Topic: SLR Cameras - recommendations and advice

[MolbysBigBelly]

Other thing about the digital SLRs, especially the Canons is even the basic 350D will allow you to output the RAW image as oposed to giving a processed jpeg.  I don't know if the bottom of the range in the other brands allow you to do that, but I suspect they all do.

[nidgemo]

Not straight from the camera it won't

I strongly disagree. Get a 6 mega pixel ixus and a 6 mega pixel 350D, for example, and take the same shot with both. The 350D shot WILL be better, even before retouching.

the best thing to concentrate on isn't the camera differences really. It's about your composition, use of light, and subject.

I strongly agree. David Bailey could take a better photograph with a mobile phone than most users could with a £1000 camera, for example - because he sees a great picture where most wouldn't.

[nidgemo]

Oh pfft, you Canon lot are terrible bores about this crap.

Nikon everytime.

you started it

[nidgemo]

Oh pfft, you Canon lot are terrible bores about this crap.

Both Nikon and Canon are pretty much the same nowadays, people have said to me Canon performs better in low-light conditions but seeing as 90% of the work I do is in low-light I can't say I've noticed any major noise issues compared to some things I've done on a Canon at gigs.

It's all very slight differences and as long as your images come out like you imagined, who gives a shit what the branding on the camera is?

I use Nikon because it's what I'm used to and what feels right to me.

Must have a little word with you about how to get decent low light photos without an excisively long shutter speed.

Even at 1600 and F4.5, I really struggle to get anything without a load of blur on movement.

Fine for nice nighttime traffic shots. Fine using a tripod and a longer shutter speed for architecture (especially as a longer speed will give nice flares on lighting and a great sky) but moving stuff in low light - I just can't get it right, and I KNOW its probably just something stupid...

[¡Basta Ya!]

The APS-C size CMOS sensor on a Canon 300/350/400/20/30/40D, is still huge compared to a point and shoot (POS) CCD. you get bigger photosites, and much less noise and cleaner images. Therefore you have a camera that performs above and beyond a POS.

Think I've been misunderstood here, I'm not disputing that at all. I'm well aware of the difference both from a technical and real world view point. I work with these types of images almost every day.

Images straight out of the camera (Jpeg) can be adjusted using loads of parameters

No pro tog that I know worth their salt (and I know and work with a fair few) would ever dream of using parameters, although that was the point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly. Your high end 'prosumer' POS will, and having looked at hundreds of thousands of images from just about every make of SLR and many 'prosumer' cameras, produce a sharper, more saturated image for the beginner (which is why I've stressed on more than one occasion that it depends what for) than a SLR used by the same beginner.

How many times have you heard "I have got a broken 350D, my proshot takes better pictures" - I have, hundreds of times on various forums. It's from beginners thinking that a more expensive the camera is camera is, the better images you get - it isn't true.Not to a beginner anyway.

Suggesting £800 worth of lenses to a beginner who wants to learn, serious or not, is a very OTT.

I think I've definitely been misunderstood (might fault, I'm sure ) I wasn't really suggesting he go out and buy that, I was trying to say that there is no point in you getting a good body and shit glass because it takes away any advantage that you might have had by getting the SLR.

But, you are right about investing in better lenses

Having made the massive investment myself, more than once, I know how hard it is to spend that type of money. I'm trying to say that if you're buying the SLR over the prosume style P+S then to get the benefit strap good glass to the front of it because it's a waste of money otherwise.

but then contradict yourself a little by saying none of it matters

It doesn't matter to the beginner, they can't really tell the difference between a 300L prime and a 100-400L (or worse, the bigma) - where as I can because I've not only used them but I work on images from them all the time.

as it's all about light, composition and subject. I know what you are getting at though. Aesthetic quality - which is probably the most important, is as you said, about comp/subject and light. Technical quality, is about the gear.

The point is that so many people get wrapped up in the technical quality of there gear and never take a good image in there life.

[¡Basta Ya!]

I strongly agree. David Bailey could take a better photograph because he sees a great picture where most wouldn't.

Yup.

If you can control the camera properly, you'll get good images from it but to create artwork from your camera it takes far more than knowing how to use a camera, it's all about artistic integrity and intention. Not about firing your new 1d2n off at 1000 frames per second and getting lucky.

The digital age has made it so accessible that anyone thinks they can be a photographer but lack any artistic knowledge at all. I went to college to study art (and design (booooo) ) and have been really struck by the poor level of so many people on the internet. They skulk on forums and see that someone with a 5d has posted a great looking image and then throw money at camera's and expensive glass and believe that they will get the same result.

If you want to really become a photographer then fuck the canon/nikon debate off out the window and get an old medium format camera with some black and white film, learn about light and composition and then develop the images yourselves. That's how I learnt and that's what I did for 2 years solid in college and years before as my dad has been a photographer all his life. I've spend years in photography and as a retouch artist and if you want to be a good photographer, you need to buy a kit that does the job (res to enable you to print the size you need etc etc) then forget it and start using your eyes and your mind to create artwork. These are tools of an artist they don't make artists out of right tools, though..

I love photography and have used a camera for.... far longer than I can remember. It's an art and it gets weighed down by technicalities from the back of the instruction manual.

[nidgemo]

I went to college to study art (and design (booooo) )

an old medium format camera with some black and white film, learn about light and composition and then develop the images yourselves. That's how I learnt

Me too.

Old crappy pentax.

Brown fingers. Chemical mixing accidents. Feeding film onto spools in pitch black to process it. Pulling a sheet back a few centimetres a second to test print timing. Overlaying acetate to get effects and text. The smell of iodine.

Happy days

[¡Basta Ya!]

Oh, the smell... the smell... I long for the smell.


Lost many a good roll in those fucking spools though

Seriously though, it teaches you things about photography that you need to know still to get a good image - but that you don't really find that any fucker knows in this non manual world.

[Sat1]

Thanks for the help guys.

Out of these two, which would be the best for a starter, more user friendly?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

Both look good and although lost on most of the functions, the reviews pretty much have them neck and neck. I've listed the cons just incase theres something there which would be better for me.

Nikon

    *  No lens motor in body means non-AF-S/AF-I lenses are manual focus only
    * Disappointingly RAW+JPEG setting only records Basic quality JPEG's
    * No status LCD panel on top of camera (we hate to see these go)
    * No exposure or white balance bracketing
    * No hard buttons (without customizing) for ISO or White Balance
    * No depth-of-field preview
    * Occasional visibility of moire artifacts (although seldom)
    * Fixed exposure steps (1/3 EV)
    * Disappointing automatic white balance performance in incandescent light
    * No RAW adjustment with supplied PictureProject, only simple conversion
    * Limited image parameter adjustment (especially for color saturation)

Canon

    *  Kit lens disappointing, better to buy body only and spend more on a good lens
    * Sporadic continuous shooting once buffer is full
    * Occasional under-exposure issue with Evaluative metering
    * Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor under incandescent light
    * ISO, WB, Metering mode etc. not displayed on viewfinder status bar during change
    * Flash must be raised for AF assist
    * No Kelvin white balance selection in-camera
    * No spot metering
    * No mass storage device USB driver, poor WIA transfer rates (and awkward to use)
    * Opening the CF compartment door shuts camera down, loses any buffered images
    * Small viewfinder view

Thanks for the help and I feel confident coming on here once I got it to ask questions.

No need for the course hey 

[¡Basta Ya!]

Try them out, mate. Go into the store and try them out - see what you like the hold of most, see the user interface etc.

[timiano]

No pro tog that I know worth their salt (and I know and work with a fair few) would ever dream of using parameters, although that was the point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly. Your high end 'prosumer' POS will, and having looked at hundreds of thousands of images from just about every make of SLR and many 'prosumer' cameras, produce a sharper, more saturated image for the beginner (which is why I've stressed on more than one occasion that it depends what for) than a SLR used by the same beginner.

Having made the massive investment myself, more than once, I know how hard it is to spend that type of money. I'm trying to say that if you're buying the SLR over the prosume style P+S then to get the benefit strap good glass to the front of it because it's a waste of money otherwise.

It doesn't matter to the beginner, they can't really tell the difference between a 300L prime and a 100-400L (or worse, the bigma) - where as I can because I've not only used them but I work on images from them all the time.

The point is that so many people get wrapped up in the technical quality of there gear and never take a good image in there life.

I've hacked the quote a little.

I know a fair few pro togs that shoot JPEG, but its only circumstance rather than a rule. Event photographers selling prints on the day, like sports. Also, some wedding togs use jpeg as it suits their workflow better - although that is highly debated, and I personally prefer RAW for almost everything (I'm not a pro by any means though). I still don't agree about prosumer vs SLR and the output. I can produce as sharp/contrasty/saturated image straight out of the camera if I wanted...but as we both agree - why would you want to do that ...although it's what a beginner would probably want.

I started off cheap, starting with film some time ago (300v)...about 7years (I think!?), although I did have a T70 for since about the age of 16 which I used on and off. Anyway, over the seven years I've only upgraded my camera once, and that was the jump from film to digital. I couldn't get on with APS-C sensors, so bid my time until I bought the Canon 5D late 2005. I've now got a EF50 1.8MkII, EF 100 2.8 Macro, EF 24-70 2.8L and a EF 70-200 2.8L...so I've spent a fair bit. It's been done slowly though.

Throughout the spectrum of lenses I've used, I've used some shit, but then I've used some 'real' shite. I'd advise anyone against the real shite, but some of the shit wasn't actually that bad, it's just I use rather nice lenses now. I try not to be a snob about these things, and don't describe anything minus a red ring on the end of it as shit.

Only problem with MF, is that it's too expensive, and not really the way forward. Even though prices have plummeted with digital taking over. Only thing I'd consider on film now is XPAN. Digital has surpassed film in terms of technical quality, but as you'll probably agree, it takes a lot of work to put the character back into a digital image. With film it was simple.

Dead right about the Canon/Nikon debate, just use what you can and can afford.

[Sat1]

Will do.

I think more than anything is what course to do, where to do it? Looked on the net and wouldnt know where to go, and I bet some are not worth even trying yet will take my earnings.

[¡Basta Ya!]

I can produce as sharp/contrasty/saturated image straight out of the camera if I wanted

And it would produce just as much of a fucked image as the prosumer - so if that's the aim, then there is no point in getting hte slr - that's what I've been working towards

I started off cheap, starting with film some time ago (300v)

300v!!! You new fangled show off you!

Only thing I'd consider on film now is XPAN. Digital has surpassed film in terms of technical quality, but as you'll probably agree, it takes a lot of work to put the character back into a digital image. With film it was simple.

Firstly - yeah, fully agree about character and feeling and emotion... that's what photography is about, isn't it?

Secondly, it depends what you see technically right is. Some people see colour correct as correct... when it's not. Whatever balance you want and intend is right - it's the same with technical quality. I'd still use a MF Film over any full frame (possible not the new mk3.. I've not used it nor have anyone I've worked with) or lesser digital. 

Dead right about the Canon/Nikon debate, just use what you can and can afford.

Get it, start shooting and forget about the camera - it's just a button to capture your thoughts anyway.

[¡Basta Ya!]

Will do.

I think more than anything is what course to do, where to do it? Looked on the net and wouldnt know where to go, and I bet some are not worth even trying yet will take my earnings.

My advice is don't waste your money. Go to a camera club, meet some people and learn from them and once you have then you need to implement your own idea's. Then you can build your own portfolio s you grow.

It takes a long time and there will be points where you get really disillusioned with the stuff you are producing but stick with it because it all comes together after time. Take some time to look at the great photographers of our time - they will show you what composition is all about.

You will learn more through your own experience and looking and appreciating other peoples work than you will from a course.

EDIT: what type of stuff are you into and what do you want to produce?

[MolbysBigBelly]

My advice is don't waste your money. Go to a camera club, meet some people and learn from them and once you have then you need to implement your own idea's. Then you can build your own portfolio s you grow.

It takes a long time and there will be points where you get really disillusioned with the stuff you are producing but stick with it because it all comes together after time. Take some time to look at the great photographers of our time - they will show you what composition is all about.

You will learn more through your own experience and looking and appreciating other peoples work than you will from a course.

EDIT: what type of stuff are you into and what do you want to produce?

I'd disagree with the bit about wasting time on a course, EL.

If only to teach the basics.  Thing these evening courses do, I assume Sat is talking about a local evening course, is get you to concentrate on 1 or 2 things at a time and it's useful for beginners.  Week one, might be subject framing and aperture, wk, might be shutter speeds & low light, etc.

Having an excercise to complete like that is a good way of getting beginners to practice the basics.  Let's face it, how many photography magazines have you seen where people send pics in for a pro to critique and you wonder how they fail to even understand the basics of composition, etc?

Camera clubs are all well and good, but even if you only spend one term having the basics being explained to you properly, it's well worth it.

[¡Basta Ya!]

I'd disagree with the bit about wasting time on a course, EL.

If only to teach the basics.  Thing these evening courses do, I assume Sat is talking about a local evening course, is get you to concentrate on 1 or 2 things at a time and it's useful for beginners.  Week one, might be subject framing and aperture, wk, might be shutter speeds & low light, etc.

Having an excercise to complete like that is a good way of getting beginners to practice the basics.  Let's face it, how many photography magazines have you seen where people send pics in for a pro to critique and you wonder how they fail to even understand the basics of composition, etc?

Camera clubs are all well and good, but even if you only spend one term having the basics being explained to you properly, it's well worth it.

Only saying from personal experience, but disagree.

[nidgemo]

Only saying from personal experience, but disagree.

Well, for a GENUINE beginner to SLR, a course would be vital to quickly get them up to speed on understanding shutter speeds, focal lengths, ISO etc, which they may not know about.

Composition, rule of thirds etc will all be helpful lessons.

Lost many a good roll in those fucking spools though

Bastard things - you had to twist them JUST right, or you could as easily be winding it off rather than on

Oh, the smell... the smell... I long for the smell.

My wife used to work in a photographic printers - she smelt like that for years

Seriously though, it teaches you things about photography that you need to know still to get a good image - but that you don't really find that any fucker knows in this non manual world.

Definately. I always think I was very lucky to be learning at the cusp of the digital / non digital era. Learned wax paste up, proper photographic printing, hand drawn typography and so on, and it taught me much of what I still use and need today, and many of the young designers have no idea about it.

[Claire.]

Must have a little word with you about how to get decent low light photos without an excisively long shutter speed.

Even at 1600 and F4.5, I really struggle to get anything without a load of blur on movement.

Fine for nice nighttime traffic shots. Fine using a tripod and a longer shutter speed for architecture (especially as a longer speed will give nice flares on lighting and a great sky) but moving stuff in low light - I just can't get it right, and I KNOW its probably just something stupid...

When you say 'moving stuff', how much movement are we talking about here?

You ever tried any HDR shots? gorgeous for architectural work

[Neoto]

If  you're serious I'd get the 70-200 f4L or the Sigma pro equivalent and a sigma wide angle zoom

I got a Sigma DC 17-70mm (f2.8-4.5) for my 350D. Think you can pick them up for £200 now. Pretty decent at 24mm to around 55mm I think. Not fantastic at 17mm, but it's not bad either.

[youtookmyname]

Like everyone has said, unless you know what you are doing you could have the hubble space telescope in your hands and a pro with a throwaway camera would still get a better shot.

These two sites have been invaluable for me:

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/classroom.php

and

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/

I am going to get myself a DSLR one day, but only when I am satisfied that my technique is good enough. At the moment I use a canon A570 to get shots like this:



which I am fairly pleased with.

[nidgemo]

When you say 'moving stuff', how much movement are we talking about here?

About as much as you get in 1/5 of a second, even at 4.5 and ISO1600.

Just can't seem to get the shutter speeds to come down any more...

You ever tried any HDR shots? gorgeous for architectural work

HDR?

(edit - looked it up) I've done a bit manually in the past, but had a look at this

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

so will definately be giving it a go in the future.

Architecture is certainly my forté in photography, so it will be useful yo find methods of doing this more automatically than I currently do it (which is totally manually on bracketed shots)

[Sat1]

Im losing you guys here

Pretty good site
http://www.morguefile.com/archive/classroom.php

Just trying to understand Aperture and Shutter Speed, and at quick glance it looks like they balance each other out. Right, wrong? Does the flash play an important part with these?

Im popping into Jessops tonight to have a little play around with both cameras. So will know which one I'll go for tomorrow.

[Sat1]

Just off to Jesspos to have a go on both of these cameras. Would I need to buy a flash gun for either?

[nidgemo]

Just off to Jesspos to have a go on both of these cameras. Would I need to buy a flash gun for either?

Depends what you're planning to do with it, but I have lived for four years happily without one.

I'd spend the money on a decent tripod instead. Much better for nighttime stuff, and a flash has very limited range anyway.

[Paul_h]

Just off to Jesspos to have a go on both of these cameras. Would I need to buy a flash gun for either?

both have pop-up flashes which are good enough for most situations. Once you outgrow the in-built flash, and strive for better performance, and want to bounce the flash off the ceiling, to eliminate harsh shadows etc.. then's the time to splash out on a separate flash gun..

both the d40x and 400d are excellent choices for a first dslr. the nikon 18-55dx starter lens is actually much better than most people think. this together with the 55-200dx makes an excellent starter package..

I was in the same situation a couple of years ago...i chose nikon (D50 which was the entry level back then) over canon. Image quality was pretty close, with canon marginally ahead (although some say the canon CMOS sensor produces 'plastic looking' images!) it's personal choice though..
what swayed it for me was the better build quality of the nikon, compared to the canon. its was more comfortable to hold, compared to the canon, which looks and feels like a toy!! 

here's what thom hogan says about the d40x
http://www.bythom.com/d40review.htm

Just trying to understand Aperture and Shutter Speed, and at quick glance it looks like they balance each other out. Right, wrong? Does the flash play an important part with these?

in simple terms a camera is basically a box with a hole! And a photo sensitive device opposite the hole(film or digital sensor).

the aperture (size of hole) and shutter speed combination control the amount of light hitting the sensor or film, and is called the exposure. The bigger the hole, the more light enters the box; also the slower the shutter speed the more light enters the box.  there will be many different combinations of aperture and shutter speeds, that will give you the correct exposure (ie resultant image not too dark and not too light).

don't worry about putting the camera in 'P' (program) mode which will automatically set both the aperture and shutter speed combination for a correct exposure. I've been shooting for years and use 'P' mode all the time, especially in fast moving situations when you don't want to worry about camera settings too much, eg with friends and family... and you can concentrate more on getting the shot and on your composition

what you have to aware of is you can change these combo settings by turning the command dial. basically aim for a shutter speed  faster than 1/100 sec for handheld use(thus avoiding blurred shots due to camera shake), if shooting moving objects select faster shutter speeds like 1/300th sec  etc to freeze the motion.

also keep an eye on the aperture, and you wiil eventually learn that smaller holes (eg f11) will produce a larger depth of field, ie the image will be 'flat' with everything in focus; near and far...
larger holes(eg f3.5) will produce smaller depth of field with subject in focus and the background  out of focus(bokeh). producing a nice out of focus background is the beauty of using a dslr...
 

hope that's not too confusing

[Sat1]

Cheers guys. I popped into Jessops yesterday and had a go on both of them, still couldnt pick one of the other, so as im going to buy one or the other today I think I'll flick a coin. Best out of three.

 

[nidgemo]

Cheers guys. I popped into Jessops yesterday and had a go on both of them, still couldnt pick one of the other, so as im going to buy one or the other today I think I'll flick a coin. Best out of three.

 

does this help?

http://www.buyacamera.co.uk/

good all in deal.

Though Jessops is £20 cheaper than their store price online,and you can still collect in store in an hour.

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s35965/1-136-481/Home/Cameras--and--Lenses/Digital-SLRs/Canon/EOS-400D-(Silver)-%2b-EF-S-18-55mm-Lens/details.aspx

and I must say, this

Canon EOS 400D (Silver) + EF-S 18-55mm Lens + Sandisk 2GB Extreme III Compactflash Card + Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro (Canon AF)
Only £579.97

(on the same page at jessops) is a great deal.

Go for black, though - looks far better than silver.




Has a more "pro" look about it.

[¡Basta Ya!]

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s35965/1-136-481/Home/Cameras--and--Lenses/Digital-SLRs/Canon/EOS-400D-(Silver)-%2b-EF-S-18-55mm-Lens/details.aspx

and I must say, this

Canon EOS 400D (Silver) + EF-S 18-55mm Lens + Sandisk 2GB Extreme III Compactflash Card + Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro (Canon AF)
Only £579.97

(on the same page at jessops) is a great deal.

Would be an ideal starter kit that would. Although I would personally feel restricted bu the Tamroms f5.6 @200mm.

Definitely a deal though.

Go for black, though - looks far better than silver.

Racist.

(Definitely get a black camera if you don't want to be snorted at by other photographers)

[Sat1]

I've just ordered the Canon.

Was close to getting the above deal at £579 but thought it was a just a bit too much to start with. Got the camera, lense, case and 2gb card. Will purchase a lense once I make sense of the thing.

Thanks for the help, no doubt its not the last time.

Your all stars

[youtookmyname]

I've just ordered the Canon.

Was close to getting the above deal at £579 but thought it was a just a bit too much to start with. Got the camera, lense, case and 2gb card. Will purchase a lense once I make sense of the thing.

Thanks for the help, no doubt its not the last time.

Your all stars

Im well jealous. Got my birthday coming up and may invest some funds into a 400d from the canon shop on ebay. Some bargains to be had there.

[nidgemo]

I've just ordered the Canon.

Good lad.

Get a clear lens protector when you're in - will only be a couple of £ but prevents your good lens getting scratched, and will still be threaded for mounting other stuff on.

Don't get a polarised one. Nightmare with autofocus lenses.

[timiano]

Don't get a polarised one. Nightmare with autofocus lenses.

A circular polariser would be right though. Not exactly for protecting lenses though!

[Mr Boat]

A circular polariser would be right though. Not exactly for protecting lenses though!

If he's got another spare £100 that is

[nidgemo]

If he's got another spare £100 that is

Or £9

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Jessops-58mm-Digital-Pro-Circular-Polariser-40_W0QQitemZ260154724831QQihZ016QQcategoryZ15217QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Claire.]

oh pfft, another one joins the canon bore-a-thon.

[timiano]

He probably doesn't have the prerequisite beard to own a Nikon 

[nidgemo]

He probably doesn't have the prerequisite beard to own a Nikon 

Not a beard as luxurious as Claires, at any rate.

[Claire.]

Not a beard as luxurious as Claires, at any rate.

[¡Basta Ya!]

It's always been my intention to get an xpan - anyone got any experience? I'm thinking I might just jump for one soon.

[MolbysBigBelly]

Im losing you guys here

Pretty good site
http://www.morguefile.com/archive/classroom.php

Just trying to understand Aperture and Shutter Speed, and at quick glance it looks like they balance each other out. Right, wrong? Does the flash play an important part with these?

Im popping into Jessops tonight to have a little play around with both cameras. So will know which one I'll go for tomorrow.

This is exactly why it's a good idea for you to take a beginners class.  They'll give you the answers, and more importantly, teach you to use use your camera properly, whther it's an Olympus Trip35, Pentax ME Super, or a Canon EOS1Dn.