Digital SLR recommendation please
orion....@virgin.net
Can anyone make a recomendation of a decent digital SLR of around 500
quid/euros which produces high quality, sharp prints and is feature
rich but not overly complex to operate? I'm hoping to find something
in the 12 Megapixel range ideally. I've tried reading reviews, but
there's just TOO much choice out there and I need pointers for a
shortlist of the best ones.
Any suggestions?
THanks.
bugbear
What subjects did you have in mind?
BugBear
orion....@virgin.net
Absolutely nothing in particular, but decent macro and zoom functions
would be a distinct advantage.
ray
I would stronly suggest you visit some local stores and handle some of
the models rather than trying to do it solely by the stat sheets. There
will be some that will fit you better, or that will have menu setups
which make more or less sense to you. It's a bad move to buy one from the
stats and then find out there are features you curse at every time you
pick up the camera.
Andrew Koenig
news:6u64u2F...@mid.individual.net...
> I would stronly suggest you visit some local stores and handle some of
> the models...
Careful -- you can get on the sex offenders list that way.
Jürgen Exner
>On Jan 26, 3:09 pm, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
>>
>> What subjects did you have in mind?
>
>would be a distinct advantage.
Neither of which have anything to do with the camera but everything with
the lens.
jue
ray
Only if they're not willing!
sna...@mailinator.com
Sony A350
orion....@virgin.net
Thanks for the only genuine recommendation this thread has thus far
produced. And thanks for not trying to be a third-rate, smart-arsed
commedian.
As for the rest of you, thanks for Fuck All.
tony cooper
wrote:
I read the other replies, and they were quite reasonable. Your
question is too general. Without knowing what the application will
be, no one can make a good recommendation. Any camera should be
handled by the potential buyer before purchase. We have no idea what
you mean by "overly complex", but you should be able to tell if one
is, or is not, by handling it. Macro *is* a function of the lens and
not the body. Any camera with sufficient pixels available takes good
landscape shots if you set it to automatic, point it, and press the
button.
You haven't explained why you need or want 12 megapixels. There
should be a reason specified if this is important to you. The Sony
A350 is about 10% over your figure of 500 quid (w/18/55 lens), and may
be more than that in the UK.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Charles
<orion....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:a39304cd-06bd-40e5...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
But, that Sony could be very wrong for you!
If you want to, you can check out this resource where they have a nice
feature to compare cameras: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp
John McWilliams
You were given at least one good suggestion, and you were awfully vague
in the questions you asked. And yes, some smarty replies, too.
This is usenet.
--
lsmft
Jürgen Exner
Dear Mr. Osiris
You may not like it or you not even realize it, but all the replies I
have seen so far are very much spot on. You question is just too
ambiguous for a sound recommendation.
Let's look at the details, shall we?
- "digital SLR of around 500 quid/euros"
Excellent, that is a good requirement. "Good" because it can be checked
very easily. In fact it eliminates all dSLRs but the entry level
cameras like the D40/40x/60 from Nikon or the somewhat older D80. Even
the D90 is out because it costs significantly more.
For other manufactureres please see for yourself at e.g.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=6222&shs=&at=Price_+0+%3C%3D++%3C%3D+599.99&basicSubmit=Submit+Query
for a very good overview (I was looking for 500$ limit, but you can
easily adjust the query yourself). And although this query returns 27
results, many of those are duplicates because they feature the same
camera, just with different lenses or grey verus legitimate import.
In addition to the Nikons you get the different versions Canon's Rebel,
and some more entry-level cameras from other manufacturer. All in all
there are less than maybe 10 substantially different cameras.
However strictly speaking even this criteria is ambiguoius because you
didn't say if you 500E limit is for the body alone or for a camera+lens
kit.
- "high quality, sharp prints"
cameras don't produce prints, they produce digital images. If you are
looking for high quality, sharp prints then first of all you need to
look at your photo editing software, the printer driver, and the printer
itself.
Now, nobody is disputing that the lens, the sensor, the in-camera
electronics, the in-camera software, and other items have an effect on
picture quality. But that is a different (and very much disputed)
question, which you did not ask!
- "feature rich but not overly complex to operate"
Only _YOU_ can decide what you consider feature rich and what you
consider overly complex. A certain menu structure may be ideal for some
people while others couldn't manage it even if their life depends on it.
Same goes for buttons and switches and toggles. Therefore the very valid
suggestion to actually handle the camera in a store before buying it.
One person's junk is the other person's treasure!
- "12 MP range": well, that's obviously easy to search for. In the
results from the link above just click on 12MegaPixel link in the left
pane and you got 2 results left.
- "decent macro and zoom functions" (from a different branch of this
thread):
This requirement makes me wonder what you are talking about. Are you
aware that the main feature that differentiates an SLR from a P&S is the
ability to use different lenses? There is nothing(*) in a SLR camera
that supports or deals with macro or zoom photography, it is all a
feature of the lens.
*: Note: there are a few features that may be helpful for special
situations, like e.g. support for an external flash, such that you can
use a circular ring flash around the lens for macro photography. Or if a
very specific macro lens cannot be mounted on a specific camera because
the lens requires e.g. mirror lockup which the camera doesn't support.
But those are rather far fetched examples and way too specific for your
very general question.
To give you may take on your question:
All current cameras in this price range are taking good photos. You, as
a beginner, will probably not be able to see much difference in the
photos between different makes and models. Neither would I or the vast
majority of people.
Therefore handling, weight, size, and _YOUR_ personal feel for the
camera are much more important to _YOU_ than any suggestion by someone
else about camera X having 1% more sharpness than camera Y.
Still way more important is to remember that you are not buying just a
single camera with a single lens. Instead you are committing to a system
with bodies, lenses and attachements that reach back 40+ years and which
normally are not interchangable between manufacturers and sometimes not
even between lens mounts or camera lines of the same manufacturer.
Therefore I strongly suggest to carefully consider which system is most
compatible with your anticipated needs and maybe even your
not-anticipated desires. Example: once you get a set of lenses maybe you
want to upgrade the body. Can you do that and do you have some variety
or are you stuck with a max of 2 different bodies and 5 different lenses
to choose from because that's all that there is in the system?
Sincerly
jue
tony cooper
500 euros = US$658
500 GBP (UK) = US$698
500 AUD (Oz)= US$330
US prices will not necessarily be the same as UK or European prices
for the same camera. UK prices will always include VAT. US online
prices are often tax-free and freight-free.
He can buy a Nikon D40 or D40X, Pentax K10D, or a Canon Rebel (or the
UK versions) with one lens for that money in the UK, but the money
won't stretch to two lenses. I don't think he'll swing a 12 megapixel
camera, though.
ray
You're quite welcome, jackass.
Rich
news:47jsn4tm9q28ub3ac...@4ax.com:
> shs=&at=Price_+0+%3C%3D++%3C%3D+599.99&basicSubmit=Submit+Query for a
You do realize the tizzy little b---- has left, right?
Me
> usual suspects and has a trollish smell to it.
>
> Giving you the benefit of doubt, I suggest you return to the reviews
> http://www.dpreview.com/ or any others out there (Google is your friend)
> check on the entry level offerings from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Panasonic
> & Sony and make your own decision.
>
>
But don't buy:
Nikon - because Canon make their own sensors, which must be a better
idea, and they use "fluorite" glass in some of their lenses
Canon - because their kit lenses are pretty bad, and QA atrocious
Pentax - because they don't make any professional slrs
Panasonic - because nobody else buys them
Sony - because they are going bankrupt at the moment, and will stop
supporting their dslr line
You forgot Olympus and Samsung, but as they're much the same as other
brands above, no comment is really needed.
You also forgot Sigma - with foveon sensor, the only truly different
dslr in the marketplace.
Matt Ion
This is not "third-rate" or "smart-assed" advice, but indeed, the BEST
advice.
Just about any DSLR you can buy today will fit the criteria you've
listed. Frankly, most people here would be hard-pressed to tell the
difference in their outputs in a "blind" comparison.
My philosophy is that the BEST camera is ALWAYS the one that GETS USED.
If, as ray suggests, you get a camera whose operation and ergonomics
leave you cursing at it, it's more likely to sit on a shelf collecting
dust than actually taking pictures... and at that point, all the specs
and minute, unnoticeable, barely measurable technical differences become
absolutely meaningless.
Ultimately, the only one who can decided what camera is best FOR YOU, is
YOU. Others can tell you what they do or don't like about certain
models or brands, but in the end, only you'll know what you find
comfortable, and most importantly, ENJOYABLE TO USE!
Paul Furman
Don't get Kodak or Fuji either.
Bob Williams
Please don't get me wrong.
I mean no disrespect and am not trying to give a smartass answer.
But if you have no special NEEDS and you particularly WANT good MACRO
and TELE capability, you should perhaps consider something other than a
DSLR. Also if you plan to print images 8x10 or less you probably don't
need or want 12 MP. Most entry level DSLRs with Kit lenses cannot focus
close enough to fill the frame with objects smaller than 1.5 inches so
macro is not their strong suit. Also, most kit lenses do not have more
than about 5x zoom, so tele is not their strong suit either. (Of course,
both of these shortcomings can be rectified with additional or
supplemental lenses, but that gets to be expensive and a hassle.)
I think that you should at least look at superzooms or ZLRs as they are
called. Most allow you to make full frame copies of slides and insects,
jewelry, and other small objects 1.5 inches or greater in length. Most
ZLRs now have 12X or greater zoom range, so they are great for birding
and shots of zoo animals. Their biggest problem is "noise" at very low
light levels.
But if you do mainly outdoor shooting or can use flash assist indoors,
this deficiency in ZLRs is more than compensated for by their
versatility and convenience.
Bob Williams
bugbear
I can only apologise for not curing your ignorance.
BugBear
orion....@virgin.net
wrote:
Yes, well I remain ignorant, I'm afraid.
I've got a nice long list of what NOT to buy and that's about all.
Thanks to those who HAVE tried to help, though. No offence intended
towards THEM.
Lorenzo Sandini
Been happy with a Nikon D80, you can probably find a used one somewhere
(ebay, etc...)
But your question is like asking a recommendation for a car nowadays.
"Only requirements are a having steering wheel, ability to reverse,
rearview mirror in the center and decent stereo. Red paint is a plus."
Difficult to recommend something based on you criteria.
I hope you'll find what you're looking for :)
Lorenzo
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I have one recommendation. "Best" is subjective and my best
may well not be yours. There are a lot of factors that go into best
and others will likely cover many of them, but I would suggest there
is one factor that they will not be able to help you with.
Each of us have different size hands and a personal "feel" for
a camera. I suggest once you get down to that short list, be sure to
pick up and go through all the motions of taking photographs with your
possible choices. You may find that you just can't get your fingers
comfortable with camera A, but camera B just feels right. Likely what
ever brand you are now using will fell better.
To some extent you will adjust to your new camera, but there
are factors you will not adjust to. You hands are not going to grow
or shrink. So do try it out first!
orion....@virgin.net
it's utterly brilliant; only spoiled by the fact that it's AWFULLY
fiddly to switch on and off. You have to have really tiny fingers. But
no model is ever going to be perfect. As for handling a few digital
SLRs, I have and regret to say they all nowadays feel like plasticy
crap with no build quality to speak of any more. I make a possible
exception for Leica but even *they* aren't what they used to be.
Chris H
<070cfd47-2b1b-4139...@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
orion....@virgin.net writes
>HI all,
>
>Can anyone make a recomendation of a decent digital SLR of around 500
>quid/euros which produces high quality, sharp prints and is feature
>rich but not overly complex to operate? I'm hoping to find something
>in the 12 Megapixel range ideally. I've tried reading reviews, but
>there's just TOO much choice out there and I need pointers for a
>shortlist of the best ones.
>Any suggestions?
>THanks.
You won't go wrong with a Nikon or Canon and the kit lens.
Don't know about the Canons but a Nikon D40x should be a good starting
point.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Jürgen Exner
>Most entry level DSLRs with Kit lenses cannot focus
>close enough to fill the frame with objects smaller than 1.5 inches so
>macro is not their strong suit.
Agreed.
>Also, most kit lenses do not have more
>than about 5x zoom, so tele is not their strong suit either.
A common misconception. The zoom factor (5x) has nothing to do with tele
capabilities, e.g. the Nikkor 200-400mm has only a zoom factor of 2x,
but it is certainly a long tele lens.
With regards to kit lenses, well, they are "universal use" and that just
doesn't include long tele capabilities.
jue
Bob Williams
But the 200-400mm Zoom is not the Kit lens that comes with an entry
level Nikon DSLR. Also you can forget about good Macro performance with
such a lens.
measekite
Why?
Bob Williams
Because the minimum focus distance is 6.2 FEET.
Bob