Looking to get into photography

I

iDenTiTy

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
3,899
Reaction score
2
Location
Fourways (vicinity)
Hi guys,

I'm looking at starting photography as a hobbie.

Now, what I have currently is a Sony PSC90 or something. I don't like the camera because it doesn't zoom very nice. Pictures tend to blur a bit. I think it's because of the digital zoom or something...

My uncle has a Canon 40D, I think - he loves the camera and picture quality is quite nice. He says that his friend at National Geographic reckons that Canon is a very, very good camera manufacturer.

My question is what camera is a nice camera to start photography with?
Like SLR or normal (what's the diff?), and please list possible camera model considerations.
:)

As I say I don't like my current one (the Sony PSC90), so will probably look at a new time.

Also, what brands are a good starting point? Or ones that I should stick to..

It must be known that I am a complete novice when it comes to photography and the tech involved..

:o
 
Well I started with the Sony Alpha A100 and now have the Alpha A700, in terms of what you get in a camera and the price, I dont think anything comes close to the Sony and they are very user friendly however Nikon and Canon are the best cameras.
By the way I was a complete novice as well. If I can help you with anything please let me know.
'Good luck
 
Nice.

Thanks Marine1. Kind of you.

I saw that Sony has some decent cameras. The models even have anti-shake, or something.

Will probably go for the Sony now.

Thanks again.

;)

:)
 
There are so many decent cameras around these days its going to be a hard choice. Probably the two most popular dSLR brands these days are Nikon and Canon but that doesnt mean you have to pick one of them by any means.

My 2¢ - Go to a camera shop and hold a few models and then come back here and ask questions - chances are someone has one and will be willing to give you some feedback. :)
 
Have a look around, especially here: http://www.dpreview.com/ They are very informative.

I have a Sony A200 but the other option I was looking at was the Olympus E-510: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=olympus-e510

How I chose was look at my price range first, and then research the various options to death until I was satisfied. I think that no matter what brand you choose though, you can't really go wrong. Canon and Nikon have a big lens base and secondhand market as they are quite old and popular brands, but that's not to say they are better than any other brand.

I would also recommend HIGHLY that you physically go to stores and hold and try out the various camera's, as the feel of one is a big factor. If there are more questions please ask. Also check out http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/ Very helpful site.
 
The anti shake is amazing, yes a lens with anti shake is obvioulsy the best way to go but it does work very well.
I just feel buck for buck, the Sony is the best route to go. Just remember Sony design the sensors for Nikon D200 and D300. ;)
 
Cool. Thanks.

So far, the cheapest price/performance camera I can see is the Canon 400D.

I had a look at Sony, and the cheapest was 6-7000...

Anyway, my cousin in Hong-Kong is gonna have to bend over backwards for me...

She bought a Canon 40D for R4800 (exchange rate, calculated.).

I'm gonna have to look at a nice book as well.

I suppose the best way to learn is PRACTICE. ;)

Thanks guys. The first thing I'm gonna do is take all cameras fitting my budget, pick each one up and get "the feel", possibly distract the sales person and duck...

:D

On a serious note, thank you guys very much.

Nice to get opinions from people who have experience (gained from taking pictures of their hot neighbours) in this field.

:)
 
iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
Now, what I have currently is a Sony PSC90 or something. I don't like the camera because it doesn't zoom very nice. Pictures tend to blur a bit. I think it's because of the digital zoom or something...
Click to expand...

Switch off the digital zoom - disable it completely. All it does is crop and upscale - you can rather do that on your computer with software dedicated to the task. GIMP is free and will do a better job than any camera.

iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
My question is what camera is a nice camera to start photography with?
Click to expand...

Get the cheapest DSLR you can get your hands on, if budget is at all a factor. You can't decide which brand you'll "stick to" before you've done a decent bit of shooting. You have to build some skill first to be able to decide how the camera helps or hinders you and your shooting style.

iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
Like SLR or normal (what's the diff?), and please list possible camera model considerations.
Click to expand...

Features, mostly, and less noise on the high end bodies. All digital SLRs on the market right now produce excellent pictures. I'll tell you what I tell everyone who's in the market for a first (digital) SLR. There are two models right now that are perfect. The Nikon D40 and the Pentax K100D Super. both are near end-of-production, so they're selling real cheap - £250-270 in the UK. You can probably get it even cheaper if you get it from Hong Kong. Both cameras have good features, some which you don't even find in the more expensive Canon bodies (like customisable Auto-ISO). Both take excellent pictures. Don't be put of by the 6MP - more pixels doesn't always equate into better image quality. They both use CCD type sensors, which in general has beter/lower-noise low-light/high-ISO performance than their direct CMOS competitors. I'm a little unclear on the lens options of the Nikon, but as far as I know you can use all the old lenses on it. You certainly can on the Pentax - any K-mount lens ever made, except the Ricoh lenses made for Ricoh bodies (used the same mount) as they have an extra pin that gets in the way. I've played around with a 30-ish year old 28mm lens on the K100D Super - it worked really well.

Here is a side-by-side comparison and reviews for the Nikon D40 and Pentax K100D. The K100D is identical to the K100D Super, with the exception that the Super has built-in lens cleaning, Shake-Reduction, and suppords SDM lenses (USM in Canon talk).

marine1 said:
The anti shake is amazing, yes a lens with anti shake is obvioulsy the best way to go but it does work very well.
Click to expand...

One is not better than the other. They're different. In-lens stabilisation has the advantage of giving a stabilised image in the viewfinder. But it screws with perspective and bokeh (background blur). In-body doesn't mess with the image as much but it also doesn't give you a stabilised image in the viewfinder. All and all I prefer in-body, but it really comes down to personal choice - which compromise you prefer.

iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
Anyway, my cousin in Hong-Kong is gonna have to bend over backwards for me...

She bought a Canon 40D for R4800 (exchange rate, calculated.).
Click to expand...

Are you sure that wasn't the 400D? That's too-good-to-be-true even for the body only.

iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
I'm gonna have to look at a nice book as well.
Click to expand...

Book about the camera or about photography? This is a nice companion to the camera's manual.
 
I have Canon lenses so I might have to go with a 450D, but I really like the Nikon D40. :(
 
Last edited:
marine1 said:
But you cannot compare the cameras. Sony wins
Click to expand...

They're entirely comparable on just about everything aside from resolution. It's more expensive though. If you buy it go for the body and get a better lens. The reviews of the 17-70mm I've see are not great at all.
 
I got a Canon 400d for 300 pounds in the UK and all I can say is that it is the best camera I have ever had! Price was awesome for what you are getting
 
marine1 said:
But you cannot compare the cameras. Sony wins

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...side&cameras=sony_dslra200,nikon_d40&show=all
Click to expand...
d40 has better lowlight (check for yourself)
d40 has much faster flash synch (1/500th VS only 1/160th[1/125th with steadyshot]) - important for daylight stuff
d40 exposure comp: -5ev +5ev (sony, only 2)
more lenses for d40 including the 18-200 VR (most versatile lens ever)


marine1 said:
But you cannot compare the cameras.
Click to expand...
I just did. Why can't I compare them?

marine1 said:
Sony wins.
Click to expand...
?
 
Last edited:
ldmelsa said:
d40 has better lowlight (check for yourself)
d40 has much faster flash synch (1/500th VS only 1/160th[1/125th with steadyshot]) - important for daylight stuff
d40 exposure comp: -5ev +5ev (sony, only 2)
more lenses for d40 including the 18-200 VR (most versatile lens ever)



I just did. Why can't I compare them?


?
Click to expand...

Ok I will try stay away from being sarcastic as you did.
Max Resolution Sony wins.
Low Resolution Sony wins
Image Ratio Sony wins
Effective pixels Sony wins
Sensor photo detectors Sony wins
Pixel density Sony wins.
Continuous Drive Sony wins
Image stabilization Sony wins
Flash modes Sony also has wireless / Nikon does not appear to have according to that site


Should I continue? :rolleyes:
And that is why I said you cannot compare them (opinion)
Oh yeah and Sony makes the sensors for Nikon.

"Thanks to Rob Galbraith for the tip-off on this interesting news, according to Japanese website Nikkei Electronics Online the 12.4 megapixel CMOS sensor used in the Nikon D2X is made by Sony. While not a huge surprise (as Sony were the manufacturer of the CCD sensors used in previous Nikon digital SLR's) it does show that Sony are now capable of producing professional quality CMOS sensors for digital SLR's. It's unclear however if this is an exclusive agreement between Sony and Nikon or if this sensor could make its way into other manufacturesr cameras (like the D100's CCD did). We are assuming of course that it was a Nikon (or collaborative) design."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091701nikond2xsony.asp
Oh and this is Sony's 2nd attempt at the DSLR market, pretty good. Their A700 compares with the D200 and 300.
 
Last edited:
I have seen wireless Nikon flashes. Nikon is used by the other half of professional photographers, of course they have wireless flashes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X