Camera...

[pit]

Hi! I'd like to buy a camera to start in the world of digital photography!
Many suggested me canon a80!
(i'd not like to spend a lot but I'd like to get decent results and have some settings possibility on the camera)...
What do you think?

[Milkdrop]

I think you should buy an ordinary analogue camera. This may sound completely supid but i have my reasons for beleiveing this. My limE that used to visit on this board only uses ordinary anolugue cameras. He reckons that they produce the best results. Me and him strongly recommend a canon eos 300. It is an slr camera which means that you can change the lenses etc. On most ordinary digital cameras you cant do this, but the digital slr cameras cost about $1100. The anolgue equivalants of the slr cameras cost a quarter of the price.

You are now thinking okay, how do i upload these images onto my pc with the film having to be exposed in a camera store. I would recommend a scanner that can scan 35mm film slides (they do exist!). some scanners have optional atachments that are able to scan 35mm slides.

Digital camers suck unless you spend a load of money and get yourself a digital slr camera which cost loads. Stick with an anolgue slr camera with another lense and a 35mm scanner.

[ConceptualMind]

When buying 35mm film slide scanner keep in mind sometimes they take a long time to scan. If you get one of higher quality, not only is the quality better but the scan time is also reduced greatly.

[Milkdrop]

Originally Posted by Subject2Failure

When buying 35mm film slide scanner keep in mind sometimes they take a long time to scan. If you get one of higher quality, not only is the quality better but the scan time is also reduced greatly.

Very true Subject. I think digital cameras have a while to go before they can beat the most professional anolgue equipment

[MarysMac]

You can very simply have your film developed and scanned directly to a cd by the developer. The equipment they use is way better than any film scanner you might want to buy and you can probably get a few rolls of film put on that cd.

My digital camera was not too expensive and I can use lenses on them if I choose to but I don't. It has telephoto and macro capabilities just as it is and is excellent for low light conditions.

What you probably need to do is ask yourself what you want to do with your photography. Once you figure that out, then you can decide what type of equipment you might want to get.

For the sake of learning about composition though, I find that using a digital camera is an excellent choice as there is no waste and you get immediate results. Otherwise, you could waste a nice roll of film before you realize you were not getting the pics you wanted. Some photographers will use both types of cameras on the same shoot just for that sort of reason.

[Young Spartan]

I have a $200 Kodak Digital Camera and I get relatively nice shots at 3.1 MegaPixels. Granted you cannot change the lenses but it is pretty nice though, for not mcuh more I'm sure you could have a very nice digital camera.

[TVPR]

The _camera_ isn't too important for good pictures - the optics are. Some argue the best digital SLR cameras are from Nikon, some say they are from Canon. Personally, I prefer Canon, but these are the facts:

-If you have an "old-fashioned" Nikon SLR, you most likely should get a Nikon. Nikon allows you to use lenses from analogue SLR cameras. If you got a film-Canon SLR from before, you can't use the lenses on a digital Canon SLR.
-Nikon, and I hate to admit this, has a wider range of lenses. As to my knowledge, you can only get a Canon macro down to 50mm or so, whilst Nikon gives you down to 25 or 35mm...
-Canon EOS D-series has a wonderful UI, and is considered easier to learn using.

As for quality on the cameras themselves, Nikon is ahead in the 35mm market, and has always been, but nothing digital beats the Canon D1. 11mpx, 2GB+ storage support, 60mpx\sec, 1\30000 sec shutter speed and so on... Of course, it's hopelessly expensive, and can best be compared to a Lamborghini Diablo. Nobody can afford one, but it gives the Lamorghini Tractors better cred. All in all, they're the same.
Rule of thumb is that IF you have an SLR from before, buy a digital SLR from the same people. With Nikon, you can use the same lenses, with Canon, it's basically the same useage functions on all EOS cam's.

(I'm not even mentioning non-SLR digital cameras, mainly because they all blow. The Nikon CP 995 is considered a relatively professional non-SLR. I own one. It's not.)

[Milkdrop]

hehehh thanks for making all of that information clear. I still think aps camera are the best,

[TVPR]

APS is fun. I wub my Ixus!

[Young Spartan]

Well, I feel like crap with my rinky dinky 3.1 Megapixel Kodak digital camera.

[Joe]

I use a Canon D30 (digital) with a 75-300MM F4-5.6 lens, was pretty cheap at £420 incl. lens, only problem with it is the lens produces very soft images past 200MM and above F5.6 but its a great camera for its age, worth looking into if you want a decent camera with alot of changeable settings. But with DSLR's its more about optical quality (the lens that you use) rather than the megapixels it has, unlike point and shoot cameras.

If your going to go with a normal SLR make sure you get some good quality film for it, many recommened Kodachrome K64 and Fuji Velvia 100, also a good film\slide scanner is required...

But one thing I've learnt most about photography and cameras from photography forums I post at and visit is "It's not the camera that matters, it's what a photographer can do with it that counts"

Hope this helped

Joe.

[Evdawg]

nice quote.. very inspiring.

[TVPR]

You need more objectives, Joe Seriously, as I said before, the EOS D-series are, imho, great cameras. Try see if you can get your hands on a 55-120mm wide. That is one rocking piece of optics, if I may say so.

But you mention good film for non-digital SLR´s... I don´t think thats all too important, as long as you get the proper ISO for the photos you want. But as you also said, it mainly depends on the photographer Indeed a great quote

[Joe]

Originally Posted by TVPR

Try see if you can get your hands on a 55-120mm wide. That is one rocking piece of optics

Starting focal length is to high when you add the D30's 1.6x multiplaction factor on, when I finally get round to getting a wide angle lens I think I'll get a 17-40 L money permitting of course, If not I'll try for somthing cheaper below 28MM and a lower fixed aperture than F2.8

Originally Posted by TVPR

But you mention good film for non-digital SLR´s... I don´t think thats all too important, as long as you get the proper ISO for the photos you want

Certain films give better saturation and scan quality, but if your just starting in photography then any film will do I suppose insted of buying the really expensive stuff like Kodachrome K64 which sells for £7.99 per 36x exposure roll here in the UK!

Joe.

[TVPR]

Originally Posted by Joe

Certain films give better saturation and scan quality, but if your just starting in photography then any film will do I suppose insted of buying the really expensive stuff like Kodachrome K64 which sells for £7.99 per 36x exposure roll here in the UK!

Or you could get Kodak T-MAX 400 NC (or is it CN?), which is propably one of the best films in the world for b&w shooting. But that goes at about 20€ for a 25x roll. Which is a bit overkill. For colour, though, I´d suggest Agfacolor Vista series based on reviews, which goes from 5€ and up, afaik. But again, I haven´t tried it myself.

Still though, these films are all useless for everyone below a top-level professional level. If you actually pay heed to how many T-grains there are in your film, you don´t need neither advice nor a care in the world for the price of the film. Seeing as most people don´t see the difference between a Kodak Gold and a FujiFun or whatever they call it. People who photograph on such a high level either use the D1 I mentioned earlier, or have their own very personal taste on what they like.

(This post was originally much longer, but I think it´d looked as if I started to get aggrevated, which I´m not So I sliced it down to size. Point is, though, film isn´t all that important. In my opinion.)


As for objective, an EF 20-35mm f/2.8 USM would be really nice for your camera, then. I´m using one on my D60, and it´s simply brilliant. Highly reccomended.