New camera dilemmas - what to do...

These are a few of mine with a 40D and a 1250 70-200 Canon lens

 

Compare DSLR and compact or superzoom photos on a computer and you will see the difference immedietly, the SLR has colour..... Admittedly, the compact/superzoom photos look great if you don't compare directly, so no real worries....



A 200mm lens s not a big issue when 160 quid will get you one of these, there are also loads 2nd hand:

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA1.asp?ProductName=Nikon-55-200mm-F4-5.6G-VR-AF-S-DX-IF-ED&ProductID=2643

Which will do this:

18 -55mm @ 18mm for perspecive:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii216/mark25_photos/DSC_0182.jpg


55 - 200mm zoomed @ 200mm:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii216/mark25_photos/DSC_0171.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii216/mark25_photos/DSC_0089.jpg

 

Not always:

18 - 200 for 150 quid:

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productD...LD-Aspherical-(IF)-(Canon-Fit)&ProductID=5011

18 - 250 for 200 quid:

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productD...acro-(Nikon-Fit)-Clearance-!!!&ProductID=2635

28 - 300 for 240 quid:

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productD...herical-(IF)-Macro-(Canon-Fit)&ProductID=2295

Note; all focal lengths need to be x 1.5 or so when used on a cheap DSLR. Therefor, the last one, 28 = ~43mm - not handy for wide-angle stuff such as landscapes. For the first two, 18 = ~27 which is OK, (same as lumix 38).

Tele is easy and cheap with cheap DSLR's, wide-angle is hard and expensive.

 

I've wavering like mad!

I borrowed Crispy's SLR camera @ Curborough in Sept, and was taking a few photos.

I realised quickly that I needed to swap a long lens for a shorter lens to get a better pan on some closer shots I was trying to take.

It's all now starting to make sense!

A case of: choose the SLR, but accept the baggage, or take the compact easier road....

 

As Leon said earlier; if you`re current one isn`t pocketable, and you need a bag for it, then an an SLR with an extra lens, isn`t really going to be any extra `baggage`

If you are really wanting to ditch the bag, then compact is your way forward, but if you aren`t fussed by the bag, and want better photography then it`s SLR all the way.

You`ll soon get to grips with swapping lenses quickly.

If I`m sticking in one spot for a while, but feel I`ll be swapping lenses regularly, I pocket the smaller one, and manage to whip off the caps one handed, then change over quite quickly.

The ultimate would be another body(s) to save swapping...

 

But the three cheap Tamrons i've listed in post #23 would negate the need to swap lenses.

Here's a Nikon guide to some good combinations of focal length vs price vs F number(for low light):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

Note the Nikon all-in-one lens, the 18 - 200 VR is loads more (~3x) than the Tamrons above.....

Canon will cost about the same for the same functionallity.

 

Are these an ok brand? Cheap.. where's the downside etc?

 

You have to bear in mind that a 18-200... wont produce as good results as a 18-55 Canon/Sigma and a 70-200 Canon/Sigma lens! But if you only want a "do all" lens they are ok!

 

the 28-300 (240 ish) *Nearly* has the zoom range of a decent bridge camera.


But it's a seriosly slow lens - f6.3 at the long end which is epically poor for an SLR lens.


You *can* buy a cheap zoom lens if you like. Unfortunately you then seem like a fool for buying an expensive SLR, if you are going to shoot through a cheap bit of glass.


This is a "do as I say, not as I do" - My short zoom was 300 and the long zoom was 700. my SLR camera body was 1200 when new. Over time I've spent a fortune on camera gear, but there really isn't any need to.


If you want to take photos - you just need a decent camera (like the lumix)

If you want to be a photographer then spend a fortune on a bag full of toys.

So decide for yourself what the "goal" is - photographs, or taking photographs.

 

Assuming the Lumix does video, I'm coming round to that.

I don't want a bag full of toys.

 

http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/

normally have some good bargains.

I've finally gone SLR, after much deliberation over it, any other camera just wouldn't cut it for what i needed.

My mate had a Fuji Powershot type thing, which was good but was just as bulky as an SLR,

Think what Dex says makes sense, what do you want out of it?

 

They don't autofocus as reliably as a Nikon, and the quality is technically worse than a Nikon. Any lens that does everything (18 - 200) is always worse tho. I'm inclined to think you won't notice that technical quality difference in your photos tho AND it will still give much better pictures than a bridge camera. I've had it 3 -4 times now here i've downloaded my photos to someone elses laptop/computer and we're always shocked at the difference between the DSLR and low - mid priced compacts/superzooms. Although there's never anything wrong with the photos b4 that comparison.... Others may of course have differing experiences with dearer (top end )bridge cameras.

I must admit personally i was always dissapointed with digital after film, so that's why i looked into all this, and got pointed in the right direction by CGTi

The last 2 pictures in my post #22 are with the Nikon 160 quid 55 - 200mm VR on full zoom, on the cheapest DSLR ever, the Nikon D40....

There's nothing wrong with a bridge camera, but it's worth checking http://www.dpreview.com/ for the exact model first. I remeber some suffered quality loss when fully zoomed when i was looking.

 

it does HD Video - I was pretty impressed with the video that came from the Rally Day at combe.

 

That's only because you were starring in it in Florence!

 

nope sadly not - there was a chevette on track but mostly escorts and the like in the vids. I didn't get a chance to book up for track time at the Rally Day - although the car got a few comments sat in the disabled parking

 

All the compacts I've tried are far too slow for action shots, unless you're panning. I don't know about the in-betweeners like your current camera, but if you're prepared to lug one about, you probably want an SLR.

I recently went on a digital photography course, run by a mate of mine - http://www.electriclandscape.com - I found it really useful in learning what the different bits of my camera did (a Nikon compact job). He'll do the research and give you a tutorial and crib sheet on how to use your specific model.

He can also lend you an SLR, so you can use both cameras and compare the results, and decide whether you want a new camera, or just to learn to use your current one.

Sony Minolta digi SLR's are good value for money, if you want to buy one and see how you get on.

 

A mate used to have a Canon G5, which he said had a quick autofocus.

It looked like a compact camera in size, but he somehow could get another lens over the standard "35-140" to give "24-280" or "24 -240".

Does this camera ring any bells?

 

thought of one of these chris?

20mm fast pancake lens as a walkaround compact, with the option of a 45-200mm for motorsport days

 

If it's got digital zoom and video, I'm all over that...

 

yes does HD video