Photography/cameras

[cmcm3]

Hello. I have never been to good at taking photos of my adventures, but seeing the ones a lot of you guys post of your travels and so on has got me thinking that I should really make more of an effort.

So - can someone explain the basics:

1. What does DSLR-type camera do, that a normal camera doesn't?
2. Is it worth the extra weight/bulk to humph around all over the place when on holiday etc, or is one of the normal cameras a better bet?
3. Any equipment recommendations for a beginner?
4. Any examples of comparable photos ie one taken with a normal camera, the other taken with a DSLR?
5. Photo editing software - is it tough to use? Expensive? Worthwhile for an amateur?

Thanks dudes.

[TheDude]

From a pure light gathering standpoint, DSLRs have the advantage of more sensor real-estate. They can gather more photons. This increases the quality of the signal. The signal is also processed with more advanced electronics in DSLRs. The end result is a cleaner image in more varied lighting conditions.

DSLRs also have more sophisticated metering and autofocus capabilities, the ability to set custom shooting functions, bracketing, etc... If you're inclined to be artistic you can use manual mode.

Also, most P&S cameras take only JPEGs while DSLRs are capable of capturing RAW files. While an unskilled shooter probably won't appreciate this, there are countless reasons why this is important.

Choice of lenses... always a plus. A lot of the entry-level DSLR kits now have lenses with vibration reduction/image stabilization. This can be a real benefit.


A beginner would do well with any of these:

Nikon D60
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/

Canon 1000D or 450D
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/

Pentax K20D
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk20d/

[jdc]

Interesting, I have just bought a new camera and was struggling with the same questions. In the end I went for a decent Leica compact camera over the DSLR'S after much chopping and changing my mind on what to do - took me three months to make up my mind which is very unlike me.
I knew in my heart I was not a committed enough photographer to bother with the extra lens and the bulk and weight of carrying a DSLR especially on holiday.
I think the question comes down to how much a serious photographer you want to be.

[cmcm3]

Originally Posted by jdc

I knew in my heart I was not a committed enough photographer to bother with the extra lens and the bulk and weight of carrying a DSLR especially on holiday.

Thats the bit Im struggling with to be honest. I can see me potentially getting fed up with lugging the gear round with me and wishing I had just gone for something that would fit in my pocket.

Does anyone know what kind of price a decent beginner's DSLR can be had for 2nd hand?

[cmcm3]

Thanks TheDude - lots of interesting info there - I will have a look through those reviews!

What kind of cash are extra lenses. I assume this is like asking how much is a Rolex, but I really am a complete novice, so realistic suggestions would be appreciated.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by cmcm3

Thanks TheDude - lots of interesting info there - I will have a look through those reviews!

What kind of cash are extra lenses. I assume this is like asking how much is a Rolex, but I really am a complete novice, so realistic suggestions would be appreciated.

The mid-range zoom in a DSLR kit will be ok for general photos. Similar to what you'd be able to get with a P&S. If you want a wide angle lens or a super-telephoto, these range in cost and capability. Figure, at the low end $500 for a wide, up to $1500. Super-telephoto... same low-end, but then you have the monster lenses that can cost as much as cars.

Actual recommendations for lenses would be dependent on the brand you choose. All have reasonable choices that perform well without breaking the bank.

[cmcm3]

Originally Posted by TheDude

The mid-range zoom in a DSLR kit will be ok for general photos. Similar to what you'd be able to get with a P&S. If you want a wide angle lens or a super-telephoto, these range in cost and capability. Figure, at the low end $500 for a wide, up to $1500. Super-telephoto... same low-end, but then you have the monster lenses that can cost as much as cars.

Actual recommendations for lenses would be dependent on the brand you choose. All have reasonable choices that perform well without breaking the bank.

Thanks again - I think the chances of me getting so into photogrpahy that I am keen to go out and buy $500+ lenses are fairly slim, but then again you don't know until you try. I might check out the bay and see what it has to offer.

[jdc]

Originally Posted by cmcm3

I might check out the bay and see what it has to offer.

I found this UK site very useful and have bought cameras from them. Their prices seem very competitive if buying in UK.

http://www.parkcameras.com/

[HoustonRider]

Im a photographer.. I use Nikon D2x, D300s, D70s. For all around, I would look at the Nikon D40. its pretty light and small for a DSLR.
I actually carry a point/shoot Olympus waterproof digital for lots of things (riding my bike, beach, pool, six flags, etc. its extremely small and takes good pics. It has a macro mode and zoom is ok for playing around.

Take it for what its worth.. I could carry an $8,000 camera around, but the one I bought for $250 is easier to carry around when I just want some shots to email, etc.

If you're gonna print em, I would recommend a D40 or D60. D80 has a higher burst rate and pixel, for larger prints, and faster shots.

all around? D40. light, small, cheap. good quality shots when you need them

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by HoustonRider

Im a photographer.. I use Nikon D2x, D300s, D70s. For all around, I would look at the Nikon D40. its pretty light and small for a DSLR.
I actually carry a point/shoot Olympus waterproof digital for lots of things (riding my bike, beach, pool, six flags, etc. its extremely small and takes good pics. It has a macro mode and zoom is ok for playing around.

Take it for what its worth.. I could carry an $8,000 camera around, but the one I bought for $250 is easier to carry around when I just want some shots to email, etc.

If you're gonna print em, I would recommend a D40 or D60. D80 has a higher burst rate and pixel, for larger prints, and faster shots.

all around? D40. light, small, cheap. good quality shots when you need them

I personally think the D60 is worth it if Nikon is the brand you choose.

Differences compared to the D40X

EXPEED processing
Image sensor cleaning system with Airflow control system
Automatically rotating user interface (for using camera vertically orientated)
Stop motion movie function
New stabilized kit lens (AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR)
Eye sensor
Electronic 'rangefinder' for manual focus
Active D-Lighting with dedicated button
In-camera Raw processing
New JPEG retouch effects (Cross Star and Color Intensifier)


However, I feel that the sub-D80 cameras force you to give up too much relative to what the competition offers at the same price point. First, there is no motor drive, which really limits the lenses you can use. Second, there is a very limited number of autofocus points. Third, it takes SD cards, which is a little oddball in this space. Coming from a P&S this isn't a big deal, but if you ever want to move up to a more serious DSLR, it will likely use CF. I also think that the Nikon stuff at this level is giving up a little in terms of NEF compression (only visually lossless). Also, the AD processing is 12 bit. Most new cameras are now using 14 bit AD conversion. The Canon and Pentax cameras I suggested both use 14 bit AD.


The Pentax K20D really is the standout in this range but it's more expensive. It's dust and weather sealed, has a flash xsync socket, has superb ergonomics, and takes fantastic images.

[2careless]

As for purchasing, are the following 2 online dealers recommended?
www.adorama.com
www.bhphotovideo.com
They are highly recommended in other forums and the prices look good compared to local Australian prices. I'm a bit wary about warranty issues though as I've read that manufacturers wouldn't do warranty service on grey imports? To be specific I'm looking at Canon 450D with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens, and Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens.

[HoustonRider]

I buy all my equipment from B and H.

[watchlady]

There are some small and light DSLRs as mentioned the Nikon D40x, D60 and Canon Rebel 450D (Xsi in the states). You can change lenses, get a larger sensor, shoot in RAW mode and in general have more control than a point and shoot camera.
There is one p&s camera that many serious photographers use when they don't want to lug their big camera around and that is a Canon G9.
There are some really great photo magazines in the UK, check your newsagent also have look at dpreview.com for lots of info and reviews.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by watchlady

There are some small and light DSLRs as mentioned the Nikon D40x, D60 and Canon Rebel 450D (Xsi in the states). You can change lenses, get a larger sensor, shoot in RAW mode and in general have more control than a point and shoot camera.
There is one p&s camera that many serious photographers use when they don't want to lug their big camera around and that is a Canon G9.
There are some really great photo magazines in the UK, check your newsagent also have look at dpreview.com for lots of info and reviews.

Don't you have an M8? That's the ultimate small digicam for serious photographers who don't want to lug the big stuff around!

[vh_bu98]

For me, I shot with a Canon digital elph for years, but I was never completely satisfied with the photos that I took. They were good, but nothing that really said WOW since I was actually interested in photography. So I started with a DSLR body and one lens and I was hooked. A few years later and about $10,000 poorer, I carry a 30-40 lb backpack with my camera equipment with me when I take a trip. I still have the elph for just point and shoot stuff.

The key thing is are you willing to carry around a DSLR? I have a friend who uses a Canon Digital Rebel with the stock lens. It's always on dummy mode and she just uses it as a point and shoot. That's just an example of not having to be really into photography to use a DSLR.

[Incurable]

My brother is able to eek some pretty incredible stuff out of his Canon A540. Outdated and underpowered by all definitions, it's back to the operator themselves. Equipment certainly helps but great shots are the product of skill, experience and, in many cases, luck. You might try seeking some good books about photography, both film and digital. It's easy to blame the equipment when there's much to be gained through experience and understanding. JMHO...

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by Incurable

My brother is able to eek some pretty incredible stuff out of his Canon A540. Outdated and underpowered by all definitions, it's back to the operator themselves. Equipment certainly helps but great shots are the product of skill, experience and, in many cases, luck. You might try seeking some good books about photography, both film and digital. It's easy to blame the equipment when there's much to be gained through experience and understanding. JMHO...

All the pics I post on TRF are shot with an "old" Canon A540.

[watchlady]

Yes I do but I'm more likely to carry 5 lbs. (2 kilos) of Nikon D3 and lens around these days.

By the way some of the best watch photos on the forum are taken by Jocke who uses a 4 or 5 year old Nikon point & shoot with great results. Actually for watch photography is easier with a p&s because you get better depth of field with a smaller sensor so more is in focus.

Originally Posted by TheDude

Don't you have an M8? That's the ultimate small digicam for serious photographers who don't want to lug the big stuff around!

[cmcm3]

Guys,

Buz-LH was good enough to PM me recommending the Canon G9, which isn't a DSLR, but can take additional lenses and does RAW (I still dont actually know what this is or why it matters) all in a convenient normal-camera size.

Does anyone else have any experience of this camera that they can share. I read the review and saw the sample shots at DPreview.com and this was fairly encouraging.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/
Any thoughts?

[daveathall]

Checkout Warehouse express in the UK, had dealings with them, great service.

[watchlady]

Yes, I use the G9 as a p&s when I don't want to carry a DSLR, very good but not a DSLR.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by watchlady

Yes I do but I'm more likely to carry 5 lbs. (2 kilos) of Nikon D3 and lens around these days.

By the way some of the best watch photos on the forum are taken by Jocke who uses a 4 or 5 year old Nikon point & shoot with great results. Actually for watch photography is easier with a p&s because you get better depth of field with a smaller sensor so more is in focus.

True... However, exposure stacking is a great technique that I don't see used enough around here. Also, some DSLR mounts are better for macro photography than others with regard to your DOF observation.

I know of at least one Sigma macro lens that has three different minimum apertures listed, depending on the mount. The Nikon and Pentax mount clearances limit the minimum aperture to F32, whereas Canon and Sony can use as small as F45 on the Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG Macro.


To the OP, as far as P&S, the now discontinued Fuji F10/11/20/31/40 cameras had large sensors and low noise that hasn't been achieved in a P&S since. Sadly, the newer Fuji models no longer exhibit this kind of performance. Interestingly, the G9 has the exact same sensor size, which is good. However, the G9 has twice the number of photosites, and a denser sensor isn't good for the quality of the image as it limits the photons that can be collected. Big imagers=good. Big pixels=good. Big imager+Big pixels=perfect.

If you choose a P&S, try to buy one of the ones with a large imager. Remember, the way the size is represented is deceiving.


Canon G9 has a 1/1.7" CCD.

Sony DSC-T300 has a 1/2.3" CCD.


Ok math geeks, which is bigger? If you said the Sony, shame on you! ;)

1 divided by 1.7" = .58 inches

1 divided by 2.3" = .43 inches


Tricky huh?

[esspee1200]

a great beginner DSLR is the canon rebel xt or nikon d40. i have the xt and can't seem to put it down...

[TheDude]

Yes, those are good. As many of us have stated, the most recent iterations of these cameras are:

D60 (updated D40X)

Rebel XS (US market) EOS 1000D (non-US)

[watchlady]

Yes, but if you are thinking of getting a basic DSLR you might as well go with the latest model. The Canon Rebel XSi/450D (same camera different name) or Nikon D60 are most current. They have features the older models lack and do not cost much more.

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by watchlady

Yes, but if you are thinking of getting a basic DSLR you might as well go with the latest model. The Canon Rebel XSi/450D (same camera different name) or Nikon D60 are most current. They have features the older models lack and do not cost much more.

Actually, the XS is newer than the XSi. It's basically the older 10Mpxl sensor with the XSi feature updates.


http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/page2.asp

[watchlady]

No XSi is newer and 12 MP
from DP review:
A brief history; Canon entry level digital SLR series

20/08/03: Canon EOS 300D / Digital Rebel (6 mp)
17/02/05: Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT (8 mp)
24/08/06: Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi (10 mp)
24/01/08: Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi (12 mp)

Originally Posted by TheDude

Actually, the XS is newer than the XSi. It's basically the older 10Mpxl sensor with the XSi feature updates.


http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/page2.asp

[pwrslider]

Originally Posted by HoustonRider

Im a photographer.. I use Nikon D2x, D300s, D70s. For all around, I would look at the Nikon D40. its pretty light and small for a DSLR.
I actually carry a point/shoot Olympus waterproof digital for lots of things (riding my bike, beach, pool, six flags, etc. its extremely small and takes good pics. It has a macro mode and zoom is ok for playing around.

Take it for what its worth.. I could carry an $8,000 camera around, but the one I bought for $250 is easier to carry around when I just want some shots to email, etc.

If you're gonna print em, I would recommend a D40 or D60. D80 has a higher burst rate and pixel, for larger prints, and faster shots.

all around? D40. light, small, cheap. good quality shots when you need them

I agree with all of the above..... I have the D40x....and most times I take my canon SD's with me.... If I know I'm going somewhere where I NEED the good photos..I bring the DSLR.....otherwise..the point and shoots are just fine.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by watchlady

No XSi is newer and 12 MP
from DP review:
A brief history; Canon entry level digital SLR series

20/08/03: Canon EOS 300D / Digital Rebel (6 mp)
17/02/05: Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT (8 mp)
24/08/06: Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi (10 mp)
24/01/08: Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi (12 mp)

The 1000 is now launched after the 450's appearance.

[GBJIV]

I also highly recommend B & H photo. They are excellent. I would also recommend the Canon G9.

It is an awesome Point and Shoot Camera.