b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 6170394

Advice request please.
I know some of you are into photography, so I'm asking for recommendations to check out- mid-range digital cameras. Basically a bridge from a fairly basic point-and-shoot to a DSLR. Budget's around £500.

Recommended cameras please.

For those not interested in answering that question, "Who is the most evil fictional character you have seen portrayed in a film- and why?"
(I helped save b3ta! Lord Gnome, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:38, archived)
I love my D60 but hate the kit lens
the 80-300mm lens we bought on ebay for £50 is awesome
(I helped save b3ta! Mrs Sp@m, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:40, archived)
Jack Nicholson in The Shining
He's just fucking loony and has very very evil eyebrows anyway. Scares the shit out of me :(
(I helped save b3ta! Mrs Sp@m, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:42, archived)
Walk into a jessops and look at the cannons and nikons of that price
You really have to get a feel of them before you buy
(I helped save b3ta! SuperMatt, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:40, archived)
try and get a D60
with the 18-55 mm VR lens. £380.

I spent £400 on a bridge camera but while the zoom and macro was awesome, the NR was not.
(I helped save b3ta! Rotating Wobbly Hat That's not a banana. THIS is a banana., Sat 23 May 2009, 19:41, archived)
I find the VR kit lens horrible
The pictures aren't anywhere near as crisp as the ones I get from my other lens, despite the fact that it's quite an old second hand one.
(I helped save b3ta! Mrs Sp@m, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:44, archived)
I don't have VR
so didn't know about that- the bloke in Jessops kept trying to peddle me a Sony Alpha because of built-in VR but I hate being steered by shop assistants when I don't ask for advice.

Got my D80 on eBay instead.... no VR but I've not had a complain about it anyway :-)
(I helped save b3ta! Rotating Wobbly Hat That's not a banana. THIS is a banana., Sat 23 May 2009, 19:47, archived)
D80 is a decent camera (and good value atm)
you only need VR/IS if you are shooting in the dark and/or don't have a tripod (my IS lens is handy when kayaking on the sea = wobbletastic, but that's it).
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:52, archived)
oh, and
"Top Dollar" from the Crow.
(I helped save b3ta! Rotating Wobbly Hat That's not a banana. THIS is a banana., Sat 23 May 2009, 19:48, archived)
nearly all non-DSLRs with have a much smaller imaging sensor
which means loads of noise at higher ISOs because the individual photosites (= pixels) are smaller
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:50, archived)
agree
DX format sensor almost 4 times the size of a cheap and nasty one in my S100FS
(I helped save b3ta! Rotating Wobbly Hat That's not a banana. THIS is a banana., Sat 23 May 2009, 19:52, archived)
yep; most not full-frame (same size as a frame of 35mm film) DSLRs, including DX
have a sensor which is the same size as the defunct APS(C) film format whereas the sensor in a point & shoot digicam will be barely the size of your smallest finger nail (and many are even smaller)
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:56, archived)
have two extra points for
your background knowledge
(I helped save b3ta! Rotating Wobbly Hat That's not a banana. THIS is a banana., Sat 23 May 2009, 19:58, archived)
darth vader
because anyone who breathes funny is evil, and he looks a bit kinky
(I helped save b3ta! spacefish bong!, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:42, archived)
I was going for Tony Montana
Completely unscrupulous and probably malevolent with it.
(I helped save b3ta! Lord Gnome, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:44, archived)
Anton from 'No Country for Old Men'
www.imdb.com/character/ch0027247/
(rigby happened on (and with added toothache), Sat 23 May 2009, 19:50, archived)
Or Idi Amin
From Last King of Scotland.

Or Adolf Hitler from Triumph des Willens.

It's a fairly open question.

[Edit] I am a mong- I even said "fictional" in the question.
(I helped save b3ta! Lord Gnome, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:55, archived)
I've got a Canon 450D, or 40D or something
Bought it just after Christmas. Taken 10 photos with it.
(I helped save b3ta! magnum, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:42, archived)
fantastic camera
I have a 350D and it's still awesome
(I helped save b3ta! Boris Johnson's Press Secretary, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:50, archived)
There are a couple of big events in July I'll be using it for
One being my sister's wedding. It'll be a good test for it.
(I helped save b3ta! magnum, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:51, archived)
Why stall with a bridge camera ... bite the bullet and get a DSLR.
If you shop around then £500 will get you one of the previous generation of entry-level DSLRs and a mediocre short zoom. Look at the pentax ones or the 450d or ... whatever those ropey old charlatans at nikon do.
(I helped save b3ta! Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:43, archived)
I reckon you are right.
I can always upgrade the lens later rather than the entire thing. It's mainly a lack of confidence on my part- so was trying to learn in easy steps.
(I helped save b3ta! Lord Gnome, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:47, archived)
LOL
*clicks*
(I helped save b3ta! Boris Johnson's Press Secretary, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:51, archived)
Now the nikon D90 is out
There are some good deals to be had on D80s.
I've got the 18-70 and 70-300 zooms and a 50mm prime lens.

But go to a shop and have a play. I prefer nikon but other people prefer canon. Canon bodies feel cheap and plasticky to me
It's a lot of brass so shop around. There tend to be more accessories available for nikons and canons
(I helped save b3ta! mns 2️⃣2️⃣9️⃣0️⃣7️⃣, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:46, archived)
I chose Canon because they make a couple of lenses that nobody else makes
but I'm lusting after a D700 now.

When you start out, camera bodies seem to be really expensive, but as soon as you buy a stupidly expensive lens you realise that they are not.

I'll probably end up with a cheap Nikon body if I want a lens that isn't available from anyone else (D80s are going for peanuts on ebay atm).

/waffle (is a bit manic, sorry)
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:04, archived)
D700s are like £2000! I can borrown them from uni
but using it makes me hate my D70 when I have to go back to it.
(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:14, archived)
I know, but the low light/high ISO performance is absolutely amazing
and I shoot most of my stuff (on a 400D) at ISO800 and higher these days (having clean output at ISO3200 would be fantastic).
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:19, archived)
I know they're amazing. I was agreeing. but they're so expensive. I'll never be able to afford one.
*sigh*
(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:21, archived)
I dunno
you're photographs are good enough to get you some paid work; after a few decent jobs, you could probably afford most of a D700.

(the exchange rate/pound bombing is a pain too; everything camera related was much much cheaper six months ago)
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:24, archived)
my paid jobs help me pay my rent and bills and make ends meet

(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:33, archived)
ah, my mistake
I wasn't aware that you were already working.

At least you can borrow a D700 though. I can't.
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:34, archived)
I cant for the next 6 months
because the uni is closed over the summer. three and a half grand for about 4 or 5 months in education. *hates uni more and more*
(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:54, archived)
don't bother with a bridge camera
buy a cheap DSLR and a 50mm/1.8 lens to compliment the kit lens (or get a bargain off ebay)

Oh, and choosing either Canon or Nikon will allow you to get loads of stuff second hand (the other brands [Sony/Minolta & Pentax etc. are perfectly capable, but the market for second hand bargains won't be as big)
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:48, archived)
The asteroid in The Land Before Time :(

(I helped save b3ta! ArthurTheRat, Sat 23 May 2009, 19:51, archived)
What? Worse than the fire that killed Bambi's mum?

(I helped save b3ta! LimeyTreat Bitch. Lover. Child. Mother. Sinner. Saint., Sat 23 May 2009, 19:58, archived)
bambi's mum is DEAD!

(rigby happened on (and with added toothache), Sat 23 May 2009, 20:02, archived)
just use your scanner
golembewski.awardspace.com/photographyGallery/cityscapes/index.html
(rigby happened on (and with added toothache), Sat 23 May 2009, 19:54, archived)
actually, can I change my screen villain?
I've just remembered Father Barre from the Devils.
(I helped save b3ta! Rotating Wobbly Hat That's not a banana. THIS is a banana., Sat 23 May 2009, 20:00, archived)
totally go for a nikon d60.
bridge cameras can get good results, but they're no substitute for a DSLR. d60 with 18-55mm vr lens and i can also reccommend the nice sigma 55-200 zoom from jessops, it doesn't have the largest aperture in the world, but it's not too shabby. and it's about £125 new, so s/h..
if you do go for a compact, fuji or sony are GREAT for a combo of good shots and getting sharp, well exposed pics waving it roudn drunk in a dark room with flashing lights.
(UppityDamnPrimate LET'S OPEN THIS F*CKING PIT UP, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:03, archived)
i don't really get spending loads on heavy dslr's that are a pain to carry around and v expensive
when the pics will be reduced so they can go onto the internet
(rigby happened on (and with added toothache), Sat 23 May 2009, 20:16, archived)
but DSLRs have much less noise at higher ISOs and more dynamic range/less clipping etc.
and most compact cameras don't output RAW files/'digital negatives' so you're limited in how you can process your favourite photos

(and you need the resolution if you want to make large prints).
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:22, archived)
I can help.

(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:12, archived)
Please do
I'd appreciate it.
(I helped save b3ta! Lord Gnome, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:15, archived)
most people have already said the usefull stuff.
the only real difference between nikon and canon these days are the shapes. it's personal preference. but if you're not a total camera buff then it's totally worth looking at pentax ones at the same price range as the D60 or D90. it's worth getting a D60 and then spending cash on an extra lens or two. the lens you get with the camera is generally bog standard. i could keep waffling for hours. but pretty much everyone has already said what you really need. look around on ebay and amazon to find the best price for things. blah blah blah.
(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:27, archived)
Unless you expect to take 1,000's of pictures
go for a £250 film camera and a £100 film scanner, spend the remainder on film/developing
the results will be 10x better than a £1000 digital camera
(I helped save b3ta! CanonCaliber A big bore, Sat 23 May 2009, 20:41, archived)
what absolute fucking tosh.

(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:07, archived)
I have only ever used a film scanner once.
It set on fire.

The end.
(I helped save b3ta! lazygamer VS tittybiscuits, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:13, archived)
fail
if you were talking about medium (6x6cm/7cm/17cm)or large (4x5inch) format cameras as a means of doing quality landscape work for not much money, then it would be worth considering film (because the digital equivalent is still extremely expensive: several thousand pounds and more expensive).

But 35mm film and cameras are pretty much obsolete (unless you're in the middle of the arctic/wilderness and need a fully manual backup if your batteries fail); no 35mm film can rival the output from a bog-standard DSLR at ISO 800 and above.
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:17, archived)
My med format scans come out at 20,000x15,000 (@300 megapixel)
my 35mm scans come out at @ 12,000x8,000 (@100 megapixel)

I may be out of date but I have never heard of a digital camera coming anywhere near those resolutions

I accept running costs of film are higher and that high resolution images are not much use on a 1600x1200 monitor
(I helped save b3ta! CanonCaliber A big bore, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:37, archived)
You could scan your film at 120'000 x 80'000, but you wouldn't gain any more useful information (you'd just end up with a nice images of dye clusters and silver nitrate crystals)
Whereas an 8-12 megapixel image file from a DSLR has 8-12 megapixels of actual information.

In practical/printing terms (assuming normal viewing distances and not doing some fetishy like examining slides with a loupe), 35mm film maxes out at between 6&8 megapixels.

When I go to Alaska in a couple of years time (kayaking), I will take a manual camera loaded with slide film (not Velvia; too saturated) as a backup, but my DSLR will be taking most of the images.
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:59, archived)
*sigh*

(I helped save b3ta! TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 22:00, archived)
*hugs*
perhaps this is a sneaky ploy to get us to have a whip-round and buy him a cheap DSLR out of pity :P
(I helped save b3ta! custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 22:18, archived)