slr - dslr? whats the difference? cheapest dslr?

[razer121]

guys ive got a fujifilm s1500 which although does its job great is starting to show its faults...i can notice the badness in the pictures lol, anyway i was looking at a canon eos 350D and was wondering, would i see a difference there? also whats the difference with the slr and dslr?? i dont get it...i just want a camera which can take good macro and good portrait? ive considered a camera with changable LENs but the amount i use it wont justifi its cost....looking to spend as little as i can on this new camera btw budget does not reach past 350 mind thanks!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A dSLR stands for digital Single Lens Reflex where as an SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex. Before digital cameras were cheap enough for public use most consumer cameras used film and hence there were SLRs which used film.

An SLR uses a glass prism or mirror system which diverts light from the lens so that the image you see in the viewfinder is actually the same as what the lens is "seeing". This means for taking pictures of fast moving objects they are great since there is no delay in producing an image on the LCD screen.

Most SLRs have interchangeable lenses. They also tend to have bigger electronic sensors and better autofocus systems than digital compact cameras.

However,since most digital compacts have smaller electronic sensors they can cram in lenses which have a wider range than what is possible with most sanely priced SLR lenses. However, the smaller sensor means worse low light ability and lower dynamic range when compared to the sensors in dSLRs of a similar age.

[razer121]

So what your saying is SLR is better then? i really like the look of the canon eos 350D and i tend to take alot of pictures of fish, im only put of by the 8.0 megapixel but im not to savvy on pixels and how they work with cameras, all i know is the one im using now has a 10.0mp. Anyway if i got the canon eos 350D and bought the marco lense (80 -200mm?? i think thats it) would i be right in thinking i would get a better picture of would the fujifilm produce a better picture? also should i spend that extra bit of cash on a 400d instead....? thanks

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

An SLR will tend to have better image quality. However, remember that lenses for dSLRs will cost more. Hence, the ability to use older lenses on an SLR can sometimes work out to be quite cost effective too.

Argos have the Sony A230 with the 18-55MM lens for £270:

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...92867.htm#tab3

Argos also has cashback from TopCashBack and Quidco:

http://www.topcashback.co.uk/argos/

http://www.quidco.com/argos-co-uk

For a budget dSLR the A230 does have a good specification and it can work with almost any Minolta autofocus lens from the last 25 years. However,some people don't like the shape of it although you should always handle a camera before buying it. The body has built in vibration reduction meaning that every lens you buy will be stabilised.

You can also get a Sony 30MM Macro lens for around £150:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...6886/show.html

It has a 1:1 magnification factor and can focus down to 2CM.

TopCashBack does 3.2% cashback on Dixon purchases too:

http://www.topcashback.co.uk/dixons/

Here are some pictures taken with the lens:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=33785336


You can get a refurbished Nikon D3000 for around £280:

http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPro...f3.5-5.6G%20VR

It does come with a VR lense but with Nikon if you want stabilisation you need to get lenses which have it which tends to make them a bit pricier. Also since many of the older Nikon AF lenses don't have an AF motor they won't autofocus with the D3000.

Another camera to consider is the Olympus E450 for around £280 with a standard lens:

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/290...mpaign=pid2903

The Olympus E450 does have live view. However it lacks in-body stabilisation and has a smaller viewfinder too than similar models from other companies.

Sony A230



Nikon D3000



Olympus E450

[Behemoth]

Also remember that a DSLR camera doesn't mean it's going to instantly turn you into a pro photographer !

I know so many people that have bought them and then don't use it because "The image quality wasn't good enough" more than likely they haven't got the required amount of skills to get the best out of the kit they've got.

I personally would love a DSLR but untill I out grow my current bridge camera (Fuji S8000) there is very little point as I know I wouldn't use the DSLR to its full potential.

Having had my hands on the S1500 I wasn't all that impressed with it. Feels like it was made out of very cheap plastic, which is a pitty as the S8000 although has only 8 mega pixels feels the better quality product.

[Saracen]

....

I know so many people that vae bought them and then don't use it because "The image quality wasn't good enough" more than likely they haven't got the required amount of skills to get the best out of the kit they've got.
....

It needs to be remembered that there are some very good non-SLR digicams, and that SLRs vary a lot, from entry-level to far more sophisticated .... and expensive. But, that said, I agree with that above sentiment.

And you also need to bear in mind that SLRs are typically aimed at enthusiasts, whereas most point and shoot, and even bridge, cameras are aimed more towards the average consumer. So, most P&S, and a fair few bridge cameras, do more in-camera processing. The result is that a lot of people move "up" to a dSLR and are disappointed, because the in-camera processing is usually backed off a few notches, leaving more scope for post processing on the computer.

If the budget doesn't reach past £350, razer, I'd suggest thinking quite hard about the DSLR route, because a really good lens is going to cost you that, or a lot more. The thing with a DSLR is that the cost doesn't stop when you've bought the camera. It fact, it usually starts there.

For instance, you say "macro". I'd advise being a bit careful about that term, especially if you're reading manufacturer's specs, on lenses. It is generally taken that "macro" means at least a 1:1 ratio between the size of the object you photograph, and the size of the image on the sensor or film. If you photograph a 1/4" beetle, it'll be 1/4", or larger on the film or sensor. And many lenses that manufacturers claim as "macro" can't do that. They'll often be 1:2 or even 1:4 ratio, and that is more correctly described as close-up than macro.

The next thing is how close you need to be from what you're photographing to get 1:1 size. The longer the focal length of the lens, the further away you will be at true macro. A 100mm lens means you can be a bit further away than a 50mm or a 60mm, and a 180mm means you're further away than a 100mm. Unfortunately, the price goes up too. And by "how far away", I mean, typically, in inches. Is that optimum distance 4 inches, 9 inches .... maybe 18" if you get a long focal length. And at that distance from the subject, you're going to find depth of field is typically very tight, and down to a few millimetres. So .... you either need very strong natural light, much of which will be blocked out by the camera because you're so close, or a good flash. But, standard flashguns at that range are too powerful, and you'll burn out sections of the image, so if you're serious about macro, you'll probably either want a good macro flash, or you'll have to get very inventive about how you set up shots with natural light and reflectors, and that's hard to do out in the field.

Macro is something I'm very interested in, which explains the £700 flashgun and £800 lens. And that's before the cost of the camera. And it's still a considerable challenge.

So a lot depends on what you mean by "macro". If you just mean pretty shots, fairly close up, of flowers or bees, a lot of point and shoot cameras can do a decent job. If, on the other hand, you're really serious about it, then a DSLR is the start of the cost, and on top of that, it's a complex and demanding area of photography, with many challenges, most of them based on getting the light right.

And, bear in mind, lenses vary a great deal in both cost and quality too. You can get an 80-200mm for a modest price, but for high image quality and a "fast" lens, you could be paying £1500.

Behemoth is absolutely right, with "remember that a DSLR camera doesn't mean it's going to instantly turn you into a pro photographer!", any more than me buying a Stradivarius is going to make me a concert violinist.

[razer121]

wow thanks for the insight guys, id idnt exspect to be turnt into a pro lol i could only wish! my dad is a pro...but im not going to be like that any time soon...anyway £350 was just the budget for the camera thats just to get me started, who said i was going to stop there? i dont want to go "pro" i just want to be able to take close up pictures of my fish, a good decent pictures of my daughters. would a slr or a dslr be more suited now that you know that? there is going to be minor pictures taken of spiders and other creepys but thats about it, honestly im really liking the look of the Canon but no one has said anything about them?

[kalniel]

I'm not sure you're quite getting the distinction between SLR and DSLR (apologies if you have), but to make it clear:

SLR = chemical film
DSLR = digital files

DSLR is nice because you don't need to keep buying/running out of film and you can see the results instantly. Film cameras are nice simply because they are such great value for money these days, though they're nothing like as satisfactory to use for a beginner - seeing what you've just taken instantly is a god-send, and if something is bad you can just delete the file

A DSLR would be well suited to your purposes - close ups of fish aren't going to require a macro lens so most kit lenses (the ones bundled in with camera bodies) would be fine, and the larger sensors on them (compared to point and shoot digital cameras) means that you can have some creative control over focus which makes pictures of people look nice and posh.

The canon 350D is very out of date - the 400, 450, 500 and 550D have since been released, along with even lower budget models like the 1000D. But newer cameras won't suddenly make older cameras stop working.

A kit gives you a lot of flexibility, but you could also consider getting a body and just a 50mm/f1.8 fixed lens, which should be well suited to your uses as well, though you need to use your feet to zoom. Above all though get to a shop to try different cameras in your hands.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As I mentioned in post 4 Sony do a 30MM Macro lens with 1:1 magnification for around £150 and it focusses down to 2CM. Most zoom lenses won't reach this magnification ratio and certain not the standard kit lens where you are looking at 1:4 or thereabouts. Since the Sony has built in stabilisation this will be useful too.

[razer121]

thats what i needed to know, my attention has been turned to the sony mentiond and a canon eos 1000d, i have to say im leaning toward the canon. i much prefer it (better feel) im going to go back down to my local shop and have a hold of some of the other cameras to see how they feel. thanks so far guys!

[Bobster]

don't go 1000D, get a 450 or a 500 instead..

[razer121]

don't go 1000D, get a 450 or a 500 instead..

can i ask why? whats the difference?

[Bobster]

the 1000D is seen as a Canon Lemon..

had a play with a friends A230 earlier, looks like Sony have taken a few buttons and dials off since the Alpha launch, but a few too many buttons i feel.. too many menu items now, trying to change focus point was a head ache

[mycarsavw]

wow thanks for the insight guys, id idnt exspect to be turnt into a pro lol i could only wish! my dad is a pro...but im not going to be like that any time soon...anyway £350 was just the budget for the camera thats just to get me started, who said i was going to stop there? i dont want to go "pro" i just want to be able to take close up pictures of my fish, a good decent pictures of my daughters. would a slr or a dslr be more suited now that you know that? there is going to be minor pictures taken of spiders and other creepys but thats about it, honestly im really liking the look of the Canon but no one has said anything about them?

I've toyed with the dSLR route for ages, every time I look through the Photo-a-day thread I want one but I just can't justify the expense vs my skill.

If your old man is a pro, why not convince him he needs a new camera offer him the going rate for his old one?

[razer121]

I've toyed with the dSLR route for ages, every time I look through the Photo-a-day thread I want one but I just can't justify the expense vs my skill.

If your old man is a pro, why not convince him he needs a new camera offer him the going rate for his old one?

because he naff'd of to spain lol

bobster, when you say a canon lemon are you saying its rubbish? lol im pretty stuck on this but i will take your advice and look at a 450 instead then?

[BUFF]

thats what i needed to know, my attention has been turned to the sony mentiond and a canon eos 1000d, i have to say im leaning toward the canon. i much prefer it (better feel)

with the A230 imo Sony were aiming to give DSLR quality/flexibility in a package the size of a bridge camera - unfortunately some people find the grip too small (some are happy with it).
Sony seem to have realised this though as the A230's replacement (just announced) is larger.
The entry level Sonys also have a lot of built in help/tips menus.

However, if your father is a pro & you might be able to borrow his lenses then what system does he use?