The Photography Thread

[Richard.John]

Just bite the bullet and get either a Canon or Nikon entry level SLR. You won't regret it in the end.

[Magnakai]

If you can stump for it, getting a Canon 400D or a Nikon D40(X) and learning how to use it will pay dividends - the results you get from even an entry-level SLR are a mark above those of a digicam.

However, if you're looking for something small, neat and mostly automatic, plus you don't want to spend time learning about the intricacies of photography, I'd avoid one.

I have a Fuji F31fd. It's almost in a class of it's own for low-light, and it's generally very quick and satisfying to use. Plus it's teeny tiny. However, the overall picture quality isn't quite up to that of one with a bigger and better lens. I'm very happy with it for general use though. The big zoom ones like the S9000 are apparently excellent too, and good bridge cameras as far as I know.

I'd also take a look at the Canon A640. A really great digicam. There's also the Canon G7, which is mostly the same thing with a few enhancements and better build quality for a bit of a chunkier price tag. Nice though.

From what I hear, the Panasonic big zooms have excellent image quality, probably partly as a result of their fantastic lenses. Their low-light image quality will reputedly leave a bit to be desired, though a RAW image will probably be fairly easily rescued in Photoshop.

I haven't heard much good about the recent Sony cams. Their slightly older DSC-R1 was an astoundingly good camera. Really nice to hold. Very impressive and flexible lens. I've seen some beautiful shots taken with them. You'll want to shoot in RAW mode for the best results, though the shots will add up quick. I think they go for around £400 on eBay...

Coincidentally, that's about the price you'll pay for a Canon 400D with kit lens from the Canon refurb shop on eBay. Depending on what you want from your photography, that could be an interesting way forward.

[DCharlie]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1402/808407603_76758ddca4.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1368/809264372_4c25e55fd6.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1293/809215206_9fdea6bb89.jpg

played with black and white a bit in Hiroshima

[funkydan]

Could one of you kind photography chaps recommend a digital camera? The one I have is absolute pants (flash washes everything out and, if you don't have a flash the picture is blurry unless you're in blinding daylight) and I need a decent one.

I'm not a photography nut so I don't need loads of bells and whistles but I do want it to take good photos. I'm noticing such a difference when pictures are taken with a good camera. Because I'm not an expert, I'd prefer if what I bought was the final article rather than needing new bits or whatever but I'm open to options.

In price, well I'm hoping to get something for under a grand (euros). Is that possible?

You could try something like this if you don't wish to go down the full DSLR route with lots of lenses etc. My boss has one in addition to his big DSLR and says it's very good for a compact but does what you would like to do with an expensive DSLR. Google the camera name for some reviews.

Just a thought

Dan

[Dogg Thang]

Thanks for the recommendations. Marty has me wondering if I'm just crap at taking photos because I see the Powershot recommended and mine is actually a Canon Powershot S500. Supposedly good in its day but its day was a long time ago -



I can't seem to get anything but cack out of it. It seems to have real problems with lighting and no amount of playing with the settings has helped me.

How tough are the DSLR to get to grips with?

[funkydan]

Thanks for the recommendations. Marty has me wondering if I'm just crap at taking photos because I see the Powershot recommended and mine is actually a Canon Powershot S500. Supposedly good in its day but its day was a long time ago -



I can't seem to get anything but cack out of it. It seems to have real problems with lighting and no amount of playing with the settings has helped me.

How tough are the DSLR to get to grips with?

I've had my Nikon D200 for about 2 months now (won it in a competition - jammy, I know) and it is as easy and automatic, or as manual and more complicated as you would like it to be, and I'm fairly sure most of the high end Nikons and Canons are like that too. There are some good books out there to help you (I have the D200 Magic Lantern book which talks in plain English and fills in the gaps left by the manual!). I got an 18-135mm lens with my camera but recently bought another lens, a 50mm one, which lets in a lot more light which is great for me and what I want to photograph.

It might be worth thinking about what it is you want the camera for (what sort of pictures you are hoping to take). For instance, if you want to take photos of things like flowers or insects close up, you'll need a macro lens which can be expensive. If you just want to be able to really good photos, you'd want something a bit more multi-purpose, like an 18-135mm for example.

I hope this has been helpful, but let us know if you have more questions

Dan

[Dogg Thang]

Thanks a lot Dan. I'll have a look into that Nikon you recommend and see if it might suit my purpose. It certainly looks more like an actual camera than mine!

[Gareth C]

The D200 is a lovely camera but its not cheap. If you are on a budget you might want to consider the D80 instead. It has the same sensor as the D200 but isn't weather sealed, has less frames per second and a few other missing features, still a great camera. The D40x is also worth looking at.

Canon users on here can probably point you in the direction of the Nikon equivelants.

Oh and the Ricoh is a great camera but is slow and very noisy at high ISO (though the noise is very grain like).

[MartyG]

It might be worth thinking about what it is you want the camera for (what sort of pictures you are hoping to take).

Definitely - a DSLR is a big and sometimes heavy lump to carry around with you - it'll give you more flexibility, but to get the most out of it, you'd need to learn how to use it. If you're just going to leave it in auto modes you'd really be better off with a compact, as you'd get the same results 90% of the time at a fraction of the cost - a D200 is not the camera I'd recommend as an entry point unless you're a jammy git and win it ( ) or you're incredibly rich - you can get D40 kits with the £50 cash back for £300 or less now - that's what I'd go for on a DSLR front, if that's where you want to go.

I'm not familiar with that particular model of Canon, but I'd be surprised if it was as poor as you're making it out to be - if you're getting over-exposure with the flash, it could just be that you're either too close to the subject ( your camera will have an optimal flash range ), or you're not pointing the camera directly at the thing you're photographing. Perhaps if you're photographing a group of people, and the sensor is picking up the wall behind, and so will set the flash at a more powerful setting to compensate for darkness. Or it could be it's a duff camera like you say.

These shots of mine were taken with various compacts:

Canon A540

Canon A420

More Canon A540

Olympus C-350

More Canon A420

Casio Z-850

Vivitar 3345 ( cost £12 and is 1.3 MegaPixel ).

I take a compact everywhere with me.

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, they're great photos regardless of the camera. While I could get some decent outdoor shots if the light is very bright, something like that sugar shot in the 'More Canon A540' section is where it gets tricky. As you say, it could well be my use of the camera. With the flash on, it would bleach the entire shot. With the flash off, I might get it but the colours would be unlikely to come out as nicely as that, though much better than with the flash.

With an actual human in the mix, I couldn't get it at all. With the flash off, the exposure seems to need to take much longer (I assume to let the light in) and even the tiniest of tiny human movements leave blurry trails.

[MartyG]

I looked up the flash range, the closest is 1.5ft in everything but macro, where it drops to 11 inches ( taken from this review: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s500.html ) - that camera seems to have some cool features with the included software, like time-lapse photography.

The conclusion speaks quite favourably of it, including flash exposure at macro. That doesn't mean that yours isn't duff of course, if it's been knocked about a bit there's a chance it's gone off centre.

Blur is something you'll get on long exposures, anything less than 1/30th of a second and there's a good probability of blur. As you correctly surmise, without the flash in low level light, a longer exposure is needed ( or high ISO to compensate which gets noisy pictures on many compacts ).

It's probably worth going down your local camera shop and having a play with various models - you'll soon discover if it's you or the camera.

[Concrete donkey]

I've been wanting to buy a digital camera for a while now, but overwhelmed with choice and functions, know nothing about cameras and hoping for some guidance.

I'm looking for a camera which takes either Memorystick Pro Duos or SD Cards and charges rather than uses AA batteries (as my friends camera eats through batteries faster than a Nintendo Wii). My budget is around ?200 but the cheaper the better, as long as its good quality and has an Optical Zoom function. I don't understand what Megapixil translates to on image size, but something that looks good on a 1280 by 1024 desktop would be nice.

Thanks for reading.

[MartyG]

Cut and pasted from post #3208

I'd take a look at the Fuji F31fd, Canon A550, Casio Exilim EX-Z75 or Nikon Coolpix L12 - all of those will fit your requirements.

( I think the Nikon and Canon use AA - get some decent Rechargeable Batteries and you'll have no problems with running out of juice ).

[Concrete donkey]

Cut and pasted from post #3208

I'd take a look at the Fuji F31fd, Canon A550, Casio Exilim EX-Z75 or Nikon Coolpix L12 - all of those will fit your requirements.

( I think the Nikon and Canon use AA - get some decent Rechargeable Batteries and you'll have no problems with running out of juice ).

Thanks. I'm liking the Nikon the most right now, and at a nice price aswell. I really should invest in rechargable batteries aswell if for nothing else but the Wii.

[Magnakai]

I don't know, that Nikon seems a bit dodgy to me. I've never found much joy in the Nikon point & shoots in general actually.
I can vouch for the Fuji being superb, though full auto mode can give questionable results. It uses xD cards instead of SD ones, but you can get a high capacity one for about £20. You should be able to pick the camera up for around £120 - I got mine from Amazon for that price.

If you fancy spending a bit more, the £170ish Canon A640 is also very good.

It's generally worth looking as many reviews on sites like dpreview.com and steves-digicams.com to get a more rounded impression.