Digital SLR Cameras

[Squid_uk]

Heys guys!

I have to 2 Questions

1st: Im just looking for some help/advice at the moment, but what im looking to do is purchase a Digital SLR Camera, now i am a novice when it comes to SLR's i have never used one before.

In your opinions what should i aim for ie mega pixels, zoom etc, or is it dependent on what i want the camera for?

2nd: Related to the above, what is the function called when you have a photo of say a skateboarder performing a jump/trick and you get to see the picture in stages of the event, is this a function that is on the camera or is it a photoshop trick or a combination of both?

Many Thanks!

[lordsmurf]

Megapixels are a marketing sham. They quote megapixels to sell new whiz-bang cameras and prey upon the innocence/ignorance of buyers. You need about 3 megapixels to make a nice 8x10 image. If you want to do any cropping or larger prints, then 6 megapixels is better. When you approach 10-12 megapixels, the only thing that happens is your CCD will start to pick up lens defects, even in higher-graded lenses. When I bought my Nikon D200, I had to replace a few lenses, because the high-MP CCD was showing ghosts and flares on lenses that worked brilliantly with my Nikon F5 film camera and ISO 25-1600 films.

Zoom is the lens, not a body question. Consider it separately.

Your biggest decision is what is your budget? You have to work backwards from there.

I'd also suggest you join up www.convopit.org and visit the photo section there, where you'll get more help (many of them are current/former VH members, but visit CP more than VH).

The series of shots is not a Photoshop trick at all. Those images are shot with a camera that has a high continuous frames-per-second shutter. My Nikon D200 can take 5 fps. My F5 does 8fps. The D3 that I'll have soon does about 9fps. These cameras all cost $2,000 to $5,000 each for the body only. Lenses run from a $100 cheapy to a $1,500 f/2.8 with good glass, or far more for more specialty lenses.

Give me a budget, tell me what you want to shoot, and I'll suggest a camera and lens(es). I help people all the time.

[Squid_uk]

Lordsmurf thanks for all that information that has acutally really help me!

I was actually looking at buying the Nikon D40

My budget would be looking at £200-£350 for the camera then i would consider lenses later, but they looking at some of the Nikon D40 sales they actually come with a standard 18-55mm

[Squid_uk]

Lordsmurf thanks for all that information that has acutally really help me!

I was actually looking at buying the Nikon D40

My budget would be looking at £200-£350 for the camera then i would consider lenses later, but they looking at some of the Nikon D40 sales they actually come with a standard 18-55mm

[Squid_uk]

Sorry don't know what happened there ^

[lordsmurf]

The Nikon D40 is a good intro-level DSLR. If you have the funds, the 18-135 or 18-200 might be a lens you like more. I've been using Nikon equipment for about 15 years now.

What are you wanting to shoot, anyway?

[Squid_uk]

Im looking really for an all rounder, scenery, sports , portraits etc

[lordsmurf]

Well, for a camera that can do everything, you'd have to buy a body like mine.

Here's what you face:

The consumer-grade cameras do not have fast fps, maybe 2-3 max frames per second, so sports is out. You can still shoot, but you cannot grab multi frames per second. You'll need good lenses for any night sports (including stadiums or any indoor facilities), in the f/2.8 range, which again costs money. With a consumer camera, you'll mostly be confined to outdoor daytime sports. If you're a parent, that's probably when and what you'll be doing anyway.

For scenery (assumes landscapes), anything works. A light-sealed cardboard box with a pinhole in it can do this just fine (a pinhole camera). So you're covered here. You'll want a tripod, and you'll want to shoot about f/11 in most cases, with exposures that vary to time of day (dusk to dawn).

For scenery (macro work, like bugs and flowers), you'll need a lens that can focus close. Most of the time, you'll want a macro lens. These run anywhere from cheap to expensive. There are also macros filters in the +1 +2 +4 range (stack for +3 +5 + 6 +7) that screw onto your lens. Not as good, but it does work well.

For portraits, you want to have a lens that does not distort (pincushion, barrel, etc), and you'll find yourself using the f/5.6 - f/11 range aperture, in the 50-100mm range. It really depends on the lens. The ideal lens for portrait work is a fixed-length length in the 85mm range. You'll be on a tripod and a few feet back. On a DSLR that has an APS-C sized CCD (the D40, most all consumer and some pro DSLRS), you may find yourself in the 50-60mm range. They make a 60mm fixed lens for macro, as well as a 50mm.

I think the D40 with the Nikon 18-200 would be a great starter camera, you'd get a ton of use from it. In the future, if you want to get more serious, keep that lens and upgrade the body. Add more lenses, add a speedlight flash, etc.

There's probably a UK equivalent to B&H (a big USA store) over there, with great mail-order/online pricing. I recently saw D40 kits at Costco, it was a nice little starter rig from Nikon in a box. I believe it had an 18-135, but don't remember.

Knowledge is a big piece of the pie too, and I suggest you read this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/National-Geographic-Photography-Field-Guide/dp/0792274989
Buy this one, not the "digital" version. You really need to know "old school" facts of photography, the out and out basics, before adding "digital" mumbo-jumbo. In all honesty, once you understand film, you understand digital. They use the same terms, but one uses CF cards instead of rolled film cans.

[Heywould3]

you'd have to buy a body like mine.

Man if i had a dollar for every time i heard that line :P

[tenders]

Heys guys!

I have to 2 Questions

1st: Im just looking for some help/advice at the moment, but what im looking to do is purchase a Digital SLR Camera, now i am a novice when it comes to SLR's i have never used one before.

In your opinions what should i aim for ie mega pixels, zoom etc, or is it dependent on what i want the camera for?

2nd: Related to the above, what is the function called when you have a photo of say a skateboarder performing a jump/trick and you get to see the picture in stages of the event, is this a function that is on the camera or is it a photoshop trick or a combination of both?

Many Thanks!

you can also check this site out for reviews and sample pics.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras

i'm only in the top "point and shoot" market right now , but i would say that unless you have alot of knowledge about photography(DSLR's) go for something like i have : http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/powershot_s5_is which will let you learn at your own pace.

[lordsmurf]

But with a P&S, there's no ability to grow into the equipment or expand yourself without fully buying new equipment. That's more expensive in the long run.

[SquirrelDip]

Canon 30D's can be had fairly reasonably now that the 40D is out. The XTi's have also come down in price since the release of the 40D...

[tenders]

But with a P&S, there's no ability to grow into the equipment or expand yourself without fully buying new equipment. That's more expensive in the long run.

true , sort of. you can grow to a limited extent as far as lenses go(manual adjustments too) , but by buying a dslr (which costs more) only to discover your "not" into it as you thought you were. so might be the cheaper option in the long run.

i hope you get what i'm trying to say.

[lordsmurf]

But with a P&S, there's no ability to grow into the equipment or expand yourself without fully buying new equipment. That's more expensive in the long run.

true , sort of. you can grow to a limited extent as far as lenses go(manual adjustments too) , but by buying a dslr (which costs more) only to discover your "not" into it as you thought you were. so might be the cheaper option in the long run. i hope you get what i'm trying to say.

You're saying that buying a DSLR could be costly if you decide you don't want to take photographs after all. That's true.

But I tend to encourage folks to pick up the camera anyway. If you're tempted to buy a good camera, very often you're tempted to stick with it. Folks who don't care or have no long-term interest tend to just walk in and buy whatever. This poster is asking for some pretty advanced stuff that he couldn't do (or at least not as easy, or to the quality level) with a point-and-shoot. SLR required.

Just my take on it.

[tenders]

your kidding right?

read the original post again. he said he was a novice.

clue # 2 : In your opinions what should i aim for ie mega pixels, zoom etc, or is it dependent on what i want the camera for?

what is the function called when you have a photo of say a skateboarder performing a jump/trick and you get to see the picture in stages of the event, is this a function that is on the camera or is it a photoshop trick or a combination of both?


i think you shoud PM him and hope he didn't listen.

shame on you

[SquirrelDip]

"Shame on you" is a little overboard - the OP said he was looking for a DSLR. And we are all novices to begin with.

IMO the OP does need to consider a more feature rich P&S as DSLRs can turn into a hole you throw money into but I see nothing wrong with LS's posts (other than Canon is better than Nikon :P ).

[Conquest10]

Canon is better than Nikon :P

That is correct, sir.

My second camera (really purchased it a month and a half after my first) was a dSLR. It really made me learn quite fast what the important things were. So its really a great learning tool. A little expensive so if you think that you just spend the cost of the body and one lens and that's it you might be in for a rude awakening.

[SquirrelDip]

... you just spend the cost of the body and one lens and that's it you might be in for a rude awakening.

Exactly.

My 70-200 f/2.8 IS was about $2000 all said and done - beautiful lens... Oh, then I needed a better tripod to hold that monster - $200... Oh, then I needed a better head - $120... And so the saga continues...

[träskmannen]

I needed a better head

????

[SquirrelDip]

I needed a better head

????

Come on - you could use a better head too... We all could...

[träskmannen]

Definitely! I just didn't know $120 was the standard price. I am not THAT well informed.

[SquirrelDip]

$120 would be more the average... Then again Belgium Head may be cheaper than Canadian...

[träskmannen]

In more ways than one!

[SquirrelDip]

I don't know... You ever been to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan???

[träskmannen]

They wouldn't let me in, they said I was overqualified. I don't know what they meant...

[SquirrelDip]

Count yourself lucky...

[Conquest10]

I don't know... You ever been to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan???

Is it like this?

[SquirrelDip]

Close... Fewer trees and the mosquitoes are about as big as the moose heads.

[lordsmurf]

(other than Canon is better than Nikon :P ).

Nikon D3. The end. 8)

[SquirrelDip]

(other than Canon is better than Nikon :P ).

Nikon D3. The end. 8)

The D3 is a decent catch-up but not quite there. The End... :P