Some noob advice please... Canon EOS 400 or Panasonic FZ18...
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Than a EOS 400?
Anyhow... I understand your point, and thanks
Yeah, Canon users are lazy
thats not the whole picture
its not just about IQ
its about quality of the glass. And you simply cant take descent quality low light shots without a tripod on a bridge
you can easily on an SLR
People will no doubt post photos taken with compacts of static scenry taken with long exposures whilst rested on tripods / walls etc..
for this they're fine. but as soon as you take it off the tripod, and try and capture anything mothing without a flash, is where it falls down. Ive the panasonic FZ8, so im fully aware of its limiations in low light.
its not about manual controls, as the pansonic has them already. It has a full manual mode where you control everything yourself.
And so you've just pointed out exactly why he would be better off without an SLR.
To eliminate the tripod he'd have to spend £80 on a 50mm 1.8 or more on another length.
He doesn't want to spend money. He doesn't want to carry stuff around. He wants to use it in Auto 95% of the time.
He will not get on well with an SLR.
The SLR is the better camera. It always will be. BUT, it is only the better camera if you have the time and will to put effort into it, to learn it, to work with it. If you aren't prepared to do that, it offers nothing bar extra expense to your average user.
To eliminate the tripod he'd have to spend £80 on a 50mm 1.8 or more on another length.
He doesn't want to spend money. He doesn't want to carry stuff around. He wants to use it in Auto 95% of the time.
He will not get on well with an SLR.
The SLR is the better camera. It always will be. BUT, it is only the better camera if you have the time and will to put effort into it, to learn it, to work with it. If you aren't prepared to do that, it offers nothing bar extra expense to your average user.
MrLOL, my D50 with kit lens would struggle in low light (say, a gig) even at iso1600 and stopped right down to f5.6. Maybe not as much as a bridge camera, but most bridge users will be happy to use a flash anyway. And it will if it's on auto.
Um, what divine` said
Um, what divine` said
i agree entirely
i was trying to make the point though, that the OP seemed to be angling towards there being not much difference between the bridge and SLRs
i was trying to make the point there is a huge difference, and you will quickly find its limitations, not argue that owning and using an SLR properly is easy.
and thats exactly the reason that SLRs can be great, but then not at the same time. You need to buy all the extra lenses that go with it. Once you've spent £1000s on the cameras + lenses you've got an ideal setup for every speed and every light source
but this comes with a price, but like you said, a price the OP is not willing to pay.
i was trying to make the point though, that the OP seemed to be angling towards there being not much difference between the bridge and SLRs
i was trying to make the point there is a huge difference, and you will quickly find its limitations, not argue that owning and using an SLR properly is easy.
and thats exactly the reason that SLRs can be great, but then not at the same time. You need to buy all the extra lenses that go with it. Once you've spent £1000s on the cameras + lenses you've got an ideal setup for every speed and every light source
but this comes with a price, but like you said, a price the OP is not willing to pay.
Last edited:
Money? Say a budget for camera, lenses, memory and bag upto £550-600 (but ideally a lot less). I know you can get the 400D for under £400...
Time/Effort - I think we will take the camera out with us when we know it will get used. ie: Not on general days out, but on 'special days out'. As such Auto is great, but if necessary changing a few settings and learning may well be OK/fun
Now if say a FUJI 9600 can allow us to produce good photos most of the time, AND save money and baggage great!
HOWEVER, if an SLR will mean we can produce some great photos, and play around a bit when we want to, that's fine as well.
I've spoken to 'the boss' about this, and she seems OK with the idea of an SLR with a couple of lenses. However, not so sure how hours infront of Photoshop would go down if that's necessary. Constrast, brightness fine, but not loads of complication adjustments
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,000
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Now add:
Wideangle such as the Sigma 10-20mm for ~£300
'Nifty Fifty' 50mm f1.8 for low light for ~£70
Decent telephoto such as Canon 100-400mm ~£1000
hmm, seems your over budget.
Seems you and the lady are set on a DSLR, and no doubt you will be happy with it. But as the other have said, you would get much more versatility for your money if you went for a bridge camera. and SLR is an amazinf piece of kit, but be prepared to put a lot of time, and even more money into it to get the most out of it.I honestly think you're over-thinking this. A bridge camera seems absolutely ideal for you, yet you seem to be distracted by an SLR just because it has the *potential* to do more. When you grow out of the bridge-camera, you can always get an SLR!
The 400D quality is better (no question) but that comes with a price and also this does not mean the 9600 is bad, because it isnt.
Overall i would say get the 9600 (i had the S7000 before the 400D and learnt the basics of aperture, shutter speeds, DOF etc).
Also, i didnt get the twin lens pack. The 70-200 is an L glass which is £500 straight away. And theres more lenses for me to buy yet.....
im at that point
ive had the bridge a while, i can use it in full manual mode, im fully aware of limitations having come from a compact canon with full manual controls
only limitation to me moving to manual is the funds
once ive got them, il go SLR and probably sell the bridge and swap it for a compact sony cybershot or whatever for ease of use and size.
Fair comment
So 'Fuji 9600' for £250ish...
Or 'Canon EOS Kiss X 400D Twin Lens Kit (18-55mm & 55-200mm) Digital Camera (Jap/Eng)' for £500ish...
So the difference is really just £250...
But maybe the Fuji 9600 is the safer option, and see where that gets us...
the difference is double lol.
Before i started out in photography, i bought a nikon coolpix 4300 4mp camera for £400, not really intending to get right into photography then, but then the cheapest DSLR was about £1700 for a canon D60 - which was well out of my pricerange, then i started to feel limited by the coolpix and wanted to venture into photography so i bought a used canon 10D in 2005 with a couple of cheap lenses, then the shutter went on my 10D and now i've upgraded to a 30D and have spent a significat amount more on lenses etc for it, in the last 2 months, i've bought my 30D kitfor £600, then a used 70-200 F4L lens for £300, a Sigma 10-20 for £300 new, about £60 worth of filters and accessories, a 2x teleconverter (£50 bargain) and today i've purchased a new (used) gitzo carbon fibre tripod and manfrotto head for the combined price of £130 (granted i could sell the tripod for double what i paid for it).
So there you go, that's the best part of £2k in a couple of months, and i'm always wanting more, i want to replace the kit lens now, then i want a longer zoom (100-400).
It's a bottomless pit i tell you. What i'd say is if you think you'll find yourself in my position sometime in the future, then fair enough, go the SLR Route, but prepare to break the bank for it. If not, then stick with the bridge.
HTH - wez
Before i started out in photography, i bought a nikon coolpix 4300 4mp camera for £400, not really intending to get right into photography then, but then the cheapest DSLR was about £1700 for a canon D60 - which was well out of my pricerange, then i started to feel limited by the coolpix and wanted to venture into photography so i bought a used canon 10D in 2005 with a couple of cheap lenses, then the shutter went on my 10D and now i've upgraded to a 30D and have spent a significat amount more on lenses etc for it, in the last 2 months, i've bought my 30D kitfor £600, then a used 70-200 F4L lens for £300, a Sigma 10-20 for £300 new, about £60 worth of filters and accessories, a 2x teleconverter (£50 bargain) and today i've purchased a new (used) gitzo carbon fibre tripod and manfrotto head for the combined price of £130 (granted i could sell the tripod for double what i paid for it).
So there you go, that's the best part of £2k in a couple of months, and i'm always wanting more, i want to replace the kit lens now, then i want a longer zoom (100-400).
It's a bottomless pit i tell you. What i'd say is if you think you'll find yourself in my position sometime in the future, then fair enough, go the SLR Route, but prepare to break the bank for it. If not, then stick with the bridge.
HTH - wez
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
I posted my thoughts earlier, and I remain unchanged. if you know you want an SLR get one, otherwise i'm not sure the expense is justified.
I would also stay away from the 55-200 kit lens. by most peoples reckonning it's not up to much. the 70-300 IS lenses are much better (though more cash). You don't need to spend big cash on L lenses to start with, people get stunning results with mid range lenses, but the temptation is always there and most people I know do end up spending.
Getting a DSLR won't make your photo's better, that's all about aptitude, skill and practice. they are capable of "better" results but tend to need more work.
if you do go for a bridge camera, look for one capable of RAW shooting, that has manual modes (such as Av Tv) gives control over flash output (flash exposure compensation) and has reasonable glass in it (usually the extreme super zooms are not the best). I would also look for one that has a relatively large sensor (physical size not MegaPixels) as this influences how easy DoF is to control.
secretly though I hope you join us in the SLR side, then you can join in the nikon v canon arguments (when we all wish that they where sony and their body IS)
I would also stay away from the 55-200 kit lens. by most peoples reckonning it's not up to much. the 70-300 IS lenses are much better (though more cash). You don't need to spend big cash on L lenses to start with, people get stunning results with mid range lenses, but the temptation is always there and most people I know do end up spending.
Getting a DSLR won't make your photo's better, that's all about aptitude, skill and practice. they are capable of "better" results but tend to need more work.
if you do go for a bridge camera, look for one capable of RAW shooting, that has manual modes (such as Av Tv) gives control over flash output (flash exposure compensation) and has reasonable glass in it (usually the extreme super zooms are not the best). I would also look for one that has a relatively large sensor (physical size not MegaPixels) as this influences how easy DoF is to control.
secretly though I hope you join us in the SLR side, then you can join in the nikon v canon arguments
(when we all wish that they where sony and their body IS)I posted my thoughts earlier, and I remain unchanged. if you know you want an SLR get one, otherwise i'm not sure the expense is justified.
I would also stay away from the 55-200 kit lens. by most peoples reckonning it's not up to much. the 70-300 IS lenses are much better (though more cash). You don't need to spend big cash on L lenses to start with, people get stunning results with mid range lenses, but the temptation is always there and most people I know do end up spending.
Getting a DSLR won't make your photo's better, that's all about aptitude, skill and practice. they are capable of "better" results but tend to need more work.
if you do go for a bridge camera, look for one capable of RAW shooting, that has manual modes (such as Av Tv) gives control over flash output (flash exposure compensation) and has reasonable glass in it (usually the extreme super zooms are not the best). I would also look for one that has a relatively large sensor (physical size not MegaPixels) as this influences how easy DoF is to control.
secretly though I hope you join us in the SLR side, then you can join in the nikon v canon arguments
Well, I'll feed all this great advice to my other half and let her choose!
If she does go SLR any advice between say the Canon EOS 400 or Nikon D40x?
Some reviews seem to imply the Nikon has a better standard lens with it? Other reviews suggest the Nikon is a pain to mess round with (ie: it's menus)?
I believe the Fuji 9600 can do RAW, not sure about the flash modes you mentioned though!
Last edited:
Fair comment
So 'Fuji 9600' for £250ish...
Or 'Canon EOS Kiss X 400D Twin Lens Kit (18-55mm & 55-200mm) Digital Camera (Jap/Eng)' for £500ish...
So the difference is really just £250...
But maybe the Fuji 9600 is the safer option, and see where that gets us...
The thing is the 18-55MM is a bit naff and once you get to know what you are doing, you will loathe it - I know I do.
Rich
Fair comment
So 'Fuji 9600' for £250ish...
Or 'Canon EOS Kiss X 400D Twin Lens Kit (18-55mm & 55-200mm) Digital Camera (Jap/Eng)' for £500ish...
So the difference is really just £250...
But maybe the Fuji 9600 is the safer option, and see where that gets us...
Double the price for something that is less capable, right-o. As we've pointed out, the strength of the DSLR is its potential for versatility; a DSLR with a kit lens and a kit-quality tele, however, is in and of itself less versatile than a bridge camera.
But is is a good starting point at least? Both the EOS 400 and Nikon D40x can come without a lense, so an alternative 'start' lense is always an option (given a reasonable budget)?