Industry Standard Cameras

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:51 pm

The search facility is utter shit.. so no apologies if its been done

But im buying one.. it needs to be GOOD. Im not guna skimp out with a cheapo pound shop version. A good 250-400 will be spent.. take into account its my 1st proper cam so I aint looking to change the world with it.

I was guna continue the convo in the photo thread, but that shud be saved for photo's themselves

Some good info from a few people tho

Mike Z wrote: I say it's whatever feels good to you... Nikon, Canon, Pentax, + many others are all good. I recommend a digital SLR for higher quality pictures; there will be a learning curve but it's well worth the time. I use a Sony which in reality is based on Minolta technology; I've used Minolta gear for ages so it was natural for me to buy the Sony since my old stuff already worked with it. (Sony took over Minolta, but kept all Minolta staff from the engineers down to the glass miners)

My favs are Nikon, Canon, and Sony/Minolta

Edit: The lens is a huge factor, spend as much as you can on good glass

PhoBic wrote:Nikon D50 or Canon 350D, both Digital SLR's, both entry level, both alright if your just starting out in photography/manual photography, not point and click stuff, and both reasonably cheap.

If your in it for the long run, I recomend the Nikon D200 or the newer D300...I'll be upgrading once the summer bonus comes! Or if ur a pro, try Nikon D3!!! BIG money!! over £3000 just for the body!!!

the lower the aperture on your lens, the better...means u can shoot in darker places, get wider shots and get closer to things (or get a macro lens!) but obviously because they are better they are more expensive!!

goodluck with your purchase

(I have a bias for Nikon over all other digital SLR companies...except Hassleblad blad!)

Theres loads of camera wielders in here, who take fantastic shots.

Whats this about Aperture? Do i need to do some major homework before making the purchase?

Also, i'm not a point & click dude, so don't treat me like one

All info is appreciated, thanks guys !

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:00 pm

boomphat wrote:Von... I bought a £130 Pentax that fits in my pocket. I bought it cos its waterproof so I can use it on my kayak without anxiety.
Its the Optio W30. I got a 2gb card for £12.50

And how is the quality on that ? Anyone had any experience with this camera?

thomas · Post by **thomas** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:02 pm

I swear by my Lumix, fx01 but im sure for 250 you could get a much better one. I paid 125 for it, and its perfect for nights out holidays n that.

i think 250-400 crosses a fair few boundrys, so you might be better thinking about what you will use it for and what features you need before the price.

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:07 pm

Thomas wrote:so you might be better thinking about what you will use it for and what features you need before the price.

Good point.

Well it will be for taking everyday shots of high quality.. i will need to take an equal amout of night shots aswell.. again preferably at a high quality.

I dont think i'd be too too comfortable spending that amount of a camera when i dont know much about them to be honest.. but thats what i got.. and if features is the keyword, and the price is right.. then i most definately will go for it..

also it will have to last me about 2 years..

thomas · Post by **thomas** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:10 pm

I bought mine about a year ago, and the impression i got was Lumix where top of their game. But i havent used it too its highest potential yet.

I found all the review sites a grest help aswel, there was on which gave sample pictures at each iso, close up, day night etc. I found it with a google search, so im sure its easy enough.

dubluke · Post by **dubluke** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:10 pm

mate take care of your camera and it will last you easily far longer than that, i recommend a digital SLR as well, purely because of their highly superior photo quality (prententious arse alert i know)

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:14 pm

Thomas wrote: I found all the review sites a grest help aswel, there was on which gave sample pictures at each iso, close up, day night etc. I found it with a google search, so im sure its easy enough.

Im guna have to look up on these aswell.. but its just daunting as i wouldnt know where to start

At the bottom, methinks.

dubluke wrote:mate take care of your camera and it will last you easily far longer than that, i recommend a digital SLR as well, purely because of their highly superior photo quality (prententious arse alert i know)

Luke i have enough money to make u stop taking funny pictures for the rest of your life fam.. So i shud be able to upgrade after i know whats what.

SLR eh.. What does that stand for? Im down for superiority lol.

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:18 pm

Nikon D50 Digital SLR looks tasty

A bit pricey for a 1st cam, though

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:23 pm

it's probably worth pointing out that an industry standard camera will not result in industry standard pictures

not to be a dickhead or anything

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:28 pm

pk- wrote:it's probably worth pointing out that an industry standard camera will not result in industry standard pictures, not to be a dickhead or anything

Vonboyage wrote:Also, i'm not a point & click dude, so don't treat me like one

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:33 pm

what i mean is you don't need to spend 400 quid to get incredible looking photographs von, a 200 quid lumix will give you results that wouldve cost 500-1000 a few years back

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:34 pm

OHHHHHHH

Sorry mate.

I shuda known better.

*slaps self in disgust*

dubluke · Post by **dubluke** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:58 pm

Vonboyage wrote: SLR eh.. What does that stand for?

single lens reflex camera bro

basically means that through a system of mirrors and reflection, when you look through the eyepiece you are seeing straight through the lens, meaning your composition of the photo is much better, not like on a lot of 'point and shoot' cameras where the eyepiece is set above the lens, so what you see through the eyepiece is not necessarily all being included in the picture, also means you can't see if you've put your thumb over the lens or something amateur like that

dubluke · Post by **dubluke** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:58 pm

pk- wrote:what i mean is you don't need to spend 400 quid to get incredible looking photographs von, a 200 quid lumix will give you results that wouldve cost 500-1000 a few years back

very very good point, more money spent does not necessarily mean a better picture

forensix (mcr) · Post by **forensix (mcr)** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:37 pm

Have a look at the Canon Powershot G9 it's at the lower end of your budget but takes great photos

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:40 pm

Fuck the budget mate, that "dont have to be expensive" comment really opened my eyes

Im guna spend no more than £200 on a camera. i'm guna have a look at the G9, safe brah!

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:51 pm

OHHHHHHH

Sorry mate. Embarassed

I shuda known better.

*slaps self in disgust*

Whats this about Aperture? Do i need to do some major homework before making the purchase?

Assumed you'd not done it yet

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:52 pm

oh now i'm confused as to whether or not you were being sarcastic

fucking internet and it's lack of vocal inclination

vonboyage · Post by **vonboyage** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:55 pm

Lol don't worry mate, all is in hand.. i've done my homeworks.

What camera do you have ?

pk- · Post by **pk-** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:58 pm

hah i don't know anything about photography

i've got a 100 pound lumix lol

Industry Standard Cameras

Industry Standard Cameras

Who is online