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.
7552

D200 with battery pack.

7553

Not all Nikons can attach the battery pack.

The new prosumer cameras are.

D90 (http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=Digital%20Cameras&Subnav1Param=SLR&Subnav2Param=Consumer&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l3&ID=1617)

D3000 (http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=Digital%20Cameras&Subnav1Param=SLR&Subnav2Param=Consumer&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l3&ID=1821)

D60 (http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=Digital%20Cameras&Subnav1Param=SLR&Subnav2Param=Consumer&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l3&ID=1544)

D5000 (http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=Digital%20Cameras&Subnav1Param=SLR&Subnav2Param=Consumer&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l3&ID=1788)

prices are approx.

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

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 (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/index.htm)


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

[Starlight]

Is that true though?

I thought more pixels meant a better quality in a bigger size photo?
I'm well into video cameras and understand that the bigger amount of pixels, the better the picture quality, stills cameras works on the same principle. And, Your right, if a picture is greatly enlarged and the pictures are of very high pixel count, then the picture will retain it's clarity.

Neil.....

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I'm well into video cameras and understand that the bigger amount of pixels, the better the picture quality

I'm not expert, but that isn't what a couple of others are saying.

[Tony Scott]

Megapixles are important in a DSLR but not as important as the Lens, Sensor or Shutter....I agree with Martin on the Canon 300D, superb bit of kit and it just feels right.......if that makes sense? :)

[Starlight]

I'm not expert, but that isn't what a couple of others are saying.
It's just something I've always strongly believed in because I bought my dad a mini DV video camera that had 330,000 pixels at a 6th of an inch CCD's (charge coupled device) and later bought him a higher spec mini DV camera which had a pixel count of 800,000 pixels and the CCD size the same size and the newer video camera had a better picture quality :)

Just my opinion ;)

Neil.

[DJ Jules]

It's just something I've always strongly believed in because I bought my dad a mini DV video camera that had 330,000 pixels at a 6th of an inch CCD's (charge coupled device) and later bought him a higher spec mini DV camera which had a pixel count of 800,000 pixels and the CCD size the same size and the newer video camera had a better picture quality :)

Do you think that might have been more to do with the camera being generally higher spec, and newer...? :) Once you get over a certain number of pixels (i.e. 6mp or so) the quality and size of the CCD and the optics in front of it have a much bigger impact on picture quality. Because cheap CCD's produce:

1. Grainy photos because of noise creeping in
2. Poor photos in low light, because small CCD's just don't pick up that much light per pixel (in fact, more pixels can actually mean poorer quality photos in low light as the area occupied by each pixel becomes smaller)
3. Blurry photos, because if the light isn't being focused properly on the CCD, it doesn't matter how many pixels you have.

I'd recommend having a browse here... (http://fwd.five.tv/gadgets/audio-video/cameras). On Monday they reviewed three "bridge" camera's (i.e. high end compact cameras designed to "bridge" the gap between standard compacts and DSLR's). The results were interesting for me because the Fuji (http://fwd.five.tv/gadgets/audio-video/cameras/digital-cameras/fuji-finepix-s200exr) has a special night mode where it groups the pixels in the CCD, which improves the surface area used to capture light, and therefore improves the camera's sensitivity for night use. The only criticism they levelled at it was that it's video mode was very poor (which is weird as I have a considerably cheaper Fuji and the video on it is better than my Mini-DV camera :D )

Julian

[Tom]

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. :)

My brother gave me his camera in the end as a birthday present. :)

He went and bought a second hand D200. Awesome camera but if you are a novice like myself, it can take a while to learn all the bottons and modes.


Is that true though?

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

It's all about the sensor.

The larger the sensor, the better. I have a Nikon D40. Not the best DSLR in the world, but because it much larger sensor than other cameras (compact and phones) the quality will be a lot better. Also the camera only has 6mp.

This picture was taken with a Nikon D40. There has been no editing to this photo at all.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb129/tommyboy6996/mycar3.jpg

This picture was taken with a Nikon D200. There has been no editing to this photo at all.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb129/tommyboy6996/pic2-1.jpg

This link might be of some help to you. Don't know if it's a bit too much but worth a read if you are interested in photography. :)

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

[TayOlver]

Usually, your looking at the size of the Sensor, as well as the mega pixels, (Although they are too important unless your try to billboard!)

I'd start with a;

Canon 1000D
Canon 450D
Canon 300D
Sony a200
Sony a350
Pentax K-M
or (finally)
Olympus E-450

If your looking to expand your lens, I'd go for Canon, as they have the widest selection.

Ahaha, Such an essay
Hope it helps

[yourdj]

get the canon powershot. not realy an slr but an excellent camera and video. I got mine for £120.

canon powershot IS with 12 times optical zoom

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

get the canon powershot. not realy an slr but an excellent camera and video. I got mine for £120.

canon powershot IS with 12 times optical zoom

Did you actually read any of this thread Toby? :p

[visualdjmax]

Have you got one yet? Hurry up it will be Christmas soon!

[Mark Wild]

I still have an Olympus E-500 for sale but only with the 40-150mm lens with it. (charger, 1 gb card, neckstrap, case/cover type thing :) Cracking condition mind, bought in Tenerife by my dad who never used it and gave it to me and I never used it really either.

[yourdj]

Did you actually read any of this thread Toby? :p

Probably not. Im a busy boy :p (although that is no excuse and i must read all the posts)

The camera is very good for the price though.
And it is not an SLR but may interest other people looking for a half decent camera.

Its extremely useful for self shooting as it has a removable screen so you can see yourself when videoing.
very light for one hand use when djing too.

all for about £120 on ebay. if your lucky!

this image was taken from sexy cameras!! says it all really.



http://www.sexycameras.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Canon-PowerShot-S5-IS.jpg

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/6/canon-powershot-s5is-zoom2.jpg


forgot to add also great for bedroom activity :banana:

[soundtracker]

I still have an Olympus E-500 for sale but only with the 40-150mm lens with it. (charger, 1 gb card, neckstrap, case/cover type thing :) Cracking condition mind, bought in Tenerife by my dad who never used it and gave it to me and I never used it really either.

er...... price?

[Mark Wild]

er...... price?

http://www.forum.mobilediscodirectory.co.uk/showthread.php?t=24318&highlight=e-500

[soundtracker]

£180.00 then! :)

[Mark Wild]

£180.00 then! :)

Yes mate sorry plus P&P

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Have you got one yet? Hurry up it will be Christmas soon!

It will and I am still looking!

Help!

[Jason]

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

Daryll

My partner is semi-pro camera buff. She started on D40, then D200, and now D700.
The camera body is important, but its also to remember with DSLR's the lenses are should normally be seen as an investment.
So Carmen may have spent £1000 on a refurb D700, but her decent D200 lenses fit and work. Lower end cameras are fine - the D700 was a purchase based on reviews and comments in the photography forum she moderates.

I won't get into brands as its really a personal decision that may be skewed by any friends/family with the same.

However, as an investment for the DJ business - absolutely.
If you're able to get a decent body with kit-lens for £300, it will be the best investment you'll make (once you've worked out how to drive it!)

A selection of decent snaps on your website, and decent prints (or digital photoframe/ipad) for client meets can show the night and kit off in the best possible light.

Jas

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Well after months of debating, reading reviews and watching Youtube, I have finally gone for the Pentax K-X. Got a good deal with 2 lenses.

So, tips on how to use DSLR cameras then?

[Twinspin]

I have a Sony DSLR A290L. Up to now ita been a good camera. I havent had it long only a couple of months. The camera lense is Minolta on it. 14mp camera.

I didnt pay anything for it. But its valued on the Sony site at £400.00. I did actually Win it on that Cokezone website.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/Twinspindj/100_0303.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/Twinspindj/100_0301.jpg

and a picture from the camera

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/Twinspindj/DSC00189-Copy.jpg

[yourdj]

what"s the skate board in the back for? :)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

what"s the skate board in the back for? :)

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Corabar Steve]

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Leaning against the wall behind the left hand sub.

Although I must confess, I would've thought the obvious answer to Toby's question is.....

To move the kit.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Leaning against the wall behind the left hand sub.

Although I must confess, I would've thought the obvious answer to Toby's question is.....

To move the kit.

I see...

Yeah, I would have thought so too.

So, back on topic, has anyone got a list of settings they use for taking photos at gigs?

[Shaun]

So, back on topic, has anyone got a list of settings they use for taking photos at gigs?

I just use mine on auto all the time. I've tried a few of the other presets but always came back to the auto mode which works pretty well. I wish I knew more about photography to get the best out of my camera.

[Twinspin]

just to answer the question.

The dollyboard is on show because we didn't take the boxes and bags outside
because of the weather and the parking spot been some yards away from the hotel. So we put as much as we could get under the table behind us which was fully covered by a table cloth The dollyboard wouldnt go under.

The bride and groom didnt say nothing at all about it. They were more than happy that we got there even but still they were more than happy with the disco as well at the end.

back on topic with the cameras. I just use the normal mode which is Auto on mine and set the picture output to RAW

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Surely it is pointless in getting a DSLR and then using it on auto?

Or have I missed the point somewhere?

[Vectis]

By and large, auto (minus flash) works for me, especially in the "heat" of a gig where you haven't really much time to be measuring light levels and experimenting.

A tripod or at least a monopod is essential for catching the very best shots, especially in near-darkness where you're already trying to cope with moving people and moving lighting.

Get the fastest memory card you can afford, and that your camera supports, and go click crazy, being prepared to junk 95% of them :p

It's a lot easier to get crowd shots from the DJ side of the decks as the lighting is projected forward, but this looks quite two-dimensional as it's usually just the first 'row' of people that are brightly lit; everything behind looks like silhouettes unless you're lucky to have reasonable ambient house lighting.


I'll look forward to sifting through the chaff.... :beer1: :p :cool: :sofa:





Surely it is pointless in getting a DSLR and then using it on auto?

Or have I missed the point somewhere?


Eh? Auto preselects what the camera believes to be the best settings at that point in time based on what it's own sensors are recording. That will differ from shot to shot (just watch the numbers in the viewfinder/on the screen change).

[Twinspin]

definetely a good tip there about Memory cards. I got a good deal on a 8gb Sandisk SDHC Card. Ideal for taking a few pictures. Play.com do some good deals on sdhc cards.

Im still a beginner with SLR cameras having not had one very long so i still have to experiment with other modes on it.

until then Auto works fine. Im no David Bailey :D

[Vectis]

I got a good deal on a 8gb Sandisk SDHC Card

It's not just down to the physical protocol, you need to look at the card's sustained write speed. With SD cards the manufacturers have recently started adding a "Class" rating to them to help remove some of the mystery, and as a general rule, the higher the Class number the faster the card should be in operation.

Bit more help here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#Speed_Class_Rating

BUT, there's no point spending out on a Class 10 card if the camera can't sustain Class 6...

... or expecting a Class 4 to deliver the best results in a camera capable of Class 10.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So you won't get better shots and the kind of shots you want by using manual adjustments then?

In which case, why don't all SLRs just have everything on auto?

[Shaun]

Surely it is pointless in getting a DSLR and then using it on auto?

Or have I missed the point somewhere?

I think you're probably right. It's a bit popintless forking out the cash and just using it on auto. The reason I use auto is just down to inexperience when it comes to photography. It's be great if I could pick up some pointers and advice in this thread.


*EDIT: Just read Martin's earlier post. I hadn't realised the auto function sets itself depending on the factors of the environment each time. I thought auto was just a fixed setting. Ya learn something new every day. :)

[funkymook]

So you won't get better shots and the kind of shots you want by using manual adjustments then?

In which case, why don't all SLRs just have everything on auto?

Full auto will give you a good photo which for a lot of people will be what is required. But if you want to get more creative, blurring water, totally blacking out shadows, saturating colours etc. then you need to use the manual controls. Sometimes the 'correct' auto settings don't give the best results.

[Vectis]

I hadn't realised the auto function sets itself depending on the factors of the environment each time. I thought auto was just a fixed setting. Ya learn something new every day. :)

Oh yusss.... otherwise it would be called 'Default' or similar ;)



So you won't get better shots and the kind of shots you want by using manual adjustments then?

In which case, why don't all SLRs just have everything on auto?

As the other Martin summed up, you CAN get (arguably) better results by going manual, or taking some of the "semi-auto" settings - but this requires a great deal of understanding on your part, which is fine if you're standing in a field trying to take a pic of a daisy, but when it's the first dance 'stare into my eyes' shot then unless you're David Bailey, whack it on auto and click-click-click :beer1:

[Daryll]

I use the "A" setting , that's aperture priority , you set the aperture , the camera works out the shutter speed , shoot as wide open as possible , this depends on the lens , a fast lens will stop down to f2.8 of ever less , this means the aperture is wide open , letting a much light as possible into the camera , if you dont mind tweaking afterwards , take you pics in RAW format , instead of JPEG
RAW gives you loads of scope , if your pics are to dark , RAW pics can bring a lot of detail out from the darker patches ,which you not do with a JPEG , basicly RAW mode is what the CCD sensor captured , no compression or in camera processing , just the raw data.
I presume the camera is new ? , if so the software will have a RAW converted built in , If you run Photoshop , you need CS4 and camera RAW 5.6.
In all the reviews , the camera has excellent low light shooting , so I think you have picked a winner :D

Daryll