nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The "DeV needs a camera" thread :)

DeVore

Hi there,

I hope you'll forgive me picking all yer collective brains but I want some advice on buying a camera.

I already have a small Sony Cybershot which is fine for holiday snaps and posed pics/landscapes. But it fails badly when it comes to taking snapshots or fast moving pictures.

Now, I'm only starting to get into photography but I'm told I need a faster shutter speed (makes sense) and a lower lag time (the time from pressing the button to the shot being taken). Right now I'm finding I get a shot about a second AFTER I press the button.

I'd also like something that can fire off a number of pics in a row (to cover a time range or to grab a load of pics so I can pick one later that works!).

Video is nice but I still have the Sony Cybershot so its just a nice-to-have rather then a must-have.

While obviously I don't want a piece of junk, mostly these pictures will be for the web so the shutter and lag speeds are more important then massive pixel depth or super-dooper lenses.

So, armed with all that info, can anyone enlighten me further as to what I should be looking at? (also if you have something like this at home and you want to sell it, send me a pm).

I've been told I need an SLR camera, someone else told me there is a hybrid coming out soon, which is cheaper... Can anyone shed light?

DeV.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Karoma

What sort of budget do you have in mind?

DeVore

Er. 0 euro.

Ok, probably 500 would be the comfortable maximum.

DeV.

Zillah

Ok, I don't know much about specific cameras, but there are a couple things I can point out.

An SLR camera is a camera that can have various different lenses attached to it, so if that stuff isn't important then you don't need an SLR, you can go for something more simple. As for shutter speeds, most cameras can go very very quick on shutter speeds, its just that the faster the shutter speed the more light you need. You'll usually need a very bright environment to use something really quick, like 1/1000 or faster. I find digital cameras are generally very slow to respond after you click, hopefully the newers ones out there will have less delay.

Anyway, someone else will give more details.

Progen

DeVore wrote:

Er. 0 euro.

Ok, probably 500 would be the comfortable maximum.

DeV.

You could most likely get a Canon EOS 300D D-SLR with an 18-55mm EF-S kit lens for that, but remember, you'll need to get a CF card to store everything..

Picking up a eos 300D second hand is your best bet as they have been replaced with the 350D, the 300D's were making next to a grand and they are pretty flawless as compared to some.

Then, theres the Nikon D50, I can't say much about it but I have talked to a few people have have them, and they say they much prefer the 300D for a few reasons, mainly the layout and the fact that the Nikon D50 takes 'SD cards'.

Bonus with a 300 is that it IS a good camera for the money, and if you put a good lens on in later life, you'll produce some cracking shots.. When your budget comes bigger, and you get more into photography, look at the 'L' range lenses.

I'm not biased by no means, even though I have a 300D and love it, If I had the money, I would stick with Canon and get a 20D or a 1Ds MKII 16M/P but for now, I'm very happy!

DeVore

I've also been offered one of these:
http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?sku=4850328&SourceID=k15505
and the lens gets an L rating (which I believe is good!)

I'm a little worried about the lag and burst stats on it, but who am I kidding, I havent got a lot of experience in this area to know a turkey from a swan

DeV.

rymus

that is a cracking bit of kit alright. Handy if you don't want to be messing around with different lenses and all that but still gives you great quality and a huge optical zoom. If you're buying a camera with the intent of developing it as a hobby, one of the entry level dslr's is probably your best bet. A Canon 350D or Nikon D50 will do the job nicely and allow you to get different lenses as you progress.

On the other hand, if you want something you can pack away easily to take on trips, carry around with you to do some point & shoot photography with the odd bit of 'creative' stuff, something like the model you posted would be a very nice option.

DeVore

I will mostly use this camera for taking pictures of poker players and poker tournaments and all the surroundings for www.antesup.com (my poker site). I dont want to have to muck about with lenses just yet, so I'm looking for something that I can just point and shoot initially, something with auto focus too preferably though I can focus it manually if needs be.

My problem is that I really want to be able to capture things on the fly, rather then posed pics. I want to be able to take the camera off my chest and press the button down and shoot off half a dozen shots to try and capture a moment in time (like someone knocking over their stack or laughing out loud).

Beyond that, I've always thought photography was an art form I could get into (I'm NOT good with physical art, but digital art seems to be more accessible to my clumsy self!). So, in addition to this "work" requirement, I'd like something that can be used to explore something a little more creative. I'm not going to be entering any major photographic contests but I'd like something thats not going to restrict me any more then my lack of artistic ability already does!!

I guess I'm not very picky but this is a big purchase for me (as yet and contrary to popular opinion, Boards does not make me millions) and I don't want to buy a clunker.

DeV.

rymus

you're probably not going to get a point & shoot form factor camera with a decent frame rate; which would allow you to shoot a load of photos on the fly. For example, the camera you posted will do 2.5 frames per second for 6 frames, whereas a low range dslr will manage around 3fps for up to 14 frames (Canon 350D). Often having a slower camera will mean you miss a shot if action is what you shoot. Also, oddly enough, the Pro1 doesn't have as high a light sensitivity as other cameras (only up to 400 ISO) whereas a Canon 350D will go up to 1600ISO (afaik). That means there will be more situations where you will be able to get away without using a flash and blinding all those poker players.

Hard to say what'd cut the mustard for you if burst speed could be an issue. In a few months with a Pro1 you might find the 2.5fps is slowing you down and you may wish you got an entry level dslr.

As for auto focus, every modern consumer camera out there will have auto focus so that's not an issue.

Oriel

That camera's grand for what you're looking to do. It's a Canon too, so if you are looking to upgrade to a better camera, you'll be a bit familiar with some of the controls. Don't get bogged down in dSLR lingo. Get that camera - it does what you're looking to do.

Oriel

Take a good read of this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/

rob1891

sinecurea wrote:

That camera's grand for what you're looking to do. It's a Canon too, so if you are looking to upgrade to a better camera, you'll be a bit familiar with some of the controls. Don't get bogged down in dSLR lingo. Get that camera - it does what you're looking to do.

Are you so sure? From the dpreview link, the camera has 0.1-0.6 shutter lag, has very poor continous shooting (1.8-0.7 fps) and sucks in low light (no setting above ISO400, and apparently visable noise above ISO100). It's also two years old, I wouldn't recommend the Pro1 ....

Oriel

rob1891 wrote:

Are you so sure? From the dpreview link, the camera has 0.1-0.6 shutter lag, has very poor continous shooting (1.8-0.7 fps) and sucks in low light (no setting above ISO400, and apparently visable noise above ISO100). It's also two years old, I wouldn't recommend the Pro1 ....

0.1-0.6 lag isn't too bad.
Continuous shoot - I was going to say poker isn't exactly a fast moving game, but then I reread Dev's original post... I saw the ISO, but.... screw it, it was early in the morning. I'll try again later...

rob1891

I'm telling everyone who asks to get a Fuji F11. (or F10). Only compact camera that does iso800 & 1600 (though 1600 doesn't look so good ...). It has something like 0.05 shutter lag, but continous shoot is only for 3 shots at 2.5fps. So perhaps not the best, but it is a compact so it's easy to handle.

A Nikon D50 might be a good option. Under 500 for the body only. With a sigma el-cheapo lens for 566, or find a cheap 50mm lens on ebay.

DeVore

Hmm.... lots to think about there. Thanks for all the feedback, its REALLY helping me. Much appreciated.

I don't understand the ISO stuff you guys have mentioned above. I need a camera that can take pictures in a reasonable well lit room without flash. When they are filming poker they HATE flash and also the players arent wild about it.

The canon plus lots of extras is being offered for 550 euro though its a year old.

As for burst, I wouldnt be expecting to do long bursts rather I'd probably fire off up to 4 shots at a go just to see what I get (I believe in quantity over quality!

).

DeV.

Scotty #

DeVore wrote:

I don't understand the ISO stuff you guys have mentioned above. I need a camera that can take pictures in a reasonable well lit room without flash. When they are filming poker they HATE flash and also the players arent wild about it.

Dev, the ISO is the film "speed". Digital cameras don't have film of course but they still give this rating. The film "speed" is the amount of light the film needs to get a correct exposure (no flash needed). The lower the number, say 200, the better the picture quality but the more light is required. 800 ISO can take pictures in a much darker environment without a flash but the drawback is "noise" or grain on the picture. Most digital cameras that have a high ISO rating won't allow you to take the photo at the cameras max quality setting. However this shouldn't effect you too much as your going to use them for the web.

All digital cameras have shutter lag. Its just a matter of practice makes perfect.

again in burst mode you'll probably have to use the cameras lower quality settings but for the web this won't really matter.

Your very unlikely to find one camera that fulfills all your needs (ever notice a pro photographer usually has a couple of cameras around his neck?) so pick whats most important to you and go for that.

rob1891

ISO is a rating of film or sensor sensitivity. Back in the days of film you'd load iso100 film on a sunny day, iso400 for sports, a cloudy day, black & white iso3200 for a dark setting like a concert.

In order to take photos indoors with out flash you need a combination of things. A camera that can take good photos at iso400/800 is one of those things, the pro1 can do iso400, but it looks horrible:

http://e-camera.ru/e-cams/canon/pro1/testy_400.jpg

Look into the Nikon D50. For around the 550 mark (that is €600) you can get it with a 50mm lens, this will be very good in low light. You might be tempted to get a zoom for the same price instead ... don't be! Without spending a few hundred euro more you won't get a zoom lens that performs well in low light.

paudie

The Pro1 is not a bad camera. I've taken all my shots with it. This is a gallery of shots all at ISO400, and they look perfect on the web. http://www.gacurley.com/~paudie/Band/Guillemots/index.htm
He's said he's shooting for the web not a poster size print.

FinoBlad

The Fuji F11 meets your requirements.

DeVore

I dunno why but I dislike the compacts, I already have a handy Cybershot (which isnt half bad apart from the lack of burst-shot and a nasty habit of blurring)

I want to get something with a more, I dunno, "professional" and which takes the pictures rapidly.

Thats why I was leaning towards the SLR's or the hybrids...

DeV.

Scotty #

I've the older model of this and I find it very good. It has everything your lookin for. Its not a true SLR, it just looks like one. 9 MP. Burst mode. 0.01 Shutter Lag. Up to 1600 ISO. etc. etc. It also has a very good 10X optical zoom. €588 from Pixmania is a good price IMO.

By the way....their much smaller than they look.

Zillah

DeVore wrote:

I need a camera that can take pictures in a reasonable well lit room without flash.

Don't be fooled, a poker table may look pretty well lit to your eyes, but it'd probably be very dark in photography terms. You'd be amazed how much light you need to be able to snap off shots quickly.

SOL

Which is where image stabilisation can be handy...

DeVore

I've been made an offer I can't possibly refuse for a Canon 350D + lenses and all. So I'm gonna give that a shot.
Many thanks to everyone who gave me advice, I learned a HUGE amount about digital photography along the way and suddenly it doesnt seem so scary!

Be warned, I'll be boring the lot of ye with my holiday snaps fairly shortly

DeV.

PS: paudie (who posted above) has a very good offer on a Pro1 with extras if anyone has also been thinking about buying an entry level camera.

Dimy

DeVore wrote:

I've been made an offer I can't possibly refuse for a Canon 350D + lenses and all. So I'm gonna give that a shot.
Many thanks to everyone who gave me advice, I learned a HUGE amount about digital photography along the way and suddenly it doesnt seem so scary!

Great choice! You'll be very happy with that camera... I know I am! You might want to pick up the 50mm f/1.8 lens for that camera if it's not included in the kit you're offered. That lens is a must-have for indoor shooting. I recently purchased that lens myself. It's around 90 euro.