So all you camera nuts..What is a decent reasonably priced SLR? I get jealous when my little Casio can't take the awesome pics you guys take.

 

Digital SLR or film?

Nikon and Canon make great cameras so you can't go wrong with either.

The camera doesn't matter nearly as much as your eye for taking great shots.

$400 Canon A610:

(hand held shot by Street Spirit)


$2000 Canon SLR setup:



Of course if you blow the shots up and do some "pixel peeping" you can clearly see the difference. But does it matter? Probably not. Both are nice shots of a beautiful location and would look nice printed at least to 11x17.

SLRs are all about flexibility, so if you find yourself fighting with your P&S to get just the right shot, then an SLR is probably right for you.

You really should read some photography guides and try to make the most of your camera before investing in an SLR. There are great guides available for free online for every type of photography you could be interested in. Try this site for a good intro into nature photography (a lot of the tips are universal, but they focus on nature): http://www.naturephotographers.net/np101/index.html
The light and composition section is excellent.

If you would like specific recommendations on models, feel free to ask.

 

All the SLRs are pretty decent actually. I'm a canon person, though, so I'd lean towards the Canon XT. It's pretty hard picking out your first SLR because once you pick a brand, you're pretty much stuck there for life.

To pick the right SLR though, you should take the time to understand why your Casio can't take that particular pic. There are certainly a set of pictures that SLRs can take that point and shoots can't, but you'd be surprised how small that set is.

Some of my best pictures I've ever taken were taken with my ol' 2020.

 

Getting an SLR/D-SLR is a big jump from a Point & Shoot. If you plan on learning about cameras and photography, and think it will be a lasting hobby, you can always get an SLR that's middle-of-the-line and grow into it as your skills develop. When I got my film SLR, I decided against getting a beginner/simpler model since I'd been into photography for years, was going to take a photography class, knew I'd ALWAYS be into taking photographs, and didn't want to have to upgrade fairly soon after getting a camera. I grew into my camera, and still have tons to learn too. I have a Canon Elan 7 (film).

My first step was learning about what some of the features mean and do so that I could understand at least some of what the camera shop would be telling me when introducing the different cameras to me. Previously, I just went in hoping to leave with a camera, but found all of the features and lingo too overwhelming and didn't feel confident in my knowledge to make such a big purchase without knowing what I was getting. Definitely go into a shop, speak to someone, and 100% pick up the cameras, try them out, hold them, see how they feel in your hand, go through the menus and settings -- see if you find them easy to get to and understand -- if the buttons and controls feel comfortable to you and in the right spot, etc. Each camera will feel different in terms of materials, size, and weight. Try them out.

And last, and most importantly: THE PHOTOGRAPHER TAKES GOOD OR BAD PICTURES --- NOT THE CAMERA!! You can get a super high-end camera, but that's not what creates a good shot! Don't be fooled! Get a camera for your needs and wants, then learn about how to take better photos -- the camera doesn't take them for you -- it's just a tool.

 

P.S. Once you decide on a body that you're comfortable with -- be sure to check out the variety of lenses available for that brand/model, since that will sway you one way or another too!!

 

Absolutely agree 100%.

The more I shoot, the more I really feel that cameras, lenses, filters, flashes, and tripods are all just tools to get the job done. Sure I like reading about the latest and greatest developments on the market, but all the talk about megapixels goes out the window when I'm in the field. I go out to take pictures, not play with an electronic gadget.

A camera is nothing more than an optical paintbrush as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure painters know what makes a good brush, but I doubt they really care where the bristles came from when they're working on a piece. You need blue paint to paint a sky, just like you need a tripod for long exposures. It's just a matter of having what you need to get the results you want.

 

Factor in getting a couple 1 gig cards and an extra battery too. Someone may post a really cool pic, but whats not known is they may have taken 100+ pics of that subject and only came out with a couple really good ones. I used to waste rolls of film with my SLR trying to make sure I get at least one really good pic and sometimes it's still wasn't enough. With a DSLR you can now take an overkill amount of pics and save what you want and then just erase and start over. If you see a subject you like take a ton of pics from different camera and physical angles and see what you get. Then you can photoshop to tweek if you like.

 

In terms of image quality we have enough resolution now. Maybe bring a 16MP sensor down to the pro-sumer level but even that amount of megapixels would very seldom actually be needed. In terms of image quality, I hope Canon/Nikon put more R&D into reducing noise and increasing dynamic range than they put into bringing ever higher resolutions.

What I really want is a better tool. I'd consider upgrading my camera for something with the same resolution if it allowed me to work significantly better. Make ISO a setting that's a "peer" exposure control to shutter speed and aperture. Give me more consistant autofocus. Give me a live histogram. Give me a more efficient menu/control interface. I'd be all over stuff like this way more than I would be over another 20% increase in megapixels.

 

Fixed

 

Lol...your paid to say that

PS: did you know that while Tim Burton's Corpse Bride was shit using Canon bodies...They had the mount switched over and used Nikkor glass.

Best of both worlds

 

Now there's a Freudian slip if ever I've seen one.

BTW - Did you see Nikon's annoncement that they're all but abandoning film SLR's? I've never owned one but it was still kind of sad to hear that just from the perspective of photo history.

 

They originally started out using a Nikon body but realized it couldn't provide the results they were looking for. So they switched over to the an EOS 1D Mark II. I'm not sure wheather or not they decided against Canon lenses but I'm guessing it had ALOT more to do with the fact that they already had a huge investment in Nikon lenses.

 

 

Well, the movie itself wasn't as good as nightmare...some great steps in animation though.

Anyway...most film lens techs...One of the best well known in the industry says Nikon makes the best optical glass...with exception to Canons 200m prime. And of course Leica being the absolute best. I'm sure that had a lot as well.

It is sad to....but exciting as well. The film industry is beginning to see this as well....except I dont think we will let celluloid die out so quickly.

I still have my N90s Body...on my shelf with all my other older camera on display...I never use it anymore...occasionaly run the shutter...just in case

 

Good Points