File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /s/

I'm just branching into serious photography and want to pick up a nice DSLR. I work in an electronics store in Australia and we have the Canon 400D in stock and after having a look at that I've come to the conclusion that it's not that great, Really small and uncomfortable grip as well as complaints of soft images and the lack of a sync and resync flash.

To be honest i didn't even know about that untill i asked our camera expert. But now i find myself wanting somthing thats a bit better. I have a canon Powershot A80 and have taken some killer photos with it and was thinking of staying with Canon... but the 400D and 30D don't impress me that much. Can anyone throw some light onto good brands and good camera's?

I hope to work with my friend who is a videographer as a wedding photographer... so i'll need a decent camera to take good photos of weddings and such... I also wish to do artist and creative photography... so ... whats your advice?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2005:12:11 23:05:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1800Image Height1200
>> Anonymous
For an entry camera basically I think the D50 would be your best bet (Avoid the D40 cause it limits your lens choice EXTREMELY, and since Nikon has such a massive amount of used gear floating around, you want the selection (it could save you quite a bit in the long run)

Pentax K10D I've heard is quite good aswell, but haven't used it myself

And from what I've seen avoid the Sony Alpha

But remember with DSLR's its all about the lenses, and they cost A LOT, since you work at a camera store do you get deals on trade ins or anything? That could swing your decision more than anything.
Knowing what I know now, If I could go back in time, I would have rebought my D50, got the 18-70 kit lens (better than the 18-55 by a LOT) And 50mm f1.8 and SB-600 flash (total cost would be around $1200 CAD
>> Anonymous
Oh tip about weddings, NEVER do one as the Sole photographer, Always be the backup. People EXPECT more at weddings, and even if you only charge like $800aus they will still freak out if the pictures aren't what they expected.

Also you need good lighting and low light lenses for weddings (Aka EXPENSIVE) Get lots of portrait experience first, and learn how to use wireless strobes, then venture into that.

the D70s (or D80) would be a slightly better choice than the D50 if you are planning on wireless lighting (by getting the Sb-600 or SB-800 (Flash's) cause the D70 or D80 can fire them remotely with the built in flash, VERY convenient))
>> daniel
>>32571

aren't we in /p/ not /s/?
>> Richard C. Mongrel
>>32574

Lol @ recommending the D50 to someone who says the 400D AND 30D aren't enough for him. Seriously, stop being fanboys and start thinking. It's especially pathetic that you're fanboys for the D50 or the D80.. ugh.


Anyway, you might want to look at the more expensive section.. think Canon EOS 5D. If the hefty price is too much for you, there's always payment by instalments.

Its resolution, viewfinder brightness (anyone who has held a tiny DSLR and then a pro-level cam will understand easily), ease of use, choice of gear and most of all, performance, are perfect for weddings.

As for lighting, you'll most certainly be needing at least one external flash (mounted on the camera), but for wedding photos (not only) indoors a second one (off-camera) is convenient as well.

As for lenses, high quality zooms dominate the wedding scene. Of course there's the occasional f/1.8 85mm for portraits, but from what I know, the f/2.8 24-70mm and f/2.8 70-200mm seem to dominate. If you have the time (and cash) for primes, bright 35mm, 50mm and as I said, 85mm lenses are great.


I'm obviously a Canon user (5D, 350D + a bunch of glass) so I don't know that much about Nikons. The D200 seems great though, it's not full-frame, but it's much cheaper than the 5D. It's certainly a superb camera, especially if you want quality for price
>> Anonymous
>>32621
If you read the original post completely you would notice that the OP complained about slow flash sync, small size and soft images. AND hasn't used a DSLR (other than instore)

I don't think people jumping into the DSLR market would necessarily drop 3000$ on a body alone.

Also the D50 has a 1/500th flash sync and is bigger than the 350d / 400d, So its a good "ENTRY" level DSLR.

Also lenses don't upgrade as fast as bodies so starting with a cutting edge body might also be a bit foolish if you want to upgrade in the future (new technology might be very appealing,to some the 5D's full frame sensor was exactly that)

to the OP.
My advice is don't spend a ridiculous amount of cash on a body untill you know what you need. You are basing most of your complaints on someone elses recommendations, So when you know what you want then you can splurge and buy something expensive like a d200 or 5D.
>> Anonymous
>>32627

Truth. Buy the most expensive stuff only if you're insecure about the size of your penis and want a fancy-schmancy camera to compensate for that.

Thing is, there are a lot of reasonably-priced cameras out there which perform just as well, if not better, than the most expensive stuff you can find.

For OP, if this will be your first dSLR, I would also recommend Nikon's D70. It's a great all-around camera and the price won't kill you. Besides that, you won't have a giant neon sign on top of your head which says "I don't know anything about photography so I just bought the most expensive shit I can find. And my penis is small".
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
well i just purchased a canon 350D tonight (and im from Aus aswell) for 1k along with all these goodies.

although i dont think ill be serious about it, but i do want it as a hobby.

but, was this set worth it?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-T9Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:12:18 23:49:10RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypePortraitContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramPortrait ModeISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce, Return DetectedFocal Length6.33 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2816Image Height2112
>> Anonymous
>>32677
FAIL for no 4chan in the background!
>> Anonymous
>>32678
Double fail for buying a 350D when the 400D only costs a few bucks more.
>> Richard C. Mongrel
I'd post a full-frame 12 megapixel image of my penis, but the upload limits are too small for my gargantuan manrod. I guarantee it.

Anyway,
>>32684

Dunno, IMO the 400D < its competitors, though it's obviously (only slightly though, IMO) better than its predecessor.

No spot metering is weak. No second LCD is very weak, but that seems to be a common problem with entry level DSLRs now - correct me if I'm wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>32695
What do you need a second LCD for?
>> Anonymous
>>32741

so he can see his miniscule penis better.
>> Anonymous
>>32752
>>32741
LCD for displaying camera statistics, like spot metering, shutter speed, apperature, flash compensation, flash mode, exposure compensation, pictures left, Pictures left till buffer fills, quality, jpg or raw, white balance, metering, battery life, ISO, or continuous or single shutter mode.

Its very helpful and it is much quicker than using the LCD on the back (the same one that shows the pictures) to view, (also saves battery life since the primary lcd is a full color display)

Anyway its very helpfull, And a backlit one like ont he d70 is very nice for when taking pictures in nasty ass lighting (Astrophotography, clubs, concerts, etc)
>> Monkeysatemybrains
>>32754

Uh.. what? You can see a lot of that on the display in the viewfinder! How is looking at a second LCD "faster" when you're either looking at the back LCD for the settings information or are looking into the viewfinder?

And the 400D does have a slow sync flash.

Methinks the OP doesn't know what he's talking about.
>> Anonymous
its faster. dont lie.
>> Anonymous
>>32879
Slow sync not as in the function "slow" but the max flash sync speed the camera supports, which on the 400D i believe is 1/200 (Which is fine for portraits under bad lighting, But bad for fill flash (during daylight) or sports)