Any camera 'experts' on the forum??

Submitted: Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:17

ThreadID: 32733 Views:2007 Replies:8 FollowUps:16

This Thread has been Archived

signman

I've had my lil Sony Cybershot for a few trips now. Great for point & shoot- but limitations for wide angle and other special shots. I have been offered a Canon D30 SLR digi camera- but not being a camera expert, have no idea.
It's just the camera body, and I understand I've gotta buy lenses then?? What would be a good lens(es) to have?? Wot's the goods on the d30 (for $500)- good buy??
Do you have to be a NASA engineer to drive these digi SLRs??

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator Share

Reply By: Member - Paul P (Bris) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:42

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:42

Greetings

Go here for a review Steve's Digicams D30 review.

Regards

Paul

AnswerID: 166113

Follow Up By: Utemad - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:52

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:52

Well after looking at that review it looks like that is quite an old camera (digital technology moves fast). Since you have to buy lenses to suit unless you found some good second hand ones cheap then I don't think you should buy it.
Based on being able to buy a brand new Canon 350D for $1300 with two lenses.

FollowupID: 421046

Reply By: Member - RockyOne - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:43

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:43

Hi Sigman ! I use,amongst others,a Canon S-70,now I believe,to be replaced by the S-80..Great lens,compact,magic quality,pocket size(almost).Lens zooms out to eq of 28mm (35mm language) which is why I bought mine.Very accurate on auto.So grab S-70 if they still have any left,or the newer S-80..I have the large digi Cams also,but use this most of the time.Takes normal cards.You'll love it..Can do all the manual stuff if req.!MPG:6!

AnswerID: 166114

Reply By: Member No 1- Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:55

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:55

wolfie and laurie are the experts

AnswerID: 166116

Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:02

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:02

Brand new DSLRs perform much better than previous models and are much cheaper - have at look at what you get for under $1000 in a Camera plus Lens package.

Keep in mind the disadvantages of Digital SLRs - you get no preview on an LCD screen that shows you what the exposure will be like.

Don't assume "it's an SLR - every picture a take will be much better than from a non-SLR" - non-SLRs produce excellent pictures. I do A3 prints from mine and no-one has ever commented about lack of quality.

For $750 you can get the top-of-the-range Fuji non-SLR S9500 with 10-1 zoom - you will be paying at least as much by the time you buy a lens etc. I think you will be much happier with this.

Mike

AnswerID: 166117

Follow Up By: greydemon - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:23

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:23

"Keep in mind the disadvantages of Digital SLRs - you get no preview on an LCD screen that shows you what the exposure will be like. "

This is in fact a huge ADVANTAGE. The biggest cause of poor photo quality with digital cameras is camera shake caused by people holding the camera away from their body and composing the shot using the preview screen. No one would have considered for one second holding a film camera that way and you are generally still dealing with the same length of exposure. Try taking the same shot holding the camera that way, and using the viewfinder - big difference. Even better - use a tripod!

If you are unsure about the exposure then take the shot and play it back - you can always delete it if unhappy.

The big advantages of SLR cameras is usually the quality of the glass, the ability to change lenses, and usually greater control in terms of film speed, exposure compensation, white balance etc etc.

Having said all that, Mike DID is quite correct, there are some really good non-SLRs around which are usually a lot smaller and lighter. You get a much better photo from a small camera you have with you than the big camera you left at home!

Last point.....NEVER use the digital zoom, only Optical zoom is of any use to you.

Have fun.

FollowupID: 421054

Follow Up By: greydemon - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:26

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:26

Forgot to mention - I wouldn't bother with the 30D, too old, too few megapixels.

FollowupID: 421056

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:48

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:48

High-end non-SLRs have LCD viewfinders so you don't hold it at arm's length.

Mike

FollowupID: 421058

Follow Up By: Utemad - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:15

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:15

Doesn't have to be high end to have a digital view finder. My Fuji S5600 has that! :-)

I have been wondering though what makes an SLR? SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex. It is accepted that to be an SLR camera you need to be able to have removable lenses. However to me the term Single Lens Reflex means that when you look through the view finder you are seeing through the lens. So cameras such as the Fuji S5600, S9500 and Canon S2, Pro1 etc could all be classed as SLRs.

Perhaps they need to re classify things now we have SLRs without removable lenses?

FollowupID: 421064

Follow Up By: Scoey (QLD) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:42

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:42

I don't think the term SLR actually fits into the digital world very well at all Utemad. SLR's involved the light being captured coming thru the lens relfecting of the shutter mirror and bouncing around a pentaprism then into the viewfinder (Single lens reflex). The shutter mirror would move out of the way when the shutter opened exposing the light to the film. The fact that the lenses on these camera's were interchangeable was a by-product of the process they used. Digital cameras internals are by and large completely different to film cameras because of the completely different technology they use. SLR is now just a commonly used term for cameras that have interchangeable lenses which is technically incorrect but what else are they gonna call them??

Cheers
Scoey.

FollowupID: 421086

Follow Up By: Utemad - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 15:00

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 15:00

How about calling them 'Camera formerly known as SLR' :-)

FollowupID: 421092

Follow Up By: Scoey (QLD) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 15:31

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 15:31

Hehe! I like it! :-))

FollowupID: 421095

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 15:33

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 15:33

Digital SLRs still use the same optics as film SLRs, the mirror flips up to let the light onto the sensor (film), You can get ones that have a fixed lens.

Not many non-DSLR have optical viewfinders, but those that do have totally separate optics that follow the zoom of the main lens - as closely as possible.

Mike

FollowupID: 421096

Follow Up By: David from David and Justine Olsen's 4WD Tag-Along - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 17:18

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 17:18

They are still SLR (single lens reflex. Just the film has been replaced ie they still have on lens for both viewing and taking the photo and they still have a mirror that flicks up out of the way. So they are still true SLR's.

The difference is the film has been replaced by a CCD.

Dave O

FollowupID: 421116

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:34

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:34

Start pricing lens'.... Anythign worth having is $700ish.

Having just started into this crap myself in last 12 mths, Ive spent about $3k + on lens' so far.
70-200 F2.8 Sigma (canon one is $2500+)
50mm Canon F1.8 (1.4 is $double)
105 macro Sigma
17-70 Wide angle
etc etc

The Camera you have been offered, google for reviews - also try forums where real world people are using them like www.pbase.com

Reviews:
www.dpreview.com
www.google.com

AnswerID: 166143

Follow Up By: Member - Craig D (SA) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:28

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:28

Hey Truckster... that's a nice selection of lenses. I use a similar kit with my Canon 1V. To give the post originator an idea of costs of pro-lenses I've included their new cost as well.

70-200mm F2.8L ($3000)
300mm F4L ($2400)
20-35mm F2.8L ($2000)
50mm F1.4 ($800-ish)

Yep, as already posted, it depends on how far you want to go!

Go with the latest DSLR that you can afford and budget well for some decent glass.

FollowupID: 421085

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:29

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:29

I'm still really learnign this stuff. Still alot to learn yet, Im gettin better though...

Macro is fun...

Sigma 105 Macro lens
1/1250th second at f/2.8
(Do you know what happens with a macro lens, when the subject - a spider, working in close and it actually MOVES TOWARDS YOU?)

Canon 18-55mm lens
30 secs at F22

Canon 50mm F1.8 lens
1/250th sec at F1.8 with soft focus filter on...

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 lens
13secs at F11

first play with 1/2 red filter
Lens 70-200mm F2.8
Exposure 6 secs at f32

FollowupID: 421161

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:31

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:31

PS to Original poster, those lens' that Craig is pricing are genuine Canon lens'.

My sigma 70-200 F2.8 cost $1000.00 compared, and the results arent that much different for my skill level. (Plus the canon is phukin heavy!)

FollowupID: 421163

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:34

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:34

Pss.

If your in Melbourne, give this Ebay seller ya $ !photobuff! is his ebay name including the !

Thats where I get all my lens - and if I update camera, i'll get from him too.. Hes in Endevour Hills, and lets you try before you buy, and also try other lens'...

and for filters, try ttenroca - andrew in sydney, some great deals.

FollowupID: 421166

Follow Up By: Member - Craig D (SA) - Tuesday, Apr 11, 2006 at 07:36

Tuesday, Apr 11, 2006 at 07:36

Yep, the Canon lenses are heavy Truckster....my standard wedding setup of 1V, Power Booster, 70-200L, 550EX and associated power pack weighs in at over 4 1/2 kgs! Sure tests the arms doing 12+ hour shoots (and don't forget all the other chit in the camera bag that's on my shoulder, and the tripod, and the studio lights...the list goes on). Then again, my Bronica with 45CL Metz attached ain't that much lighter either. Thank god for Leica M's and Summicrons!!!

Happy shooting.

FollowupID: 421221

Reply By: TerraFirma - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:22

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:22

Yes with these Digital SLR's the people who buy them typically already have an investment in lenses suited to these cameras. Obviously if not you have to get started with a body and camera. No doubting both Canon and Nikon lead the market and both make very good cameras. The D30 is way old and wouldn't be good value given what is available now. Not to be confused with the 30D, a new model..?

Good camera if you can buy one cheap would be the Nikon D70 or D70s or the Canon EOS 350D and similar models. It really depends on how far you want to go.

AnswerID: 166162

Reply By: Scoey (QLD) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:48

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 14:48

Hey Signman,
The camera you mentioned would have a full auto mode, a full manual mode and a lot of other modes in between. This equals HEAPS of freedom! A good starting point for a lens would be something versatile like the equiv. of a 28mm-80mm lens. Down the track a bit try to grab a 75mm-300mm lens for some decent zoom and maybe a 50mm Macro to play with.

Downsides to this are the bulkyness of it all. If you're lugging all this gear around it can get a bit tedious if you have to change lenses often. Hehe! Solution - get a bigegr gear bag and a coupla bodies! Now you're talking! :-D

Looks like a good camera at a reasonable price - but check out the net for good deals on new cameras. You've already got a lil point and shoot if you don't want the bother of lugging the 30D around!

Cheers
Scoey!

AnswerID: 166168

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:20

Monday, Apr 10, 2006 at 21:20

I agree with changing lens'.. by the time you find out the lens you have on is wrong, change to correct lens, the subject has gone home, showered, cleaned and waxed the car, and you are still packing gear away from changing.

thats why I went with the 17-70, as it is wide enough at 17mm, and not too bad at 70mm.

You can get a Sigma 50-500 lens that gets some good reviews, but I dont see it getting good results at 50 or 500... I could be wrong, but I'd rather have more options.

Then, there are filters.... lol

FollowupID: 421153

Reply By: Sand Man (SA) - Tuesday, Apr 11, 2006 at 00:29

Tuesday, Apr 11, 2006 at 00:29

signman,

I own a Canon Powershot S65. A good compact digital camera which takes good quality photos. One problem I have with this unit, is red-eye, when used with the flash at night. Yes, you can edit the digital photo to remove it but still a PITA at times.

I have recently bought a Canon EOS 350D SLR Camera and the difference is definitely noticeable. My justification for buying the 350D was that I could use the lenses from my Canon EOS 3000 35mm SLR, but in practice, I have never bothered. The lens I bought with the camera has exceptional wide angle to telephoto range and image stabilising technology to reduce blurred photographs.

The real beauty of SLR cameras, is in looking through the view finder, what you see is what you will get. There is no need whatsoever to view the image on the display screen, when framing, zooming and taking the picture.

I found even with the Powershot, I rarely used the screen to view the shot before I took it. It is just not natural to hold a camera at arms length to take a picture.
Look at people when they do this. They take "5 minutes" to complete a shot. Too Late Mate. The subject has changed, or gone altogether.

Another great feature of the SLR is the multi shot mode. As long as the shutter is held down, the camera will take a series of continuous photographs, at about 3 frames per second. You just delete the ones you don't want.

The SLR cameras have many features you may never use, but are still easy to use. You just set to auto mode and everything is done for you.

If you can afford the price of a digital SLR camera, you will not be disappointed.