I think many poeple have the wrong idea about SLR camera's. When they see that they look like the same kind the "pros" use and when they see the prices, they usually assume several things that are false: 1-SLRs mean better pictures and 2-most people who use them are either pros or attempting to become one. Whenever you have a hobby the invovles expensive equptment people not into that hobby will never understand why you spend so much money. There many people in a place like this who can't imagine spending $200 on a camera lens but would gladly pay $500 for the top of the line video card if they had the money. Yet most computer users wouldn't dream of spending half that on a video card. So an SLR doesn't have to be an investment in money, but it can be a great investment in time. To learn to fully control every aspect of each shot to achive the photgraph you want takes time, and you may never see any monetary gain from it. Don't forget about post processing either. "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways. -Ansel Adams " As much as writing a sheet of music doesn't equal sound, The work is only partially done once you click the shutter. Even though there isn't a "negative" in digital photography. To realize the full potential of each image takes time to learn all the tools available to you, whether that means layer mask, or dodging wands.
An excellent and well constructed post, thank you sykocus. And you make a good point about the relativity of financial investment. Personally, I could never spend the quantities that some do on their computer because I just wouldn't get justifiable use and enjoyment from it. Right now, I want a decent performing PC for a good price purely for digital-image-processing. I don't game, so spending hundreds on a video card is pointless. I know many people can't understand the amount of money I've invested in triathlon - mostly cycling - gear. But, I get huge enjoyment form it so the money for me is well spent. And just because I ride expensive bikes with pro equipment, doesn't mean I aspire to be a cycling or triathlon Pro. I know this is never a possibility, and not something I desire or work towards - for one I don't have the required natural physique for triathlon - but I enjoy my partaking in the sport. I invest considerable time and money with absolutely no financial gain. Hell, it's an expensive hobby, but the return from enjoyment and sense of achievement is my reward. As for Pookey's point, I entirely agree. Which is why I only went XXD series rather than 5 or 1. I had a budget and spent only 1/6 on the body. About 4/6 on glass (4 pieces) and the remainder on accessories. However, I will admit to now eyeing up the 30D, purely for one or two features which I would love to have. - Spot meter. Especially for birding with, for want of a better phrase, hazardous backdrops. - ISO in VF. Not a proper implementation like the XD series as only visible on change, but better than nothing. - 1/3 ISO increments. - New multi-directional control. I've mine set to instant AF point change and, tbh, it's a PITA trying to choose the diagonals. - Larger RAW buffer (11 images) - RGB Histogram And a few niggles I'd like fixed: - Wake from sleep with more than just half-press shutter. - Bigger brighter LCD. Nice for showing other people on-camera shots, or zooming to check details. - Zooming during shot-review period. - Display of AF points on review Of course, I think they'd all be fixed/present if I'd gone XD series in the first place, but ho hum. I'll probably want a 2nd body at some point so we'll wait and see. Though, with the exception of physical changes (LCD, RAW buffer, directional controller) I'm positive they could all be made available on the 20D (and likewise 350D) with a firmware update but I don't think, with 20D stock still present, Canon would shoot themselves in teh foot like that. Shame.
Through a sort of strange and perverted way, my dSLR did make me a better photographer. I'd been shooting with a Minolta Maxxum 7000i for years and years (inherited it from my great-grandfather)and when I was ready to go digital my choices were the Konica-Minolta 5D and the 7D, or else buy another lens. Yes, lens. Singular. Back in 2000 I bought a Tamron 28-300mm f6.3 lens for my Minolta and I've never used anything else since. I own two bodies and the one lens and it's all I ever need. Anyway, getting back to how going to a dSLR made me a better photographer (It's 6 am, i need to go to bed, and I'm rambling). When I was still shooting film I felt like at $13 a roll for developing I had to make every shot count. That meant one or two pictures of any given subject and then waiting a few months until I got around to getting them developed. With the digital I think nothing of shooting 10 pictures of whatever catches my eye and then I see them at the end of the day when I upload them to the computer. The ability to take more chances with my photography and the more immediate feedback has really let me explore the boundries of what I can do with the camera.
Whilst I agree and I feel my experience the same, on the flip side, I think that if I was now to get a film body I could improve further because I'm already being more selective with my pictures and compositions because, tbh, I can't be arsed sorting through 200 RAWs every time after a shoot. I think if I were to use a film body, too, it'd make me consider all the factors even more as I'd want to definitely get it right the first time. Dunno. Considering you can get a Canon body for a couple hundred notes, I'm tempted - or 2nd hand, of course. After all, it's the quality of film you stick through it so if I ain't arsed about features, it'll do.
Gotta agree with Hwulex here: When I used to shoot slide film, I took FAR more care with everything, and considered things more. Shooting more in teh hope of getting something doesn't improve your photography. It may improve your rate of good shots, but you're doing it by default, not really because you're honing your techniques.
What I certainly did to start with and have learnt from was taking lots and lots of shots, then realising and taking from them what worked. Then in my next shoot, I'd think back to what worked last time and apply it this time around. Now, I'm very careful every time before I fully press that shutter - unless I'm shooting small birds of course. Then it's just spray and hope.
It's interesting because I started photography in digital, but I've never been the type to just snap away. A couple years ago I took a photography class that involved film. Every couple weeks we needed to turn in 2 proof sheets (as well as a couple prints). I always struggled to finish both rolls. Which in turn held me up working on the prints. I usually would go to an area with maybe 2-3 ideas for shots. After taking about 4-5 exposures for each I still was not half way though a roll of 36. On more then one occasion I finished up the roll on my way to class sometimes in the parking lot. I did get lucky once, one of those last minute shots ended up making it into my final portfolio. It was a great experience though. We did everything from processing the film to printing and mounting. I'd recomend it to anyone interested in photography and has the opportunity.
Bought one :S They wouldnt take pixmania as it's French based and everywhere else online works out more expensive than the 485 I paid in Jessops. Just charging it now. It doesnt take an SD card And I only have a 256meg CF.
After thinking about it for a month or so and everyone on Earth (or so it seems) talking photography, I picked up a Nikon D50 today at Currys for £400, with the 18-55mm kit lens. I don't really know much of what I'm doing yet, but am pretty much learning all the time. I'm hoping to make it into a hobby. Oh and bindi, mine is also now charging, only takes SD cards, and I only have a 64MB card
Nah.. he just rushed out to buy. I can imagine him in the shop waiting for them to price match... hopping from foot to foot like an excited 8 year old... then running back home to slot his SD card in and... DOH! Sandisk Ultra II.. fast, cheap, indestructable.
I did, but there's not exactly alternatives to the 350D which i can afford that included a lens kit. I took my CF card with me and registered the camera to recieve another free 256meg CF card.
it honestly makes no difference what so ever. my 10d is 'only' 6mp and is extremely good quality at 30"x20" prints from photobox.
Thanks man, I definitely will enjoy it Haven't had a chance to properly test it out yet, so i'm not sure how bad the flare is but I may just pick one up anyway on eBay for cheap to have just in case. I also got a Hoya HMC Pro UV filter on the way to keep the lens protected.. not sure if it'll affect it while in use though. One thing bad about the 350D though is that with this lens on, it does look ridiculous! The 350D body is so small, the lens just dominates. The body is just a piddly little thing on the end! Can't remember who said it, but someone did say don't buy this thing if you care about the looks because it just looks silly is correct, especially with nice lens such as this attached!
http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm my opinion is that a hood will protect the lens just as well from bumps, and actualy have a positive effect on the image quality. of course when shooting in dusty/windy places like a beach you might wanna use one, but i never normally use UV filters on my lenses. (the only filter i DO carry with me is a circular polariser, which rather handily usually serves to protect the lens on a beach due to their sunny nature )
I got one with my 28-300 Tamron and I've never regretted it. My camera lives in my car and so it sometimes gets bounced around the floor a bit. There has also been at loeast one occassion where it got face planted in the Mississippi mud when I was out there, fortunatly without any damage. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion on this, but for me I'm happy to have another thing I have to break between me and my $400 lens!
