Need digital SLR advice please

[jamesb300]

I'm thinking of buying the wife a digital SLR for Christmas, and would like some guidance on what to buy. It will be a first SLR for her as she wants to get more into photography and have shortlisted the Canon 400D, Nikon D80 or Canon EOS30D. I know that's a bit of a price spread, but I'd like some advice as to whether it's worth paying the extra. The EOS30D seems a bit more professional and rugged although it looks like I'd be buying an old model as it's being replaced soon and 'only' has 8M pixels whereas the others have 10M pixels. It's quite a bit heavier too as it will be used a lot for family pics so more weight to lug around. However, with the current Canon cashback offer (£100) you can get it for just over £700 with the 18-55mm lens - about the same as the Nikon D80 with 18-70mm lens.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the Nikon as it's a relatively new model with what seem like good features, most of which I would guess we would never use! On the other hand I don't want to pay any more than I have to.

Any advice guys?

Cheers, James.

[marctwo]

Is she serious about getting into photography? If not then an SLR could be more of a hindrance than a help.

An SLR is bulkier and heavier than a compact.

An SLR does not show the live picture on the screen like a compact (you have to look through the viewfinder).

An SLR needs different lenses for different situations. The 'one lens does it all' solutions tend to be comprimised in their quality.

An SLR provides you with many more ways to mess up your photo than a compact.

If you foresee a situation where it is often left at home because it's too big, and when it is used it's always set to full auto using only the kit lens it came with, then maybe a good compact would be more suitable. Otherwise I would recommend something entry level like Nikon D40 or second-hand Canon 350D and upgrade when she outgrows it.

[UKBob]

The image quality of the 30d will be better than the 400d. Not only because the more pixels you have the more noise you get, for a sensor of the same size.

You can blow up an 8mp image to A2 in size. I blew up a 5mp photo to A1 in size, once and from a few feet away you'd never guess.

Megapixels dont matter, and shouldnt ever come into the equation when buying a modern digital or SLR camera (unless you need to be able to blow up prints to a huge size) or shoot stock like I do where more MP's mean more cropping power.

Id go for the 30d. If she is and wants more than a point and shoot, she'll love it and wont regret the decision.

[UKBob]

marctwo said:

Is she serious about getting into photography? If not then an SLR could be more of a hindrance than a help.

Very true.

Even on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact, and each will require photoshop processing to correct. one.by.one...

[GetCarter]

UKBob said:

marctwo said:

Is she serious about getting into photography? If not then an SLR could be more of a hindrance than a help.

Very true.

on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact

er... not either of my DSLRs - D50 & D2X (and my compact - Canon S80 - is supposed to produce bloody good pics - but it's poor compared to either SLR, even in auto mode)

[jamesb300]

Thanks for the tips guys. I was automatically associating more pixels = better picture quality. Reading the comments above and needing to photoshop the pics, etc, it's almost put me off already! I was trying to avoid getting a much cheaper camera only to find myself wishing I had paid a bit more to start with.

I should also say that another reason for a better camera is that we have a old(ish) Canon Ixus which has a significant delay between pushing the button to take the picture and the picture being taken. So much so that my 18 month old son has usually moved and turned one way or another before the shutter operates so I want something which performs better on that front as well.

James.

[AlexB]

UKBob said:

Even on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact, and each will require photoshop processing to correct. one.by.one...

Why is that? On my 53mm EOS100 the images never required push processing or other tricks for the photos to look pretty good (unless Boots/Jessops were a lot more advanced than I thought!)- why do digital images require post processing - is it just so that the user gets the complete choisce of sharpness etc? It seems that with a 35mm SLR getting the exposure, focus, composition etc correct was the most important thing, but with a digital SLR you need to be able to post process the images to get a decent result.

So that this is not completely off topic I've been looking at that range for a while now and I'd say that she has to hold all of them.....the 30D and D80 feel much more comfortable in my hand than the 400D which is quite a bit smaller. My girlfriend found the 400D much more comfortable and found it hard to grip the others properly as they felt too big.

Alex

Edited by AlexB on Friday 24th November 17:09

[monkeyhanger]

AlexB said:

UKBob said:

Even on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact, and each will require photoshop processing to correct. one.by.one...

Why is that? On my 53mm EOS100 the images never required push processing or other tricks for the photos to look pretty good (unless Boots/Jessops were a lot more advanced than I thought!)- why do digital images require post processing - is it just so that the user gets the complete choisce of sharpness etc? It seems that with a 35mm SLR getting the exposure, focus, composition etc correct was the most important thing, but with a digital SLR you need to be able to post process the images to get a decent result.

There were all sorts of tricks done when you left your 35mm film at Boots for processing, you just didn't get to see it.

As far as Canon Digi SLR's go, there's a filter over the sensor which causes a slightly "soft" look to the images. If you're shooting JPEG then turn up the in Camera sharpness. If you're shooting RAW then you can either have your conversion software apply the in-camera parameters or play around in Photoshop.

Batch processing isn't difficult really, just junk the images that are beyond saving then let PS do the rest

[UKBob]

GetCarter said:

UKBob said:

marctwo said:

Is she serious about getting into photography? If not then an SLR could be more of a hindrance than a help.

Very true.

on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact

er... not either of my DSLRs - D50 & D2X (and my compact - Canon S80 - is supposed to produce bloody good pics - but it's poor compared to either SLR, even in auto mode)

My first shots were terrible. Hideous even. As predicted. And everything continued to look shite, and didnt start to look as good as the shots which came out of my P&S cameras (as phers said they wouldnt) until I learned how to use my slr properly.

Edited by UKBob on Friday 24th November 18:55

[UKBob]

AlexB said:

UKBob said:

Even on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact, and each will require photoshop processing to correct. one.by.one...

Why is that?

Its been 6 months and I cant remember what I was doing, but as PHers predicted, my slr shots were crap and lifeless until I learned how to use it.

Best take what I say with a pinch of salt anyway, I forgot my medication this morning and Im not thinking cleraly as Im still locked in my cage you see, with scratch toy and water dish...

[stuart b]

I've had a D70 for a couple of years and would agree that it takes some learning to get great shots straight out of it without needing tweaking. This is because it is pretty conservative about exposure (so things can look a bit dim and dark) and it is very neutral in terms of how it tries to handle colour. I'm glad it's this way because having spent a long time learning my way around it, I wouldn't want a camera that tried to pretty everything up. It is possible to set it up though to give more colourful, sharper and punchier pics straightaway, but your wife would need to go and have a look at some of the forums (there's loads of info. out there).

I understand that the D80 actually produces much brighter pics by default anyway.

I think it comes down to whether you think she wants to actively learn about photography (i.e. would go out to take pictures of a pile of rubbish if needed) or just wants to take lots of nice pics when out and about. If the latter, then I would agree that a good non-SLR might be the answer. There are so many that it's difficult to suggest, but I've been impressed by the Panasonic Lumix range some of which have good zooms, image stabilisation and plenty of manual features. Somewhat smaller than an SLR though. Could be a good halfway house.

The shutter lag issue was one of the main reasons I went SLR in the end. For pictures of moving cars, there was just no option. I think this is becoming less and less of an issue though, so it's worth having a play with some non-SLRs to see if any make the grade for you.

If trying to choose between Nikon or Canon, you could check out www.kenrockwell.com. he has a comparison on there, but his experience is mostly with Nikon so there's likely some unintentional bias.

Stuart

[Mr Whippy]

Get a D80 from Hongkong for around £1000 with the 18-200VR lens... good all round starter package I'd say. Then when you've found the limits of what you want to do, spread out and specialise.

Dave

[Andy M]

UKBob said:

Even on "auto" mode, the photos that come out of an slr will look far worse than those that come out of a compact

I partially agree with Bob here. I've found the auto images that came out of my 20D were dull and lifeless. But, I think it's possible to have a play with the contrast and saturation sliders which may improve things...

[che6mw]

jamesb300 said:

I should also say that another reason for a better camera is that we have a old(ish) Canon Ixus which has a significant delay between pushing the button to take the picture and the picture being taken. So much so that my 18 month old son has usually moved and turned one way or another before the shutter operates so I want something which performs better on that front as well.

Our 18 month old was one of the reason I finally stepped up to the SLR market. Our point and shoot (Sony P200) is pretty quick (I suspect much quicker than your Ixus if it is a very old version of that model) but because of the relatively low light levels our Sony point and shoot was pushed to the max - so we captured the moment fine, but a lot of shots were blurry, as the shutter speed needed to be slow.

My observations of moving from a decent point and shoot to an SLR:

1) It is MUCH faster and with a decent lens the shutter speed can still be fast enough to capture the action instantly, and sharply.

2) I used to take the point and shoot everywhere (still do) and feel much more conspicious in public with the SLR - not just for security reasons - I just feel a bit of a "nobber" some times with the big bulky SLR. This means on some occasions I don't take it or don't use it. Whether that bothers you or not is up to you.

3) Jacob responds FAR LESS to me holding up the SLR than he did the point and shoot. I put this down to it obscuring much more of your face. He can't see your expressions as easily, so can't respond as readily with a smile. Not an issue if you don't want posed shots - but something to consider perhaps.

4) I'm no photo buff. I just enjoy taking snaps of most things. For this the SLR really isn't a substitute for my point and shoot - it just means I have a piece of kit that will step up to the challenge when the Sony camera can't quite cut it (e.e.g low light, fireworks, macro, when a very high zoom is required). For most day to day stuff I think you'll find a decent modern 5MP+ digital camera will be more than good enough and tiny enough to carry everywhere.


Not sure if that helps? What i'd recommend (if you're not used a digital SLR) is to pop along to Jessops or any other decent camera shop and try out a modern day point and shoot (5MP or more) for say £200-£300 and see how much better that is than your old Ixus.

If it doesn't impress you sufficiently then I'd recommend the Nikon D50 as a great entry level SLR. Its an older model, so you should get it cheapish. And it is a perfect step up to the SLR world - it does 90% of what the more expensive SLRs do and it is very, very user friendly. You or your wife can pop it in to auto mode and get shots just as easily and with no more effort than your point and shoot (and reviews suggest the D50 produces much better results in the auto mode than the more professional models in the Nikon range). If neither you nor your wife want to delve too deeply in to the technical aspects of photography then I'd suggest this sort of DSLR will be ideal for you - the last thing you want is a camera which requires such technical input that it becomes boring, or a chore to use. It'll just gather dust.


Oh, and the D50 (and D80 I think) being squarely aimed at the beginning end of DSLR ownership takes SD cards which I believe is what your Canon uses - so no need for extra purchases there. I think you'll find the Canon models you mention use Compact Flash cards.


Hope that helps,
Matt


P.S. I did lots and lots of research on the Nikon vs Canon arguement and their like-for-like models seem very evenly matched. For me it came down to the fact that the Canon felt too small (and so uncomfortable) in my hand whilst the Nikon felt just right.

Edited by che6mw on Saturday 25th November 06:41