Digital photography

I think what he means is that if you want what I was looking for it would be cheaper to buy say an OM10 with the stock 50mm f1.8 (which I have, along with 2 other lenses - dad's kit) than to buy a lens for my DSLR.
Which makes sense but..not if one wants to use digital. Although for example I originally bought the lomo fisheye as that would be cheaper than getting a fisheye lens..although that turned out to be stupid and I sold it on soon after for the same price O_o.

if you can stretch to buy the Canon Powershot G10 (around £350ish) it will be worth it. Ive seen photos produced with that camera and they blow me away every time.

It's got 14.7megapixels and a massive 3" screen on the back to preview your photos. Super-sharp
This is like the semi pro, easy to use-produce brilliant photos camera. It even has a slot for an external flash on the top.

I bought the G10, used it for a couple of months, then sold it. The sensor is incredibly noisy in low light / ISO>100, pics are almost unusable. Great for sunny holiday snaps.

Ed says cheaper to use...must mean cheaper to buy....

I would not have been able to afford photography as a hobby had the digital revolution not happened!

Well took the plunge and picked up an Olympus E420 for £250 (beat them down as no battery) from Currys of all places. They threw in a 2Gb card too! Now just need to get a battery online. But pleased with a bargain! Cheers!

http://www.digi-quick.co.uk/olympus_bls_1_bls1_battery

Job done. Hope you enjoy your camera.

Good choice.

Because quite simply, there's nothing wrong with the stock lens, for your average individual, they don't tend to spend more on other lens when the current one that came with the camera already doing exactly what they wanted it to do.

unless they believe in the silly notion that better lens = better photography.

ed, wtf?

What he said, Ed. Of course there's 'nothing wrong' with the stock lens. But who is this 'average individual' you're on about? I think I'm probably one of them: photography is a hobby, albeit one I would like, with practice and experience, to take further. Within a few months of owning my D40 I decided I wanted more reach than the 55 mm (or, anticipating your comments, whatever that equates to in 35 mm/ full frame terms) the kit lens would allow so I got a longer, faster lens. Now I am about to replace the kit lens range with another fast lens as f/3.5 simply isn't fast enough for many applications. This is all on a low-end body which this 'average individual' got not knowing whether or not photography would become a serious interest.

"Better" is a very subjective term, but I can tell you that I get better bokeh, contrast and colour reproduction with my more expensive lenses than I do with the kit.

cant be bothered to get into this argument but I will add this one point:

Canon standard lenses have a plastic element hidden within the glass elements to save money.

What he said, Ed. Of course there's 'nothing wrong' with the stock lens. But who is this 'average individual' you're on about? I think I'm probably one of them: photography is a hobby, albeit one I would like, with practice and experience, to take further. Within a few months of owning my D40 I decided I wanted more reach than the 55 mm (or, anticipating your comments, whatever that equates to in 35 mm/ full frame terms) the kit lens would allow so I got a longer, faster lens. Now I am about to replace the kit lens range with another fast lens as f/3.5 simply isn't fast enough for many applications. This is all on a low-end body which this 'average individual' got not knowing whether or not photography would become a serious interest.

"Better" is a very subjective term, but I can tell you that I get better bokeh, contrast and colour reproduction with my more expensive lenses than I do with the kit.

I was litterally gonna right something just like that. I'm also a big fan of Bokeh and a shallow depth of field so as soon as CrazyJames offered me his 50mm f1.4 for £100 I snatched it up reaaaaal quick! Ever since I've never bothered with my zoom lens. Now that I have a 85mm f1.8 I'm deffinitely not touching my kit lens.

Also good choice on the olympus. I LOVE that pancake lens, it's just so awesome haha.

+1 on primes - I shot all of the nocturne yesterday on a 35mm prime.

cant be bothered to get into this argument but I will add this one point:

Canon standard lenses have a plastic element hidden within the glass elements to save money.

also they're held together with fishpaste.

Primes v zooms; mmm, the photographic equivalent of the RLJ debate. :)

ed, wtf?

I probably worded it poorly.

for a very narrow depth of field (i.e. bokeh), I just find it cheaper getting an old SLR with a standard lens than getting those Sigma 30mm F/1.4 lens (or those 50mm F/1.8 plastic lens), any old SLR can be pick up for £30.

that's what I meant (plus, old lens with adaptor = cheap fast lens).

Timmy, as for average consumer, there's a lots of people who have DSLR and never upgraded their lens, it's plentiful enough for them to take photos and the like.

edscoble... you seem to know ur photography shizzle...
can u advise on extension tubes with soccermom lens? [18-135mm 3.5/ 5.6 on Nikon D80]
likey to get decent macro?

For a work project i need to get hold of a couple of compact digital cameras which meet the following criteria;

1. SD card compatible
   
2. Cable shutter release compatible (this has been my main difficulty - a pc link with software to fire the shutter could also work although i guess this is more unlikely)
   
3. Tripod Mount
   
4. Plenty of manual settings (white balance, exposure etc.)
   
5. Fairly sturdy (they will be getting a lot of use)
   
6. Fast (as in write to sd card pretty quick, at least 1 shot every 3 seconds or so)
   
   

megapixels are not important

Has anyone come across something that fits the bill? Older models which are fairly common on ebay would be perfect, budget is slim maybe around 100 each second hand?

to get a lot of extra functionality there's homebrew firmware for a lot of cameras, could open up possibilities. I know there's CHDK for canon powershots but might be for others too

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

maybe that way you can get away with older n cheaper models?

just used the search to dig this back up as i wanted to ask a question about a budget DSLR and this kinda suited what i wanted to know. was all taken on the G10 after reading this till i saw sharkstar's comment about poor performance in low light.

my new job involves alot of travel and i've never really been able to afford a decent camera up until now, i've been using an old minolta 7000 of my dad's with a single minolta af28 lense.

now i have the means to get a better camera i wanted a dslr, nothing too expensive for the fear of muggings and theft (i will be working in some pretty ropey places).

the g10 seemed interesting but i want to take alot of pictures at night so performance in those conditions is important. am i right in thinking this takes me into DSLR territory? if so is the nikon 3000 the kind of thing that would suit? the reviews i've read have been positive...

the appeal of the g10 was its compactness but i guess a dslr and a couple of lenses i could cope with.

the G11 has now replaced the G10. pretty much all the old problems with the G10 have been fixed plus a better articulated screen. the mega pixels have been reduced to give better low light performance, and to be honest no one needs 14mp on a "compact". The G11 is a sweet camera, but it is towards the expensive end of the compact camera spectrum. id have one if they wernt so expensive.

I 'upgraded' to a Sony 230 DSLR recently and compared to my old G9 it is simply incredible in low light.
Hardly any noise, and the lenses are super sharp.
At the price I got it for, it is definitely worth it over a g9/10/11, particularly as my biggest irritation with the above mentioned cameras was the shutter speed issue.

I am no professional photographer, nor am i even an impassioned amateur- Just when I go skiing i like to have crisp action shots, and judging by my test shots on this things are looking good.

Having said that I could only afford it at the end of last year and for the past two years I have been using a film SLR to practice, and taking my canon places i wouldn't take my film camera, so we'll see.
Also the movie function on the g9 was really fucking good quality so I might miss that too.

I 'upgraded' to a Sony 230 DSLR recently and compared to my old G9 it is simply incredible in low light.
Hardly any noise, and the lenses are super sharp.
At the price I got it for, it is definitely worth it over a g9/10/11, particularly as my biggest irritation with the above mentioned cameras was the shutter speed issue.

I am no professional photographer, nor am i even an impassioned amateur- Just when I go skiing i like to have crisp action shots, and judging by my test shots on this things are looking good.

Having said that I could only afford it at the end of last year and for the past two years I have been using a film SLR to practice, and taking my canon places i wouldn't take my film camera, so we'll see.
Also the movie function on the g9 was really fucking good quality so I might miss that too.

i thought this might be the case, guessed the DSLR would give superior low light performance. i want to be doing long exposure shots of stars and desert/remote location shots but will be using it alot during the day whilst travelling. will be used for action shots when climbing and riding as well

any reason why you went for the sony over nikon/canon?

the appeal of the nikon for me is the ability to get the more affordable sigma lenses.

i should note that i am very much an enthusiastic amateur and learning from mistakes and trial and error

nb is anyone familiar with the pentax kx? been reading it performs well in night photography situations and is capable for HDR applications as well which is also of interest

Let put it this way;

any compact camera will not perform well at low light, no matter how advanced it is, it's nowhere near as decent as a cheap DSLR.

compact camera and camera that look like DSLR (bridge camera) have tiny sensor, which is usually why it perform poorly in low lighting.

any DSLR camera will be fine providing it work for you (i.e. comfortable to hold).

i thought this might be the case, guessed the DSLR would give superior low light performance. i want to be doing long exposure shots of stars and desert/remote location shots but will be using it alot during the day whilst travelling. will be used for action shots when climbing and riding as well

any reason why you went for the sony over nikon/canon?

the appeal of the nikon for me is the ability to get the more affordable sigma lenses.

i should note that i am very much an enthusiastic amateur and learning from mistakes and trial and error

nb is anyone familiar with the pentax kx? been reading it performs well in night photography situations and is capable for HDR applications as well which is also of interest

I liked the feel of the sony, plus it was cheap as chips, plus I knew that they're lenses were proper excellent, and finally I liked the fact it had no unnecessary features.
Its a real good budget DSLR camera- can't reccomend it enough.
Produces some real nice shots, and unlike some of the other cameras I looked at the bundled lens is amazing- I mean like perfect.
I love it.
And normally I hate Sony- I hated the way they seemed to make their products deliberately incompatible with things.

anyway- its good. and especially good for the money.

Does anyone have an opinion on the Canon 7D? Especially in comparison to the 5D MkII? I really like the HD Video capabilities of both.

Never use the 7D but it look like a decent little camera, like a bicycle, best to go to the shop and try it out to see if you like it.