OT: Cameras

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 9:13 pm

Inspired by the work of posters on this site (and elsewhere) I've started to get back into photography.At the moment, I'm using £100-ish worth of compact digital camera and for what it's designed to do it's fine, but I'm starting to want to do more and I'm finding the limits of the camera.Now I quite like the look of a shiny new digital SLR, but I'm wondering if it would be worth spending that sort of money, or instead spending less money on a top of the range compact digital camera.Whatever I get needs to have an element of "point and shoot", but I want to try to experiment and produce better quality images. A browse through flickr shows what can be achieved and with an SLR the collection of expensive accessories can always be built up over time.Any thoughts or suggestions?My current stuff is posted at http://www.flickr.com/photos/8964340@N05/

Brunel · Post by **Brunel** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 9:36 pm

If possible try a bridge camera, half way between Compact and SLR.Have a look at the specification of Canon G10.. now replaced by G11A starter route to a SLR could be Canon EOS 1000D with the kit lens.http://www.dpreview.com/A good place to buy: www.simplyelectronics.net

Brandy · Post by **Brandy** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 9:37 pm

wayhay fame at last davey

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 9:43 pm

Dvey, you can spend a lot of money and enjoy and appreciate what you get or you can spend less and still enjoy a great deal of lattitude and quality with a compact.I thought long and hard about what to get last year when I needed something better and have been an ardent 35mm SLR (film) user for many years but, upon weighing-up my major use, I decided a reasonable compact suited me - certainly for know - and chose an Olympus SP 560.By design, it's a smaller version of an SLR, enough of it to hold with comfort and a feel of there being spmething there (rather than a slab of metal with a lens on!) but at the same time very easy and convenient to carry about. Image quality - you gets what you pay for - is not bad at all even though with an aye for resolution, I can pick fault but its 8mega pixel and 18x optical zoom seem to give me more than I expected, though on the odd occaassion it would be nice to have something better.Doesn't compare with a Rollieflex twin lens (Kenneth will appreciate that) but I'm comfortable with it at the mo - an SLR will be nice to have as well, later!Get to a shop and have a play with a few, anywhere worth their salt won't mind helping here, and see what you feel comfortable with.

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 9:49 pm

Brandy wrote: wayhay fame at last davey Wasn't this fame a while ago Brandy or have they used Dave's pics again

Si · Post by Si » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 10:50 pm

chameleon wrote: Brandy wrote: wayhay fame at last davey Wasn't this fame a while ago Brandy or have they used Dave's pics again Bloody 'ell! I thought it were Brandy in a skirt for a minute!

Si · Post by Si » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 10:57 pm

chameleon wrote: Dvey, you can spend a lot of money and enjoy and appreciate what you get or you can spend less and still enjoy a great deal of lattitude and quality with a compact.I thought long and hard about what to get last year when I needed something better and have been an ardent 35mm SLR (film) user for many years but, upon weighing-up my major use, I decided a reasonable compact suited me - certainly for know - and chose an Olympus SP 560.By design, it's a smaller version of an SLR, enough of it to hold with comfort and a feel of there being spmething there (rather than a slab of metal with a lens on!) but at the same time very easy and convenient to carry about. Image quality - you gets what you pay for - is not bad at all even though with an aye for resolution, I can pick fault but its 8mega pixel and 18x optical zoom seem to give me more than I expected, though on the odd occaassion it would be nice to have something better.Doesn't compare with a Rollieflex twin lens (Kenneth will appreciate that) but I'm comfortable with it at the mo - an SLR will be nice to have as well, later!Get to a shop and have a play with a few, anywhere worth their salt won't mind helping here, and see what you feel comfortable with. I used a Rollei TLR when I was at art school!Chameleon - does an expensive digital SLR shoot in real time? I have a small digital, and I love the advantages of digital, but I only use it for snaps. It does me 'ead in - "click", look down at screen, get picture of floor! I stick to a (film) Contax SLR (circa 1980.) Works fine for me.

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:09 pm

An element of telepathy is useful Si in conjunction with auto sequential shooting - in other words, set it to take 4 or 5 shots one after the other and guess the right time to press go just before the event!

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:30 pm

Davey, a small example of the quality I can get, you can blow this up quite a lot before it significantly deteriorateshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/chameleon2008/3923545149/

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:44 pm

An entry level Digital SLR will set you back £300+. I like Nikons, I had a D40 which was great but got nicked. I think the D50 is the stadard now. However you'll only get standard lens witha limited zoom supplied and will have to fork out for a decent zoom. A 'bridge' camera is a halfway between a compact and an SLR. You'll probably get a better zoom range, but slightly poorer quality lens and limited functionality compared to an SLR but more opportunities to play than a compact, with the choice of fully auto. However perfomance shoudl still be good and shutter delay negligable. Which? recomends this as its best buy: Canon Powershot SX10 ISI haven't used one. I like Nikons. They are the best and everyone who disagrees is wrong. I think this proves that you should find a camera that is good and you feel comfortable with.