Digital SLR camera

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

.still pricing stuff up.

Not really sure what I need - experts advice please.

Easy to use, great photos, looks expensive and fairly big and takes great photos in the dark.

Budget, er...not really sure. Let's say £300 for the moment.

[Vectis]

We have a number of the 'prosumer' Canons from the 300D through to the 500D (Mrs VV is a part-time semi-pro) and I particularly like the after-dark images that the 300D produces.

If you have a peek in my galleries, you can tell which pics come from the 300D and which have come from other cameras. I'm pretty sure virtually all of the pics in the Kids gallery are from the 300D - obviously you're looking at shrunk and optimised pics on the web but I can assure you this is an excellent after-dark camera.

All of the 'headline' pics on my website are from the 300D.

Whilst the pics from the 350, 400 and 500 are good, they're not quite as good as the 300D which you can pick up second hand for well within budget.

HTH.

[ppentertainments]

For new and on budget the Canon 1000d is worth a look. For ease of use the Nikon cameras are really good.

[Daryll]

As a Nikon man , have a look at the D40 , D50 and D80 ( D80 is a wonderful camera).all these are discontinued , but great value

You can add a battery pack to make it look massive.
D200 as is.


D200 with battery pack.



Not all Nikons can attach the battery pack.

The new prosumer cameras are.

D90

D3000

D60

D5000

prices are approx.

D5000 £450 including lens
D3000 £330 (body only)
D60 £350
D90 expensive

for low light photography.
ISO up around 800
Aperture priority (the "A" setting)
The fastest lens you can get , around an F 1.8 or less , compatible lenses for Nikon are sigma , I use these with good results.

Sigma Lenses UK


Daryll

[Penfold42]

Have you spoken to Tom?

Tom's brother did have one for sale and I seem to remember he posted a few photos of what he took a while back - he's brother also know a little bit on cameras.

Let me know what you get and how you get along with it.......as i'm looking to take one to America this year - or buy one out there.

[Starlight]

.still pricing stuff up.

Not really sure what I need - experts advice please.

Easy to use, great photos, looks expensive and fairly big and takes great photos in the dark.

Budget, er...not really sure. Let's say £300 for the moment.

If I was you looking for an SLR, I'd choose a few models I really like and compair the technical specifications and I'd go for the 1 with the most pixels - more pixels - the better the picture quality

Neil.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Great looking camera. If I was you looking for an SLR, I'd choose 3-models I really like and compair the 3 technical specifications and I'd go for the 1 with the most pixels - more pixels, the better the picture quality

Is that true though?

I thought more pixels meant a better quality in a bigger size photo?

[Vectis]

If I was you looking for an SLR, I'd choose a few models I really like and compair the technical specifications and I'd go for the 1 with the most pixels - more pixels - the better the picture quality

Neil.

Is that true though?

No. More pixels = more data. But garbage in still equals garbage out.

The reason I prefer the 300D Canon, despite it being about 5 years old and "only" 6.3Megapixel, is because it churns out fantastic looking rig and audience shots.

[rob1963]

Unless you're going to be blowing up all your pics, it's pretty pointless getting the model with the most megapixels you can find, as there will be no noticeable difference to the human eye & they use loads more memory.

[Daryll]

Its the numbers game.
let me explain.
My monitor is at 1025 x 768 resolution , that's 786432 pixels . or .8mp , because my monitor can turn through 180 degrees , that`s about A4 size ,I can see good pictures at that resolution and print them out.
Now a monitor that produces 1900 x 1200 is approx 2.3mp , still only part way to the 10mp + of today's cameras.
It`s also how the pixels are orientated on the CCD.

Thats why the old Nikon D1
( well 1999 is old for hi tech products) was 2.74 mp , yet in can still produce images that a 12mp camera cant hope to achieve.
I cant find the pictures , but on the net there are pics on the Canon ,Nikon and Fuji CCD pixels , all very different

Daryll