That's right. I blatantly can't afford one, but I want one anyway.
I can afford one, but y'know what I mean...
I'm definitely (after searching(!)) torn between the Canon 400D and the Nikon D40/x - not quite sure which would be better for someone who's been taking pics for a while, kinda getting there, but still manages to take utterly crap pictures for time to time.
I'm fascinated by HDR and RAW mode images and the possibilities RAW offers.
I'm also kinda confused by the AF problems some people have mentioned about the Nikon, and the quality of the kit lens with the 400D.
I don't have huge spade hands, so even the smaller casing size feels good to me.
Obviously the kit lens with either won't last me for ever, but whichever kit lens (if I even go for the kit, or just the body and some better lens to start with?)
I really don't want to post this next sentence, but I will: I'm going to be shooting quite a lot of macro type things (I feel I should get some insect shots) but also landscapes. One of the main uses, until I get used to it will be for taking pictures of things I can convert into really high textures for use on 3d models. So lots of bits of wood, walls, concrete, asphalt etc. From a distance of maybe 1m up to 10m away (at a guess).
Any idea what combination of body/lens (if the kit lenses are totally unsuitable) would be best for this kind of thing?
I don't want to spend a massive amount, unless I can get it from a place that lets you buy now pay later type thing... I want a camera soon, but can only afford a certain amount ~£500 give or take a couple hundred at a push.
Over time, this won't be such a big issue, I can see myself being able to afford a few decent lenses as an investment.
I'm sorry for posting this given that it's clearly not the first time, but all opinions are appreciated.
Cheers.
I can afford one, but y'know what I mean...
I'm definitely (after searching(!)) torn between the Canon 400D and the Nikon D40/x - not quite sure which would be better for someone who's been taking pics for a while, kinda getting there, but still manages to take utterly crap pictures for time to time.
I'm fascinated by HDR and RAW mode images and the possibilities RAW offers.
I'm also kinda confused by the AF problems some people have mentioned about the Nikon, and the quality of the kit lens with the 400D.
I don't have huge spade hands, so even the smaller casing size feels good to me.
Obviously the kit lens with either won't last me for ever, but whichever kit lens (if I even go for the kit, or just the body and some better lens to start with?)
I really don't want to post this next sentence, but I will: I'm going to be shooting quite a lot of macro type things (I feel I should get some insect shots) but also landscapes. One of the main uses, until I get used to it will be for taking pictures of things I can convert into really high textures for use on 3d models. So lots of bits of wood, walls, concrete, asphalt etc. From a distance of maybe 1m up to 10m away (at a guess).
Any idea what combination of body/lens (if the kit lenses are totally unsuitable) would be best for this kind of thing?
I don't want to spend a massive amount, unless I can get it from a place that lets you buy now pay later type thing... I want a camera soon, but can only afford a certain amount ~£500 give or take a couple hundred at a push.
Over time, this won't be such a big issue, I can see myself being able to afford a few decent lenses as an investment.
I'm sorry for posting this given that it's clearly not the first time, but all opinions are appreciated.
Cheers.
For any of the items you just mentioned?