Looking to get into photography

mercurial said:
bwana, what's your next cam gonna be?
Click to expand...
5D or its successor.

Here's my 2¢ - if you're still interested in a career in photography you have a couple choices. Either spend big now or you can spend as little as possible, while still getting a decent entry level dSLR, and when you're ready buy the gear to suit your needs.
 
bwana said:
5D or its successor.

Here's my 2¢ - if you're still interested in a career in photography you have a couple choices. Either spend big now or you can spend as little as possible, while still getting a decent entry level dSLR, and when you're ready buy the gear to suit your needs.
Click to expand...

I think that's the best move. I'll probably look at the 1000D now.
 
bwana said:
5D or its successor.
Click to expand...

5D has stellar image quality, but has an inaccurate screen and not the best usability. If you don't mind those issues then go for the 5D today. It's the most picture quality for your buck.

Personally, I would get the D700 if I was a wedding photographer. For absolute resolution, like landscape, I would get the 5D.
 
ldmelsa said:
5D has stellar image quality, but has an inaccurate screen and not the best usability. If you don't mind those issues then go for the 5D today. It's the most picture quality for your buck.

Personally, I would get the D700 if I was a wedding photographer. For absolute resolution, like landscape, I would get the 5D.
Click to expand...
At the moment I'm neither - I just need versatility. I'm also fairly certain the 5D will drop in price significantly when a successor comes out so either I'll get the successor (if business is booming) or the 5D - especially if it is a lacklustre upgrade either way win-win. :)

In the meantime I'm going to have to concentrate on glass.
 
Just saw something...

Theres DSLR and advanced digital cameras or something like that..

Apparently SLRs rely on the ability to interchange lenses, to achieve a perfect shot..

The other has a lens built in that zooms etc. Most cannot interchange lenses..

Can someone explain to me if my reasoning in slightly ANC YOUTH LEAGUE-ish..

Should I look at buying a DSLR (entry-level like the Nikon D40 or Canon 400D), with the knowledge that I can purchase high quality lenses to expand the cameras capabilities...
or
Purchase a non-DSLR camera, with a lens already attached, with the thought that I am not (probably) going to become the next great photographer, and therefore not need a super-duper quality lens to attach it to...

If I'm making any sense at all...

:)
 
iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
Should I look at buying a DSLR (entry-level like the Nikon D40 or Canon 400D), with the knowledge that I can purchase high quality lenses to expand the cameras capabilities...
or
Purchase a non-DSLR camera, with a lens already attached, with the thought that I am not (probably) going to become the next great photographer, and therefore not need a super-duper quality lens to attach it to...

If I'm making any sense at all...

:)
Click to expand...
There's no rule that you have to get the super-duper quality lenses - there are plenty of less expensive ones that are of good quality.

Ask yourself - do you want to take the picture or do you want your camera to take it? If you dont think you want to get into the fiddly aspect of it then there are some more decent point and shoots available.
 
bwana said:
There's no rule that you have to get the super-duper quality lenses - there are plenty of less expensive ones that are of good quality.

Ask yourself - do you want to take the picture or do you want your camera to take it? If you dont think you want to get into the fiddly aspect of it then there are some more decent point and shoots available.
Click to expand...

Well, what I'm looking at doing is starting photography as a hobby. I'd use it to take photos of nature, friends and the night sky...

I like the Canon Powershot S5i, but also the Nikon D40 and Canon 400D...

Dilemma...

:rolleyes:
 
mercurial said:
The 400D is a good starter's cam, but as I said earlier, if you're gonna go for the 400D, you might as well get the new and improved Canon 1000D for just about R700 more.
Click to expand...
I still dont buy that.

IMHO the 1000D isnt that much better than the 400D and the 450D isnt that much better than the 1000D - tbh I'm not sure why canon has so many similar models in the same category . . . . when they should be concentrating on the 5D MkII :p
 
iDenTiTy_CRiSiS said:
Should I look at buying a DSLR (entry-level like the Nikon D40 or Canon 400D), with the knowledge that I can purchase high quality lenses to expand the cameras capabilities...
or
Purchase a non-DSLR camera, with a lens already attached, with the thought that I am not (probably) going to become the next great photographer, and therefore not need a super-duper quality lens to attach it to...

If I'm making any sense at all...

:)
Click to expand...
I would go for the DSLR if you can afford it. If you ever decide to actually get more into it. Then all you need to is buy new lenses.. If you dont get a DSLR and you want to go further.. You'll now have to buy both.
 
bwana said:
I still dont buy that.

IMHO the 1000D isnt that much better than the 400D and the 450D isnt that much better than the 1000D - tbh I'm not sure why canon has so many similar models in the same category . . . . when they should be concentrating on the 5D MkII :p
Click to expand...

It's not that much better but it is slightly better. It has a few more features that the 400D doesn't have.
 
mercurial said:
It's not that much better but it is slightly better. It has a few more features that the 400D doesn't have.
Click to expand...
[-]It has spot metering[/-] . . on the other hand it while you can take an unlimited number of jpgs, compared to 27, you only get three RAW as opposed to 10 on the 400D. I dont shoot JPG and realistically cant imagine many ppl would these days.
 
Last edited:
marine1 said:
OOPS I shoot jpg. :) Why shoot RAW? Because you can manipulate it?
Click to expand...
In short yeah. Sure you can manipulate jpgs but its lossy.

In RAW adjusting white balance etc with the data as it came from the sensor is lossless.

JPG used to have the advantage of size but these days cards are cheap, so are hard drives. :) Even if hdd space is at a premium you can always convert to jpg in post - after you've made all the adjustments.
 
bwana said:
It has spot metering . . on the other hand it while you can take an unlimited number of jpgs, compared to 27, you only get three RAW as opposed to 10 on the 400D. I dont shoot JPG and realistically cant imagine many ppl would these days.
Click to expand...

The RAW aspect is definitely one plus that he 400D holds over the 1000D, but what about all the other features?

• Live View
• Auto ISO adjust
• Auto lighting optimizer
• Custom 'My Menu'
• ISO in viewfinder
• High ISO noise reduction

I had a look at the video of the auto lighting optimizer and it is stunning.

Not much difference but given the slightly better features, I'd go with the 1000D.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/page2.asp
 
Last edited:
bwana said:
It has spot metering . . on the other hand it while you can take an unlimited number of jpgs, compared to 27, you only get three RAW as opposed to 10 on the 400D. I dont shoot JPG and realistically cant imagine many ppl would these days.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't shoot JPG either. It's senseless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X