File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey guys, it's my first time on this board.
I really need some good recommendations/information on high quality cameras that won't rape my bank account.

What suggestions do you have for cameras that can take high quality pictures and that I will be able to use for a long time without the need to upgrade.

I have about 1000 US dollars to work with (6500 SEK).

Also, I should add that I am not exactly an amateur, I went to a special high school where I studies photography, both it's history and a lot of training with cameras, but we used the old-school system cameras where we had to develop the films ourselves at the end of the day.
I take it most high quality system cameras can be plugged straight into computers now?
I am familiar with analog photography, not digital, so any information you might be able to give me would be great.

I am wondering because I have decided to take this hobby of mine seriously, and I just got accepted to a university specializing in photography and mediaproduction, which I applied to earlier this year.

Right now I use a decent digital camera, but I am looking for a *real* camera for a decent price that has high picture quality.
>> Anonymous
used nikon d80 with kitlens + any lens you will need for your work would fit your pricerange
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>232981

First, you seem to come across as a bit of an asshole, but hey, thats what 4chans for right?

Second..

>should add that I am not exactly an amateur, I went to a special high school where I studies photography, both it's history and a lot of training with cameras, but we used the old-school system cameras where we had to develop the films ourselves at the end of the day.
>I am familiar with analog photography, not digital,

So get a film slr?

In many cases film sill outperforms digital, and the quality is fantastic when blown up.

That and using it will make you a MUCH better photographer..
>> Anonymous
>>232991

Alright, I've been checking out the D-series for a few months now, they seem good.
The D80 is about 7500SEK though, it's a little out of my pricerange, how about the D50 or the D40?
I've also heard some good things about Sony cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>232997

First of all, how exactly did I seem like an asshole?
It wasn't my intention.
I gave you a brief summary of my previous experiences with cameras and photography, and gave you a rough idea about

Secondly, I am 21 living in a cramped apartment, I don't have access to either a local or a home-developing room.
If I could, I would invest in an analog camera, but I can't due to the complications of finding a place to develop the film.
So a digital camera will really be the best for me.
I also do a lot of editing, so it would be nice to just go out and shoot, plug it in my computer, and do the necessary editing without a hassle.

The whole point of the thread was to get suggestions for cameras in my price range that will last me a good while.
Students aren't famous for having deep pockets. :(
>> Anonymous
>>233006

*about how familiar I was with cameras and the technology itself.

Sorry, last part of the sentence got cut off.
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>233006

Fair enough..

in that case, Id go for Pentax......

Am sure all the nikon faggots will rage at this, but you get the same quality, without the fanboy tax... If money is a issue (as a student am sure it would be), its something to consider.

if your have a grand to spend, you can get a K10D for a good price now, or K100D would do you fine for a long time untill you want RAW
>> Anonymous
>>233038

Thank you, I will check the prices in some stores and read up on some reviews.

On a semi-related note, do you know any sites where I might be able to look at photos taken with different cameras, would be a good way to review picture quality before I make a purchase.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
D80 over a D40 because the D40/60 dont have inbuilt focusing motors which vastly reduces the number of lenses you can use. If you then bought a film nikon your film lenses wouldnt AF on the D40.

A200 works with old minolta lenses + film bodies so you can pick up a cheap 5 or so for film.

Same with canon, all their bodies work with the lenses and you can get good film bodies too.

Olympus sucks if you want to use film as you'll need different lenses. No idea about pentax.


With base level cameras the ergonomics (how it feels) are much more important, whichever canon/nikon/sony/pentax/sigma feels the best is going to be the best for you.
>> Anonymous
>>233086Olympus sucks if you want to use film as you'll need different lenses.

no, you don't

stop talking bull shit when you don't know shit
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>233095
Seriously, because my farther uses olympus and doesnt use any of his film olympus lenses on his dslr. When i asked about it I was told they were incompatible (which also explains why olympusfags are moaning about a lack of lenses).

faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>233095
yeah, the old ones are m series?

>>233150
we got trolled
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>233159
This is turning into /o/, trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

Anywho, all cameras are the same and the photographer is the most important part (next is the lens)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>233165all cameras are the same

LOL
>> Anonymous
>>233167
What makes your LOL'ing even funnier is that you attached an image of a less than special camera with your comment.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>233167
Yeah its an A350, cool story brah.
>> Anonymous
>>233170

rofl, oh wow, way to miss the point
>> Anonymous
>>232981
just buy a mamiya 7 and a film scanner
>> Anonymous
>>233171

^butthurt sony fag
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>233177
You know i think the A350/300 is pretty much a giant waste of time?

I love sony for still marketing it (and expect them to make a profit on it too) however.

So the answer is a Sigma?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
buy a used pentax k10d

one of the best values out there in dslrs

you can get them for around $600 and they perform as well as most $1,000 cameras
>> Anonymous
>>233181You know i think the A350/300 is pretty much a giant waste of time?

How does that comment even make any sense?

"hay guys, this company released a camera to make money, what a waste of time"

Go take your elitist bullshit and stuff it up your asshole.

>>233167

What exactly are you trying to say here? That the A350 is some radical departure from other SLR's? It's not. You're a faggot. Etc.
>> Anonymous
>>233196What exactly are you trying to say here? That the A350 is some radical departure from other SLR's? It's not. You're a faggot. Etc.


>> rofl, oh wow, way to miss the point
>> Anonymous
>>233198

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT? OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND SPEAK, PUSSY.
>> Anonymous
Guys, come on, OP here.
Instead of arguing about what sucks the most, give the specs of the cameras you do like, and feel free to give example-photos that displays the sharpness/color you can get with them.

Only a few are making actual selections, and I had heard about the Sony 350, what exactly is bad about it? or vice versa.
>> Anonymous
>>233212

Dude, close your browser and walk away. There is nothing to be found here except mindless bickering.

The truth is that every SLR is the same, and the only differences are how it feels when you use it. So turn off your computer, go to a camera store, and ask if you can play around with theirs.

/thread
>> Anonymous
K10D, m42 adapter, and a bunch of SMC Takumars. They're cheap as balls and amazing lenses, plus you'll be compatible with a ton of old m42 film cameras that are still shoot great. Also AF and aperture linkages are for retards anyway.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, I'd have to say Pentax Myself. Also take a look at Samsung, they are basically the same thing with different software, so if there is a price difference, take it.
>> Anonymous
canon has a program now that you can purchase an xt for 275 (this is if you have old or nonworking canon digital stuff). search fatwallet.com for the details.

it's a baby dslr, but does the job.