Agreed. The whole point of a firework shot is the long exposure. It takes 2 seconds for it to go up and explode. I've shot plenty on my Canon A70 using a tripod and the technique is no different with my 30D. The lens is wider, but thats it. I've also shot a gig with my A70 at ISO400 f/2.8. It just about worked.
Some noob advice please... Canon EOS 400 or Panasonic FZ18...
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Agreed. The whole point of a firework shot is the long exposure. It takes 2 seconds for it to go up and explode. I've shot plenty on my Canon A70 using a tripod and the technique is no different with my 30D. The lens is wider, but thats it. I've also shot a gig with my A70 at ISO400 f/2.8. It just about worked.
thats correct
have a look at an EOS400 review, and compare the noise at say ISO 800 to the fuji to see what we mean.
Regarding a good starting point then, how about a Nikon D40x + AF-S DX 18-135 mm Lens? (Although that lens gets mediocre reviews I believe)
Or for similar money:-
Nikon D40X Double Zoom Kit (AF-S DX 18-55mm II & AF-S DX 55-200mm)
Or for similar money:-
Nikon D40X Double Zoom Kit (AF-S DX 18-55mm II & AF-S DX 55-200mm)
Last edited:
By processing I mean things done to the image after it has been taken, usually using a piece of software such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or one of the free ones such as picasa or the GIMP.
In the case of DSLR's you have to do a fair bit of processing on every image to get the best out of it.
Bridge cameras tend to do things like contrast, colour balance and sharpening internally meaning that once you have the picture on your computer you're done. No messing around with another bit of software.
Now there's no reason why you can't process Bridge camera photos with software the same way you would with an image from a DSLR.
What GTRacer showed was a set of images taken from a bridge that (when I first saw them and if he hadn't said anything) I would have assumed to have been taken with a DSLR.
I think GTRacer's post is possibly the best example of why you shouldn't bother getting a DSLR and stick with a bridge. He's achieved superb quality photos and he doesn't use a DSLR.
In all honesty I really don't think a DSLR is for you. Get the bridge and be happy with it. Spend the rest of the money on a special day out with the family and use the new camera to record it.
You seem to be throwing money at this for no real reason after stating in the OP that you didn't want to burst the bank.
If you're mind is set on a DSLR now then I would steer well clear of the double zoom package. Either get bundle or get a body-only and a separate lens which ever's cheaper. the 18-70 or 18-135 will be fine to begin with, just don't blame us when you start spending stupid money on all the other equipment that you will soon want to buy.
Panzer
Last edited:
The more I speak to my GF (boss), the more she seems set on getting the best camera she can, and investing time/effort into learning how to use it.
I suspect she would not want to spend a lot of time in software though... but that might change.
She's always been interested in photography, but never got far into it, and this may well be the chance for her to really go for it.
Given I hate wasting money, if I can buy a package to start off with, that will then mean I don't have to replace items later on, I'd be interested in that.
For example, rather than getting the 18-55 / 55-200 combination, how about an EOS with a Sigma 18-200mm lens which basically (from my understanding) almost means you can then survive with just the one lens - which sounds appealing. If that means spending more initially, but saving longer term by not having redundent lenses or wasting time swapping them when out & about, I'm OK with that...
Last edited:
For example, rather than getting the 18-55 / 55-200 combination, how about an EOS with a Sigma 18-200mm lens which basically (from my understanding) almost means you can then survive with just the one lens - which sounds appealing. If that means spending more initially, but saving longer term by not having redundant lenses or wasting time swapping them when out & about, I'm OK with that...
I learned the hard way but this is more or less what I've done. Nikon D50 with the Nikon 18-200VR. It's well over £1000 (might not be worth that much now but that's how much I've paid).
I can't comment on the Sigma 18-200 though because I've not used it.
I can say that if you (or the Mrs.) want to get into photography then a decent walkabout lens makes life a bit easier.
Now here's the big but.
Say you get a 40Dx and Sigma 18-200 that's going to set you back about £550/600 (unless I've got the prices wrong).
You will then probably want a filter to protect the lens, for decent glass your looking at maybe £15-£20.
Then a bag to carry it all around. At least £25 for a nice bag but I paid closer to £50
You will need a tripod and a head for it. For top notch kit (manfrotto) you're looking at about £100 for each.
You will then probably decided that the low light capabilities of the lens aren't enough and you don't like the on-board flash so you're looking at £120 ish for a decent flash gun.
by this point if you are still keen you will probably start to find out what kind of photography you are really interested in and it's at this point you will start needing more glass to suit your chosen path.
Although the wide end (18mm) on the sigma is quite wide for landscapes it's not perfect. The next option would be a Sigma 10-200 which is ~£320
If you want to do portraiture then you're looking at either a nifty fifty or something with a bit more reach such as an 80mm or 135mm lens. Minimum price for that is going to be £80 for a 50mm f/1.8
If you want to do wildlife you will need more of a scope than that 200mm so either a teleconverter (£100) or another lens with extra reach (at least £100).
If you get into Macro then expect at least another ton probably more for a good macro lens. If you like macro then you will probably want to invest in a ring flash (more £££).
Heaven forbid you should get interested in more than one of the above!
It sounds silly and it may be a worst case scenario but I'm just warning you of the consequences. It's happened to me and I'm now budgeting for at least another £500 probably another £1k worth of kit before I go travelling in 2009.
You could go down the above route or you could get the bridge camera, take damn good photos in pretty much any eventuality and if you really find you're being limited by the kit in a years time or so (which I doubt) then you could start getting into the world of DSLR.
I would really get the bridge and if your Mrs. really wants to learn photography, get her to get to grips with the basics on the bridge camera before venturing into DSLR land.
Sorry about the essay.
Panzer
I learned the hard way but this is more or less what I've done. Nikon D50 with the Nikon 18-200VR. It's well over £1000 (might not be worth that much now but that's how much I've paid).
I can't comment on the Sigma 18-200 though because I've not used it.
I can say that if you (or the Mrs.) want to get into photography then a decent walkabout lens makes life a bit easier.
Now here's the big but.
Say you get a 40Dx and Sigma 18-200 that's going to set you back about £550/600 (unless I've got the prices wrong).
You will then probably want a filter to protect the lens, for decent glass your looking at maybe £15-£20.
Then a bag to carry it all around. At least £25 for a nice bag but I paid closer to £50
You will need a tripod and a head for it. For top notch kit (manfrotto) you're looking at about £100 for each.
You will then probably decided that the low light capabilities of the lens aren't enough and you don't like the on-board flash so you're looking at £120 ish for a decent flash gun.
by this point if you are still keen you will probably start to find out what kind of photography you are really interested in and it's at this point you will start needing more glass to suit your chosen path.
Although the wide end (18mm) on the sigma is quite wide for landscapes it's not perfect. The next option would be a Sigma 10-200 which is ~£320
If you want to do portraiture then you're looking at either a nifty fifty or something with a bit more reach such as an 80mm or 135mm lens. Minimum price for that is going to be £80 for a 50mm f/1.8
If you want to do wildlife you will need more of a scope than that 200mm so either a teleconverter (£100) or another lens with extra reach (at least £100).
If you get into Macro then expect at least another ton probably more for a good macro lens. If you like macro then you will probably want to invest in a ring flash (more £££).
Heaven forbid you should get interested in more than one of the above!
It sounds silly and it may be a worst case scenario but I'm just warning you of the consequences. It's happened to me and I'm now budgeting for at least another £500 probably another £1k worth of kit before I go travelling in 2009.
You could go down the above route or you could get the bridge camera, take damn good photos in pretty much any eventuality and if you really find you're being limited by the kit in a years time or so (which I doubt) then you could start getting into the world of DSLR.
I would really get the bridge and if your Mrs. really wants to learn photography, get her to get to grips with the basics on the bridge camera before venturing into DSLR land.
Sorry about the essay.
Panzer
O*U*C*H
So, money aside (almost), you wouldn't see for example a Canon 400d with a Sigma 18-200 lens a wiser first step than say a Fuji 9600 bridge camera?
With both options you're at least going to end up with a basically a 'walk around' camera, but at least with the EOS you can build on it, and surely the EOS would provide the possiblity of getting better shots? ie: That sigma lens must be a lot better than the Fuji's?
Every now and then when taking pics, you get that 'perfect' shot that gives you a 'buzz'. I guess what we're trying to do is to give us the tools to potentially get more of those buzz's - and know I don't want any references to eletrical devices in our bedroom!
I welcome all your most useful insights! You know what you're talking about, where as I quite frankly know next to nothing here... Hence me looking at all options in all directions...
ps: This camera would be use specifically for special occasions, and not as our general day-to-day camera. We have an IXUS for that..
O*U*C*H
So, money aside (almost), you wouldn't see for example a Canon 400d with a Sigma 18-200 lens a wiser first step than say a Fuji 9600 bridge camera?
the only drawback you will find is that with only the one lens, you've narrowed down your options compared to a bridge.
A bridge is general purpose, taken any photo anywhere type of camera, an SLR with one lens isnt
if you can accept that the SLR will be better in some, and worse in others, And wont start becomming better in those others untill you spend some more $$$ then get the SLR
you're right, it is an excellent base to start on, just be wary of what your limiting yourself to by not choosing the bridge camera (untill you buy more lenses
)the only drawback you will find is that with only the one lens, you've narrowed down your options compared to a bridge.
A bridge is general purpose, taken any photo anywhere type of camera, an SLR with one lens isnt
if you can accept that the SLR will be better in some, and worse in others, And wont start becomming better in those others untill you spend some more $$$ then get the SLR
you're right, it is an excellent base to start on, just be wary of what your limiting yourself to by not choosing the bridge camera (untill you buy more lenses
At risk of showing (more of) my ignorance how is that sigma 18-200 lens going to be inferior to say that Fuji 9600?
Indeed they are good, but the best shots I've seen on a Fuji 9600, don't seem to compare to good shots on a Canon 400 (with for example the Sigma 18-200 lens)...
It'll be almost completely useless for Macro for a start, where as I imagine the Fuji will be designed with such abilities in mind.
It might even be slower too.
I have the 17-70 and it's a great lens, although mine appears to be front-focusing a little and is going in for calibration soon. I've heard that Sigma's QC can be a bit variable and quite a few of their lenses need calibration from the outset. Will be done under warranty but can be a bit of a pain. Other than that I think it's a great lens and a definite step up from the kit one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,975
- Location
- South East
Excellent. I have only seen postive reviews of it, maybe down to the value of the lens. I ordered one last night for £200 just in time for my weekend in Paris on the 14th. I have seen the kit lens going for about £50 on auction so I will sell that to claim some of the money back. Plus I covered the costs with a finders fee I got from a friend for getting him some freelance web work
It will be nice to have that little extra reach on the lens that will be on the camera 95% of the time
It will be nice to have that little extra reach on the lens that will be on the camera 95% of the time
Last edited:
Excellent. I have only seen postive reviews of it, maybe down to the value of the lens. I ordered one last night for £200 just in time for my weekend in Paris on the 14th. I have seen the kit lens going for about £50 on auction so I will sell that to claim some of the money back. Plus I covered the costs with a finders fee I got from a friend for getting him some freelance web work
It will be nice to have that little extra reach on the lens that will be on the camera 95% of the time
Which lens are you referring to?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,975
- Location
- South East
Sigma 17-70mm. Replacing my Canon 18-55mm Kit Lens
Once my flash arives my kit is complete.........for now
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,000
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
my kit is complete.........for now
Im sure I said that a while back. :/
the fuji will probably have a higher zoom
it will also be quite good at macro and taking photos of stuff really close up
the sigma lens wont do close up as its not designed for that, and its zoom wont be as good as the fuji either
this is the thing about SLRs, you have to purchase a large number of lenses t get the same range as a bridge camera.