OT cameras

[bluey]

Outside of footy talk but does any one know anything about digital cameras.
I am trying to buy one off eBay it is a cannon 400d the part where i get lost is in the lens.
What would the difference between 18-55 and a 17--85 i have no idea and am short on time so any help would be great , hell i might even buy a beer or two for myself of coarse ha ha.

 

[PJ]

Hi Bluey, Is that the digital SLR?

I'm looking at them as well and my brother-in law, who is a professional photographer, says the Nikon equivalent is better value for money.

 

[Sheros los Deros]

OK

18-55mm is equivalent to a standrard lense 28_85mm on a 35mm SLR (film camera)

17-85 is equivalent to a 28-135mm lense on an SLR

The difference is the field of view. The 17-85mm enables you to zoom in more on pictures. Although 135mm in not that powerful.

Probably go for the standard 18-55mm lense and get more powerful zoom lense at a later stage.

 

[roopy]

if you are buying a 400d you should consider what lenses you need before you buy.

they usually come standard with the 'kit' lens 18-55 mm which gives you about a 3 or 4 times zoom if you compare it to a non SLR camera - but a lot of people buy the two lens 'kit' which includes a 75-300 mm lens as well, which gives you maybe 12 to 14 times zoom equivalent.

 

[roopy]

this was taken from the stands at coffs harbour of the cook islands u16s using a 400d with a 75-300 lens at around 200 mm aperture i imagine

 

[roopy]

the 75-300mm lens would be good a a pic anywhere on a footy field - but i have upgraded to a canon L series 100-400 mm image stabilised lens for taking footy pics which gives much better results because with the image stabilisation you can afford to not be perfectly still while following the action and the extra zoom just brings the other end of the field into a bit clearer view.
for instance;
Blake Gallen - Knights flegg prop from under the private boxes at EAS to about the 20 metre line at the other end of the field - about 80 or 90 metres.

 

[roopy]

actually - every question anyone ever asked about canon cameras is answered on this forum.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

 

[bluey]

Hi Bluey, Is that the digital SLR?

I'm looking at them as well and my brother-in law, who is a professional photographer, says the Nikon equivalent is better value for money.

Yeah it is the digital SLR.
What would the equivalent Nikon be??
I want a good camera, to take family and work related pictures, must be user friendly

 

[roopy]

Yeah it is the digital SLR.
What would the equivalent Nikon be??
I want a good camera, to take family and work related pictures, must be user friendly

if you just want a camera for snapshots you would be better off not bothering with SLR and just go for a quality compact digital such as the panasonic lumix which will do everything for you and is image stabilized so you can just snap away - and it would be half the price or less.

 

[roopy]

http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/digital_cameras/lumix.asp

 

[bluey]

Roopy are the panasonic a good camera and easy to use.The last camera i had was a old fuji 35mm.
I have to be able to take good qaulity pictures of houses and renovations ec tas well as pic of my kids and little lady

 

[roopy]

Roopy are the panasonic a good camera and easy to use.The last camera i had was a old fuji 35mm.
I have to be able to take good qaulity pictures of houses and renovations ec tas well as pic of my kids and little lady

After an hour of reading the instructions you will take better snaps with the panasonic than you will with the SLR after a year of practice, because it is basically fully automated and idiot proof - while the SLR has automated functions, but for great results you need to know what to do.
The difference between digital and film cameras is like the difference between a computer and an abacus - you can take 500 pics - do in camera editing - delete what you don't like - and end up with one good pic - and do all that in 20 minutes - while with a film camera you could take a 24 film - send it off to be processed and end up with sh*t.

 

[Sheros los Deros]

I have a Nikon Coolpix digital and a Canon EOS SLR.

I really like the Coolpix for taking general photos

How much did the 100-400mm lense cost Roopy? I have a Sigma 500mm lense, bit bulky to be honest.

[img=http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.84183899fb.jpg]

Above was taken with the Nikon Coolpix on zoom.

 

[warren]

i have a fuji f30 and its pretty tops. very user friendly, i can never get anything to work but i manage to take a photo with no issues.

im really not helping haha sorry

 

[roopy]

to compare the slr and the lumix

The lumix is 600 or 700 dollars from memory - the SLR 1200 to 1600 dollars.

The lumix is image stabilised so a bit of camera movement doesn't wreck your pics - you can get image stabilised lenses for the SLR for a few thousand more.

The lumix will take 10 or 15 minutes of video on a memory card - the SLR doesn't do video.

you can use the screen on the lumix for picture framing - the SLR is purely a viewfinder operation.

You can do a lot of in camera editing with a lumix - the SLR comes with post production software for your computer which lets you do heaps more editing - but it takes time to learn how.

Both takes great pics - but the lumix has about a dozen simple functions that are self explanatory and adjust the camera settings for you - and the SLR has two automated modes - but for quality pics you need to set the shutter speed and exposure to get the pic you want.

If you wants snaps the lumix will do it all for you and do all sorts of interesting things - if you want arty shots or difficult to take pics (like shots of birds or footy shots) the SLR will do it but you will have to practice and study to get better results.

 

[roopy]

How much did the 100-400mm lense cost Roopy? I have a Sigma 500mm lense, bit bulky to be honest.

got it cheap for 3.6k - beautiful to use though - and i love it that every pro you see taking footy shots uses the same lens.

 

[sleepy83]

you cant go past canon, the 400d is one of the best they have made and it kicks the other competitors out of the park.
10 megapixel compared to 6 or 8 of other brands a bigger screen as well.

the pros that shoot footy use the 2.8 not the f5.6 100 to 400mm

 

[roopy]

you cant go past canon, the 400d is one of the best they have made and it kicks the other competitors out of the park.
10 megapixel compared to 6 or 8 of other brands a bigger screen as well.

yeah,
I've read several comparison tests that basically say the 400d is the best slr for amatuers (a pro can spend 12k or more for a 17 megapixel camera).

My point is - you have to be pretty keen to actually get into SLR cameras because they do take a lot of study and practice to 'master' - while the much cheaper compact digitals are 'user friendly' enough that you can take a decent pic after reading the instruction manual and spending an hour playing with the automatic settings to see what they do.

The other thing anyone buying an SLR should know is that every time you can't quite get the photo you want you will find a trip to 'camera house' and a cheque will get you just what you need - a new filter - a new lens - a tripod - a biger computer memory for all those photos - photoshop pro for post production - it never ends.

 

[bluey]

So for me i think that i will go for a point and shoot type camera, the slr just seem to be to labour intensive for a novice like me.
( Although i normally try and buy good quality ,as i like buying some thing once)
So Roopy has mentioned the Panasonic lumeric are they about the best in the digital camera field??
I really would like to thank everyone for their help it pays to get other points of view if not i would have just walked in and brought a slr 400d.And if you do not know you are relying on a salesman trying to get a sale.

 

[carcharias]

not the camera you are talking about but...if you want value for money and are a bot of a novice.
The Fuji finepix 5600 is the way to go.
10 X zoom and over 5 mega pixels.

The photo's it produces once printed are damn great ...no digitalish colouring ( fake looking)

...they are a bargain at around $400.00...probably cheaper.

that is all I know.