I broke my Kodak M883 the other night when i drunkenly dropped it when the zoom was out, now its stuck. i figure i might as well get a new camera... thing is, i dont know where to start.
ive been upgrading my cams each time i get one, to get a better one, and id like to do the same now too. i dont want to spend much more than maybe 300euros... but id like to get a good one, as im getting a bit into photography now.
i like the point n shoot aspect of smaller digicams, but at the same time, id like my cam to have a better lens on it, for sharper images. my kodak actually took some pretty awesome macro shots, but for everything else it was just fine, not awesome, just fine.
anyone have any ideas on what kinda camera i should get? im gonna look thru the posts and check some websites, but any personal advice from you guys would be sweet
i just used my bfs dads 700euro nikon cam which was pretty awesome but outta my price range! is there anything out there which has the lens attachment for a reasonable price? i dont wanna get the lens yet, but would like to have the option if i run into some money later on!
That budget is a shame, as for ~€400 you could get a Nikon D40 DSLR (the little brother of your boyfriend's father's camera) bundled with the basic 18-55 lens (which you'll want to upgrade from at some later point, but which should be good enough for now). €400 really is the lowest DSLRs go for though. Or maybe you could pick one up secondhand for €300...?
Otherwise, in the realm of point 'n shoot cameras, you can't really go wrong with a Canon Ixus. For a bit under €300, you could get an Ixus 870 IS, Ixus 960 IS or Ixus 970 IS. (Note that these are the European designations; in the USA they'd be "digital elph" with different numbers.) All those have image stabilization and some (if limited) manual control so you can push the boundaries of what a point 'n shoot can do. They'll give you good image quality (if nowhere near as excellent as from any DSLR) but are mostly designed to do this without much input from you, where a DSLR would do the same, but really shines when you pay attention.
Unfortunately, photography is an EXPENSIVE hobby. Having said that, and scared the living crap outa ya, have you looked around for used gear ? The shelf-life of a DSLR is around 2 years these days before the next generation comes out. Why waste your money when you don't have any?
Reputable dealerships (Henry's or Headshots here in Toronto) will sell you old gear, professionally inspected, and even with a warrantee. My old (as in 4 years old) Nikon D70 body will set you back around 200euro these days. Lenses will vary a lot in price. I suggest getting the 50mm/F1.8 for only around 100euro. It's faster than any zoom, sharp, and a good place to start if you're looking to get into it seriously rather than just having a nice zoom for vacation shots. I'm not against zooms, I just think everyone should learn to use a 50mm before they get one. :-P
The thing about DSLRs is that the lens is worth more than the body. That 50mm/F1.8D will last you "a lifetime", while the body (even if you get the best) will last you no more than 5years before it completely goes out of date. Just try finding a zoom lens that even approaches F1.8 !!
hey thanks heaps for the recomendations!!
i know photography is expensive... im trying to save up, but i hate not havin a camera!!!
i might just get a point n shoot now, so i have something, and then alter when i have more cash, get a DSLR.....
im having a look on this www.choice.com.au website (which you have to sign up and pay for - thanks mum!) and the reviews that im reading on the Nikon D60, Pentax K200D, Olympus E420 and E410 and they pretty much say that the image quality and the camera in general are poor. whats up with that? i thought the Nikons were pretty good? im looking at the cheapest ones they have, theyre all under $1000AUD (the E420 is $1099) which is fairly cheap on the DSLR range im sure, but are they actually poor quality cameras? all the image stabilisation comparions say theyre all either poor or very poor (aside from the nikon where it says NA).
Nikon - Poor image quality in low light without flash. Noticeable vignetting in wide mode. Accurate and clear viewfinder. Starts up quickly. Easy to access memory card. Fast in continuous mode. Very little shutter delay.
Pentax - Noticeable vignetting in wide mode. Accurate viewfinder. Very little shutter delay. Starts up quickly
Olympus E420 - Poor image quality in auto and manual mode. Difficult to focus manually and automatically, especially without a flash. Very little shutter delay. Starts up quickly. Fast in continuous mode.
E410 - Very accurate and clear viewfinder. Monitor can be used for live view. Very little shutter delay, but the autofocus can slow it dramatically. Fast in continuous mode. Easy to get to xD and CFII memory cards. Poor image quality in most situations.
Pentax K200D Kit + 18-55mm DA AL — good value as an entry level SLR. It's an easy to use 10 megapixel camera with a fast shutter response, accurate viewfinder and starts up quickly.
Noticeable vignetting in wide mode and picture quality in low light without flash is poor.
any experience with this camera??? its in my price range most def and an entry level is pretty much what im after... any thoughts??
Vignetting is when the corners of the photo turn out noticeably darker than the middle, simply because less light has reached the ccd for those corners.
I think that that website you're looking at isn't being very nuanced; anything which is slightly less than as good as the very best camera in a class seems to be portrayed negatively.
Compare "Poor image quality in low light without flash." with how dpreview brings it: "High ISO performance good, but not as good as best in class".
Basically for choosing a camera I wouldn't trust a general purpose website which tries to "review" everything (that's what it looks like to me), but instead stick to those websites where they actually *know* photography.
For that Pentax, here's the review. It looks good, although the default jpg output sounds atrocious (it's oversharpened and oversaturated; that means that at first sight the photos will "look" like they have extra pop, but it's at the cost of real image quality, and you can't undo it if you only shoot jpgs and not raw). It's not a deal-breaker (you can adjust it, or shoot raw and process yourself), but it's not really ideal either.
Nikon D40/D60 and Canon 1000D are "entry-level", too, btw. I'd stay away from Olympus. They started with a completely new system for the sensor and leses (four/thirds), which has not been a success and distinctly limits your choices if you ever want to do more with your camera in the future.
To save you having to search for them, here's the dpreview reviews for the Nikon D40, Nikon D60, Canon 1000D, Olympus E-410 and Olpymus E-420. (You don't have to slog through each 20+ page review to get a good overview; unless I'm really interested in the camera, usually I stick to reading only the first 2-3 pages to get a feel for the features, and then skip to the conclusion which sums up all the findings (and thus tells me which other pages to go read in detail if there's anything of particular interest there).)