New Camera needed

I used to have a pro-standard camera complete with lenses. It didn't cost anywhere near R50k and the results were pretty good. But then it wasn't digital, which is slowly catching up, quality wise. It was bulky (less so than these), and impractical for traveling and I quickly swapped it for a quality point & shoot.
My experience is that digital is already better than film, especially if the photographer's digital darkroom techniques are up to scratch.


Congrats on the decision and the purchase, Peder. I'm sure your brother will enjoy the new camera!
 
My experience is that digital is already better than film, especially if the photographer's digital darkroom techniques are up to scratch.


Congrats on the decision and the purchase, Peder. I'm sure your brother will enjoy the new camera!
I think the convenience and cost of digital pictures far outweighs the higher quality of old film. If you take 50 pictures, maybe using autofocus/auto-everything at least one is going to be a winner.
 
Perhaps Nikon D40 on special for R4999 or less at most places, the R1000 leftover can be spent on a bag/tripod/memory card/accessories.

Or perhaps the Canon 1000D... Decent starter camera and it has live view (you can view your to-be photos on the LCD as opposed to most DSLRs with which you have to use the viewfinder).

Also check for second-hand deals on Gumtree and OutdoorPhoto Classifieds. Some killer deals that include more than just the [limiting] kit lens.

D60 + bag + 2gig(im 99% sure its not a 4gig) sd card for R6200.
 
I would have taken a nikon... but my brother chose the sony.

I am happy with what he chose but am going to throw that camera away if he takes another picture of me in my bed or somewhere else....
 
I would have taken a nikon... but my brother chose the sony.

I am happy with what he chose but am going to throw that camera away if he takes another picture of me in my bed or somewhere else....
Glad he got something he's happy with.

Why not get yourself the Nikon? I'm off to order one (a Nikon) myself now. :D
 
Glad he got something he's happy with.

Why not get yourself the Nikon? I'm off to order one (a Nikon) myself now. :D

It will be a waste... i am not really into taking pictures and so on...

I'd rather get myself a new pc or save my money for a mac HE he he he....
 
Cool, where?

Game IIRC :D

Know you can get the D60 + the 80-200 lense(?) for 7000 ... Whish I had bought that :(

Glad he got something he's happy with.

Why not get yourself the Nikon? I'm off to order one (a Nikon) myself now. :D

Ok so for whom are you buying a Nikon? Cause I know its not for you if its DSLR :p:D

SLR = Super Lame oveRRated.

For the money he wants to spend try getting a Canon SX1. That is my next buy. Full HD movies are naaais. :D

Try the D90 ;)
 
Try the D90 ;)

Yeah - I did check it and I am amazed that SLR is actually catching up the real cameras. But still, SLR is a schlep - I mean, who wants full HD videos with spots on them cause there was dust on the sensor?

Just the the view camera did, SLR will have to take a bow to the miniature sensor based P&S (Piece o Sh.. / Point and Shoot) cameras. They are getting more advanced all the time and the mega zoomers like SX1/S5/Z10xx and so on are becoming more and more acceptable for high quality work. The manual overrides you get on the dirty cheap Z range Kodaks are pretty sweet.
 
Yeah - I did check it and I am amazed that SLR is actually catching up the real cameras. But still, SLR is a schlep - I mean, who wants full HD videos with spots on them cause there was dust on the sensor?

The D90 has a sensor shaker
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/

Just the the view camera did, SLR will have to take a bow to the miniature sensor based P&S (Piece o Sh.. / Point and Shoot) cameras. They are getting more advanced all the time and the mega zoomers like SX1/S5/Z10xx and so on are becoming more and more acceptable for high quality work. The manual overrides you get on the dirty cheap Z range Kodaks are pretty sweet.
More acceptable to whom?
 
My experience is that digital is already better than film

this is such an old debated :rolleyes:
digital makes mincemeat out of film because of functionality, for most applications
the very best landscape photographers in the world use medium and large format slide film
horses for courses
there is no perfect format for all applications
we use what is needed for the job
 
Last edited:
Don't need it on the more advanced and cheaper nonSLRs.

More acceptable to whom?
To whom ever I say. People are moving over from film to digital after many years of claiming its better (which it is not). Viewcamera is pretty much dead - the XP bliss background was a nice swansong. So soon people will leave SLR also for something more like an apple, you know, idiot proof and easy to use. :D
 
Just the the view camera did, SLR will have to take a bow to the miniature sensor based P&S (Piece o Sh.. / Point and Shoot) cameras. They are getting more advanced all the time and the mega zoomers like SX1/S5/Z10xx and so on are becoming more and more acceptable for high quality work. The manual overrides you get on the dirty cheap Z range Kodaks are pretty sweet.

That may be, but as I'm learning with the G9, the level of sophistication of things like the metering and the flash exposure system are worlds apart. Not to mention AF and high ISO performance.
 
Anything that uses standard memory like SD or CF and can run off normal AA cells is good. Nikons have a nice "touch" to them, Canon has some of the best compacts but currently I am with Kodak cause they are cheap and work nicely. I had two S5s and they both had stuck pixels on their sensor, none of that with a cheaper Kodak.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X