File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hello there
i was thinking of starting a photography hobby, but as my budget is very limited, i'm thinking of getting a good cost/quality camera. i'm thinking of getting me a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W55, but since i dont know shit about cameras and photography, i'm asking /p/'s advice on whether i should go and buy it or if there are better cameras with roughly the same price tag.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:09 23:08:36Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width353Image Height259
>> ac
>>46393
Spending more up front. Spending vastly, vastly less over time.

Remember to factor in cost of film. I could buy a digital SLR for the amount of money I've spent on film this year, and I don't shoot that much film.
>> Anonymous
>>46396

Must be some expensive-ass film you're using.
>> ac
>>46396
Let's run the numbers, shall we?

The DSC-W55 he's looking at is $200 according to a quick google search. Cheapest film I can find on adorama.com is $1.65 for 36 exposures. Developing that roll will probably cost him at least $7 judging by the prices in my area. So let's be kind and round down to $8 total for 36 exposures, or a little over $.22 per picture.

Assume a beat up old manual-focus SLR kit with a lens or two, $50 using the number you've provided.

So the DSC-W55 starts saving him money after picture #681.

If you're just starting out in photography, you're gonna want to take a *lot* of pictures. When I'm in a heavy picture-taking situation, I can knock back 700 pictures over the course of two days with my digital SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>46398

You're probably right. Not arguing that.

I suppose I just never really notice what the cost of film totals to, since I just usually buy regular old kodak bw 400CN at 4 bucks for a pack of three rolls down here at the local pharmacy(can't be beat at that price, IMO), and then get negs processed at wal mart (1.50 per roll). They do as good a job as any when you're just processing negs. Prints blow the big one though. I suppose it would come to a lot more if i'd actually get prints everytime, but I never do, which would probably not apply to this situation.

So yeah, I suppose digital is a worthwhile investment. Hell, I've got a digital PnS myself, but I saw 'as a hobby' and I figured he'd be looking for something a little more serious. Then, after you're more familiar with photography in general, and more in control of a camera, he can consider a more advanced digital camera, or film.

Played with a D40 today. Excellent little camera, save for the kit lens feeling a bit too flimsy. I'm sure that something like that would be a great step up for OP after a bit of shooting with lesser cameras.
>> ac
>>46397
Okay, came out to $337.91 I've spent on film and processing this year, not counting the $110 or so I spent on buying myself a little home darkroom kit. That's enough to buy an older dSLR body off of eBay, like an original Digital Rebel.

And yeah, I don't buy the cheapest film out there. If I'm going to all the hassle of taking a shot on film, doesn't seem like it'd make sense to use the shitty stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>46395


so, canon is considered better than sony?
>> ac
>>46401
See, I agree that that would've been the way to go if getting into photography as a hobby in the pre-Digital age. But a lot of people who could go on to be really good photographers would spend a bunch of money on a nice camera and a few rolls of film, shoot their normal just-starting-out shitty shots, and give up. With digital, there's no incremental cost to learning.

If I'd started out with a film SLR, I never would have gotten into photography. Starting with digital, though, I was able to get to the point where I went "Hey, maybe I should try out some film".
>> ac
>>46403
Certainly by Canon's marketing department. ;)

I've had good experiences with every Canon I've owned. I've had no experiences with any Sony camera ever. So I'd recommend a Canon just because it's what I know.
>> des
>>46402
to paraphrase Dave Attell:
Everytime I buy a roll of slide film, I think to myself- "For two more dollars, I could be buying crack"
>> Anonymous
>>46406
I'm trying to figure out a way to work "If it feels like more than two fingers, it's probably a dick" into a response here, but I just can't figure out how.

More on topic, my dad had a Nikon film SLR (N8008s), and I could use it whenever I liked. But I never did, just because of the thought of all the money I'd be wasting. I saved up and bought a D70s, and I've taken over 3k shots with it in about two years. That's not much for most people, but it's a lot more than I ever expected.

If you're frugal, digital is awesome.
>> Anonymous
I started out with a Canon A540 point and shoot camera. Its a really great camera, nice photos, small and convenient.

I purchased a Nikon D40 yesterday, and i'm loving it. The lens that comes with it is pretty decent, but I got the $250 55-200mm lens, shots are awesome.

For a beginner camera you cant go wrong with a D40 or a Canon Rebet XT. Their both excellent cameras and highly recommended, I opted for the Nikon because I have a bunch of expensive high speed SD cards and the Canon uses CF which are a bit more pricey.

If your not sure, definitely go digital. You'll have infinite film with a single memory card, plus if you decide its not for you, the camera and accessories will have a decent resell value on ebay.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
For its quality and features, Sony cameras are overpriced.

Get a Canon Powershot A550. Its memory card and batteries are cheaper than the Sony's, too.
>> Anonymous
I started photography by stealing a camera from the stack of people's stuff at school dances.
>> Anonymous
>>46403
Well, I'm back again. There is some issues with quality control with some Sony cameras. The only thing that I particularly have a problem is the purple fringing. It's more pronounced on some models than others, perhaps. Or maybe from camera to camera the degree of it isn't consistent. It's not usually noticeable. But if you take a picture at the store and stare the LCD screen of your shot for a little while because something's amiss, then you shouldn't buy that camera.
>> ac
>>46470
Also, they use Sony's proprietary MemoryStick flash cards, which are made of fail.
>> elf_man
The powershot a5xx series has no problems with purple fringing, I would second them for something in this price range.