# Are SLR cameras worth the money??



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

Im in the market for a new camera cause the one i have is getting on with age. I find that is is hard to take good photos of my animals with. Kinda has a yellow tinge to it.

Is it worth buying an entry level SLR or should i just stick with a point and shoot??

I do enjoy taking nice pictures and wouldnt mind learning more about photography.

I also travel a little bit and enjoy taking lots of photos. (Between 1000 and 1500 per trip)

What cameras do you use??

Cheers

Squid


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 29, 2011)

I sold my SLR and now I want one again, I use Nikon


----------



## yommy (Apr 29, 2011)

I have the cannon 50d and rate it as it takes awesome pics but can also back up to do video as well.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

The one im looking at is the Nikon D3100 with the twin lense kit.

Do you guys take them overseas when you travel ( if you travel). Whats the extra weight like to carry and hold?? I always take a backpack with me and im a big lad so security isnt an issue.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Apr 29, 2011)

Digital slr are well worth the money. The quality of photo you can take is amazing. They are expensive but worth it. 
But it does come down to if you want to learn how to use all the functions on a slr 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Squinty said:


> The one im looking at is the Nikon D3100 with the twin lense kit.
> 
> Do you guys take them overseas when you travel ( if you travel). Whats the extra weight like to carry and hold?? I always take a backpack with me and im a big lad so security isnt an issue.


 
Always take slr's as carry on it's big worth risking them getting broken

It also comes down to how much you want to spend. My brother bought a canon 7D the other day I think with a basic lens 3000 to 3500 I can't remember. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

im hopeless at reading instruction manuals. I just learn buy using or finding my own way. is this possible with a digital SLR??

and i meant i take a backpack so carrying during the day is not a trouble. i always take anything like that as carry on.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 29, 2011)

The one your looking at has pretty easy functions so shouldn't be too hard to master, my advise would be to buy the body only or the single lens kit and invest in a better quality lens than the one they come with.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Apr 29, 2011)

Squinty said:


> im hopeless at reading instruction manuals. I just learn buy using or finding my own way. is this possible with a digital SLR??
> 
> and i meant i take a backpack so carrying during the day is not a trouble. i always take anything like that as carry on.


 
The best way to learn all the functions on things like that look up the model on YouTube. There will be heaps of reviews and tutorials. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slim6y (Apr 29, 2011)

to be honest - it's more dependant on your uses - most point and shoots are awesome and can easily compete with most amateur photographers needs. 

The main difference is the fact with a good point and shoot you won't need to carry lenses around with you - and you're always ready for action.

Personally - I'd love both


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

well i bought the mrs an nice olympus point and shoot about a year or so ago. and i have my other olympus point and shoot ive had for about 6 or so years. there is nothing wrong with it, just the photo quality isnt what i want anymore. id like to take some nice shots of my travels and get them blown up.

I was using my step dads Pentax SLR the other weekend in my mums garden for a try and took some wicked Macro type shots of flowers. Turned out really well. I might ask him to bring it to my house so i can take some photos of my animals and see how they turn out.


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 29, 2011)

They are worth it if you appreciate quality, A lot point and shoots do a great job but once you get a few really good shots under your belt you want to see how much better you can do and realise you need a DSLR. But I beleive the bulk of quality not to mention price is in the lenses, Im a canon fan and cant wait to get my hands on a 5Dmk2 with the 24-105 L series lense kit and everyone should have a nice fixed 50mm lense. I have a 400d with a few fixed and IS lenses that will go nicely on a 5D mk2.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

From the reviews i have read the Nikon D3100 seems the pick of the bunch for the price. I was looking at one with the view through the LCD screen that is rotateable with a twin lense kit.

Are the twin lense kits worth getting for a starter??


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 29, 2011)

Squinty said:


> From the reviews i have read the Nikon D3100 seems the pick of the bunch for the price. I was looking at one with the view through the LCD screen that is rotateable with a twin lense kit.
> 
> Are the twin lense kits worth getting for a starter??


Yes, but I'd still go the single kit then try get a better quality lens of ebay for a good price. Having said that there are some really good deals around at the moment for the d3100 with the twin kit and you can always sell te lens kit later when you want to upgrade.


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 29, 2011)

Lense kits are an ok place to start, I think you will soon want to upgrade to the quality lenses though. The best Dslr is only as good as the glass in front of it.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

awesome

thanks

i gues the mrs better let me spend some money this weekend!

haha


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 29, 2011)

Dont forget to put UV filters on your lenses, they are cheap to replace compared to a scratched lense.


----------



## lizardmech (Apr 29, 2011)

The Sony A33 is probably the most flexible cheap DSLR. Most people new to DSLRs don't realize the canon and nikon models can't autofocus properly when using the LCD to shoot or doing movies. It tends to get overlooked due to Sony initially ignoring the DSLR market years ago.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 29, 2011)

lizardmech said:


> The Sony A33 is probably the most flexible cheap DSLR. Most people new to DSLRs don't realize the canon and nikon models can't autofocus properly when using the LCD to shoot or doing movies. It tends to get overlooked due to Sony initially ignoring the DSLR market years ago.


 Why would you use the LCD to shoot, I'm confused


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

i wouldnt mind the LCD option as i wear glasses and sometimes it can be a pain


----------



## Sutto82 (Apr 29, 2011)

I've recently gone from a Miro Four Thirds to a full DSLR. I love my Nikon D7000, great camera and I learn something new on it everyday.

A mate of mine picked up the Nikon D3100 Twin Lens kit and loves that. I had a play with it shortly after he bought it and thought it was a really good entry level DSLR that takes great shots.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 29, 2011)

I think you can get an adapter thing if you wear glasses, I just got diagnosed as needing glasses so I'll be looking into that as well.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Apr 29, 2011)

bigfella77 said:


> Dont forget to put UV filters on your lenses, they are cheap to replace compared to a scratched lense.


 
Yes it's much cheaper to replace the uv filter then couple grand lens depending on size


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

Sutto82 said:


> I've recently gone from a Miro Four Thirds to a full DSLR. I love my Nikon D7000, great camera and I learn something new on it everyday.
> 
> A mate of mine picked up the Nikon D3100 Twin Lens kit and loves that. I had a play with it shortly after he bought it and thought it was a really good entry level DSLR that takes great shots.


 

awesome, its good to get some real feed back


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 29, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> I think you can get an adapter thing if you wear glasses, I just got diagnosed as needing glasses so I'll be looking into that as well.



I think its called a lense diopter, and aDSLR should have focus adjustments on the viewfinder.


----------



## Grogshla (Apr 29, 2011)

definately worth it. Those twin lens kits are good to hone your skills and take gorgeous shots. If you want to upgrade to a better lens later (as the twin lens kits usually have base model lenses) then your picture quality will improve even more. I would say go for any canon or nikon twin lens kit practise and have fun. Then later on get yourself a bit better lens for say 500 bucks.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

the photos i took of the flowers with step dads camera turned out fantastic. it wasnt that hard to shoot them. is it really all that easy oro does it take time to set up the camera??


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 29, 2011)

Squinty said:


> the photos i took of the flowers with step dads camera turned out fantastic. it wasnt that hard to shoot them. is it really all that easy oro does it take time to set up the camera??



It will only take short time to figure outthe basic controls, I just use apature priority usually. You will find your favourite settings and it will become second nature to you.


----------



## lizardmech (Apr 29, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> Why would you use the LCD to shoot, I'm confused


 
It's useful for shots from difficult angles. It's quite useful for macro shots as well since you are often forced to shoot in awkward positions, the other benefit is you can bring up a crop of the image to finely manually focus.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 29, 2011)

lizardmech said:


> It's useful for shots from difficult angles. It's quite useful for macro shots as well since you are often forced to shoot in awkward positions, the other benefit is you can bring up a crop of the image to finely manually focus.


 Ok, that all sounds fair. I used film for so long I guess I only thought of the LCD as a viewing device post shot.


----------



## lizardmech (Apr 29, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> definately worth it. Those twin lens kits are good to hone your skills and take gorgeous shots. If you want to upgrade to a better lens later (as the twin lens kits usually have base model lenses) then your picture quality will improve even more. I would say go for any canon or nikon twin lens kit practise and have fun. Then later on get yourself a bit better lens for say 500 bucks.


Depends if you have much use for a telephoto lens, a lot of people never seem to use them much.

There's much more interesting lenses you can get for a similar price eg:
Canon + 18-55 + 50mm f1.8
Nikon 18-55 + 35mm f1.8
Sony 18-55 + 30mm f2.8 macro or 50mm f1.8


----------



## Grogshla (Apr 29, 2011)

lizardmech said:


> Depends if you have much use for a telephoto lens, a lot of people never seem to use them much.
> 
> There's much more interesting lenses you can get for a similar price eg:
> Canon + 18-55 + 50mm f1.8
> ...


 
good call but i still think its best for a beginner to have a broad range of focal length to play with.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 29, 2011)

welll you giys have pretty much sold me!!!


looks like a new camera is on the list!!


----------



## Grogshla (Apr 30, 2011)

Squinty said:


> welll you giys have pretty much sold me!!!
> 
> 
> looks like a new camera is on the list!!


 

cameras are awesome but im a camera nerd so i would say that lol. A decent camera is always a good investment. Snap away and capture amazing images and memories in beautiful quality. Sounds good to me.


----------



## hrafna (Apr 30, 2011)

to be honest i would recommend the nikon d90 with twin lens kit. great camera that will last you. make sure the twins lens kit is with nikon lenses and don't let someone talk you into getting it with a standard sigma lens (although if the sigma lens is f2.8 go for it!) eventually you will probably like to get a 60mm f2.8 macro lens. which is a pretty handy lens at a good price! with uv filters, make sure you get a top of the range one as the glass used in the filter can make a good lens useless. if you want to use ebay, look at digital-rev, they have awesome prices and are trust worthy!


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

I just bought the D3100 (body only) with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens and it's awesome. It's fast and you get better depth of field with it. A good lens to start off and stick with for a long time. I don't regret it at all. I also just boght a SB-700 flash as the built-in flash is not so good and it's so worth it =).


----------



## Grogshla (Apr 30, 2011)

Snakelove said:


> I just bought the D3100 (body only) with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens and it's awesome. It's fast and you get better depth of field with it. A good lens to start off and stick with for a long time. I don't regret it at all. I also just boght a SB-700 flash as the built-in flash is not so good and it's so worth it =).


 

ballinggg


----------



## hrafna (Apr 30, 2011)

that tamron lens is quite good considering the cost. i still use that lens when i shoot weddings!
with the flash have fun experimenting with it, bouncing the light from walls or ceilings as you shoot!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Apr 30, 2011)

hrafna said:


> to be honest i would recommend the nikon d90 with twin lens kit. great camera that will last you. make sure the twins lens kit is with nikon lenses and don't let someone talk you into getting it with a standard sigma lens (although if the sigma lens is f2.8 go for it!) eventually you will probably like to get a 60mm f2.8 macro lens. which is a pretty handy lens at a good price! with uv filters, make sure you get a top of the range one as the glass used in the filter can make a good lens useless. if you want to use ebay, look at digital-rev, they have awesome prices and are trust worthy!


 The good thing about D90 is you can use the older Japanese made AF lens and you can get them at very good prices, I picked up some absolute bargains from the US ebay site.


----------



## Grogshla (Apr 30, 2011)

good call Kaotik


----------



## hrafna (Apr 30, 2011)

also for those that have a dslr and are not quite sure how to use it to the best capabilities, try a digital photography for beginners course at tafe. well worth it in my opinion.

another lens that might be a good one to look into if you want a decent lens but don't want to spend a few thousand, the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens is a nice lens that won't break the bank!


----------



## falconboy (Apr 30, 2011)

I'd keep away from a Nikon 3100 (and any other body that doesn't have autofocus motor built into the body itself) as when you go shopping for used or third party lenses you will have to ensure you buy one that has the motor built into the lens to get autofocus. The D90 is a brilliant camera that has it built in (as noted above by kaotikjezta) and also has commander mode function with its inbuilt flash to support wireless flash with the CLS system.

The 3100 is a great entry level camera, but still an entry level camera. A D90 is MUCH better buying as it is much more versatile. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 30, 2011)

There are some awesome point and shoot cameras out there. I've got a Nikon DSLR and love it, but if I had to lug it around everywhere it might get a bit on the annoying side, especially when traveling.

I'm also a shocker with reading manuals on them and have really learnt with trial and error. I still don't know hat I'm doing :lol:... but it works for me


----------



## lizardmech (Apr 30, 2011)

Grogshla said:


> good call but i still think its best for a beginner to have a broad range of focal length to play with.


 
I use to think this but I noticed many customers with twin kits when they come back into the store they say they hardly used the longer lens in the end. Those cheap little prime lens open up a lot more opportunities to play around with, they're sharper and let more light in. It lets them play around with low light shots, scenes where narrow depth field is useful and can be turned into decent macro lenses with extension tubes.

All you can really do with the telephoto kit lens take a picture of something slightly further away and if any action is involved they struggle to get enough light due to the f5.6 aperture.


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

hrafna said:


> that tamron lens is quite good considering the cost. i still use that lens when i shoot weddings!
> with the flash have fun experimenting with it, bouncing the light from walls or ceilings as you shoot!


 
Yeah I LOVE the Tamron, compared to the kit lenses. I'm thinking about buying the 90mm Tamron macro or one of the Nikon prime lens next. I never knew learning and practicing photography is almost as addictive!


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

After reading the product reviews again this morning (sober this time), I can see how the new Nikons can be a pain with the autofocus. The Older D5000 looks good or the Canon EOS 55D look like the better buy for the money. Im more leaning towards the Nikon D5000, only because it has a swivel on the LCD screan where the Canon 550D seems to be fixed??


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

Squinty said:


> After reading the product reviews again this morning (sober this time), I can see how the new Nikons can be a pain with the autofocus. The Older D5000 looks good or the Canon EOS 55D look like the better buy for the money. Im more leaning towards the Nikon D5000, only because it has a swivel on the LCD screan where the Canon 550D seems to be fixed??


 
Before I bought the D3100, I read a lot of reviews on them and apparently they improved from the D3000 and D5000 and made a better and more compact D3100.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

Yeah, thats why i was originally leaning towards the D3100 but not having built in autofocus reduces the range of lenses you can buy and one would assume the lenses with the autofocus built in would be more expensive??


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

Squinty said:


> Yeah, thats why i was originally leaning towards the D3100 but not having built in autofocus reduces the range of lenses you can buy and one would assume the lenses with the autofocus built in would be more expensive??


 
It's not so much of a hassle really. Well for me it doesn't really matter. Most of the lenses nowadays got the autofocus in it anyway.


----------



## lizardmech (Apr 30, 2011)

Squinty said:


> After reading the product reviews again this morning (sober this time), I can see how the new Nikons can be a pain with the autofocus. The Older D5000 looks good or the Canon EOS 55D look like the better buy for the money. Im more leaning towards the Nikon D5000, only because it has a swivel on the LCD screan where the Canon 550D seems to be fixed??


The 550D has a fixed screen. The only thing is the flip out screen isn't all that useful on the d5000 as it has no way to autofocus properly when using the LCD screen.

If you're planning with take photos with a swivel LCD screen the a33/a55 are the only ones that do it with proper autofocus in live view mode. The others have the same issue with video mode, you can't walk around using them like a normal video camera as they have no hope of focusing. It just depends how you want to use the camera as to which one suits you. DSLRs are a pretty mature product these days so even the cheapest low end ones have better image sensors than professional models did 4-5 years ago.

If you're ok with always using the optical viewfinder the 550D is pretty good value at the moment.


----------



## Darijo (Apr 30, 2011)

I have the NikonD3100 with the 2 lense kits with a 18-55mm and a 55-255mm lense, and i think it is just awesome as a entry level DSLR but then again go with what you feel like getting, i just got this one because it was within my price range at the time and it has pretty good reviews.


----------



## fugawi (Apr 30, 2011)

Another thing to think about is size and weight. I have a Canon 40d and going from a point and shoot to this is like chalk and cheese. The 40d has a metal frame and is therefore heavier than the 550d with its plastic frame. The size difference is another thing, a point and shoot goes in your pocket or on your belt whereas a DSLR is on your shoulder, around your neck or in its own backpack. Best thing to do is go down to your camera shop and pick up the whole range and handle them. 
Canon and Nikon are like Ford and Holden, same package, just different gizmos. Don't get too caught up in the gizmos like swivel screen etc. I had a choice between the Canon 40d and the 5d and after researching the differences found that the 40ds superior frame rate and the fact the 5d was more designed for portraits whereas the 40d was more for action/sports. So you will need to look at what you will be photographing and choose the best for you.


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

fugawi said:


> Another thing to think about is size and weight. I have a Canon 40d and going from a point and shoot to this is like chalk and cheese. The 40d has a metal frame and is therefore heavier than the 550d with its plastic frame. The size difference is another thing, a point and shoot goes in your pocket or on your belt whereas a DSLR is on your shoulder, around your neck or in its own backpack. Best thing to do is go down to your camera shop and pick up the whole range and handle them.
> Canon and Nikon are like Ford and Holden, same package, just different gizmos. Don't get too caught up in the gizmos like swivel screen etc. I had a choice between the Canon 40d and the 5d and after researching the differences found that the 40ds superior frame rate and the fact the 5d was more designed for portraits whereas the 40d was more for action/sports. So you will need to look at what you will be photographing and choose the best for you.


Size is a factor in a DSLR, with all those knobs and dials etc its hard sometimes to know where to put ya fingers when you have big paws like mine. I got a battery grip for the 400d which makes it a whole 1/3 bigger overall, holds an extra battery and makes it look like a Pro model.


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

I met up with a friend of mine and he had a 1D and it just feels so much better with the metal frame. It feels right in your hands.


----------



## Jay84 (Apr 30, 2011)

I recently bought a Nikon D7000 . . . . . . still learning how to use it hahaha


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

I ended up getting the Canon EOS 550D. Already taken a few shots. Can't belive the difference. It's amazing. Spewing most of my animals are in shed ATM. Oh well. Guess I'll have to terrorize the poor cats with it!


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

What lense(s) did you get with it Squinty?


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

18-55 f/3.5 and 55-250 f/4


----------



## falconboy (Apr 30, 2011)

You'll rarely _only_ own a DSLR, there are times they are not practical so you will always need a point and shoot. If anyone is looking, at the moment in point and shoots the pick of the bunch for price vs features vs quality vs performance is the Panasonic Lumix FH-25. Shop around you can get it about $265.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

Yeah I will still use my point and shoot and the mrs point and shoot.


----------



## GTsteve (Apr 30, 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me how often I get on here and see a thread relevant to things that are going on for me.

Tell me to get my own thread if this is a bit of a hijack.

I am in the market for a camera at the moment. I have a trip to NZ booked in the next couple of weeks and want to get some good pics while I'm there. I've been doing heaps of research trying to work out what I need. Although I would love to get into photography more I wont be doing it before I go to NZ and an extra bag for a DSLR on top of the 4 large suit cases, 2 small suit cases, port-a-cot, pram, back pack and nappy bag would send me over the edge (I'm travelling with my wife and 3 kids aged 1 - 5). 

I was very close to purchasing the Sony NEX5 with the twin lens kit as it seemed a happy medium between a "proper" or full size DSLR and something more compact. I'm now off the idea because for travelling, something that can go in my pocket is always going to be with me and therefore more useful.

I was thinking about one of the "tough" camera's (Olympus TG-810 or Panasonic FT3) for a while but keep hearing they don't take that good a picture. I also don't think we have ever dropped a camera and have certainly never used one underwater.

I'm happy to spend a bit more for something a bit better and I have narrowed it down to 4 cameras unless you guys have anything to add.

SONY CYBERSHOT HX7V
PANASONIC LUMIX TZ18 (or 20)
CANON POWERSHOT SX230 HS
FUJIFILM FINEPIX F550EXR

These all have better than average zoom and a couple have bigger than average sensors. The pricing I have found before I haggle is for between $404 and $449. I'm actually happy to pay the money but they'll need to throw in quite a few GB of SD card!

Any and all feed back is welcome people.

Cheers,

Steve

Hell, look how much I wrote! I need a beer I think.


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

Look at the Canon G10 or Gll, I hear they have astounding picture quality for a point n shoot.

Look how much I wrote, I need another Bundy.


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

G10 is a good camera. Very good camera for it's size, but I think there's a G12 out now .


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

Yeah but you shold be able to pick up a G10 / G11 for a good price, I imagine a G12 is around the grand $ mark.


----------



## Snakelove (Apr 30, 2011)

haha yeah, I was pointing it out just in case he's into things that are new and shiny. haha.


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

LOL, yeah i must confess im a sucker for shiny new gadgets myself.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

`What the hell is that thing??!!`


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

Isnt it amazing how a quality camera makes a mundane picture look great. What ISO you using there Squinty?


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

what is ISO?? i am just using it on auto atm. I have taken a few macro shots. I put them in the show us ya womas thread.

Ill find time to read the manual tomorrow.

EDIT - I had a look in the manual. I found the section. Its on auto atm.


----------



## falconboy (Apr 30, 2011)

The only problem with the Canon G9/10/12 etc is although brilliant cameras feature wise, pretty much all the manual settings you could ask for (hence a popular backup for SLR users) they don't have great zoom most people wanting a P&S camera would want - 5x optical. And for $600 + you would have to be a bit of an enthusiast to want one.

There are hundreds (and more) P&S cameras, the tip is to RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH, read reviews online, compare prices and bring it down to a few, then eeny meeny miney mo for the final one. Every time I research for myself or someone I know who wants a new camera, it is usually something in the Panasonic Lumix range that ends up in the couple of possibilities. None of the name brand point and shoot cameras are bad (other than ANY entry level model), so its a matter of finding one that suits you.

When looking, its also not all about megapixels but more about quality and performance. As an example, on a recent holiday my wife and I both took our point and shoot cameras, her a $150 Olympus, me a $400 Panasonic Lumix (of course - mainly priced because of twice the zoom of her Olympus), at the end of the day photos out of both were similar, you couldn't neccesarily pick which photos were from which camera, however, on several occasions, for instance out of a moving taxi/bus/boat, when photographing someone on street, hers took several long seconds to turn on, zoom, for the shutter to be ready and actually take the shot, by that time it was too late - mine, with a much faster response was ready and shooting before hers was even focused. You don't want to miss a great photo opportunity because of a slow camera, hence my recommendation in an earlier post for the Lumix FH25, as reviews mentioned it had very fast response with very little shutter lag before photo is taken. 

Did I mention in P&S I like the Panasonic Lumix cameras? 



bigfella77 said:


> Isnt it amazing how a quality camera makes a mundane picture look great. What ISO you using there Squinty?


 
His photo was taken at 400 ISO at 55m focal length at 1/60 at f5.6 with flash. 

Squinty, if you keep using it on auto you might as well buy a point and shoot. 

Read up on how aperture effects a photo (particularly with depth of field) and stick your camera on Aperture Priority so you have a bit more control over the final result.


----------



## bigfella77 (Apr 30, 2011)

Yeah Falconboy, I bought my wife a Lumix DMC-TZ6 its its a great camera. I mention the Canon G series because I saw in Australian Photography a review on it and saw some same shot pics comparison between the G10 and a top end slr and the G10 with its new wangfangled sensor blew it out of the water quality wise, especially when blown up to large proportions. It just lacks a little in the zoom depatment. Great for taking pics of the lovely NZ vistas.
But the Lumix is great too, anything with a Leica lense is going to perform well.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

how the hell did you know what it was taken at??

yeah i will get into that after i have had a read of the manual and a bit more of a play. That was the 4th photo i took with the thing!!


----------



## falconboy (Apr 30, 2011)

Squinty said:


> how the hell did you know what it was taken at??
> 
> yeah i will get into that after i have had a read of the manual and a bit more of a play. That was the 4th photo i took with the thing!!



Photographic eye mate. LOL. Just kidding. Download a program called 'IEXIF' which has a plug in so you can right click and view the Exif data (the data imbedded in a jpg which tells all the details on camera, exposure etc). That is, if the Exif hasn't been stripped by an image editing program.


----------



## Squinty (Apr 30, 2011)

I did play with some of the functions. I played with the macro and this focus thing where you can select what you focus on manually.

I also like how the menu screen turns off when you put your face toward the viewfinder and back on when you pull away. That kept the mrs entertained for a whole 3 minutes. Lol.


----------



## falconboy (Apr 30, 2011)

Squinty said:


> I did play with some of the functions. I played with the macro and this focus thing where you can select what you focus on manually.
> 
> I also like how the menu screen turns off when you put your face toward the viewfinder and back on when you pull away. That kept the mrs entertained for a whole 3 minutes. Lol.



Your wife sounds easily entertained. At least for 3 minutes.

The selectable focus points are great. Especially when wanting something off center to be focused. Whereas previously you focused, kept your finger half on the button and re-framed your shot, the selectable focus points make it a lot easier.


----------



## heidii (Apr 30, 2011)

SLR's are definitly worth the money. I have had my Nikon D80 for about 4 years now and am looking at upgrading to the D7000, can anyone give me advice on this camera, i have been told they arn't good for point and shoot (auto) but can someone clarify?....I do alot of point and shoot unless im taking photos of a particular object or trying to get something different, or night photography etc, other than that point and shoot for me and then i play around in photoshop.


----------



## lizardmech (Apr 30, 2011)

heidii said:


> SLR's are definitly worth the money. I have had my Nikon D80 for about 4 years now and am looking at upgrading to the D7000, can anyone give me advice on this camera, i have been told they arn't good for point and shoot (auto) but can someone clarify?....I do alot of point and shoot unless im taking photos of a particular object or trying to get something different, or night photography etc, other than that point and shoot for me and then i play around in photoshop.


A D7000 is no more difficult to use than a D80. It's pretty much just an upgraded D80 with a newer sensor, bigger screen, movie mode and better autofocus. Usually upgrading lenses gives better results than getting a slightly newer camera body, just depends if your existing camera body is worn out or you really want a certain feature the D7000 has.


----------



## falconboy (May 1, 2011)

heidii said:


> I do alot of point and shoot unless im taking photos of a particular object or trying to get something different,


 
If you are still using point and shoot for most (or any!) of your stuff, then you aren't going to make use, nor see any improvement in a 7000. As mentioned, upgrade your glass or add another lens or 2 that you will make use of - suggestions are a Tamron 90mm macro and/or a wide angle zoom like the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20.


----------



## bigfella77 (May 1, 2011)

I dont really seethe point of upgrading the Nikon if you mainly just point n shoot. Get a high end compact if your camera is not going to be the main creative tool in your picture process. Personally I only like software for very minor image corrections and think the real skill is in capturing your shot in camera.


----------



## Snakelove (May 1, 2011)

bigfella77 said:


> I dont really seethe point of upgrading the Nikon if you mainly just point n shoot. Get a high end compact if your camera is not going to be the main creative tool in your picture process. Personally I only like software for very minor image corrections and think the real skill is in capturing your shot in camera.


 
Yeah I agree. I try not to post process my pictures too much. Except for the occasional sharpening and noise reduction. What do you shoot with?


----------



## eipper (May 1, 2011)

Kit lenses are fine....and i feel that photoshop is cheating


----------



## Bradchip (May 1, 2011)

Photoshop isn't cheating. Unless you're shooting RAW, then there's always editing applied to the image within the camera anyway. It's all about control over an image. If you can make an ok image a great one, then why wouldn't you edit? A lot of the compact cameras automatically apply sharpening/contrast/saturation to shots straight out of the box to look more 'pleasing'. I've generally found that the standard or neutral colour settings within a camera look really drab...and always need that extra bit of punch.

I know a lot of purists out there from the film days that are happy to bag out photoshop, but they were applying many of the same techniques used in photoshop in the darkroom anyway. 

Thumbs up to the people in here recommending the D90 and the D7000

But back onto the original post...SLR's are definitely worth the money. The kit lenses will keep you going for awhile, and are a great starting point, but eventually you'll want lenses that can do a little more.


----------



## bigfella77 (May 1, 2011)

I dont mean to say photoshop is bad or anything, I use it myself sparingly. I am still only an amature photog but my challenge to myself is to get it right in camera, to acheive the best possible result without having to tinker with the file after the fact.
I know the camera does a bit of altering itself but depending on what im shooting I may use either RAW or I monotone for portraits. I have seen some absoloutely beautiful images made with photo shop, but thats with people who know what they are doing. My biggest gripe with photoshop is people overworking the image till it looks harsh cheap knock off of what may have once been a nice image.
I only have a Canon 400d at the moment, but I have about 5 lenses and out these I pretty much only use two coz the others aint much chop quality wise.


----------



## eipper (May 2, 2011)

Brad,

I shoot in raw+jpeg low, raw for reproduction and jpegs for image sorting/sending to publishers etc, you can boost the colours, saturation in camera if you will but then are you getting true representation of the image....Don't get me wrong the only reason I have a dislike of photoshop is that people use it to "touch up, sharpen, boost sats, contrast etc" but claim the finish product was not "photoshoped". Many, many photographers that I know use it, for "adjustment" but where do you draw the line?

As for my kit lens stance....for 99% of reptile people should worry about compostion, settings and lighting before they spend money of lenses that are faster or sharper, quite frankly the differences are slight.

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## Justdragons (Oct 11, 2011)

Squinty said:


> `What the hell is that thing??!!`



looks like your kitty is wearing a snorkel. lol


----------



## ianinoz (Oct 11, 2011)

Short answer = YES.

The most important pros are 
1) interchangeable lenses and a wide range of lenses to suit every photographic need
2) you see what the film (or the sensor in the case of DSLRs) sees via the pentaprism and view finder
3) more control for the photographer is this is needed, sometimes you need this
4) on good DSLRs you can change the apparent "film" setting
5) on good DSLRs you can get the camera to automatically remove sensor noise in longer exposures in low light or at night time.

I loved my old Minolta XD5 , and I still have it and still use it sometimes, I love my Canon 40D.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Oct 11, 2011)

I feel like photoshop is cheating too. The fun in photography is trying to catch that perfect real life moment as it was and do it well without having to edit it. I do crop though.


----------



## Ewan (Oct 11, 2011)

Why do people think that buying a more expensive camera will improve their photography? All cameras serve the same functions, they allow the photographer to create an exposure. All modern cameras will even do this (and more) for you automatically. One thing a camera can not do for you is compose your image. If you want to put thousands of dollars into your photography do an art course (will most likely only cost you a few hundred dollars) focusing on the laws of composition and forget about the techno mumbo jumbo. The more complicated camera equipment you have with you the harder it will be to improve your images. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you that gets out of your way so you can focus on your subject and compose a pleasing image.


----------



## jordanmulder (Oct 12, 2011)

Ewan said:


> Why do people think that buying a more expensive camera will improve their photography? All cameras serve the same functions, they allow the photographer to create an exposure. All modern cameras will even do this (and more) for you automatically. One thing a camera can not do for you is compose your image. If you want to put thousands of dollars into your photography do an art course (will most likely only cost you a few hundred dollars) focusing on the laws of composition and forget about the techno mumbo jumbo. The more complicated camera equipment you have with you the harder it will be to improve your images. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you that gets out of your way so you can focus on your subject and compose a pleasing image.



I agree that it's not all about the camera..... but the equipment you have certainly does help make your images way better. For inctance I went on a walk with Dan40d who had his canon eos 1ds mark (2?) with him and the (100-400L ?) telephoto lense.... we found a land mullet shot similar compositons and although my image was alright it looked like dirt compared to his. so although it's not entirely up to the camera investing in better equipment will give you better results.


----------



## Ewan (Oct 12, 2011)

To someone who can compose an image and knows how to create an exposure a 1d MkII is undoubtedly an extremely useful tool. Placed in the hands of someone who does not hold this knowledge they are likely to miss the shot and not learn a thing. In terms of a beginner learning how to create a pleasing image an expensive and complicated camera is more likely to hold them back.


----------



## jordanmulder (Oct 12, 2011)

Ewan said:


> To someone who can compose an image and knows how to create an exposure a 1d MkII is undoubtedly an extremely useful tool. Placed in the hands of someone who does not hold this knowledge they are likely to miss the shot and not learn a thing. In terms of a beginner learning how to create a pleasing image an expensive and complicated camera is more likely to hold them back.



I agree with you here.


----------

