Photos
#2
Posted 03 January 2010 - 14:04
F O R T H E N S
#3
Posted 03 January 2010 - 14:29
#4
Posted 03 January 2010 - 21:16
#5
Posted 05 January 2010 - 10:51
Most of my life I've used film cameras, and even then simple point-and-shooters. I was hoping to move on to an actual DSLR, but I have two issues. First one is, well, money. The other is my own lack of experience. Is there anyone out there who can give me a hint towards a camera that is, say, around 400€ and can make quality pictures, but is not so feature intensive. I can adapt to a lot of features, but I'm not sure I'll need them all...
#6
Posted 05 January 2010 - 12:00
#7
Posted 05 January 2010 - 12:26
JRK, on 5 Jan 2010, 12:00, said:
For the Powershot you are wasting your money. You can get a DSLR Canon 1000D for about £50 more and that is substantially better than the Powershot which is a hyrid and always a bad idea. Also, if you get a Pentax I will ban you Nikon or Canon. Never, EVER, anything else.
@ photos, not bad for what you're using
#8
Posted 05 January 2010 - 15:02
Wizard, on 5 Jan 2010, 14:26, said:
JRK, on 5 Jan 2010, 12:00, said:
For the Powershot you are wasting your money. You can get a DSLR Canon 1000D for about £50 more and that is substantially better than the Powershot which is a hyrid and always a bad idea. Also, if you get a Pentax I will ban you Nikon or Canon. Never, EVER, anything else.
@ photos, not bad for what you're using
Your mentality of Nikon or Canon is passé Panasonic and Olympus both make good cams. Sony relies too much on the looks of the cam more than anything else though.
And I suggested the Powershot because it is simpler to use than an SLR but delivers some interesting options.
#9
Posted 05 January 2010 - 15:11
JRK, on 5 Jan 2010, 15:02, said:
Wizard, on 5 Jan 2010, 14:26, said:
JRK, on 5 Jan 2010, 12:00, said:
For the Powershot you are wasting your money. You can get a DSLR Canon 1000D for about £50 more and that is substantially better than the Powershot which is a hyrid and always a bad idea. Also, if you get a Pentax I will ban you Nikon or Canon. Never, EVER, anything else.
@ photos, not bad for what you're using
Your mentality of Nikon or Canon is passé Panasonic and Olympus both make good cams. Sony relies too much on the looks of the cam more than anything else though.
And I suggested the Powershot because it is simpler to use than an SLR but delivers some interesting options.
Not DSLRs they don't. Neither does Sony. Any professional or amateur review will always put a Canon or Nikon DSLR above other brand DSLRs. There maybe 1 in a thousand that is better than the Canon/Nikon equivalent. But they are as rare as rocking horse shit.
And as for simplicity there is a setting called full auto, which is about all the hybrid gives you anyway. It also takes about 200 shots to get used to the entry level DSLRs. For the difference in price between the Powershot and DSLR entry you may as well learn how to really take a photo and use a camera.
#10
Posted 05 January 2010 - 15:18
#11
Posted 05 January 2010 - 15:29
#12
Posted 05 January 2010 - 19:39
JRK, on 5 Jan 2010, 10:18, said:
For the record's sake, Konica-Minolta & Sony are now one in the same, as Sony did a little wooing and put a ring on K&M's many faceted finger(s). It should also be noted that Sony's Alpha cameras aren't as bad as the reviews would have one believing. They do pack a lot of features for the paperback, and Sony offers lenses from Zeiss, which anyone who's up to snuff on cameras or any other field that is optic related will tell you, Zeiss IS lenses. The sticker shock is a bit of hard tack to swallow (you may also need to hibernate a while), but they are arguably the best lenses around. Not to say that you couldn't buy a Zeiss for a Canon or Nikon or what have you, but Sony's website does have them listed as "optional equipment". Speaking of camera accessories, aux. flashes start to come into play, as they're more manageable and softer than the harsher, stock flash. Sony has thought ahead and developed a flash that swivels side-to-side for added convenience when shooting in portrait. Why no other camera manufacturer has done this is beyond me.
Me, I'm partial to Nikon, since I do own a brilliant bit of kit from them. If you're in the market for something more upscale, but your wallet is wallowing in its rather deflated ego, or every time you look at something that costs more than $1, consider the Nikon Coolpix L100 or P6000. Nikon doesn't seem to be as widely used, however, they have developed the "Holy Grail", if you will, of imaging technology, known as "full-frame". Coupled with a resolution of 12 mega-pixels, Nikon's higher end cameras, such as the D3, achieve an image quality that is second to none.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users