Once upon a time there was a camera noob (another what camera thread) SORRY!

ShakyUK

ShakyUK

Messages
112
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
Yes
I was reluctant to post a 'what camera should I buy?' post because I figure you get them all the time but I've read a few (I stumbled across the koolpc... It was lollerific) and didn't really fit in with my situation.. because I'm special. :|

I want a Canon, read most about these, been recommended Canon a few times... If I'm honest I was tempted to throw the 'Nikon or Canon?' hand grenade... just for entertainment really... but I won't :D

I'm still not sure if I want to spend the money on a DSLR for 2 reasons:
1. I am not sure if my pictures are going to be noticeably better using just the DSLR and stock lens.
2. I am not sure if it will take me 100's and 100's of pictures trying and failing before I actually get a decent picture.

I 'think' I want a DSLR because I am interested in how pictures are put together, so I have read and think I have a basic understanding of aperture f numbers, focal lengths, lens types, depth of field (that one took awhile). I have also been a fan of photography for quite awhile, mainly liking street photography, architecture and nature (as in landscapes and trees, not so much animals).

I have a motorcycle and want to take the camera out with me (it will be insured ha) as I see some really nice sights when I'm out and I am also bitterly disappointed by a few things:

I have an NV24HD, I bought it because you can mess around with settings to an extent and when I go on holiday my photo's never come out how I wanted them to. I went to Rhodes and Tenerife fairly recently and took over 600 photo's...mainly because I take about 3 of the same thing while messing with the settings. My NV is ok but it doesn't let me get the shots I want, I did a tour around France on the bike for 10 days in June and the photo's I came back with were ok but did not capture what I wanted.

I'm on a budget because I'm trying to save a deposit (so think new starter DSLR) and my questions are:

1. Are my pictures going to be noticeably better using just the DSLR and stock lens.
2. Is it going to take me 100's of photo's practising before I can get decent shots (I recognise this is a hard to answer as beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I could be a complete idiot, technophobe and insult to photography in general... I can assure you that I am not a COMPLETE idiot :lol:).
3. I'm on the Canon brand and I was looking at the 450D but I'm not sure if I can justify spending the price right now, but I am afraid I will out grow a 1000D. I have also seen 40D's on here. So its 1000D brand new/second hand, or 450D/40D second hand. Any advice? I'm edging towards the 450D as it has the infra-red control which I think I may like to use for long exposures, the 1000D doesn't have that.
4. I have seen a 40D on here second hand, I believe they have the same crop sensor size as the 450D and 1000D, but have the older Digic II processor where as the 1000D and 450D have the new Digic III processor, does that make a difference? If so, what difference?
5. The 450D and 40D have 9 point AF, whereas the 1000D has 7 point AF, does that make much of a difference?
6. I think mega-pixels are just a penis measuring tool for the general public used by camera manufacturers to 1-up the competition but in reality don't matter unless you're printing large photo's, is that correct? If so the 450D's 12 mega-pixels is really not much advantage over the 40D/1000D's 10 mega-pixels?
7. Can you get decent images without using photoshop or can the images coming straight from the camera be good shots?

I wanted to get as much information down as possible then you can offer advice so I am sorry for writing a short story. Thanks for reading.

The end. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Rick,

At first glance, in my experience at least, the photographs you get from an SLR are not noticeably better and can in fact be worse than you'd experience from a point-and-shoot. I am led to believe the reasoning for this is that a massive amount of post-processing goes on in-camera in a lot of P&S cameras, leading to a saturated, sharpened output.

In the right conditions, shots straight out of the camera will be better than anything you can put out of Photoshop. Every photographer strives to get the photo right in camera without resorting to PP - it should be considered a tool for adjustment, not rescue. By using a circular polarising filter and a bit of thought on where the light is, I have produced bluer skies and whiter clouds than I could ever manage by just blindly shooting and then cracking up the PC to edit it.

As for shooting hundreds of pictures, I think that is more a facet of digital photography than SLR photography. The ability to delete, recompose and shoot again rings true of any digital camera be it attached to your BlackBerry or a Nikon D3.

Ultimately, I think the flexibility of an SLR really allows you to 'make' your shot. You can introduce effects by playing around with the settings which can only be dreamt of on a P&S camera (although some newer models introduce aperture settings). Not to mention that your options for upgrading in an SLR do not mean you always having to fork out for a new camera. You buy the body and then use that as a foundation upon which your 'camera' can be built.

I am unable to answer with any authority any of the questions vis-a-vis Canon cameras given I was sold on the Nikon system.

Get yourself into this bottomless pit of expense/hobby! :thumbs:
 
Cheers for the reply Astraeus, I think my thread length put people off lol... I've bought a 450D off here now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top