ok at the moment im using a fuji s20 pro finepix but i think its time for a change but i have'nt got a clue which camera to go for it has to be digital SLR.
Many thanks Jason
Many thanks Jason
recomend me a camera
- Thread starter ukjason
- Start date
Nikon D70 or D200 or Canon 20D
I like my Canon Digi Rebel XT a lot. Easy to use, and you can find good deals on the body+stock lens.
The whole Canon and Nikon thing had been beaten to death. I'm not a Canon "diehard" but I like both their cameras that I have and I find them, like I said, easy to use.
How much are you looking to spend? That's the most important thing.
The whole Canon and Nikon thing had been beaten to death. I'm not a Canon "diehard" but I like both their cameras that I have and I find them, like I said, easy to use.
How much are you looking to spend? That's the most important thing.
what do you think of the fuji pix 9600
max £1000 $1800
cant find it
It's not really worth bothering with anything other than Canon or Nikon IMO, they're just so good. I guess you could go elsewhere, but why mess with success?
If your budget is $1800 then a Rebel XT is way under that.
It's a good (but not pro level) camera. If your budget doesn't include glass then I'd think about an XT with a few lenses, but it's still less that what you've got to spend.
I would ask yourself if you need to spend $1800 or if you just want to. Are you a beginner? Are you pretty experienced? If you're just a beginner I wouldn't bother with super advanced stuff because you won't be able to utilize it and it's money wasted.
Rebel or a D50. Then some decent glass.
Try both and go with whatever feels better to you. The grips are noticeably different.
Try both and go with whatever feels better to you. The grips are noticeably different.
its not on the uk canon site
It's called the 400d for you guys.
You Brits can't handle a camera called "Rebel", you're not extreme enough :biggrin:
the XT is not...the XTi is however.....the XTi is the newest. i have the xt and it is a good camera...but if i were to make the choice between it and the 20d like i was having to do early this year all over again i would go with the 20d just because it is sturdier and the seals are better....
I have a photo of a smart car with chrome spinners on it from my last trip to london. Best thing about it: it was parked in a govt employees spot outside the prince's official residence by the park.
We're so good at irony. :biggrin:
Woulda been sick to see him stuff his ears into that cars, turn up "the beats" and start his wheels a spinnin'.
I think that's pretty short sighted.
Sure, Canon and Nikon are the top dogs, but there's plenty of reason to go elsewhere. Sony's new offering, for instance, fits every Konica/Minolta lens from the last 25 years, and has in-body IS to boot. If Nikon or Canon would get their heads out of their collective asses, they would realize that in-body IS is almost an inevitable conclusion.
Sony's partnership with Zeiss has the potential to produce some really nice new lenses, too.
And hell, there are some pretty interesting benefits to the Foveon sensors that Sigma is putting into their cameras.
don't forget that sony's new stuff has image stabilizer built into the camera. if you are in the $1800 range you surely surely surely want that. im rockin the rebel xt right now, not a bad camera got it all for under $1000 almost 2 years ago so no complaints. what are you lean towards now?
a few notes on the comments...
i'm pretty sure that the 20D has been discontinued, and is not weather-sealed (you'll need a 1 series for the sealing)
canon's lens lineup is pretty much unparalleled in options
if you shoot under low light conditions (ISO 800 and above), canon is the de facto leader for controlling noise.
in-body IS does not (as far as i know) work very well on longer focal length lenses.
i'm pretty sure that the 20D has been discontinued, and is not weather-sealed (you'll need a 1 series for the sealing)
canon's lens lineup is pretty much unparalleled in options
if you shoot under low light conditions (ISO 800 and above), canon is the de facto leader for controlling noise.
in-body IS does not (as far as i know) work very well on longer focal length lenses.
The chief problem is the amount of movement required to compensate for long focal lengths. Canon has a paper that claims a 300mm focal length requires the CCD to shift 1/4" to compensate for extreme movement.
Konica-Minolta says their Anti-Shake system (which is now Sony's) is (in practice, not theory) capable of moving up to 1cm. Much greater than 1/4".
I agree that Canon's lens lineup is great (as is Nikon's), but the reality is that most consumers will buy a couple lenses that suit their needs and use them forever. Frankly, even the most limited lens lineup is more than enough for a big chunk of the market, and brands like Sigma fill in the gaps. Thus, factors like in-camera IS, when IS is almost completely unobtainable otherwise without spending a lot of money, can be a bigger factor than the fact that you can buy four different versions of the 400mm L.
having not used that system, what sort of other issues creep in during excessive sensor movement, like vignetting?
it all depends on how serious the photographer is, what their budget is, and what their primary interest of shooting is...take a look at a few forums and see how many former n00bs suddenly find themselves w/ a bag full of glass after a couple of years.
canon's got everything nailed down aside from fast, inexpensive and wide primes (i would bet my sigma 30 takes very comparable images to the canon 35L at about 1/4th the price). their telephoto range is unparalleled.
I'm not sure, to be honest, but if there is any, it'll be less with full frame glass and cropped sensors (which is the majority of what K/M has).
Forums are a poor representation of any kind of majority. Forums generally represent the enthusiasts which are not the ones who buy a couple lenses and use them forever. Think about the vast majority of the people who post here - would you then say that most of the population who has a decent commuter "suddenly finds themselves with a $2000 full suspension XC rig"?
Again, mostly a moot point unless you're getting into the enthusiasts. There are 70-300 lenses or similar in all brands, and that's what your average person looks at.
Again, I'm not arguing with Canon's huge lens lineup or excellent equipment, but I've known dozens of people who have a couple lenses and are just happy with them. Once many average people own a wide-to-mid zoom and a mid-to-telephoto zoom, there's nothing more to buy.
i think that the parallel between a DSLR buyer and someone who has a commuter bike is not too valid. unless i missed yr point, i am equating the purchase of an entry level DSLR body + kit lens as a pretty good level bike; a commuter bike would be the camera equivalent of a compact P&S.
my point is extremely valid...how many people start out w/ an off-the-shelf but solidly spec'd bike for 2K, and then find themselves upgrading wheels, forks or other components as their experience grows and they find the limitations of their equipment?
sure there will be people who don't touch a thing on their bike, and those people are probably the ones who either may not use it all that much, or just in the same conditions. the same can be said for a fair chunk of D50 or rebel owners, but there will be people (and while not the majority, i'd say it's pretty significant) who find their stock equipment isn't cutting it for the types of shots they are trying to get, and so they start looking at gear which will help them achieve their ends.
the analogy of bike upgrades to lens upgrades totally works in this case.
my point is extremely valid...how many people start out w/ an off-the-shelf but solidly spec'd bike for 2K, and then find themselves upgrading wheels, forks or other components as their experience grows and they find the limitations of their equipment?
sure there will be people who don't touch a thing on their bike, and those people are probably the ones who either may not use it all that much, or just in the same conditions. the same can be said for a fair chunk of D50 or rebel owners, but there will be people (and while not the majority, i'd say it's pretty significant) who find their stock equipment isn't cutting it for the types of shots they are trying to get, and so they start looking at gear which will help them achieve their ends.
the analogy of bike upgrades to lens upgrades totally works in this case.
That's where I disagree. Many people buy a DSLR because it's simply a comfortable piece of equipment to use. Jenn's dad, for instance, just got a Rebel XT and loves it because he has a tough time focusing with a P&S. He can't see the screen many times on the point and shoot and likes that optical viewfinder, and the speed and responsiveness. Some people have legacy lenses from their film cameras. Do you really think all the moms and dads who have Rebels and D50s are enthusiasts, equivalent to those buying a nice bike?
Hiking in the Smoky Mountains I must have seen two dozen Nikon DSLRs and most were attached to a kit lens, in "green square mode". Going to Jenn's brother's high school events last year and I saw a ton of entry level DSLRs being used for snapshots of their kids graduation, same deal - stock lens, default auto mode. I guarantee that if any one of those people owns even one other lens, it's a 70-300 style and they'll never buy another one.
how many people do you see on the bike paths, on an xt stumpy? a fair amount (or check craigslist for stock bikes being sold w/ little use). another good chunk of those stumpy owners find that biking turns into more of a serious hobby, and upgrade accordingly (to their needs and budget), just like a sub-set of the DSLR owners.
of course the camera market is far larger than the mtb market but i think the analogy still holds.
of course the camera market is far larger than the mtb market but i think the analogy still holds.