Help with camera

Tim131

Hi

I've never really owned a camera, so bare with me if I don't make much sense

So, I've always liked the idea of photography, and having a camera where ever I go so I can capture the moment! I'm thinking of buying myself a pretty decent camera, in and around teh €300 mark, the first being

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.aspx?sku=380617&view=detailed#ProductTabs

It seems great, for its size (small, which is a plus, as I will be using it a lot for gigs and concerts) I think the 10 optical zoom is very good, and the HD recording is a definate plus!

There was also this, now its slightly different, a bridge camera I think is the proper name:

http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/1517106/art/panasonic/lumix-dmc-fz28-black.html

I'm wondering which of the two would you reccomend, I want to take it to gigs and get good pics (the ISO on the second one is better, so thats kinda of swaying me to it!) but I would quite like the practicallity of the first one. What are concerts like now, with bringing in bridge cameras, the size of the second camera I'm looking at, would I have a difficult job with getting it into bigger sized venues?

If you could help me it would be brillo!

Thanks loads,

Tim

melekalikimaka

Your highly unlikely to get anything decent with either, I'd reccommend a dslr for gigs, a d40 to start off, pretty damn small too.

Tim131

Thanks you for the fast reply

Do you mean this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D40-Digital-SLR-Camera/dp/B000KIX65S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235501813&sr=8-1

If so, why would it be better than the ones I linked to (I realise its prob a stupid q, but I don't know) Should the fact it only has 6 mega pixels be putting me off?

And would it not be a pain getting into a concert with it? :P

Cheers

melekalikimaka

Tim131 wrote: »

Thanks you for the fast reply

Do you mean this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D40-Digital-SLR-Camera/dp/B000KIX65S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235501813&sr=8-1

If so, why would it be better than the ones I linked to (I realise its prob a stupid q, but I don't know) Should the fact it only has 6 mega pixels be putting me off?

And would it not be a pain getting into a concert with it? :P

Cheers

6 mp is more than enough for anyone really

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html

yes i do mean that one.... for a few reasons

1. large sensor...less noise
2. changeable lens, more options in how to compose
3. better optics - slr lens are hugely superior to the 'one for all' jobs on bridge and p and s
4.more manual control, essential for concerts with rapid light changing, and moving people

Tim131

melekalikimaka wrote: »

6 mp is more than enough for anyone really

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html

yes i do mean that one.... for a few reasons

1. large sensor...less noise
2. changeable lens, more options in how to compose
3. better optics - slr lens are hugely superior to the 'one for all' jobs on bridge and p and s
4.more manual control, essential for concerts with rapid light changing, and moving people

Cool, thanks for the link, will give it a read, along with some online review for the camera itself.

One more thing, the ISO goes up to 1600, is that good enough for the likes of a dimly lit gig? would I get a blur with this camera or should I get a sharpish picture?

Appreciate the replies

Mr. Grieves

Tim131 wrote: »

One more thing, the ISO goes up to 1600, is that good enough for the likes of a dimly lit gig? would I get a blur with this camera or should I get a sharpish picture?

ISO 1600 should be plenty. What you'll want really is a lens with a wide maximum aperture, like the 50mm f/1.8. Have a look round the forum, there's loads of threads on that. Afaik the Canon version is cheaper than Nikon's, but their entry-level body is more expensive, so you'll want to do some careful research. We're already stretching your budget a little. Read as much as you can before making a decision, there's lot's to learn!

A side note: I wouldn't rate those Panasonics, they have horrible in-camera noise reduction and a 10X zoom like that is rarely useable.

melekalikimaka

http://photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i

this should help.

1600 isop will help alot, but really, a good gig shot generally doesnt use a high iso, what it usually used is a low aperture, ie.2.8 and a shudder speed of round 1/125, at iso 800, just for an example

the low aperture allows more light in in the set amount of time, keeping it bright and clear, the fastish shutter, freezes the movement, so no blur and the iso, aloows more light in again, but low enough to keep noise quite low, giving a cleaner image.... its a balance between those elements... and a dslr, excels in this points more so than a bridge or p and s where usually a low aperture is not possible due to lens restrictions and iso is unusable at high figures

Tim131

Thanks guys for the help, you've been great. Now I'm looking at amazon and they're charging 250gbp for it which works out to be around €280, but komplett are charging €399, would I be right in thinking amazon wouldn't ship here?

pete4130

This is a Flickr group of people with D40/X's with JUST the kit lens so you can see what the camera can produce. A friend of mine has one and I'm amazed at the quality of the images from it!

Nikon D40

melekalikimaka

Tim131 wrote: »

Thanks guys for the help, you've been great. Now I'm looking at amazon and they're charging 250gbp for it which works out to be around €280, but komplett are charging €399, would I be right in thinking amazon wouldn't ship here?

nope they wont, ebay has a good rep from some sellers. ur galaxy and kea photo are two, most folk use em here and no problems, and ALOT cheaper

Tim131

melekalikimaka wrote: »

nope they wont, ebay has a good rep from some sellers. ur galaxy and kea photo are two, most folk use em here and no problems, and ALOT cheaper

Merci, will check them out!

Peace

I've owned a D40 for over a year now and have found that ISO1600 is noisy and will not give you clear images. I would avoid going above ISO400 if possible but the results on ISO800 are acceptable on the D40.

Tim131

melekalikimaka wrote: »

nope they wont, ebay has a good rep from some sellers. ur galaxy and kea photo are two, most folk use em here and no problems, and ALOT cheaper

So I checked out those two sellers on ebay and it said they are no longer member!

Would you be able to reccomend any good sites that would deliver to Ireland?

Thank you

Crispin

Tim131 wrote: »

So I checked out those two sellers on ebay and it said they are no longer member!

Would you be able to reccomend any good sites that would deliver to Ireland?

Thank you

last time i checked calumet do

Ballyman

Kea Photo can be found here: http://www.keaphoto.com/

lucianot

Just a question, are you sure you want to buy a DSLR like the D40? It's a small camera ( I own one) but it will hardly fit in a pocket while the other two models will. Also there is no video in the D40.
The Panasonic DMC-FX28 is not a bad camera in its range and even not being a SLR the main advantage is that you don't have to buy any other lens in order to get a different result. It will offer decent results anyways.
The point I am trying to make is, have you seriously considered the differences between the two technologies? Are you sure about the camera you want according to your needs? Are you sure the Panasonic will not be "small" for you in a couple of months or the D40 too big and cumbersome?
I started with a similar camera to the Panasonic (more or less) and then I realized I wanted more flexibility and didn't mind the size and having to buy new lens, a bigger case, more memory, etc and bought the D40.

Sorry if I am confusing you, a good advice would be to ask someone who already owns these cameras (or similar) to let you use them, test them, see the differences and see what kind of camera you want.
Good luck!:)

spav

Another reason why an SLR is for you is shutter lag.

With most point and shoot cameras, there's a lag of a second or so between you pressing the button and the pictures being taken. For gigs, that could be the difference between a great shot and a rubbish one. DSLRs are near instantaneous.

The downside is the size of course. The D40 is small by DSLR standards, but it's certainly too big for your pocket.

If I was you I'd head to a camera shot and have a hold, see for yourself - Bermingham cameras seen to be the cheapest on the high street for the D40.

http://www.berminghamcameras.ie/store/index.php?target=products&product_id=2206

Tim131

Thanks guys for the help!

And whilst at the start of writing my original post, I wanted a compact or bridge, I have now done a lot of hard reading and I think a DSLR would be for me, and the D40 would be a great one to start off with, affordable, upgradable, and it seems to have much features.

My one concern however is, every review I read has mentioned that some lenses wont have auto focus if used with this camera, I read that with the modern ones this shall not be a problem, but, will the the lens included with this have autofocusing, or will I have to manual focus.

This camera seems great, is there any other drawbacks that I am missing???

Cheers

GhostInTheRuins

The kit lense will definitely autofocus.

Tim131

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

The kit lense will definitely autofocus.

Danke.

Tim131

One last question an I'll promise I'll shag off,

What do you guys thinkg of the Sony A200?

It has image stabilisation and higher pixels, and the lens is better on it too? would you reccomend that over the d40? I can find them for much the same price online! So which do you reckon would be the best?

Thanks!

GhostInTheRuins

I don't know, maybe this will help? -http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=594369&forum_id=87

CabanSail

Sony seem to have moved into the Third Place behind Nikon & Canon.

As a stand alone camera they seem quite good.

You have to decide if the Sony system has enough scope for you to expand into as you improve.

Most people stay in the system of the first SLR they buy. So it's worth looking at the whole system.

riskydisco

I used keaphoto in recent times and they seemed to be reasonable enough.. though the product did take two weeks to arrive.

melekalikimaka

i would rate the sony ahead of the d40, the d40 is quite limiting in the long run, alot moreso than the sony... but theres more options with the nikon IMO

spav

Tim131 wrote: »

One last question an I'll promise I'll shag off,

What do you guys thinkg of the Sony A200?

It has image stabilisation and higher pixels, and the lens is better on it too? would you reccomend that over the d40? I can find them for much the same price online! So which do you reckon would be the best?

Thanks!

The Sony A200 is defiantly the better camera - I'd also consider the Samsung GX series too.

I looked at Sony, Samsung, Nikon and Canon when I was buying. Pretty quickly I narrowed it down to Nikon and Canon - there's a much, much better after-market for Nikon and Canon, meaning that lenses / accessories are way more easily available, and there's a considerable second hand market too - I've bought both my additional lenses off adverts.ie.

You'll get more bang for your buck with the Sony initially, but it'd be harder and more expensive to build on it once you fancy a new lens, a flash gun etc.

Would you consider second hand? If so I'd have a look and see if you can find any D80s available. You'll probably be able to get a used D80 for a similar price to a new D40, and it comes with a lot more toys to keep you happy. Although I'm very happy that I got a D40, I'm now looking to upgrade after under a year of ownership. Had I got a D80 initially, I'd probably but happy to stick with it for a few years yet.

Versus the D40, the D80 has higher megapixels (which basically means you can print bigger, or crop more), built in AF, plus a more powerful sensor. I think it works better at low-light too. The D40 is a brilliant first SLR, but it is also bottom of the range.

The D90 is the best amateur Nikon - I had a go of one this weekend and it's brilliant. Not cheap though, you're looking at the sharp end of €1,000.00 for the kit.

melekalikimaka

spav wrote: »

The D90 is the best amateur Nikon - I had a go of one this weekend and it's brilliant. Not cheap though, you're looking at the sharp end of €1,000.00 for the kit.

mneh, i dont rate it personally, the whole video thing really leaves a bad taste

Zillah

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the whole video thing really leaves a bad taste

You realise you could just not use the video mode, right? It's still an incredible DSLR that loses nothing from the addition of a HD Video mode.

melekalikimaka

Zillah wrote: »

You realise you could just not use the video mode, right? It's still an incredible DSLR that loses nothing from the addition of a HD Video mode.

yeah i know...personally the addition on a video function ( a terrible terrible one at that) cheapens the whole camera for me...

spav

melekalikimaka wrote: »

yeah i know...personally the addition on a video function ( a terrible terrible one at that) cheapens the whole camera for me...

I think they've dealt with the video thing well - i.e. it's just a bonus feature rather than an a integral part of the camera offering. I wouldn't say it's terrible either, it's certainly better than what you'd get on a typical P&S.

Mind, playing with the D90 was the first time i've seen Live View. I really didn't like it, it just doesn't seem to belong on a DSLR.

melekalikimaka

spav wrote: »

I think they've dealt with the video thing well - i.e. it's just a bonus feature rather than an a integral part of the camera offering. I wouldn't say it's terrible either, it's certainly better than what you'd get on a typical P&S.

Mind, playing with the D90 was the first time i've seen Live View. I really didn't like it, it just doesn't seem to belong on a DSLR.

i dont think you can even af in video mode?

GhostInTheRuins

No I don't think you can af in video mode, doesn't matter anyway, chances are you'll never use it. I doesn't mean the D90 isn't a good camera though.

spav

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i dont think you can even af in video mode?

Nope - it's certainly not going to replace even the most basic camcorder. I do think, however, it'd be useful for getting 30 sec clips of whatever you're shooting. I'd use video mode on my p&s cameras sparingly, but it's nice to record a bit of live action to complement what you're shooting.

ThOnda

If you don't like some functions, don't use them :-)
I can imagine situations when live view would be essential and not only beneficial. And would LOVE to have video on my camera, because I know what could I do with that. Well, having some wide lens, of course