like a very knowledgeable guy ;) Gonna be experimenting with the ol P&S sat, getting that manual out for this :P . Then Sunday, will check out my in laws DSLR. ;)
 
OK that sounds good thanks - having the IS in the lense. The other thing I hear is that Pentax camera's are backwards and forwards compatible with any of the Pentax lenses. Not sure how this is on the Nikon D3000. Should I be concerned about that or are there enough lenses for this camera?
 
donderhaas said:
OK that sounds good thanks - having the IS in the lense. The other thing I hear is that Pentax camera's are backwards and forwards compatible with any of the Pentax lenses. Not sure how this is on the Nikon D3000. Should I be concerned about that or are there enough lenses for this camera?
Click to expand...

You can use any Pentax K-mount lens on new Pentax bodies, and it works. Obviously, with manual lenses, you lose AF, and with the older ones, i.e. SMC-M or Pentax-M (i.e. where the camera cannot set the aperture), it's a bit fiddly to use, but it works well. With regards to forwards compatibility, it's true for the FA lenses, since Pentax still builds a proper aperture ring onto their lenses (I wish Canon would do this too). I have seen a guy with a brand new FA-77 on a K-1000. But, as with other brands, the lenses that are designed for crop cameras, don't go on the old bodies, so that breaks forward compatibility. In Canon land it's EF-S, Nikon calls it DX, Pentax calls it DA.

The same goes for Nikon, although they have one kink in the story, in that their entry-level DSLRs don't have the screw drive built in, so AF lenses that don't have a built-in motor, such as the 50mm f/1.8, cannot AF on them.

BTW, the sensor shift stabilisation works really well, and the advantage is, when you stick that 40-year old lens on your shiny new DSLR, you still have stabilisation.
 
Last edited:
Thx koffiejunkie that's some great info.

One other thing that I'm also not sure about the Nikon D3000 is the lack of Live View. Is live view when you are looking at the picture your about to take on the LCD screen? Cause on the specs of the D3000 it says it has LCD screen?
 
greg_SA said:
On the kit lens (18-55mm) you can get a VR (image stabalized) or non-VR version. I don't really think that it is of much use on such a short lens. On the 55-200mm or 70-300mm, image stabilization is much more useful.

From Nikon, I'd recommend the D3000 or the D5000 (if you want the extra Movie modes and live view).
Click to expand...

swift412 said:
Image stabilisation will help if your photos are blurring from your hands shaking (i.e. if the light is poor and the shutter has to stay open longer), but IS cannot do anything if your photos are blurred because the subject is moving. I'm told that IS is a blessing in poor light when you don't have time to use a tripod :)
Click to expand...

I have the EF-s 17-55 IS , and the "IS" most certainly helps in low light, and I much prefer using this "electronic tripod" than lugging around a real one.
 
donderhaas said:
Thx koffiejunkie that's some great info.

One other thing that I'm also not sure about the Nikon D3000 is the lack of Live View. Is live view when you are looking at the picture your about to take on the LCD screen? Cause on the specs of the D3000 it says it has LCD screen?
Click to expand...
I think live view on a dSLR is pretty pointless when you have an optical viewfinder at your disposal.
 
bwana said:
I think live view on a dSLR is pretty pointless when you have an optical viewfinder at your disposal.
Click to expand...
I haven't given it a try, but was thinking that it might be handy for those of us that use reading glasses.
 
koffiejunkie said:
DSLRs have dioptre (?) adjustments. I'm near sighted, my old man is far sighted - works for us both.
Click to expand...
The problem for me is checking settings on either of the two displays with my "readers" on, and then bringing the view finder up to my eye - I can't use the specs on the view finder, so I end up peering over the top of the specs or taking them off each time - just haven't resorted to the string attached to the specs so that they can hang like a necklace.
 
Frankie said:
The problem for me is checking settings on either of the two displays with my "readers" on, and then bringing the view finder up to my eye - I can't use the specs on the view finder, so I end up peering over the top of the specs or taking them off each time - just haven't resorted to the string attached to the specs so that they can hang like a necklace.
Click to expand...

Which settings that don't display in the viewfinder do you change often?

BTW, a box containg a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM just landed on my desk :D
 
koffiejunkie said:
Which settings that don't display in the viewfinder do you change often?

BTW, a box containg a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM just landed on my desk :D
Click to expand...
A rental?

Did I mention that IS is for sissies? :p
 
Frankie said:
I have the EF-s 17-55 IS , and the "IS" most certainly helps in low light, and I much prefer using this "electronic tripod" than lugging around a real one.
Click to expand...
Well I'm 99.9% sure that it is helpful, but I've never actually used it myself so I don't want to hold myself to it :D

bwana said:
I think live view on a dSLR is pretty pointless when you have an optical viewfinder at your disposal.
Click to expand...
One case I can think of, is for those of us with little pentamirrors and without splitscreen/microprism focusing screen viewfinders who need to be able to manual focus when using macro; having live view with magnification would be great in these cases :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X