Twitter
EmailChoosing the right camera (for me)
Oct 25
In case you haven’t noticed in the last couple of months, I’ve been on something of a photographic kick lately. Along with that, I’ve been considering picking up a more serious camera for the hobby and learning all new things. I like my Sony DSC-H1 camera a lot. For a point and shoot, it has some great features:
- Anti-shake picture stabilization
- 12x optical zoom
- 5.1 megapixels (seems puny these days, but pretty good for the vast majority of pictures)
- Ability to add on a couple of different lenses, though I’ve never gone so far as to buy one
- Manual control of Aperture, Focus, ISO, etc.
But I want a dSLR. Those things are just cool. After looking at plenty of photo galleries on Flickr, reading up on reviews, listening to podcasts, reading magazines, etc. I’ve come to the Canon 400D/Xti as my digital SLR of choice. Features there include:
- 10 megapixels
- RAW format
- Automated dust cleaner
- Low price – $600 body only, $670 with kit lens (18-55mm)
Then, talking to a professional photographer, he suggested I not even bother with an SLR if that’s all I’m going to do. I might as well go with the Canon G9, he said, which is a point and shoot that includes:
- 12 megapixels
- RAW/jpg format
- Anti-shake
- 6x optical zoom
- Couple of add on lenses for telezoom or wide angle
I’ve seen the pictures from this camera on Flickr. They’re amazing. RAW is a HUGE step up from my current camera, and doubling the megapixels would be huge, as well.
And the price is less than $500.
Is that all I need?
Should I look at the Nikon? I know the difference between Nikon and Canon is negligible these days, but I just don’t know right now.
This is a long research project. I’m still saving up the dollars to pay for such a thing, and that likely wouldn’t happen until at least the Christmas season. (Crossing my fingers now for a big sale somewhere.)
Anyone have any experience with any of these cameras? Any ideas?
Oct 25, 2007 @ 09:55:24
I’m not a camera afficianado (yet), but my brother is, and when I bought a new camera last year, I settled on the Canon S3. It’s only about $300, and according to my brothers friends who are in the know, it comes standard with a VERY nice lens, thus saving the expense of upgrading your lens. And it does video too.
Oct 25, 2007 @ 19:03:56
Currently I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT and it’s probably the best thing since sliced bread.
The Canon 400d is probably the answer to Nikon’s D40, if so, then it’s worth the monies.
I also recommend the 50mm lens, so worth it. :)
Also, when leaving comments the words next to the slots are invisible.
Oct 25, 2007 @ 22:41:41
Loren – Canon has great stuff across the line. I just want RAW format for my pictures now. It looks like the S3 is along the same lines as the Sony I use now. I love the camera – the 12x zoom is great, the pictures are nice — but it’s time to move up.
RK – Yes, the Canon 400D == Nikon D40. There’s a Canon 40D just to confuse things, which is the next step up from the Canon 400D, and it tempts me so. But it’s $1300 for just the body.
The 50mm is a non-negotiable first purchase with any SLR.
What’s invisible to you? Are you referring to the text at the bottom of the entry? I do need to fix that, though I didn’t think anyone ever looks at it. ;-)
Oct 27, 2007 @ 09:54:07
The thing is, compact camera, however good they may be on paper, are essentially *&^&*. The problem is their really really really small sensors.
Low light, that is indoors and especially when it’s darker, compact cameras will be really noisy or the noise suppressor is so aggressive you’ll get impressionistic paintings instead of an Ansel Adams. .
Now, the 400D is good. I’ve used the 350D, and it does take, especially when you have a good lens, excellent pictures. But, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you a big guy? You will get annoyed with how small the 400d is. For someone like you, I would recommend the Nikon D80 or the Canon 40D – both are good, but the Canon being the newer model, will be ‘technologically’ better. Oh, and if you like taking low light pictures, I suggest you go for the Canon – in terms of noise, the Canon produce a cleaner file. (Nikon usually produces nicer colour out of the box)
Lens, I would suggest the 50mm f/1.8. It’s dirt cheap, low-light friendly, and way way way better than the kit. The problem is no zoom. So you can practice what generations of photographer used to do (and some still do) zoom with your feet.
Compact cameras: read this excellent intro:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-to-choose-digital-point-and-shoot.html
Oct 27, 2007 @ 10:23:01
Suf – As luck would have it, I was just looking up the Canon 40d, after seeing a few references to it. It IS a major step up. You’re right — I have large-ish hands, so the body size would probably be handy, too. But the features of the 40d are really really nice. The only problem is that it will effectively double the cash layout to start. Yikes!
That link is hilarious, and just dead on from everything I’ve read lately.
The 50mm prime lens is the first lens on my Must Buy list with the camera. I’ll have a couple of links about it on Monday, with the Photography Link Dump I have lined up for then.
Thanks!