Alright folks, I know some of you are good photographers, hopefully I can get some educated advice. I'm looking to spend ~300-$500 on a nice digital camera. I've seen some people's postings from the Canon Rebel series but I still don't know squat about cameras. I'm mostly into taking pictures of scenery, some shots of cars, and the occasional fun shots of myself and friends.

I would like something with really high resolution but not sure whats best. Anyways... help?

Canon 5D & paint shop pro 9 ftw

But it's way out of your price range. >.>

I'd go with the Rebel (I have one and love it), but when it comes to getting "fun shots" of friends and yourself you should probably go with something compact like a CyberShot.

Yea if you want to take "Nice" pictures I'd recommend the rebel. Ive used one before and have been able to take really nice pictures with it. Then again its the only DSLR I've used recently, so I dont know if I could recommend anything else :p


Also just a side note: Taking a nice picture doesn't require some super fancy camera. So you dont need to go all out on something.

Well, 300-500 isnt really all out in the camera world is it? heh...

I just want something better than a Kodak Easyshare camera or my cell phone. Something to take REAL photos with. There are a couple Rebel G and G2s at a pawn shop, but aren't those film? Not that a pawn shop is a great place to buy a camera, but you can sometimes get good deals at them.

Get a film SLR.

They're really inexpensive.

Nikon D40 is my recommendation if you want a dslr. though if you're not going to be serious about photography (buying lenses in the future, upgrading the body, etc) i think you'd want something like a fixed lens high end or ultrazoom

Film is absolutely great, much cheaper than a comparable digital camera. If you're looking to do 'real photography', there's nothing better to learn with than an SLR. If you're not too serious, don't waste your money...just buy a point+shoot digital.

Indeed.

if you're only semi-serious about photography i'd suggest a top teir point and shoot model Canon G9 comes to mind and it's right inside your price range

if you're truly serious about photography you'll want more money... even an entry level DSLR with kit lens will run just over $500 on sale

Developing your own photos can also be fun.

I own a Canon Rebel and love it. I have 2 lenses for it, and have fun taking pictures with it. It takes some time to get used to from a point and shoot but its great.

I've shot with a Nikon 40D as well (D40?) and its great too. Stop by a camera store and have a look at what is in your price range.

Keep in mind that if you buy a specific brand you're going to be with that line of equipment for quite a while if you sink time and money into lenses and bodies. Lenses aren't compatible between brands but most companies have comparable lines of lenses. I'm pretty sure Canon's lenses start at a lower price range however. I haven't shopped around in a while.

Thanks for the input... I like the idea of the digital convenience, but does film compare? Is it worth it in the long run? Paying for film and development would get costly over time wouldn't it? Also wouldn't digital be far superior in terms of quality and sharpness? (perhaps not in color?)

Amateur dSLRs don't even approach film quality.

Meh, I'm not blowing up my photos to huge prints so it works just fine for me. Of those photos I've blown up to 16x20 or higher, they look just fine.

Also depends on your definition of quality.

only if you develop them yourself. perfectly. and assuming you're talking about 35mm print film (the most common film type), the difference in image quality between a 6MP digital camera and a film camera with 35mm is virtually indistinguishable. judging from your taste of motorcycles, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about and blindly praising the "old-school" for its own sake.

if you're talking about 4x5 film, i'd ask why the hell are you talking about it in an amateur photography thread.

And so it begins...

I'm not going to bother to argue with you, because you're being a clear retard.

OH NO HE DIDN'T

I've just bought an ultrazoom myself, I figured:
(a) I'm not sure I will get into photography in a serious manner quite yet and
(b) if I do, I probably won't want a camera I chose when I didn't know as much about photography.
However I did want something that I could learn on and was more versatile than my knackered point and click.

I bought the Olympus SP550, it's got plenty of settings to allow me to experiment, I can control white balance, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, do timelapse stuff, alter the flash timing and a bunch of other gimmicky bits. The highlight is the 18x optical zoom. I quite like trying to take photos of wildlife and this makes things a lot easier and generally opens up more opportunities for photos. It might not be quite the same quality as a dSLR but it's got what I want and no need to carry lenses, no worries about dust in the body, is a lot cheaper and it seems a bit smaller.
There are a lot of these ultra-zoom/transitional cameras out there, you might like to check em out.

Remember, boys and girls: make sure you get a camera with image stabilization.

And pay 200 bucks more

I didn't get IS on my telephoto lens and it looks good (70-200 f/4L)
Although I'm considering getting the 17-85 IS...but it's still expensive.

Honestly, my recommendation was going to be like the SD1000...fits in your pocket, 10 Megapixels, same as the rebel, and nothing too fancy. that's more of a "Really good pictures and use it with friends" kind of camera. Not great for scenery though. You won't be able to zoom in intensely, or use some of the other fun features of the XTI and above.

Although maybe the XTI would be a good choice.

The XTi's look great, but WAY too much for the kind of stuff im going to be doing. I'm not planning to get further into photography later on, this is a personal use camera only. I'd like the overall best bang for my buck, but would like to stick to digital. Maybe the Rebel series is too much for me as well.... I don't know. Wish I knew someone who had one so I could give it a whirl.

Anyone on here have more than one camera? Could maybe take me some sample pictures from a Rebel Vs standard run-of-the-mill digital camera? Stuff that really shows detail, like lighting, focus, and depth.

Except he's totally right.



Remember though it gets that zoom because it has a crazy small sensor. That limits you quite a bit. If you want to do more than point and shoot snapshots, a entry level DSLR is definitely the way to go. Once you start getting more serious, a large format film or slide camera is your best bet.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page22.asp
That page and the ones following give you comparisons between the Rebel XTi and its peers.

Obi, I'm not sure what you mean? I know there are plenty of cameras out there boasting 10MP+ but 7.1 is perfectly adequate for what I want to do with my photos. I'm not going to be blowing up the images into large posters any time soon. IMO the MP number is used as a selling point that boosts the price of the camera far more than I think the added resolution is actually worth. There are other versions of my camera with larger CCD chips (the SP560 and 570s), so I don't know why you think the zoom limits sensor size. In my case, I simply wasn't willing to shell out the extra expense.

35mm film can resolve far more detail than a 6MP camera

he was talking about physical size of the image sensor. most sensors are actually smaller than a 35mm frame. if i'm not mistaken Canon is the only company who actually has a full frame image sensor on the market right now. the ONLY good thing to come out of that company.

if you want to get into photography and move on to film. i suggest Nikon, because all their lenses are backwards compatible with previous bodies, except i think like the F2 or something. only thing that might cause a problem is autofocus, but thats not really a big deal, theres always manual.

canon has had like 6 different lens mounts in the last 30 years. its retarded. its why i'll never buy one.

that said, D40 is the way to go.

also, veger: its pointless to get image stabilization on a wide angle lens. telephoto above 100mm is where problems with camera shake begin.

if you're looking at $300 - $500 i'd stay away from a slr. that'll easily put you up past $1000 if you want to start zooming and such.

for the price range you're talking about i'd say the canon s5 is.
it's got 12x optical and 4x digital totalling 48x zoom. it's image stabilized in the optics. it's quite nice at taking zoomed in photos without a tripod.
it's got all kinds of features for advanced point and shoot.
it's a little big but smaller than a slr. it retails for around $330US. add in a sd card and you're looking at $350 plus tax.
the resolution is excellent with an 8MP detector. it'll do prints up to 14" easily without digital zoom.
it turns on quickly and if you spend the money on a high speed sd card (double the price of a standard sd card usually) it has a nice burst mode.
you'll really appreciate the 12x optical zoom with this camera that you don't get with a slr (that'll cost you $200 or more ($300 if you want image stabilization)).

give it a serious look and you'll have money left over.

No, I'm not talking about the number of pixels it senses, I'm talking about the actual physical dimensions. Smaller sensors are cheaper to produce but they don't respond to light as well accurately screw up the DOF. My 6MP DSLR CCD is much larger than the 12MP CCD in any point and shoot. Unless you print very large photos, 6MP is more than enough.

Looks nice! Thanks a lot!

I've learned a lot about cameras from my dad, who was a pretty major photographer for quite a long time. He recently bought a Nikon DSLR and absolutely loves it.

Film is awesome. The process of taking the picture, and then developing and manipulating the film yourself, and then printing the picture is a fascinating process, and you really learn a lot from it.

However, it's also expensive. And getting more and more expensive every year. It didn't used to be so bad because everyone used film, and everyone developed their own stuff. But with the invention of digital, SO many people have gone digital that the major film companies are struggling to stay afloat, let alone make a profit. Film is becoming more and more expensive a roll, the chemicals are getting more expensive, and it's not economically feasible to learn anymore.

My dad always said that you don't become a great photographer by setting up and spending 20 minutes getting ready for the perfect shot, and then snapping a single picture after tinkering with the Fstop and the focus and everything else. You become a great photographer by taking thousands and thousands of pictures. You take thousands and thousands of pictures and you start to develop an eye for how to take the picture so you can pick up your camera, and as you're bringing it to your eye you are already adjusting everything, and then snap and it's done.

You can't do that with film anymore. Film is too expensive to take thousands of pictures without selling a ton (which you won't do when you're first learning). Digital allows you to take a picture, get INSTANT feedback to see how it turned out, experiment with changing settings, and then taking another, and get INSTANT feedback on that. And once you fill up the memory card full of bad or crappy pictures? Wipe it and start over. You could take 1000 pictures in a single day, of a single event, and over the course of the day have a much better eye for photography than you would with a film SLR and one or two rolls.

I like film. I've done some work with it myself, and it IS fun. But it just isn't economically feasible anymore.

And the quality is just fine. If you get a decent SLR, as long as it is printed well (which is often where the problem lies, not with the camera), you will never notice a difference in quality.

My sister actually has that camera. It's very nice, I like it a lot.

A lot a lot.

Thanks for the feedback happydud, I would assume that film be more expensive these days, as well as more of a photography enthusiasts venture. I'm not planning to be a great photographer... I just want something I can take high quality shots with, as well as use for fun shots when needed.

Well, by "great photographer" i just meant someone who can take good pictures consistently, not necessarily a professional or anything.

It's kind of the difference between a 15 year old girl with a point and shoot using myspace angles and taking horrible pictures versus someone who can take good ones - both aesthetically and technically.

I think Ansel Adams once said something like "The key to taking a good picture is mostly knowing where to stand"

Haha, and thats so true... angles are everything. Well, not everything, some lighting helps hah. I think I will keep the info on that S5 IS and pick one up in the coming months. Looks great.

Nikon :wank:

@Wolfy