Is it overkill?

savemejebus

Hi all,

On a recent holiday to China, I had an opportunity to play around with a Canon digital SLR camera. Up to that point, my digital photography experience had been confined to a HP M407 digital camera that was the bane of my life, took ages to startup, ate batteries, was hopeless in low light environments, the list is almost endless.

Now, as you can imagine after using the Canon (think it was an eos 400d) I was loathe to look at the HP let alone start using it again, so I started looking around for a new camera. I read the sticky on this page, googled reviews etc. and am thinking about the Nikon D40/50 models and the Canon eos 400d.

The thing is, I don't know if i'd use all the features of the digital SLR. What's grabbing me about it is the manual focus/zoom capability, the quick startup speed and the fact that it makes taking pictures a joy, rather than a nerve wracking gamble as to whether the camera worked and you caught the moment.

I've looked at some of the digital slr 'lookalike' cameras but (eg low/mid range fugifilm ones) but at the end of the day the focusing/zoom ability of the SLR lense keeps calling to me.

So the question i'm asking/the opinions I'm looking for are:

Do you think that going SLR is overkill for what i've described above?

Cheers

RuggieBear

i reckon i'm more or less in the same boat as yourself.

I wanted a decent camera after playing with my uncles Canon 300d. I went and bought a 400d from pixmania after much humming and hawing. It's awesome.

The advantages of a decent beginners dslr is that it's great for point and click photography (all I'm really doing at the moment) but you can also learn the "advanced" settings and take "proper" photos, if and when you feel like heading in that direction. A less advanced camera can inhibit you should you feel like taking more composed shots.

my badly elaborated 2c:o

Fenster

I know what you mean. It's worth it, if you have the interest.

Oriel

Or you could go for a Nikon D70, it's been out for years, but Canon's D400 is just catching up with it now.

Glowing

I got the Canon 350d last year as a relative beginner to photography. (although I do have a keen interest). I love it!

I find that with a point and shoot, if you wanted to alter the settings manually, its near impossible (hence why we went for an SLR). I find the Canon extremely easy to use - and the buttons/dials are very intuitive. I find myself wanting to tinker with it, and thats when you start getting the real interesting results.

I would recommend that if you do go for an SLR, that you get yourself a good book (Understanding Exposure by Brian Peterson is excellent for beginners trying to learn the relationship between exposure/aperture etc) If you can get through that book and understand it (which is a joy, believe me!), then you'll find the SLR a lot easier to master.

P.S I don't think ANYONE here will use all the settings in an SLR, its probably impossible. But you'll find yourself looking for settings when you learn a little bit more and thats when its great to have so many features.

If cost is an issue, why not go for the 350d which is significantly cheaper than the 400 and then you could upgrade in the future if you find out that you want to make more of an investment.

Sebzy

You got to watch yourself when thinking about which camera to buy. It may look like the 350 and 400D have all the features in the world and you will never use them all but in a year down the line what will you want/need.

Quick list of features to the bodys.

Canon EOS400D wiht kit lens (Out now)
Price: 635Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: NO
AntiDust: YES but found to be total junk in independent reviews.
LiveView: NO
Note: Nice camera but is lacking in features

Canon EOS350D with kit lens (End of life)
Price: Most second hand anywhere from 380-560Eur
Resolution: 8MP
AntiShake: NO
AntiDust: NO
LiveView: NO
Note: Old and has been replaced see the 400D but still takes pictures

Olympus E-510 With kit Lens (Out in a month or two)
Price: 683Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: YES
AntiDust: YES
LiveView: YES
Note: Nothing more to say

Olympus E-410 with kit Lens (Out in a week or two)
Price: 597Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: NO
AntiDust: YES
LiveView: YES
Note: Most Compact SLR on market

Pentax K10D with kit Lens (Out Now)
Price: 672Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: YES
AntiDust: YES
LiveView: NO
Note: Very nice body but has limited zoom lenses

Nikon D40x with kit Lens (Out Now)
Price: 545Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: NO
AntiDust: NO
LiveView: NO
Note: Quite a bit behind the rest


========================

But hey they all take good pictures when used right.
and your could look up the Sony Alpha and Pentax K100


All prices as quoted with vat by dpreview.com converted to euro.

Seb.

savemejebus

Wow, thanks for the replys, they've really given me food for thought. I'm very happy that no-one has told me it's overkill as, if i'm honest, i've kinda already set my heart on a new camera.

Special thanks to Sebzy for that comprehensive rundown of cameras, it brought up thing's i hadn't factored yet, antidust etc..

Sebzy

leavemycowalone wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH2p5IQWeGE

Good video but reaks of cow spam. What dose it have to do with this thread?????

JMcL

SLRs will have a number of advantages over bridge cameras like the Fuji you mentioned. Among them:

• Better noise performance
• Photo is actually taken when you press the shutter button. AFAIK all digicams will take anything up to 1/2 second to actually make the exposure - this make it tough to get shots like wildlife, kids, etc
• Better control over depth of field

Digicams do have the advantage that you'll usually get a fairly decent lens with good focal range which never needs changing (no dust!), and usually stablisation. Price wise, they're about the same price as one of the SLRs you're looking at. My advice would be that you should go for an SLR if you enjoyed the experience of using one.

TJM

No real debate here - get the slr. You don't have to use all its features - but you'll find them invaluable when you do need them.

PaulieC

sinecurea wrote:

Or you could go for a Nikon D70, it's been out for years, but Canon's D400 is just catching up with it now.

troll

Redundo

I say get the basic model digital SLR and spend the real money on the lenses.

Canon tends to produce excellent, but expensive L-lenses and cheap plastic-fantastic low-end lenses. There's not much of a middle ground with them. You don't have to go for the 'L' lenses (if you're going Canon) but at the same time price for lenses that are a above the plastic cheapies. Don't be afraid to choose Sigma, Tamron or Tokina as they often fill in the gaps nicely between Canons low and high-end range.

Ghost Train

Well i went the other way, had a d70 but changed it for a bridge camera (panasonic). Yes image quality of a dslr is much better, lower noise, more dynamic range. Since image quality for most people is the most important factor, it will make going for the slr an easy choice, but the bridge cameras do offer some advantages. If you want a longer zoom, they're a more affordable option, they're lighter and more portable, have video mode, preview of the shot on the lcd which in a lot of cases the slrs don't do.
A lot depends on the type of photographs you take, if they're high speed or low light shots, sports/concerts and maybe portraits, a slr makes a big difference, if you take a lot of nature and landscapes a bridge or standard camera will do a decent enough job. Also if your not doing large prints a slr mightn't be needed as much.
i might go back to a slr in the future, but at the moment i'm happy enough with a bridge camera.
Also comparing a hp to a canon dslr there's bound to be a huge difference, nothing against hp but there are a lot better cameras out there which would offer a better experience

Biro

To be honest, Anti-dust to me is pointless and I would not even consider it as an option that I'd pay for. If a camera had it, then fine. If you're careful with your camera then you shouldn't let dust into the sensor anyway. If you do, a blower for about €3 will suffice!
Anti-shake is a very good feature, but Canon include it in their "IS" lenses (Image Stabiliser) rather than some other brands which include it in their sensors. So while the Canon won't have it with the kit lens, you could go for the model up from the kit lens with IS instead.
Live view is also something that doesn't bother me in the least. But fair play to Olympus for including it and leading the way.

If you do spend your hard earned on an SLR, do the camera a favour and learn the basics. It'll justify your spend completely (as learning is free because of no development costs), and it'll make you far more glad that you bought an SLR.
I get a bit annoyed when I see a 350D or similar that someone is using with fully automatic settings, cause it just looks like they used their money to "buy" good photo taking ability (somewhat falsely) while the poorer people with the keen interest and can only afford a €250 pint-and-shoot (get better results anyway) while they struggle to save for a DSLR. It's like buying a supercar to go to the shops!

Zillah

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the D40/50 is easier to use than the D70/80. The later ones are just better all round.

If you can afford it I'd say get the D80. Its newest of the semi professional DSLRs from nikon. Basically the D70 (and the D70s) are shinier smoother nicer versions of the D50, while the D80 makes a whole jump in performance.

The D50, D70 and D70s all have 6.1MP, the D80 has 12. But, megapixels aren't everything, far from it: http://www.majid.info/mylos/stories/2004/02/13/megapixel.html

Also, if you do get a Nikon, I can lead you thought all the basics. Really, a page of reading will give you all the basics of photography.

savemejebus

Thanks for the info lads, and cheers for that offer Zillah, i may take you up on it. I'm gonna check out the reviews and prices of the various cameras that ye've mentioned on this thread and see which i can fit into my budget - i suppose pixmania and the ebay link in the "what camera to buy" sticky are good places to start searching.

But i'm just after thinking, I'm heading to the states in a few months, would i be better off picking up something there, or are the warranty headaches too much?

melekalikimaka

Sebzy wrote:

Nikon D40x with kit Lens (Out Now)
Price: 545Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: NO
AntiDust: NO
LiveView: NO
Note: Quite a bit behind the rest


Seb.

i'd but the d50 up instead of that, the d40x is a bit of a sham

Sebzy

Biro wrote:

To be honest, Anti-dust to me is pointless and I would not even consider it as an option that I'd pay for. If a camera had it, then fine. If you're careful with your camera then you shouldn't let dust into the sensor anyway. If you do, a blower for about €3 will suffice!

It's all about imposing limits on yourself but the gear you use. I've been using SLR's with AntiDust now for over 2 years and take it for granted never having to clean the sensor with blowers or photoshopping out dust on shots. You have the freedom to changes lenses anywhere no matter how much dust is in the air. Once you have it you will never want to be without. Just finished blowing sucking pushing all the dust out of my old 35mm kit I wish they had an antidust system.

Biro wrote:

Anti-shake is a very good feature, but Canon include it in their "IS" lenses (Image Stabiliser) rather than some other brands which include it in their sensors.

Whats better now having to buy overpriced lenses with IS or buying a body for a reasonalbe price with it built in and using all your existing lenses.

Biro wrote:

Live view is also something that doesn't bother me in the least. But fair play to Olympus for including it and leading the way.

Yea it's not for everyone but only time will tell if it catches on. At the moment Canon has it as a professional feature only but Olympus is sticking it into all of it's bodys.


Seb.

pete4130

My first digital camera was a Fuji S602 SLR type camera. It was ok most of the time, but I did find it lacking in some places....limited ISO values, metering not as good as my SLR's, focus tended to hunt in low light...eventually when I went digital with a D200 (the closest DSLR I could afford to my F100 SLR). Granted, I don't use every feature but I already knew what features I wanted and needed from my F100. I'm sure you'll get used to the 350d or 400d or whatever camera you choose to buy in the end. don't get too hung up on the Nikon/Canon debate either. It comes down to what suits you best, what feels the best in your hands.
Personally I prefer the feel and workings/controls of Nikon but I find it loses out to Canon when noise comes into play at higher ISO's. Each has their own pro's and con's so weight them up before you decide to buy. Go into as many places as possible and see what the camera feels like in your hands and what its like to use.
Alot of the bigger camera stores can be intimidating to do this, with tales people spouting terminology that you probably don't understand yet. don't be pressured into buying anything. I'd recommend Gunnes on wexford St. in dublin to go have a look and feel of the cameras. A family run shop thats really relaxed and they don't pressure you at all. They also have an interest in photogrpahy so are into what they are selling (they are usually a bit cheaper too for alot of things). It's not just a job to them.
Getting back on track here, you'll be more than happy with whatever camera you do get and you'll soon learn what features that are useful to how you shoot.
The only downside to a DLSR is that you can't just stick it in your pocket!

Pete.

Spyral

Nikon D40x with kit Lens (Out Now)
Price: 545Eur
Resolution: 10MP
AntiShake: NO
AntiDust: NO
LiveView: NO
Note: Quite a bit behind the rest

dude if you can point me to a UK or irish place where I can get the d40x for that I will give you 50 euro.

the cheapest I've found is 850 yoyo.

mathias

Have to agree with Biro on the IS thing here , I find it better in the lenses , not that I use it much ( if at all ) I just like the option of turning it off properly . My sister has the Olympus ( all she uses it for is taking pictures of stock for her online shop ? ) and the anti shake thing is a curse on that camera , softens every shot , now this I have posted about before.

IS and anti dust are commendable new features however they are new , and are far from perfected just yet , ( dpreview's jury is out on whether it works or not also ...yet that is !) and IS I just cannot get my head around , soft pictures are not my cup of tea , I always use either my cheap as chips monopod which fits in my pocket , or a tripod if Im on a " serious" shoot.

Also most lens manuals will tell you that you cant use IS on a tripod , which I dont get , especially in the case of this beast of a lens ,

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?sku=321701

Now when I ask , would that 5.4kg lens not be on a tripod ?

Mantel

mathias wrote:

Have to agree with Biro on the IS thing here , I find it better in the lenses , not that I use it much ( if at all ) I just like the option of turning it off properly . My sister has the Olympus ( all she uses it for is taking pictures of stock for her online shop ? ) and the anti shake thing is a curse on that camera , softens every shot , now this I have posted about before.

Which Olympus is it? The E510 isn't out yet and it seems to be the only Olmypus SLR with IS. I've the K10D, it has IS built in and a switch to turn it off, unfortunatly I haven't put myself in to testing mode to see what it can do Although reports about it are good.

mathias wrote:

Also most lens manuals will tell you that you cant use IS on a tripod , which I dont get , especially in the case of this beast of a lens

Tripods are supposed to stable if you have IS on it may try to find shake where there is none.

canon wrote:

Short explanation: the IS mechanism operates by correcting shake. When there is no shake, or when the level of shake is below the threshold of the system's detection capability, use of the IS feature may actually add unwanted blur to the photograph, so you should shut it off in this situation.

For more details - http://www.cps.canon-europa.com/kb/detail.jsp?faqId=1130

Sebzy

Spyral wrote:

dude if you can point me to a UK or irish place where I can get the d40x for that I will give you 50 euro.

the cheapest I've found is 850 yoyo.

Sorry that was body only and ships to ireland from RitzCamera.com

Sebzy

mathias wrote:

IS and anti dust are commendable new features however they are new , and are far from perfected just yet ,

LOL get your facts straight before posting

Olympus has had anti-dust for the last 4 years and it works perfectly in it's pro and consumer SLR's.

Biro

mathias wrote:

Also most lens manuals will tell you that you cant use IS on a tripod , which I dont get , especially in the case of this beast of a lens ,

With the IS lens manuals, it just says to turn off the IS when on a tripod. The IS induces a certain amount of shake as it tries to find the shake to work with, therefore when there is zero shake it will only actually cause some. The weight of the lens would be irrevelant, as its one of the glass lenses inside the lens that does the adjusting.

I think that all the top brands like Canon, Nikon and Olympus have their advantages and disadvantages when directly compared with their rival, but they are all making professional cameras for donkeys years so you can't really go wrong. Find one to suit your needs at the right price and you're a winner basically!

mathias

LOL get your facts straight before posting

Olympus has had anti-dust for the last 4 years and it works perfectly in it's pro and consumer SLR's.

Theres nothing wrong with my facts , and the camera still suffers from dust on the sensor , so the feature is not perfected , the dust may take longer to materialise , but its there , so it doesnt work perfectly !! Thats a fact , simple as !!

mathias

The weight of the lens would be irrevelant, as its one of the glass lenses inside the lens that does the adjusting.

That lens I posted a link to is 5.4 kg , making nearly six with a body attached , fair play to anyone who can hand hold that steady enough for a shot , IS or no , that type of lens is used almost exclusively on a tripod , making the inclusion of IS irrelevant , thats my point , and in this case weight has to matter.