# Camera buying help: Digital compact or dSLR?



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

My first compact digital camera has taken a battering and has totally given out on me claiming somekind of ''lens error'' and I'm now in the market for a second digital but the market is really quite daunting.

I'm not very techie at all so bear with me but I enjoyed taking pics with my compact point and shoot, however, the quality of the pics was always something that fucked me off: lack of control when handling taking pics, real snail-speed zoom, inabilities to take any kind of decent pics in dim light or of moving objects even if the settings adjusted a bit and increasing blurriness of pics as the camera aged plus blurriness from day one if you used any kind of zoom even if you took your time trying to get the angle just right with the image iyswim.

SO, I'm thinking of spending a bit more on my second digital cam if it means getting a bit more out of it. Question is, if I spend about 400 squids on a camera, what am I looking at? digital compact or dslr? I dont want any of the problems mentioned above but would I be able to escape this if I opt for a high end digital compact or should I forfeit compact and lightweightness for a lower-end dSLR that will do what I want?

Have been taking pics with my housemates dSLR and I currently have camera envy. Pics are such much better quality. Will ask her later how much she forked out for it. I have some time to research the best camera for me but I want to make the right choice.


----------



## The Groke (Aug 24, 2009)

Well it sounds from your posts like your previous photography frustrations could be resolved by moving to a DSLR.

I struggle to use a compact digital now having made the change a few years back.


450-ish quid will get you a Nikon D60 which would be my recommendation - lovely handling camera, great speed/response, good sensor etc.

In the same price bracket, but slightly more expensive is the Canon EOS 450D - also a great camera, though I am a Nikon man myself.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

Morning, The Groke, I will indeed peruse your recommendations. Thanking you! 

As an aside, dSLR's are so sexy-looking aswell arent they?


----------



## The Groke (Aug 24, 2009)

Now all that said a 400 quid digital compact would give you great results too - especially compared to your older one given the speed at which camera technology evolves...

HOWEVER!

You might well find that as you begin to enjoy the results of your photography more and more, you will suddenly feel limited again by the compact.
You will perhaps want to start looking at getting more involved, more technical, more creative and wanting to buy additional lenses to get the results you want, which of course you can only do with the DSLR...

If you don't, then either of the DSLRs above still make great point-and-shoot cameras, so it is win/win really.


----------



## The Groke (Aug 24, 2009)

Madusa said:


> Morning, The Groke, I will indeed peruse your recommendations. Thanking you!
> 
> As an aside, dSLR's are so sexy-looking aswell arent they?




Morning Miss M.

Yes they are sexy - they feel good in the hand too.

The reason I first chose my Nikon D50 over the equivalent Canon at the time was purely due to the way it handled - the photography specs were all but identical.

I want to upgrade to a D90 now, but don't have the cash at the moment...


----------



## The Groke (Aug 24, 2009)

*eats Madusa's hams*


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Now all that said a 400 quid digital compact would give you great results too - especially compared to your older one given the speed at which camera technology evolves...
> 
> HOWEVER!
> 
> ...



Hmm, this is all why I'm looking at getting into the market for a dSLR. If I decided to invest in one of those, I can then experiment with different lenses later on, etc etc. I feel I am ready to take the step. 



The Groke said:


> Morning Miss M.
> 
> Yes they are sexy - they feel good in the hand too.



They do indeed.  sexy sexy.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

The Groke said:


> *eats Madusa's hams*



oi! 

The one and only thing that puts me off the dSLR is the bulk, I must say...

Oh, and the price, but it seems you get what you pay for.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Aug 24, 2009)

If you go down the Dslr route - keep in mind, that you may well develop LBA (lens buying addiction), or GAS (gear aquisition syndrome).  It can get expensive.  But then again maybe not.  My Pentax K110D cost me £50 from a mate.  My favourite lens?  An old manual focus 50mm from Ebay for £25.

Whatever make of Dslr that you fancy - think of the long haul.  Once you start collecting lenses, it gets very expensive to change brand at a later date.  With this in mind, consider brands other than those pushed in the market.  For example, there are some tasty offerings from Pentax.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

ToothlessFerret said:


> If you go down the Dslr route - keep in mind, that you may well develop LBA (lens buying addiction), or GAS (gear aquisition syndrome).  It can get expensive.  But then again maybe not.  My Pentax K110D cost me £50 from a mate.  My favourite lens?  An old manual focus 50mm from Ebay for £25.
> 
> Whatever make of Dslr that you fancy - think of the long haul.  Once you start collecting lenses, it gets very expensive to change brand at a later date.  With this in mind, consider brands other than those pushed in the market.  For example, there are some tasty offerings from Pentax.



Hmmm.

I _have_ seen a pretty good review of the Pentax K100D Super as it goes... for £370 aswell. 

Lens buying, eh? Oh behave!


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

The final push for me considering a dSLR came about a month ago at a visit to the local zoo. Was sat ooohing and ahhing watching the amazing dolphin show, and was sat there trying to capture some action shots. However hard I tried, none of the pics came out well. Stupid slow shutter speed meant I missed all the good pics even if I tried to pre-empt anything exciting. And shit was blurry as fuck. I was sat next to a woman who was leisurely snapping away with her dSLR and I asked if I could view a couple of her pics and they all came out amazingly. I nearly threw my shitty point and shoot in the pool then and there, I felt so ashamed. 

A few weeks later the stupid machine saved me the bother anyhow cos it conked out on me. God!


----------



## The Groke (Aug 24, 2009)

Madusa said:


> The one and only thing that puts me off the dSLR is the bulk, I must say...
> 
> Oh, and the price, but it seems you get what you pay for.



You should have a heft of the the ones I mentioned above - they are very compact and light for DSLR and yet still beautifully made.

But yeah - once you get higher up the scale, they do start to get alarmingly large.

Nikon D90 is perfect for my hands. D300 and D700 are slightly too big IMO - I would find them annoying to lug around.

D3 etc - mahoosive!


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Aug 24, 2009)

Better than an old K100D super, you may well be able to find a Pentax K20D  close or even within your budget!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 24, 2009)

Get a Mac.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

nob off this is a serious thread for once!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 24, 2009)

Well, I thought it was funny.

Seriously, a bridge camera (i.e. DSLR like control with a fixed on lens) might suit you. I had a Fuji S7000 for a long time and it served me well. Don't know how good their newer bridge cameras are but would probably compare favourably with the Pentax SLRs.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Well, I thought it was funny.
> 
> Seriously, a bridge camera (i.e. DSLR like control with a fixed on lens) might suit you. I had a *Fuji S7000 *for a long time and it served me well. Don't know how good their newer bridge cameras are but would probably compare favourably with the Pentax SLRs.



That looks _well_ chunky! Girl hands, remember!

Actually, I have quite big hands for a chick but still. i dont really want something that's chunkier than necessary.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 24, 2009)

Cameras aren't for girls. Buy some shoes.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2009)

The real deciders are:

what kind of photography are you into?
are you looking for a compact camera?

DSLR's will always out perform compacts in low light/sports situations, but if the thing is so bulky you may not take it everywhere with you - in which case you'll miss great shots.

A great compromise is the Lumix G1 camera - it combines dSLR quality and handling in a compact body. If you want to see what a high quality compact can do, check out the pics taken on my Lumix LX3 here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/newyork/red-hook-brooklyn-photos-2.html



Refused as fuck said:


> Cameras aren't for girls. Buy some shoes.


Stop fucking about on this thread with your sexist drivel please. Thanks.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 24, 2009)




----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

editor said:


> The real deciders are:
> 
> what kind of photography are you into?
> are you looking for a compact camera?
> ...



Nice pics, ed. Well presented too.

I like shooting anything I like the look of really but whatever I opt for needs to be able to deal with action shots in dim lighting -think in bars, clubs. Actually, action shots in general without making the thing into a blurry mess. 
Also needs to be able to deal with bright colour well without the dull distortion you sometimes get.

Yeah I am primarily scouting for something compact. A camera that can live in my take-wherever bag. Not too heavy. Something that doesnt take forever to start-up so can whip out wherever I am and start snapping.

And within my budget. Hope I'm not asking too much, however.


----------



## ethel (Aug 24, 2009)

i carry my D60 with me in my handbag.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 24, 2009)

I think the Lumix would be a perfect fit for your needs, madusa. High quality lens, big sensor, compact body. Proper SLRs are just to bulky to forget you're carrying one, IYSIM.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

sarahluv said:


> i carry my D60 with me in my handbag.



Madusa likes this post!


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I think the Lumix would be a perfect fit for your needs, madusa. High quality lens, big sensor, compact body. Proper SLRs are just to bulky to forget you're carrying one, IYSIM.



You reckon? Cheers. Sounds like I'll really need to get myself down to the camera shops and have a feel aswell as having a look online. I will check out all recommendations. Loads of time. Hopefully looking to purchase something in a months time. God, I hate being without a working cam.


----------



## The Groke (Aug 24, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I think the Lumix would be a perfect fit for your needs, madusa. High quality lens, big sensor, compact body. Proper SLRs are just to bulky to forget you're carrying one, IYSIM.




Nah - not _that _much difference between the D60 and the Lumix in bulk and the DSLR opens up a much bigger world of photography.

Get a DSLR.


(but srsly - go into a shop and ask to cop a feel of them first. Feel the heft and girth before committing)


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2009)

sarahluv said:


> i carry my D60 with me in my handbag.


It's still a fairly hefty thing to carry around. You won't get in a big gig with it and unless you're donning MC Hammer's pants, you'll never get it in your pocket.

It'll take far better night time photos than the Lumix LX3, but for general photography, the compact LX3 remains my first carry-everywhere choice over my Nikon D300.

Mind you, if I was buying an dSLR again, I'd look very long at the Lumix G1.

G1 review: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3788


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Nah - not _that _much difference between the D60 and the Lumix in bulk and the DSLR opens up a much bigger world of photography.
> 
> Get a DSLR.
> 
> ...



 You talk good camera.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

editor said:


> It's still a fairly hefty thing to carry around. You won't get in a big gig with it and unless you're donning MC Hammer's pants, you'll never get it in your pocket.
> 
> It'll take far better night time photos than the Lumix LX3, but for general photography, the compact LX3 remains my first carry-everywhere choice over my Nikon D300.
> 
> ...



oh I got a bit confused: when you say 'compact' are you refering to a digital compact or just the size of the camera?

What I actually want ideally is a compact dSLR.  Am I getting in a muddle and mixing my terms and inventing stuff?


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2009)

Madusa said:


> Yeah I am primarily scouting for something compact. A camera that can live in my take-wherever bag. Not too heavy.


I don't think a regular dSLR fits this brief to be honest.

Edit to add: OK, You now say you want a dSLR. The smallest ones are the G1 and the Olympus dSLRs. Personally, I wouldn't call any dSLR a "carry everywhere" camera because of their size.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

editor said:


> I don't think a regular dSLR fits this brief to be honest.
> 
> Edit to add: OK, You now say you want a dSLR. The smallest ones are the G1 and the Olympus dSLRs. Personally, I wouldn't call any dSLR a "carry everywhere" camera because of their size.



ooh yes, that G1 looks right up my street!! 

Gosh, this is well difficult! There's so much out there. ahhh!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 24, 2009)

What's your budget? The G1 might prove relatively expensive.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 24, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> What's your budget? The G1 might prove relatively expensive.



Around the 400 quids mark. Looks like the G1 just may be out of my price range, it's true. Will be buying online cos spain is definitely in the 3rd world when it comes to electricals and what have you: soooo expensive!


----------



## ethel (Aug 24, 2009)

the d60 weighs about 500g (not including the lens). the G1 is about 400g, so there's not that much difference. 

obvs you're not going to be able to sneak either one of them into gigs but i've rarely found that i wanted to do this anyway.

i frequently think i've lost my D60 as i forget that it doesn't weight that much! 

definitely go into a shop and have a play around.


----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 24, 2009)

I think someones on a retainer for Panasonic looking at this thread.

There is another consideration

If you do decide to move on with your photography a DSLR from the big 2 will hold its resale value far more than Lumix or other compact. It will be useful if you do decide to move on. 

In febuary I was in your shoes I bought an end of line EOS 400 and just sold it for almost what I paid for it. Thus knocking quite a chunk of money off my new DSLR's price. 

Anything from the big two will have a simpletons mode as well as landscape and portrait settings.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> If you do decide to move on with your photography a DSLR from the big 2 will hold its resale value far more than Lumix or other compact.


I'd say you're always better off getting the camera you will use now, rather than buying something based on possible future resale values. I'm not entirely convinced by your argument either - with brand new dSLRs like the excellent Sony a200 going for just £270, you're unlikely to recoup much of your costs when you buy a dSLR. 

I've got a Nikon D300 and a Lumix LX3 and I find that I use the LX3 a whole load more because of its size. If I've taken thousands of great photos with it, I'm not going to be that bothered about its resale price a year later to be honest.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2009)

Madusa said:


> The final push for me considering a dSLR came about a month ago at a visit to the local zoo. Was sat ooohing and ahhing watching the amazing dolphin show, and was sat there trying to capture some action shots. However hard I tried, none of the pics came out well. Stupid slow shutter speed meant I missed all the good pics even if I tried to pre-empt anything exciting. And shit was blurry as fuck. I was sat next to a woman who was leisurely snapping away with her dSLR and I asked if I could view a couple of her pics and they all came out amazingly. I nearly threw my shitty point and shoot in the pool then and there, I felt so ashamed.
> 
> A few weeks later the stupid machine saved me the bother anyhow cos it conked out on me. God!




Your problem can also be solved with a good digital compact, then reading the manual. 

My digital compact has a fastest shutter speed of 1/3200. There aren't many dolphins you can't freeze frame with that.

I think DSLRs are sexy looking, and there are features about them that I like. But then you're lugging a big DSLR everywhere.  I'd like to get one for certain specified uses, but for just going about day to day, and being able to get a camera out and getting some image, I think the digital compact wins out in ease of use.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 24, 2009)

editor said:


> I'd say you're always better off getting the camera you will use now, rather than buying something based on possible future resale values. I'm not entirely convinced by your argument either - with brand new dSLRs like the excellent Sony a200 going for just £270, you're unlikely to recoup much of your costs when you buy a dSLR.
> 
> I've got a Nikon D300 and a Lumix LX3 and I find that I use the LX3 a whole load more because of its size. If I've taken thousands of great photos with it, I'm not going to be that bothered about its resale price a year later to be honest.



Words of wisdom.

Buying a camera body on the basis of resale value has always been a poor game to play, digital cameras more so.

Good quality lenses, however, do tend to retain their value a lot better over time.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 25, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Your problem can also be solved with a good digital compact, then reading the manual.
> 
> *My digital compact has a fastest shutter speed of 1/3200. There aren't many dolphins you can't freeze frame with that.*
> 
> I think DSLRs are sexy looking, and there are features about them that I like. But then you're lugging a big DSLR everywhere.  I'd like to get one for certain specified uses, but for just going about day to day, and being able to get a camera out and getting some image, I think the digital compact wins out in ease of use.



depends on the lighting don't it.  SLR's will tend to use lenses with wider apertures and be better at higher ISO, meaning higher shutter speeds are useable in low lighting

Most of the pics you post seem to be blurry


----------



## Madusa (Aug 26, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> depends on the lighting don't it.  SLR's will tend to use lenses with wider apertures and be better at higher ISO, meaning higher shutter speeds are useable in low lighting
> 
> *Most of the pics you post seem to be blurry*



This is quite true, Johnny. My digi cam before it conked out on me was getting increasing blurry with age.This is one of the big frustrations I had with it.
 I think I need to set aside sometime to go out and have a feel of different cameras. I think I am swaying towards a lightweight dslr but will have to factor in realistically whether it's size and weight will prevent me for chucking it in my day bag and taking it around with me like i would a digital compact.


----------



## Paul Russell (Aug 26, 2009)

Madusa said:


> I think I need to set aside sometime to go out and have a feel of different cameras. I think I am swaying towards a lightweight dslr but will have to factor in realistically whether it's size and weight will prevent me for chucking it in my day bag and taking it around with me like i would a digital compact.



Probably stating the bleeding obvious, but get it insured against theft straight away, knowing what Barcelona's like for petty crime and scams... (And I speak as someone who has never got round to getting camera insurance )


----------



## Madusa (Aug 26, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> Probably stating the bleeding obvious, but get it insured against theft straight away, knowing what Barcelona's like for petty crime and scams... (And I speak as someone who has never got round to getting camera insurance )



hmm, yeah maybe you're right.


----------



## Paul Russell (Aug 26, 2009)

Madusa said:


> hmm, yeah maybe you're right.



I was just thinking if you're an English (?????????) person in Barcelona, a flash camera is going to make you look a bit like one of those gullible tourists.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 26, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> I was just thinking if you're an English (?????????) person in Barcelona, a flash camera is going to make you look a bit like one of those gullible tourists.



nah: it's not like im gonna be walking round like a n00b snapping pics on the ramblas or at sagrada familia though is it?  it'll be ok. I wont let potential street robbers play too much a factor in what camera i opt for.


----------



## Paul Russell (Aug 26, 2009)

Madusa said:


> nah: it's not like im gonna be walking round like a n00b snapping pics on the ramblas or at sagrada familia though is it?  it'll be ok. I wont let potential street robbers play too much a factor in what camera i opt for.



Actually, the only attention my camera ever got in Barcelona was a couple of posh twats taking the piss out of it because it wasn't a Leica. "Oh don't laugh Crispin, not every camera can be a Leica."


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 26, 2009)

Crispin.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 26, 2009)

Actually, I did see a middle aged American man with a very sexy looking dSLR draped around his neck in the Raval (the only area outside of the touristy areas in the city where you're likely to experience any kind of hassles) at about midnight the other week, I tell ya, even _I_ was tempted!  

It's just not done. You just dont walk around the Raval like that.


----------



## Paul Russell (Aug 26, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Crispin.



I know it sounds like I made it up, but that quote is exact. Burnt into my memory!


----------



## Paul Russell (Aug 26, 2009)

Madusa said:


> Actually, I did see a middle aged American man with a very sexy looking dSLR draped around his neck in the Raval (the only area outside of the touristy areas in the city where you're likely to experience any kind of hassles) at about midnight the other week, I tell ya, even _I_ was tempted!
> 
> It's just not done. You just dont walk around the Raval like that.



Oh yeah. I know Barcelona pretty well -- not like you, obviously -- but I've spent maybe a couple of months there. Being blonde and pale (or more usually red) I never managed to look remotely Spanish, unfortunately.


----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 26, 2009)

cybertect said:


> Words of wisdom.
> 
> Buying a camera body on the basis of resale value has always been a poor game to play, digital cameras more so.



But its less of a game if its an SLR from the big two and you'll still see some money back if its a couple of years old still. Thats the point. I do this for everything I buy and aside from normal consumer electronics where everything becomes worthless its a game that works.

I mean come on. I buy an end of line Camera for £270 and sell it on used for £235, whats not to like about that? Yet I'm hearing sharp intakes of breath from some forumites.....

Also theres no point comparing a big SLR like a D300 to something entry level like a D60 or EOS400/450 the entry level stuff is much much smaller.

I do this with my musical kit as well and trust me you feel less of an idiot spunking endless cash away. I mean I make profits on the guitars I've sold. Ive I loose money on kit its minimal because I take my time to buy and make as informed a choice as possible. Research, research, research. If you do your research you won't go wrong.

I wish I had the money of some of you lot by the sounds of it.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 26, 2009)

You're a right wheeler-dealer, we get it Harry Redknap. Now fuck off.


----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 26, 2009)

Also I find it a bit sexist a load of blokes are trying to talk a woman out of buying a more complex camera...thats positively Victorian


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Most of the pics you post seem to be blurry



No, the ones that _seem_ to be blurry, actually _are _blurry.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Some, otoh, aren't.

e.g. If you ask Horsie if he's blurry, he'll say: "Neigh!"


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> Also I find it a bit sexist a load of blokes are trying to talk a woman out of buying a more complex camera...thats positively Victorian


The LX3 is every bit as complicated - or as simple to use - as an entry level dSLR.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

When you read a post in the photography forum, do you switch off your humour/irony detection device? 

srs photography is srs.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Some, otoh, aren't.
> 
> e.g. If you ask Horsie if he's blurry, he'll say: "Neigh!"



Do I need to point out to you that your blurry pics are in low light and your non-blurry ones in good light?


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> Also I find it a bit sexist a load of blokes are trying to talk a woman out of buying a more complex camera...thats positively Victorian



In this instance, it's probably a good thing: I'm not very techie at all I'm afraid so something user-friendly would be ideal.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Some, otoh, aren't.
> 
> e.g. If you ask Horsie if he's blurry, he'll say: "Neigh!"



Nice colours. If I tried to take a shot like that before my old cam borked and the horse made any kind of random movement, the whole shot would have been fucked.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

Doesn't really sound like you want a DSLR to me either, Madusa. I could be wrong.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Doesn't really sound like you want a DSLR to me either, Madusa. I could be wrong.



That's why I started this thread: TELL me what I want/need... camera wise, smart alec!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)




----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

God. You're such a tool 

Get off my thread you dildo!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

I'd suggest a good quality compact, possibly a bridge if you're interested in learning how to use manual featues. I have an LX3 and it's good for control and picture quality but the lack of zoom will frustrate you based on what you've said.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> I'd suggest a good quality compact, possibly a bridge if you're interested in learning how to use manual featues. I have an LX3 and it's good for control and picture quality but the lack of zoom will frustrate you based on what you've said.



A helpful post! 



I'm deffo willing to learn with whatever I get, I'm not a dunce. That's the whole point in getting a more decent camera. I'm looking forward to experimenting with the photos I take in ways my compact never really allowed me to. So you reckon I should take it to the Bridge? 

Hmm, yeah I'm not very techie but I get on well with my housemate's dSLR and have managed to take pics exactly how I envisage them in my mind iyswim. Something I've never quite been able to carry off with my compact cos of it's limitations so was looking forward to playing around with my own entry level dslr y'see?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

Alrighty then. Pentax/Olympus DSLRs will be cheap, but you'll probably get on better with an entry level Canon or Nikon. I'm not sure about Nikon's, but a Canon 450D might be your thing, you might get a decent 2nd hand price on eBay from someone upgrading and getting rid of surplus lenses as well. If you can stretch your budget the G1 might be better for your tiny hands.

Or a handbag.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

NOW you've got your thinking cap on and are being very helpful. Thanks for your recommendations I will check those out too. 

*ruffles Refused's mane*


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

You're getting the handbag, aren't you?


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

dont spoil it, son.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

Ob dear, and the shoes.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 27, 2009)

Madusa said:


> In this instance, it's probably a good thing: I'm not very techie at all I'm afraid so something user-friendly would be ideal.



ime most dslrs have a program mode in which the camera makes all the decisions for you. 

You can then experiment with the other modes as and when you see fit.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

This is encouraging, thanks. 

Refused, I have no time for your sneaky edits.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 27, 2009)

If you are interested to learn more about photography, then a dslr seems like a good choice because it offers lots of possibilies with for example different lenses and it will allow you to expand your options more than a compact. 

i.e. you may not be using all the options at the start but perhaps after a year or two you will be.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2009)

Put simply: if you're OK with the bulky size of the things then dSLRs are definitely the way to go. End of.

Ifankyew.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

well yeh, basically. 

I will bump this thread when my shiny purchase has been made and you all can ooh and ahh or umm and err, whatever the case may be. Thanks 'graphers!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

Try before you buy, innit. Especially with the shoes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Do I need to point out to you that your blurry pics are in low light and your non-blurry ones in good light?



O rly?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Alrighty then. Pentax/Olympus DSLRs will be cheap, but you'll probably get on better with an entry level Canon or Nikon. I'm not sure about Nikon's, but a Canon 450D might be your thing, you might get a decent 2nd hand price on eBay from someone upgrading and getting rid of surplus lenses as well. If you can stretch your budget the G1 might be better for your tiny hands.
> 
> Or a handbag.



I've had a compact Canon and Pentax. I like the Pentax  because it has 28mm, but I think that overall the Canon took better quality photos with less work.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> O rly?



In fairness to you, it's probably hard to take a shot without motion blur when you've got one hand down your pants.


----------



## Madusa (Aug 27, 2009)

Take it outside, boys.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> O rly?



I like some of your photos, but you have a real lack of consistency and an inability to edit what you present to people.  IMHO, natch.

Anyway, that's another thread.

What I was trying to point out is that just because a camera can go to a fast shutter speed doesn't mean much on it's own.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> What I was trying to point out is that just because a camera can go to a fast shutter speed doesn't mean much on it's own.



Possibly you did, but I'm not sure why you therefore decided to personalize it, especially since my comment was directed at Madusa's remark that she had difficulty capturing jumping dolphins with her compact.

Since shots like jumping dolphins are usually captured during the day at aquariums etc., the existence of shutter speeds up to 1/3200 is a relevant factor, since it won't be a low light situation.

Whether or not I take blurry low light photos, isn't relevant to whether or not Madusa might be able to adequately capture jumping dolphins during the day, with a compact.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 27, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Possibly you did, but I'm not sure why you therefore decided to personalize it, especially since my comment was directed at Madusa's remark that she had difficulty capturing jumping dolphins with her compact.
> 
> Since shots like jumping dolphins are usually captured during the day at aquariums etc., the existence of shutter speeds up to 1/3200 is a relevant factor, since it won't be a low light situation.
> 
> Whether or not I take blurry low light photos, isn't relevant to whether or not Madusa might be able to adequately capture jumping dolphins during the day, with a compact.



You made a comment that was meaningless on it's own.  A lot of your photos are blurry.  I thought maybe there was a connection.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You made a comment that was meaningless on it's own.  A lot of your photos are blurry.  I thought maybe there was a connection.



Not sure what you're talking about. The shutter speed is mentioned by me at post 37. I quote Madusa's post about the dolphins, and respond thusly, 



> My digital compact has a fastest shutter speed of 1/3200. There aren't many dolphins you can't freeze frame with that.



Don't know how that translates into a comment 'on its own', or how blurry low light photos somehow become relevant.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 27, 2009)

never mind


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> never mind



Whatever you say.


----------



## Madusa (Sep 8, 2009)

I think I'm seriously considering the Nikon D60.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 8, 2009)

Madusa said:


> I think I'm seriously considering the Nikon D60.



Thanks for sharing.


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 8, 2009)

I got the D40 a year ago and still love it to bits. Yes it's a bit bulky, but you'll soon get very attached to it.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 8, 2009)

What about a Canon IXUS 980 IS or 990?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 8, 2009)

Madusa said:


> I think I'm seriously considering the Nikon D60.



Have you decided what lens to have with it or does it come with a kit lens?


----------



## danski (Sep 8, 2009)

Sorry, haven't read entire thread so I'm sure someone (Editor?) has probably recommended a Ricoh in one of their various forms.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 8, 2009)

youll regret buying a dslr cos it is too bulky to take everywhere, get a good compact like a canon g9 or g11, and have some sort of insurance in case you break it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 8, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> youll regret buying a dslr cos it is too bulky to take everywhere, get a good compact like a canon g9 or g11



Is the g10 missing for a reason? I'm considering getting the g10 over a dslr.

The g11 is out of my price range atm. Worth waiting a year?


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 8, 2009)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Is the g10 missing for a reason? I'm considering getting the g10 over a dslr.
> 
> The g11 is out of my price range atm. Worth waiting a year?


according to some it has terrible noise at high isos, thats because canon put too many sensors on the pixel. i mean pixels on the sensor. the g11 has fewer pixels thus less noise


----------



## The Groke (Sep 9, 2009)

Madusa said:


> I think I'm seriously considering the Nikon D60.




So we could have saved this entire thread and just gone with my suggestion from the 3rd post...




Did you touch one yet? Hold it in your hands and strike an action-photo pose? Sling it insouciantly over your shoulder and stroll about the store?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2009)

I've suddenly decided I'd like a new compact camera. There's a new one from Canon, the G11, that has a lot of features, but isn't as large as a conventional DSLR.


----------



## The Groke (Sep 9, 2009)

@ Johnny - Ed posted a recent Dig compact "shoot-out" which included the G11 and concluded that the Lumix LX3 was the star of the show...


----------



## The Groke (Sep 9, 2009)

Oops no: My apologies - it was an older review and was the G10 not 11.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 9, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Oops no: My apologies - it was an older review and was the G10 not 11.



From what I've read, they've improved some of the drawbacks of the G10.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 9, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Did you touch one yet? Hold it in your hands and strike an action-photo pose? Sling it insouciantly over your shoulder and stroll about the store?



That feeling soon wears off when the camera is sat gathering dust and you wish you had bought a compact so you can easily carry it everywhere in your pocket.

REAL photographers use compacts. POSERS use SLR's.


----------



## The Groke (Sep 9, 2009)

Um.


I am not really sure what to say to that.


Have a smilie.


----------



## Madusa (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm gonna go today and check out a Lumix G1 against the D60.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 9, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> That feeling soon wears off when the camera is sat gathering dust and you wish you had bought a compact so you can easily carry it everywhere in your pocket.
> 
> REAL photographers use compacts. POSERS use SLR's.



Here we go again - If you have a rucksack you will be fine. You can carry two or three cameras around and a few lenses, films etc....


----------



## northeastoipunk (Sep 9, 2009)

ive had good results with the entrylevel sony alpha 200 it cost just less than 300 quid , and gets great reviews in the camera magazines for budget entry , 
its ratherbulky , but lightweight enough for me ?? 
might be worth thinking about it , and u can pick em up in most jessops shops or currys on the high street


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 9, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> Here we go again - If you have a rucksack you will be fine. You can carry two or three cameras around and a few lenses, films etc....


well yes, if you can be arsed with all that shit


----------



## ethel (Sep 9, 2009)

or just throw your camera into your normal bag like i do.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2009)

I pop my dslr into a wooly hat (for protection) and then into a normal rucksack.

It does not bother me that it is bulky, I have it with me whenever I think there will be a photo opportunity.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 9, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> well yes, if you can be arsed with all that shit



It is cheaper than buying a dedicated camera bag like all those amateurs with money to burn. They only cost 50p down the local car boot sale 

But yes it makes more sense to get a small compact camera either film or digital and stick it in your pocket. I like those folding 35mm kodak retina type cameras for hiking up mountains. But on the day I end up with three other cameras in the rucksack and no place for the waterproof survival gear! 







This beast when folded is as compact as a digital.


----------



## Madusa (Sep 9, 2009)

ok, so I have spent the day agonising over cameras. I really do want something like a Nikon D60, but as others have quite rightly said, is faaar, faaar to bulky to take with me everywhere which is half the point for me... I feel I really do want an entry level DSLR to experiment with and will get one, maybe later on this year but today I went for a teeny tiny mid range Pentax Optio L70 cos it was doing my head in being camera-less. 

I was actually gonna buy a Nikon (some letters)9000, have no idea whether that's right. No large lens or anything but looked like the very top range digi compact that was like, 500 euros but fucked it off cos the body was hideous. 

So, there you have it.  Thanks for all your help you guys give good camera...will still need it when it comes to DSLR purchasing time.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 9, 2009)

Well done on doing the deed and puchasing one!! 

Post some pics !! 

(actually you don't have to, I never do! )


----------



## Madusa (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm charging the battery.
 It's not one of the ones I was lusting for...with a big, fuck off lens and amazing features but it should tide me over til I decide properly which dslr to go for. All the sales people blabbering away camera specs in spanish is NOT the best way to spend 500 odd quid I feel so I'll probably buy that one online.


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 9, 2009)

Madusa said:


> I went for a teeny tiny mid range Pentax Optio L70 cos it was doing my head in being camera-less.



It is great to see you were not influenced in any way 

Interesting camera this Pentax Optio L70 I am sure in ideal conditions it will produce as good quality images as any dslr.


----------

