Digital SLR or not...

M

matt_h

Messages
6
Edit My Images
Yes
Am new to the forum and posting my first question so please be gentle with me...

The quandry me and the wife have is we need to buy a new camera, current one is a Fuji E550, after looking around at a few differnt models we can't decide wether to go for a SLR or stick with a bridge camera.

Models we have looked at and liked in SLR: Canon 400d, Nikon D40X, I have also just read Jessops are currently advertising a Sigma SD14 with £200 cash back (£499 starting price).

Compacts we have looked at and liked are: Canon G9, Fuji S8000, Canon SX100IS.

We need the camera for family pictures, holiday pictures, etc, etc. Our current camera suffers from slow shot to shot speed, images can be a little noisy and when taking photos of our little girl - rather blurry. Whilst we are basic users, at the moment, I have always preffered to buy something that will allow us to learn, rather than be held back - I have also noticed that the slr gives a better image than the compact when both set on auto mode.

Sorry for the long post.

regards,


Matt
 
dslr no contest . as for prices im sure if you look around you will find something cheaper .
 
hi, i have used a fuji s5600 for the last 18months, and have been very impressed with its performance. It has given me the interest and passion in photography, that means i'm about to order my first grown up SLR! My fuji has the majority of the manual controls of a basic level SLR and has 5.2 mp, which is more than adequate for basic shots. I am no wear near even amateur status in photography, but on a personal level, i am exremely proud of some of my shots. I have just completed an OU course using it, and found no problems at all. The only draw back is the lack of lenses. For myself, this is where the decision to upgrade came from. I think these 'prosumer?' type cameras are an excellent idea, they provide enough controls for manual and a brilliant auto for when you just can't be bothered! Certainly anything more than that would have confused the hell out of me at first!

Sorry to ramble on, it really depends on what skills you already have with cameras and how much you want to spend. I prob haven't helped at all! Sorry!! :bang:
 
A DSLR will never, ever hold you back, for the simple reason that

the image quality is in the lens.

Change the lens, and you have a whole new set of parameters to work with. A top-end lens on an entry-level DSLR will produce fantastic photos, while an entry-level lens (the 'kit lens' that comes with some SLRs) will give average image quality even on the very best bodies.

Bear in mind, though, that 'average' image quality is truly stunning when compared to the image quality from pretty much all compact and bridge cameras.

And a DSLR will beat a bridge camera hands down on 'continuous drive speed' (how often it can take a shot) and 'shutter lag' (time between pressing the button fully down and it taking the shot).

Oh, and yes, most DSLRs have lots of auto modes. They're point-and-click too for when you can't be bothered :)
 
Hi Matt, welcome to the forum, and your question is a dilemma for a lot of folk :)

Same as donutagain, I'd go for a DSLR, although you will need to invest some time and energy in getting to know how to use it (this is where TP forum comes in handy ;) )

One option is to buy secondhand, a Canon 350D with kit lens can be bought for around £200-£300. Although you would probably want to upgrade the kit lens sometime in the future, it's a good starting point.
 
sorry, back again! i agree that s/h is the way forward for your first SLR. You can get a much better model for your money. :)
 
Have just had a look at the for sale section and can see there are a few Canon 350d's for sale - how do these compare to that Jessops offer of the Sigma SD14?

Or which of the cameras mentioned would you guys reccomend?

regards,

Matt
 
TBH I'd personally stay away from the SD14, I read some reviews after seeing the offer. The user interface is meant to be bad, poor iso performance and poor battery life. In certain circumstances it is meant to produce excellent image quality. You will also be limited to Sigma's own line of lens. The 300 pound price is in line with how much it now costs elsewhere such as in the US. The only reason I considered it is that it is capable of producing infrared images out of the box.
 
Well to be honest i would have the Canon 350D over the Sigma SD14 anyday as ive read that the Sigma isn't much cop in a couple of Camera Mags.

Also it worth nipping down Jessops and having a hold of a couple of Camera's see how it feels in your hand before you decide what you want.

You should also consider a Pentax K100D Super can be had really cheap brand new £300ish, a freind of mine has just bought one and it suprised me how good this little DSLR is plus has built in anti shake to
 
OK I have been put off the Sigma, went round to a friends and he has a 350d, digital rebel bought from america, and he showed me some shots taken with it and his compact. It was enough to convince me I would be better off with an SLR - just a tough decision which one.

The wife likes the idea of live view so when we went to our local Jessops she tried the olympus 410 and picked it up instantly put it straight back down - she didn't like the feel of it compared with the Nikon D40/40x Canon 400d. The assistant wasn't much help - was pushing a higher end Canon with Live view and wasn't interested to hear that it was more than we wanted to spend.

So next question, what other beginner SLR's have a live view option?

regards,

Matt
 
Olympus e510 same as e410 but with a grip and in body IS. these are the only two cameras that have liveview in your price range the next one is Canon 40d £700 ish body only.
 
Matt

reality check here

DSLRs have the ability to allow very good photographs for those with skill, learning, dedication, patience and the ability to cart round heavy cameras and bags full of heavy expensive bits. The rest of us suffer all the negative attributes and take lots of terrible photos because there are so many settings to get wrong. We live in hope of that photography nirvana, the day we remember to set the ISO correctly before filling the memory card. We don't take them out on many family jaunts 'cos the significant other complains about all the crud we're carting about instead of the picnic hamper, can't be bothererd waiting ten minutes for one shot, doesn't want to be seen with an obvious geek, dont want to get evicted from the place we're going and doesnt want to hear the littany of "if only I had this super fantastic £x00 new toy it would work just right"

Bridge cameras have the ability to allow good photographs often, are discreet, easy to use, quick, simple, light, easy to carry and come pretty much complete out of the box with all the bits that are needed and you dont have to spend a fortune on better lenses when you realise that others with the same camera are more competent than you.

"lesser" cameras than DSLRs take snapshots better and more reliably. If you want ultimate artistic creativity or specialised (wildlife, motorsport, sports, macro, wedding, etc) photography then fair enough the DSLR is needed.

Careful choice of a bridge or even a compact point and shoot with good optical qualities and proper controls will give you photographic results in family day to day situations as good as (and possibly better than) most DSLRs, with an ability to push the artistic boundary quite a way too.

sorry to pour cold water on all the DSLR enthusiasm here, that is the reality as I see it.

hands up all those DSLR people who always take their kit with them on holiday, family outings, visiting friends & family, concerts, sports grounds, in the car, shopping, etc

now hands up all those who bought a point & shoot in addition to their dSLR so they can slip it in their pocket so they dont miss a shot when on family holiday, family outings, visiting friends & family, concerts, sports grounds, in the car, shopping, etc

hmmm
 
Wookie,

Thanx for input, so what bridge camera would you reccomend?

My friend had a Lumix and I didn't like it as it was too small, I have tried the G9 canon which felt superb, but I have heard mixed reviews about this.


regards,

Matt
 
sorry I'm not a walking talking uptodate encyclopedia of camera reviews, try www.steves-digicams.com

I was a bit harsh on SLRs earlier, my canon 400D (and my film SLRs before that) can take fantastic photos and are great for portraits and those big occasions,
but in the general family situation the logistics of a bag full of SLR kit is just a pain in the butt and the point & shoot (film or digital) have always been more convenient and got more pictures more reliably.

I forgot to mention the security nightmare of going anywhere with £500-£1000 of camera gear AND small kids . . . and then you go shopping, or the beach . . . hahahaha . . . nooooooooo

my daughter's got a canon A520 (obsolete now, 4MP 3x zoom) and that is so much easier for the general family situation.
However I still use my SLR but mainly because I get fed up of having to ask to borrow her A520, search the house for where she's abandoned it and ask her if she's downloaded the photos off it or charged the batteries recently.

Having an SLR is still a good way to go, but you have to realise for family stuff you need to have a bit of dedication to use it generally and not just for "photography outings".

With a long lens the SLR is great for sports days and those breaking the tape chariots of fire glory moments, but on the other hand you can record the whole race on video with most point & shoots now, and that long lens needed for the SLR will probably cost as much or even a multiple of a good bridge camera

Personally I would look for the following features for a family camera:
- good optically (check the reviews, steves-digicam has sample photos)
- optical viewfinder (most are electronic now, I suspect canon are the only ones retaining this, the common electronic viewfinder is just like a small LCD back display which suffers from inability to track fast moving objects/kids due to delays and blackouts during card writing)
- 4x or preferably 10x zoom
- image stabilisation (anti shake)
- high ISO ability
- 30fps video with sound (full VGA at 640x480 is not as important, 320x240 is actually quite good if its at 30 fps) AND no time limit on video length (early video in still cameras was often just short burst)

other nice to have:
- manual control settings (at least aperture priority and shutter priority modes, full manual is icing on the cake)
- ability to add a proper flash (hotshoe)
- uses AA batteries

you wont get everything, but that optical viewfinder should be high on the priorities.

rumours are that canon will replace the 400d with the 450d in feb 2008, and it'll add video mode to their DSLRs. This is quite an important family friendly move. Video with SLR quality lenses is an appealling concept. You may want to hold and wait to see what its like.
 
I would go for the DSLR. With a small lens, it's not that difficult to carry around. It will allow you to develop and grow your camera at the same time as your skill level.
 
with a small lens on an SLR you are severely limited, a P&S or bridge has a short to medium (or even short to long) zoom all in one package.

for PHOTOGRAPHY the SLR wins hands down, every time (but not by as much as you'd think)

for FAMILY the all-in-one P&S or bridge camera wins in MOST situations, and it wins in ALL situations where the impracticalities of an SLR will see it left at home or in the boot of the car.
 
Yeah and most P&S cameras have 'live view' too... they don't make such a big deal about it either! Better DOF for macro photography and often with screens that move so you can easily shoot from up high in crowds, or down low without having to equip the knee pads :)

I'd still rather a DSLR though, the potential is much better :D
 
It's a difficult choice I know- DSLR's will always give the best image quality but can be a pain in the backside to cart around. My advice would be to buy the DSLR now, and upgrade your compact camera later. Compacts seem to be improving all the time and the prices are falling faster than DLSR's. In two years time any current DLSR will still be a relatively good performer (image quality wise) but 12Mp compacts will the norm. For maximum flexibility you really need a good quality compact and a DSLR for critical work.

Go for the DSLR now- stick to the major brands and you won't go far wrong.
 
Hi,

I understand what you mean wookie about the P&S I have been considering the Canon G9 OR 650IS but am told these suffer with regards ISO ability - noisy images, so have been put off them. The SLR seems a better prospect all be it with the hinderance of having to lugg it around.

Am just thinking of asking Bro-in-law, who lives in america, to pick me up a digital rebel XTI for $600 with the std kit lens and then buying the compact across here then we have the best of both worlds.

regards,

Matt
 
watch the warranty on USA purchases, Canon in Europe gets very touchy about it, I've seen internet (pinch of salt . . . but do you really want to risk it?) reports that say they'll refuse on USA camera bodies but lenses have international worldwide warranty

I strongly suggest you give it a month or 2 and wait for the 450D

400D/Xti is OK at 400 ISO, but in mediocre light is just noticeably noisy at 800 and very noticeable at 1600. Thats where the difference in price shows on bodies in the digital era.


oh yes, prices:
add the 2nd battery (£35), 8GB of memory cards (£60), the 75-300 lens (£140)and the fancy bag big enough (£40), the 50mm f1.8 'nifty fifty' (£60), the flashgun when you decide you dont want startled rabbit shots (£180), filters for the blue sky look (£50), tripod 'cos you cant hold it still with cheap non IS lenses (£50-150), the new PC external hard drive (£70) and the backup hard drive (£70) and the dvd writer and blank dvds . . . .

and then you want some PROPER lenses


BEWARE

the list is endless, and you've still not spent £600 on photoshop
 
Wookie



Personally I would look for the following features for a family camera:
- good optically tick
- optical viewfinder tick
- 4x or preferably 10x zoom tick 10.7x
- image stabilisation (anti shake) tick
- high ISO ability tick ISO 80 to 1600
- 30fps video with sound tick

other nice to have:
- manual control settings (at least aperture priority and shutter priority modes, full manual is icing on the cake) tick
- ability to add a proper flash (hotshoe) No
- uses AA batteries tick
Click to expand...





Sounds like the Fuji S9500/S9600. (y)

This camera also has a very good macro mode. In fact the only downside is the inability to change lenses. The fixed lens covers 28mm - 300mm though, more than enough for someone just starting to get to grips with all the settings etc.

Edit PS. PSE 6.0 £76
 
richmond said:
Sounds like the Fuji S9500/S9600. (y)
Click to expand...

careful
not sure about the optical viewfinder,
I think its really a small lcd on the fuji, an "EVF" electronic viewfinder, just a small copy of the lcd on the back.

I think it was a fuji that I tried in dixons/currys 6 months ago and for panning and continuous shooting it was useless, it lagged behind reality and blanked out as soon as you started shooting until it had finished writing to the card. The viewfinder also displayed the last picture taken, and that could only be reduced in duration not switched off. High speed continuous burst mode or whatever they called it allowed a fast sequence of shots but still blanked the viewfinder.

by comparison the canon powershot was fantastic, real old fashioned seperate optical viewfinder so just follow the action and keep clicking
 
Well went out yesterday and the wife was seduced by a Nikon D40 in silver, we were almost ready to splash the cash when I said I'd ask peoples opinions of this camera on here first.

So what are peoples thoughts?

I am sure I have read about something to do with thte lenses but I can't remember what - so is there anything I need to know about the lenses on this particular camera?

regards,

Matt
 
I agree with Wookie,

Having had both an excellent Bridge camera and now a DSLR, you will for certain get much better pics from the dslr (even with the kit lens!) There is a noticable difference in quality (which was the main reason i switched)

However, Lenses are the most important part and good ones are normally heavy and expensive! As much as i love my Nikon, you have to be prepared to carry around alot of heavy gear that is worth alot of money!

But if quality is the most important factor there is no choice, dslr all the way.

The Nikon D40x is an excellent camera, Live view although probably quite handy in some situations is more of a gimmick on an SLR and not something that you should choose one camera over another for. The thing with lenses for the D40x is they need to have an AF motor built into them as the D40 doesnt have internal AF, apart from that its a cracking entry level SLR and will give you much enjoyment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top