Photography-pics-choosing a camera

[dustin]

Hey everyone,

well i would really like to purchase a SLR camera but I would like some input on what you all use.

Here were the brands i was looking into

canon- I know its a good brand i personally have an old version powershot g3
nikon- i heard it has takes really great macros and has tons of great lenses
fujifilm finepix s series- an inexpensive camera with professional picture quality
olympus- overall good camera but i don't know much about this brand

I would be using this camera for general photography, and i would like it to have a good macro function for my cps too.

Please share your pictures, showing what your camera can do, both macro-zoom out. I would love to see them.

Thank you very much for your help

dustin

 

[chibae]

Answers in red

Hey everyone,

well i would really like to purchase a SLR camera but I would like some input on what you all use.

Here were the brands i was looking into

canon- I know its a good brand i personally have an old version powershot g3
As an SLR, it's only as good as it's lenses. For a compact camera I use the Canon G9, examples

,

nikon- i heard it has takes really great macros and has tons of great lenses
As an SLR it's only as good as it's lenses
fujifilm finepix s series- an inexpensive camera with professional picture quality
haven't heard very good things personally
olympus- overall good camera but i don't know much about this brand
As an SLR I use it a lot and find it to be light weight and convient.

I would be using this camera for general photography, and i would like it to have a good macro function for my cps too.
Any SLR can have a macro lens put on it, "macro function" is a product of a compact camera/non-SLR style
It sounds like a good course on camera differences might be in order. Visit this website for some great tutorials and forumsI've also used an older canon compact and a Pentax DSLR.



Please share your pictures, showing what your camera can do, both macro-zoom out. I would love to see them. check this gallery out

Thank you very much for your help

dustin

your welcome

 

[rattler]

as he said, lenses make the difference......personally i would go with either Canon or Nikon but ive got a buddy that is one of the best photographers ive seen and he uses Olympus.....i use Canon SLR's.....its the lens and the nut behind the viewfinder that makes all the difference in the world......

 

[lizasaur]

I use a Fujifilm S1800, which has a macro and even supermacro function. It definitely gets the job done since I do more multipurpose with it than anything.
Here's some pics I've taken with it:

 

[MidnightSkies]

I don't have pictures to share since my SLR is still only film, but I definitely vote Cannon. Everyone else is true that the lenses and photographer make a huge difference though. I'm a fan of both Cannon's cameras and lenses. Cannon is a little pricier, but worth it in my honest opinion. If I'm going to spend that much money on a camera, it's going to be a good one. I do have Canon's EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens and I love it, although with film, I don't use it as much as I wish I did.

 

[vraev]

YOu cannot go wrong with Canon or Nikon. They are pretty head to head and based on what you spend, you can get a great product. Also, don't expect to be able to obtain pro quality low light/low noise images using a beginner SLR. THere is a reason why pro SLR's cost 1000s of dollars. Same goes for lenses: Some lenses seem to be very cheap, but at the end of the day, the picture quality may not be sharp at the biggest apertures. You have to do a lot of research to buy a camera which is the best value for your money.

Let me also pop in about only ONE difference between Nikon and Canon: Their equivalent ranges in camera for photography is almost similar: eg: Nikon D5000 is comparable to Canon Rebel T1i or T2i. ALthough, ask yourself this: Do u like shooting video with your DSLR and will it be something important for you...perhaps almost as much as taking pictures? Canon should be your choice. Canon is hands down the best one for video so far. Ofcourse, video quality on the Nikon isn't terrible, but seems unpolished compared to Canon. And yeah....at something like the D3x which costs you an arm/leg at 8000$ you will definitely get fantastic videos, but clearly thats a different camera class.

Make your choice between Canon and Nikon very carefully. It is a choice you will perhaps stick with forever. I have made mine and I am a nikonian.

I'll post some of my pics soon. Trying to clean em up a bit.

 

[rattler]

actually if your glass is good you can get pro quality pictures with a cheaper SLR body.....but keep in mind alot of pro quality pictures come form filters and lighting, whether knowing how to set up your camera for ambiant light or how to add additional lighting.....

as far as Canon glass i like thier higher end stuff but their entry level is pretty blah.....for entry level lenses Sigma will usually beat Canon or Nikon....the newspaper doesnt have the budget for L Series glass so we run Sigma lenses....not as good as L series but normally beats out Canon at the same lower price points....

i would much prefer getting a factory referb year or two old Rebel and putting more money to glass than buy a new 1D and have to run cheap glass.....your pictures will show im right.....

same concept works for any brand....keep in mind basically what the entry level Rebels are are pretty close to what the pros were using 8 years or so ago.....you happy with the pro type photos from 10 years ago? especially for macro work where lens and light are THE factors?

 

[vraev]

It is very true.. the images are only as good as the glass permits. Difference in bodies determine amount of control that you have and the options available to shoot images. For instance, low light photography on a Nikon D5000 will never ever be as good as that shot on a D700 or its bigger brother, the D3. These beginner level SLRs can shoot in good image quality upto an ISO of 800. But depending on the lens, you might need a higher sensitivity to shoot at a lower shutter speed/smaller aperture for greater DOF.

Here are some sample images from my photoshoots. Now bear in mind that I am no where close to some of the experts here. I usually take over 100 pics to end up with 3-10 images of my liking. I am still a newbie in looking at conditions and understanding the variables I need to play with. I mostly shoot either in aperture priority/shutter priority or full manual.

I use a Nikon D90 and currently own two lenses: Kit: Nikkor 18-105mm VR | Nikkor AF 60mm micro . The kit lens costs around 200$ or less...and the macro lens costs 500$. Its an old school lens that is being phased out which is a solid metal lens with perfect sharpness. You cannot go wrong with it. I love it..and I still have to learn to make full use of it. It does have its limitations: No vibration reduction, so even the slightest camera shake is visible.

Infact, let me pop in some pics which are blurry that if I had gotten right, would definitely fit right in with those from a National Geographic magazine. Photography is all about details and patience (Wildlife). I did not think with a cool head and should have increased ISO and increased shutter speed...but I was soo freaked out to find this pair of beetles that I lost my mind. Either way...here is a failed photoshoot of some insects. Well.... I guess I need to practice a lot more eh?

SOmething more to keep the theme to plants.

 

[RL7836]

Check out this thread. There are a number of excellent camera review sites that can help. Maybe I missed it - but what's your price range?

 

[dustin]

Thank you very much for the links, pics and personal opinions .

I'm going to have to do some research. I also have to take into consideration price. I had originally planned to spend under $300, but maybe i might be able to pull off $700 price range. give or take maybe $100?

So as for lenses Canon and Nikon lenses are great as long as you go for the higher quality ones. Or sigma lenses.

If i want to shoot video, go canon > Nikon

 

[rattler]

on the lens.....just read every review you can before buying one......and dont listen to the guys gripe that they aint high priced lenses, but course not at 1/2 or 1/3 the price......course it aint.....Sigma has put out some dogs like any company but over all ive been happy with them.....information is a good thing, tons of it is even better, get to reading

 

[nightsky]

My preferences are: Canon for point and shoot. Nikon for SLR.

Of course if I could afford it I'd go Leica all the way.

 

[chibae]

my preferences are canon for point and shoot,For DSLR's it is Canon or Nikon for sports which I don't shoot anymore so it's not an issue, pentax for their lenses and olympus for their size and quality. So i shoot a Canon G9 for my carry everywhere, an Olympus for my dslr including macros, gave my pentax gear to my daughter and recommend canon for those who want sports and Nikon for those who want sports plus video

 

[RL7836]

Make your choice between Canon and Nikon very carefully. It is a choice you will perhaps stick with forever. I have made mine and I am a nikonian.

Many years ago, I did a ton of research & decided on Olympus. Over time, I added a winder, wide angle lens, 400mm lens (w/ dedicated custom gunstock mount for action pics), dedicated flash, etc, etc. I had (have) several thousand dollars in my setup. Then comes autofocus followed by DSLRs. Olympus abandoned their owners so I'm unable to use any of my equipment on anything but film. Now I shoot 99% with a small point & shoot digital camera (so my film setup just sits in the corner).

Some day, in the next few years I'll be purchasing an entire new setup. Based on my experiences and what I've read, I will probably buy either Canon or Nikon. Both of those brands have legions of pros with big bucks invested in their systems - neither of these companies could ever afford to completely abandon their user base of pros. It is not likely that equipment from either will become obsolete.

On a side note - if you feel that someday you'll want to take crazy-good close-ups, only Canon has the macro that is 'nuts'....

 

[adrian]

my 2 cents:
you will probably not be able to tell much difference between a DSLR and point and shoot unless you're printing pictures very big (bigger than 8x10). You will save yourself a lot of money with a P&S. All the major manufacturers of DSLRs make great stuff. You don't need a pro lens. Many, many sites advocate for the kit lenses as a decent lens. Again, you won't be able to tell the difference unless you view very large. One disadvantage of DSLRs is that you have to buy a separate lens to get really good macro shots, as the basic kit lenses do not focus close enough. A couple recommended websites:

www.dpreview.com - good basic review site, with lots of helpful people on the forums
www.the-digital-picture.com - good review site, mostly canon
www.photography-on-the.net - another canon review site
www.43forums.com - olympus review site
www.kenrockwell.com - lots of info, reviews of canon & nikon - check out the pictures he gets with a P&S and Nikon D40 with kit lens.

 

[scottychaos]

I posted this in another thread here awhile ago, but I think it bears repeating here..
im just going to quote myself! because its easier:

Im a "camera nerd" from way back..
picked up my first SLR at the age of 14 in 1983..
Was a photo major in college, and have worked in Digital research at Kodak since 1994..
I have been shooting with a Canon Elan II (film) SLR for ages..but for digital I have only used point and shoot digital cameras..I have used DSLR's at work, but have never owned one myself..

The time has come for a new camera..my wife and I both have film SLR's (me, the Elan II, her, a film Rebel)
we both still shoot some film, but mostly digital these days..
she wants close-up for flowers and bugs in the garden..I want both telephoto and wide angle for railroad photography..with all those "advanced amateur" requirements..

We are NOT going to get a digital SLR!

I have done some serious shopping the last few weeks..on-line research and looking at cameras in stores..
I have come to the conclusion that the Canon SX20:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/powershot-sx20-is/physical-views-16.html
(it sells for $350)

Will do everything a digital SLR will do for us, 99.5% of the time..
great zoom range, great tele, great wide angle, excellent close-up capabilities built in..
the lack of interchangable lenses is pretty much a non-issue..
this camera will do everything we would want from a digital rebel!
at half the price..

I can see no real benefit to the DSLR that warrants the extra price..
and I already have a supply of quality Canon lenses too!
even so..dont see the need for the DSLR right now..
just thought I would throw that out there!

Im probably going to buy the SX20 in the next few weeks..

Scot

from: http://www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120500

Scot

 

[RL7836]

DSLR vs Point & Shoot - I've been using a P&S for the past bunch of years - however...

P&S plus
- size/weight
- low cost (relative...)
- more resistant to weather (quasi-waterproof)

DSLR plus
- all the major stuff they can do w/ changeable lenses, massive pic pixels, etc
- ability to have both auto & manual focus
- control over depth-of-field & shutter speed

While there are more reasons (like a long telephoto), the last two are ones I have really missed when I switched to the point & shoot. There are so many pics that I'm unable to take because I cannot control where the camera wants to focus nor the depth-of-field.

However, I suspect that the vast majority of people would be very happy with a decent P&S.

 

[Nep Lover]

Dustin I use a Nikon coolpix P90 not exactly an SLR but it does take great photos and it is pretty flexable in terms of advanced settings and i believe i got it for under 300 on amazon

[/IMG]

taken in macro mode no zoom unedited