New digi camera

Submitted: Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 18:24
ThreadID: 26157 Views:3666 Replies:20 FollowUps:28
This Thread has been Archived
I know its not a off orad question , but its for taking photos when we are away off road lol . I was looking at replacing my 3.1 megapixle kodac camera .

I have come across a Canon xt 350 . They seem to be selling for around 1k , this is the uper end to my buget , but if it has to be , it has to be lol

Come on camera guru's what your thoughts . I know its a SLR and like the idea of finaly owning one. Why ? god knows lol
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: GOB & denny vic member - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 18:45

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 18:45
goodday rc
i have just purchased the pentax slr digital 6megapixel seems to take good pictures but only just back after 4 weeks and havent had time to download to the main computor only comes with 1 lens but lenses from pentax 35mm fitted strait on

steve
AnswerID: 128425

Reply By: Bonz (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:12

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:12
Mr Crawler, I have both a DSCP100s and a DSCP150s Sony ones with 2x512mb cards, the 100 is a 5.1 mega and the 150 is a 7.2 megapixel, (much more then Lucy's) they are both compact, non-SLR and both take excellent pics, in the carry case it sits on my belt on my hip and is always ready for a quick snap, I wouldnt go past them, about 800 for the 150 and less for the 100. Carl Zeiss lens all the good bits and you get a goat too, free, and feta.

Take a look, or come see me at the Alpine challenge and I'll whip one out.

IMHO, unless you're a pro like wolfie then a SLR just takes un room unnecessarily

YMMV
.
Time is an illusion produced by the passage of history
.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 128434

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:27

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:27
ok , so SLR on auto , dosnt take better pics than a non slr ?????

Alpine challange ? when ? were ? lol
0
FollowupID: 383067

Follow Up By: Bonz (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:35

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:35
hmm well the pics are lens based I guess and these have great lenses, yes theyre auto but have night settings and one for taking pics of feta and in the end its the pixels that are your friends

Alpine challenge 16-19 Sept, up past Hotham at Dinner Plain, twill be a Hoot.
.
Time is an illusion produced by the passage of history
.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 383070

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:43

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:43
Hmmm, like they say on PMR , you need to hook me up bro

Ps , if you eat to much feta you get to much fata
0
FollowupID: 383071

Follow Up By: Al & Mrs Al (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:59

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:59
I've heard that fetta doesn't like having it's pic taken, but Brie is a whole different block of cheese - absolute camera hog... :)

0
FollowupID: 383078

Follow Up By: Bonz (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:08

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:08
Brie is only mentioned in hushed tones in this part of the state due to its continued arrogance and recalcitrance, we choose not to speak of blue vein either for similar concerns
.
Time is an illusion produced by the passage of history
.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 383082

Follow Up By: Al & Mrs Al (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:12

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:12
well we won't touch Jarlsburg then... :)
0
FollowupID: 383084

Follow Up By: Jimbo - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:54

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:54
Geoff,

What's happened to Ian?

I'll have to give him a call I guess.

Cheers,

Jim.
0
FollowupID: 383117

Follow Up By: Bonz (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:13

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:13
Jimbo, I havent seen him for ages but I do know he has an email address wolfie@howlllllll.rar.adel Uou may need to call him

Mrs Al, to my mind Jarlsberg has been lurking since fine spinach polenta went on sale some time ago
.
Time is an illusion produced by the passage of history
.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 383125

Reply By: Willem - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:58

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 19:58
I started off with a 'little fella' Canon Digi. But on our Big Trip it got sick and wouldn't work. When I got to Alice Springs I took it to a local camera repair man. He couldn't fix it but also told me that Canon have an inherent problem with their digi cameras where a small screw works its way loose inside the camera and then eventually jams up the zoom lenses.

When I got back to half way to the deep south I took the camera back to Harvey Norman for warranty repairs. They said repairs would take 1 to 5 weeks. The camera goes back to Canon who has contracted repairers. I had paid for an extended warranty and that seems where the problem lies. Canon have the extended warranty through another insurer. We are now in our 7th week and no camera. So we wait and wait and wait.

The wife's Sony works brilliantly with no problems. Guess what I will be upgrading to?

Cheers
AnswerID: 128443

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:16

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:16
I'll ask the boss tomorrow hes a guru...
AnswerID: 128448

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:35

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:35
It just appears to be an update from my 300D

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EXT/EXTA.HTM

$1600 here
http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=373

or with 2 lenses

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=399
NEW! Canon EOS 350D / 18-55MM / 55-200mm Twin Kit
Price: $1767.18 (inc. GST)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 days
0
FollowupID: 383194

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:39

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:39
350XT/D vs 20D
Of course the big topic of debate on the web discussion forums and at camera store sales counters is going to be – is the $$ difference between the 20D and the 350XT worth it? Well, duhh! What do you think?

No, let me rephrase that – what do you expect? Do you really believe that you can buy a camera offering the same or better value at just 60% of the price? Of course not.

There's no question that the 20D is the superior camera in almost every respect, except image quality – which is comparable between the two. But, the 350XT attracts with its small size and low weight. If I was hiking the Himalayas for two weeks I know which one I'd bring.

But when you factor in some of the design faux pas of the 350XT, the choice becomes easier to make, especially for those with larger hands and fatter wallets.

_____________________________________________________________

The Bottom Line
This is a sweet little camera that could well be the best DSLR camera value on the market today (March, 2005). Newcomers will find the price to be right and the camera to be feature rich. Experienced photographers will be frustrated by some of the interface problems, but none of these are really show-stoppers.

Now, if Canon would just hire a few photographers to take prototype cameras for a walk around the block before committing to some of the more egregious design bloopers that it insists on foisting on us, then they really might become the 800 pound gorilla in the digital camera market that they clearly aspire to be.

0
FollowupID: 383195

Reply By: Kiwi Kia - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:19

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:19
SLR digi !!! I think you need to have a read of how a digi camera works. They are 'look and feel' alike but thats all. Some even have a sound effect built in to let you THINK its an SLR ! More important look for a stabiliser built in to take care of any camera shake, this allows you to take slower pics indoors (or low light) without needing to use a flash. The stabiliser also takes out the shakes when taking a pic on the move.

Talking about built in sound effects I recently test drove a small 4wd (new) that has a built in sound effect of a small 'clunk' when the 4wd button on the dash is pushed. There is actually no sound from the transfer it comes from a small speaker.
AnswerID: 128449

Reply By: Member - Sam (NSW) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:20

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:20
The 350's are a nice camera. Lightweight, and take a really nice picture. I've got a Pentax *ist D and its been a good camera. (only bought it cause my old film SLR was a Pentax and didn't want to have to buy all new lenses)

But if the Canon is in your price range, its worth it. Pentax have a couple of slightly cut down version of the *ist D (the * iST DS and DL) that are under the $1k mark.
AnswerID: 128450

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:35

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:35
thanks sam
0
FollowupID: 383089

Reply By: Bega Photographer - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:37

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:37
Hey there Rock.

It seems to me you've got two alternatives: Go to an SLR or stick with a point and shoot. I think you already know that.

The choice depends on what you want to do.

Here are some criteria:

1) $1000 is a pretty cheep SLR so don't expect the best.

2) An SLR gives you control and versaltility. Control and versatility are no use to you unless you understand the variables. Therefore the purchace demands that you get into the study of the technical and artistic aspects of photography. If you don't do this study, then I would say that your motivation in having an SLR is so you can prance around the campfire repeatedly chanting "I've got a Canon xt 350".

Of course, you'll still get your photos but they'll be no better than with the point and shoot.

3) From what I've seen, most 4x4ers simply want to take a few photos of the trip, the great places they've been, the kids having fun and perhaps the missus relaxing beside the river swishing away the flies. A digital point and shoot is the ant's pants for these subjects.

4) The file size of your 3.1 digital camera is adequate to print an A3 size photograph. That's about 16" x 10". Do you really need to go any bigger?

May I say, without being misunderstood as a smarty pants, that the nature of your question indicates to me that a point and shoot camera is the camera for you. Your Kodac 3.1 megapixel should be fine as long as it remains in good order.

If you really want to upgrade, and given that you have a thousand bucks to spend, you may wish to consider one of the top of the range Nikon point and shoot models at 6 megapixels. You'll be able to get quite a bit out of such a camera simply by reading the booklet that comes with it, and then "point and shoot."

Besides my two Nikons, which I don't use any more, I have two cameras. A thumping big studio camera which has to be tripod mounted and a 2 megapixel digital Canon. You may wish to have a look at the images on my website at Laurie's Photos Ask yourself what you want to do that you can't do with a digital point and shoot.

Regards,
Laurie.

AnswerID: 128454

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:21

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:21
Thanks laurie , a very informing reply to say the least. The reason for wanting to upgrade the 3.1 , is because I am unhhappy with the clarity in the photos , I usually like to print on A4 photo paper , and with the 3.1 its a little dotted , if that makes sence . I thought that I would be better off with a 350 slr than a pocket type camera due to lense size alone , even if I only shoot auto . My thoughts were that I would later on learn about manuel settings to more creative shots. Wouldnt the SLR take better picks than say a cybershot ? or am I dreaming and just think bigger is better atitude ??

looking forward to your reply
0
FollowupID: 383105

Follow Up By: Bob of KAOS - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:12

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:12
Laurie,
nice turn of phrase. Thanks for the laugh. I'm looking at getting a second hand Nikon 5000, as I already have the extra lenses from the E880. Any known issues with this model?
0
FollowupID: 383124

Follow Up By: Bega Photographer - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:35

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:35
Sorry Bob, can't help with the Nikon 5000.

My knolledge is limited to what I have. My Nikons are fairly old: FE and FM.

Regards,
Laurie.
0
FollowupID: 383156

Follow Up By: Bega Photographer - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 07:52

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 07:52
Now Rock,

If your images are coming out dotty on A4 paper from a 3.1 megapixel camera, you are doing something wrong in the transfer, save or print facet of the process. It's not the camera. If you don't get to the bottom of this you'll be no better off with a 10 megapixel camera.

Please note that A3 is twice the size of A4, not the other way around.

From my 2 meg camera I print A4. My wife, from her 3.2 meg camera prints A3. The photos are not dotty. At least not till you get up close with a magnifying glass. And we don't care about the critisism of picky little people who get around our images with a magnifying glass, do we?

The ideal file size for printing A4 comes from a 4 meg camera and will print at 300 dpi at A4 size. With my 2 meg camera I'm printing A4 at 150 dpi and it's fine.

There are a number of places in the process chain where you could be going wrong: take careful note.

1) Set your camera to its largest file size. There will be both file size and compression options. So choose largest file size and no compression.

2) How do you download the photos to the computer? If you plug the camera into the computer you can't go wrong. If you use a card reader as I do, copy and paste, do not save as. This is about saving the file with all of its origional data with no compression.

3) If you need to move the file around the computer, copy and paste, don't save as.

4) If you need to edit the file, that is, fix the colour or whatever, print from your edited version without saving the changes.

5) Never save changes to your origional file. Always work on a copy. Save the changes to your copy if you wish, to send it over the e-mail, put it on your desktop or whatever, but always keep the original without saving changes.

The reason: a JPEG file or .jpg is a compressed file. When you click save or save as, you compress the file, reducing file size and quality, more every time you save.

Now, that's taken care of the file size part.

6) When you come to print, go to File>Print>Properties. Select the right paper. If you have a choice of several photo papers be sure to select the right one. Each of those choices has it's own printer profile and in order to get good colour you must select the right printer profile.

7) Select the highest quality printing. Your printer might print 600 x 300 dpi (dots per inch) or 300 x 300 dpi. This a measure of the fineness of the job your printer does. It is different to the dpi of your file which is actually pixels per inch. If you are printing A4 from a 2 meg camera the dpi from you file will be 150 dpi but the printer dpi will still be 600 x 300 or 300 x 300 as the case may be for your printer.

So Rock, there are seven things you need to get right and your prints will be fine. If they don't come right you may need to look into the printer. I think we should go halves in that thousand bucks you're going to save.

Note: We have two printers.

1) Canon i6100. This is an A3 plus size. We bought it for quality arty photographic prints. We always use the best ink and paper. Cost about $700 bucks.

2) Epson Stylus C45. This is an A4 size. Used for run of the mill stuff including A4 photos. I refill the ink cartriges with cheep ink from Go-Ferrit and use the cheapest photo paper. I bought a heap off Ebay for 60c a sheet.

We paid $69 for this printer at the post ofice early this year. They now have them for $59. The printing quality is fine. Can't go wrong.

Regards,
Laurie.
0
FollowupID: 383161

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 14:09

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 14:09
Rock Crawler posted this followup
I usually like to print on A4 photo paper , and with the 3.1 its a little dotted
--------

Your printer head could be a bit dodgey, have you tried a different printer at a mates place?
0
FollowupID: 383227

Reply By: Matt (W.A.) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:43

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 20:43
Rock Crawler,
Take a look at DPReview if you’re looking for A digital SLR (I have a Canon 300D) before that I had a Sony CD Miveca (Bucket of Snot) you won’t be Disappointed if you Get any DSLR you can be sure! Sports shots and any action shots are second to non with a DSLR
P&S (Point & Shoot) Digital cameras are ok as a back-up but I would recommend a DSLR to anyone also grab a zoom lens if the budget allows!! You can still use the DSLR in full Auto but it also gives you the options to get creative with the manual settings too.

HTH

Matt
AnswerID: 128455

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:18

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:18
Have you tried the Russian hack on the 300D?

Search for it - the 300D is a detuned 10D!!!!! You can upgrade it very easy.

russian hack is also on DPREVIEW!
0
FollowupID: 383103

Follow Up By: Matt (W.A.) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:46

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:46
I thought about it Truckster, but chickened out at the last moment! I thought I’d get used to all the other Settings on the Camera before I ventured into the Hacked Menus some users on DPreview rave about the hack and others say stick with the Original Firmware. Horses for courses I guess.

Matt
0
FollowupID: 383134

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 23:12

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 23:12
yea I'm the same.. have a mate on a train forum thats done it, he is happy with it.. also check ya version of firmware, 1.1 something is the latest.

gonna do a camera course, GOB (steve) did one earlier this year, I wanna do similar on digi camera to learn how to use this. Had it 6+ mths, love it, running 2x1gig cards + 2x512s and im not sure if digi promotes better photography or not.. I just keep runnin shots off, where when I only had 24 shots to use, I would pick and choose what to take...

my boss is a pro phothgrapher and has 10D, says its worth doing the hack, but he probably uses more than I would....
0
FollowupID: 383139

Reply By: dingbat - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:19

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:19
Rock crawler
Matt has suggested a great website in dpreview, my recommendation would be the panasonic fz5, fz20, or the new and still not available in OZ, fz30.
These cameras have image stablisation and the equivalent of a 32mm-432mm zoom with a Leica lens. I considered a DSLR to complement my existing lenses, but did not want to bothered with carrying extra lenses and the maybe hassles of dust getting on the sensor when changing lenses. The dpreview site has forums for each camera make-but beware you can get overloaded with info.

regards dingbat
AnswerID: 128470

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:49

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:49
The only problem with Panasonic is they use a proprietary battery pack which aint cheap. They are a great camera though.

I prefer to use something that uses AA rechargeables.
0
FollowupID: 383201

Reply By: Eric from Cape York Connections - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:19

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:19
We have only just got inti the world of digital we bought a fuji fin pix 3500 which is 4 mega pix and 6 times zoom
We use this for most day to day stuff.
We also have a cannon SLR with two lenses we take them both on trips etc.
When we get home I down load the digital to the computer and adjust colour etc.
Then take cannon film to the shop and get them to put the pictures straight to disc.
Cost of about $8.for a roll of 24.
You cant tell them apart when you print the ones you want to blow up.

All the best
Eric
AnswerID: 128472

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:23

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:23
thanks eric
0
FollowupID: 383106

Reply By: Member - Ian B - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:21

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:21
SLR cameras are like sailing, you know... standing in the shower tearing up twenty dollar bills...

It doesn't stop with the camera. You will want 2 good lenses, and lenses come in big price ranges.
You will want a flash with a high Guide Number, you will want a Carbon Fibre tripod, you will want NG filters, and unless you go for screw-ons like Hoya, you are not going to get good ones.

You will want lots of memory cards, you will want extended battery packs, you will want an Epson media reader, or an iPod at least.

You will want a good quality camera bag to hold it all, and like some of us, we work with 3 - 4 different bags, depending on where we are going.

I am not trying to sound elitist, far from it. My Canon EOS 300D looks like it's been to Iraq. It just lives out of the bag, and is COVERED in crap. As long as the front & rear elements on the lenses are clean, I don't care. I just want to be ready to take photos.

I have dropped an "L" 70 - 210 lens in the desert, but it still works. The lens cost me $2800.00. It's a tool to do a job.

These are the things you will have to consider. You cannot treat these things with kid gloves, they are tools, and they will die. If you are prepared to shell out the money, and are looking to take some wonderful photographs, then DSLR is the go, it wins hands down... simple.

If the actual trip is centred around other activities, and you simply only want to record the details in good clarity, and be able to have a camera at the ready, at all times, then go for the point & shoot.

We use both, and they BOTH get a hiding. The point & shoot is going to China in a couple of months, and we are confident it will live up to it's previous expectations.

There is also a learning curve associated with DSLR, which is damn good fun, but you really do need to be shooting around 100 shots @ week regularly to get the feel of the body, and it's settings.

I will stop short of advising you, but at least you can see that there is the possibility of the DSLR becoming a money trap, which is fine, but it's money that you may well find spent better elsewhere on your pursuits, eg: vehicle, camping gear, etc.

Food for thought....

AnswerID: 128474

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:27

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:27
Thanks ian , for someone like myself that is not going to buy lenses and stuff , and only want to point and shoot , but great photos , should I go for the 350 or for a pocket rocket ?????
0
FollowupID: 383109

Follow Up By: Member - Ian B - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:48

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:48
If you can get the 350 as a starter kit, with say a 20 - 55 lens thrown in, at a damn good price, then go with it.

You can simply leave it on auto, until you are willing to play with the creative modes, or full manual.

The RAW files are big, but they are worth it, although on full auto, you will only get hi-res jpegs.

It's a camera you can add to later if you wish, but as I have outlined, it's not as friendly as a point & shoot.

Hard call, there are a few here that have the Canons, Truckster has a 300D, try his, and see if it will fit your style of taking photographs. What I mean by this, is do you want to be taking it out of a bag every time a shot comes up? Do you want to be changing lenses in the desert?

They are damn good fun, really, but sometimes, they suck!!!
I take a point & shoot out in the kayak, in a waterproof case. I take a point & shoot out on a mountain bike. I take the DSLR out pretty much everywhere else though.

Either way, you'll have fun, and you photos will be good.

The other thing to consider is this... 99% of us LEAVE THE PHOTOS ON THE HARD DRIVES, AND NEVER PRINT THEM. This then tells us that we only need a dpi of 72, which is screen res, so chasing megapixels can be misleading. ALWAYS, if you have the option, spend the money on the glass (lens).

Cheers

Ian ( Wolfie )
0
FollowupID: 383116

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 23:09

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 23:09
thanks Ian , I was hopeing to get your attention on this thread lol

So which way did you think I should go ? a good point and shoot or slr ?
0
FollowupID: 383138

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 23:14

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 23:14
ya welcome to grab it for a weekend if ya want dude to play with, as long as ya not going diving..
0
FollowupID: 383140

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:54

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:54
Unless you're a PRO (like Ian?) RAW is a waste of time. If you must have an uncompressed file then TIFF is the go.
A Tiff file is "ready to print" straight off the camera whereas a RAW file will always need to be corrected.

A good point and shoot is the best for the "average" shooter.
0
FollowupID: 383202

Reply By: Harry - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:22

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:22
HEY Matt (WA),
While your on the subject, do you have an opinion on the CanonS2 IS.
( I'm also waiting for the Fujifinepix new Z9000 to hit the streets)
I am looking to upgrade my Kodak6340 to a bigger zoom, like 12x on the Canon with telephoto and be able to set my own settings. I love my little point and shoot it does some pretty good shots with video to boot, but it doesn't allow me to do those great wildlife shots I do with my 600mm mirror.
Here's looking at ya. :>)
AnswerID: 128475

Follow Up By: Matt (W.A.) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:02

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:02
Hey Harry,
Yes the Cannon lenses have (IS) Image Stabilisers but I would recon that they will be Pretty Pricey as my EF 90–300mm F4.5-5.6 USM Telephoto (No IS) cost me around the $420.00 mark I would get used the kit lens first as this would be a great lens to learn with as Ian said it’s like the 4x4 it wont stop at just the DSLR…….there’s Lenses, filters, hoods, Hotshoes (Flashes) and Bags the list goes on……..

HTH

Matt
0
FollowupID: 383165

Reply By: Member - Judy M (WA) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:51

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 21:51
An SLR that could use different lens would have been so nice, but i chose one light enough to have in my backpack climbing mountains. I choose Sony on reputation for reliability, and needed one with the 2.5" display so i can see the picture without my glasses. 5.1 mp, 3 x digital - pretty standard stuff. No complaints so far. Mt first digi was a 1.3 mp BenQ about the size of two matchboxes, and it took fabulous photos.
Motherhen

Red desert dreaming

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 128480

Reply By: Member - AdrianLR (VIC) - Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:50

Monday, Sep 05, 2005 at 22:50
I get real pleasure out of using my film SLRs and the resulting shots reflect the time taken to compose the photo. For everyday use I have a Pentax 33WR - internal optical zoom & waterproof to 1m so there's no problem in using it in the rain, snow, fishing & then rinsing it to get it clean.

I assume that your Kodak has optical zoom-if it only has digital then that could explain the poor prints.

Adrian
AnswerID: 128508

Reply By: Andrew (Whyalla SA) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 00:21

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 00:21
I have a Fuji S700 and LOVE it.
Only things I would like are more zoom (10x or 12x) and image stabiliser but really havent been disappointed without them.
Apparently the S9000 will include these.

After years of SLR use I really cant be bothered with changing lenses and Ive never used all of the manual features.

For me its a winner but Im a snapshooter not a photographer.
AnswerID: 128523

Follow Up By: ozdragon - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:02

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:02
Hey Rock

You really do have to have patience to use a dslr. As Ian said..its a steep learning curve but its good fun with very rewarding photos.
Also dont get sucked in to xyz mega pixels.
I have 2 cameras A fuji finepix 602z 3.1meg that interpolates to 6meg and a Nikon d70 dslr. As Ian said...the camera is a tool. A point and shoot with decent optical zoom will do most people.
The Fuji 602z is now superseeded by at least 3 models but it takes a fantastic photo, no pixelation at all when printed at 10 x 8. So as I said dont get hung up on pixels. Dpreview is a great web site, so is megapixel.net and steves digicams (link from megapixel.net).
All sites do comparisons and sample pics.
Whatever you buy...have fun

Peter
0
FollowupID: 383152

Reply By: theshadows - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:56

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:56
I think you need to learn a little more about useing your digi and your printer setting before you splash out on the DSLR.

A 3.1 meg shot should not leave any pixel marks on a A4 photo paper print in hi res printing. However in normal print mode it will, Take note that a 6 meg shot will do the same quality print because the problem is your printer setting not your print file information.

I think its time you do some testing and your printer or maybe buy new quality photo printer and fork out for photoshop or paintshop pro.

If you spent your money on a decent photo printer ,photoshop CS, and a 6 meg digi with a 8-10 x zoom {with image stabilising} and li-ion battery,tripod, hood cover for the Digi, 2 memory cards, a second li-ion battery and a water proof housing. That would be more benifitial than spending the same money on a DSLR and 2 lens for it.

Unless you understand about framing, the 3rd's rule, rules on exposure and comporsition you might be better off sticking with your digi getting right first before you move on.

Pros with digi.... self contained you can do more shots with digi than you can do with a DSLR. Dont believe what you here about fast actioned framed shots with DSLR, I do the same shot with my digi and in paintshop pro just blow up the shot and frame it before cropping the item. the shot the digi's are made for are in confined spaces...eg engine bays. Clipped to your belt I never leave home with out it.

Pros with DSLR great for manual shots quailty lens to frame that perfect shot. You get the shot right you dont need photoshop programs. If you enjoy and ave the time you rally can go to town on the perfect shot.

What I use....... a Ricoh 3 meg 3X zoom. I never leave home with out it. while my old SLR sits and gathers dust. would I buy a DSLR ... Not yet as at the moment i fear with the size of it I would never take it out of the house. I have compared action shots between my Ricoh and a friends 300d and there was no difference after I processed my shots and his. What I would l like is a 5 meg 6 x zoom with image stabilsing Camera.

The biggest problem now is over 2 years i have had my Ricoh is the market has moved a head so far that there are better cameras out there and my Ricoh has slightly fallen behind. go to a good camera shop an ask to see he images take with the new camera and get staff to explain the differences in the images. The staff will explain which cameras have the better processing chips, white balance, writing times, night software and focus / colour images.

I remember that 2 years ago Ricoh was about the best, Olympus had major proplems with calour satuation, Fuji had build and lens proplems, Canon chips kept burin out and over prices, Sony where fantastic if you could afford them but had a weird memory proplems. Now 2 years later they are all about even in build quality.

just to sum up If you want the DSLR get go grab one. but a DSLR wont fix the problems you are haveing now and with 6-10 meg files it will slow down your computer system and really use up your hard drive space. Do you really want to lug around a large camera and lens....? the choice is yours.

shadow
AnswerID: 128542

Reply By: Member - Karl - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:58

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:58
Rock Crawler,

I have a Fuji S5500 SLR and find that it is an excellent camera for what it is. It is 4.1 megapixal with a 10x digital zoom. It's small and compact and does take excellent photos.

I print my own photos using a Canon MP700 Multi-function printer and the results are excellent.

On the downside you can't change lenses or add a bigger flash - but until I am comfortable with what I am doing it is fine for what I want.

Karl
AnswerID: 128543

Reply By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:07

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:07
Konica Minolta Dimage Z5

Very good value for money, 5MP, 12x optical zoom, Image stabilisation.......

AnswerID: 128545

Reply By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:31

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:31
Take a look at this site, Digital Basics. A good read which explains all the terms in layman's speak.

Most basic thing to understand is what size image (in Mega Pixels) is required to print what size photo (6"x4", A4, A3 etc.)
Start with the basics. To get a good image you should be printing at at least 240DPI or preferably 320DPI. To do this, for a 6"x4 print you need a 3.1MP camera.
Always set your camera to highest quality, largest file size. The higher the quality setting the less compression (JPEG is a lossy compression) is done to your images, therefore better quality. The higher the file size setting the larger you can print.

A 5MP camera gives you an 8"x6" at 320DPI or 10"x8" at 240DPI.

So MP controls the size of the image and therefore the size you can print it at.

Quality is controlled by Capture Bit Depth (and compression). Most cameras in the sub $1k market ar 8bit cameras (8 bits per pixel giving 256 shades of grey per channel). Digital cameras capture in RGB. Each channel is actually grey, the camera doesn't 'see' colour. The output device, monitor printer etc, interprets the grey to produce colour.
Higher quality cameras have more bits per channel. A 12 bit per channel camera gives far more levels of grey than an eight bit camera, meaning smoother greys and therefore better images.

Cheers....
AnswerID: 128562

Reply By: Rock Crawler - Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 17:15

Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005 at 17:15
I want to thank everyone for there valuable info . I am now in the mind not to go with the SLR , but for a good quality point and shoot . Possibly spend the balance on some photography leasons lol . Ill keep you all posted with my new quest lol
AnswerID: 128646

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)