Garry Knight <garryknight@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I got interested in photography about 9 months ago so bought a Canon
S3is as
> it would give me a lot more control over the learning process than a P&S
> camera. It's time for me to upgrade and I've been thinking along the
lines
> of going for either a Canon 400D as the cheap option from which I can
> upgrade later on as bodies improve, or the 40D as a more long-term
> investment. At the moment the 40D is looking very appealing as it has
live
> view, 14-bit processing with Digic III, and the bigger 3" TFT. However,
I'm
> not sure that it will allow me to create very much better pictures than
the
> 400D (and yes, I know how much of that is down to me and not the
camera).
You can read as much detail information about Canon 40D at some site like
www.dpreview.com and www.steves-digicam.com (not so sur if I get the name
right on this one), but I don't think more detail about the camera will
help
much with the photography or the difference between P&S vs DSLR. And I
can
tell you this much
- With DSLR you will capture much more detail than the P&S
- With DSLR you will need extra Post Processing skill as the color of the
original may not look as good as the P&S (depending on lens and setting)
so
they often need some post processing.
- Because DSLR with good lens can capture very small detail, so you will
see
some thing you may not want to see, so you may need extra post processing
skill to work on the small detail (tone it down or make it even better is
up
to you).
> Most of what I like to shoot has been in the full-sensor-SLR-equivalent
of
> 100mm to 300mm, such as candid people shots, some wildlife, zoomed-in
> closeup shots of flowers; i.e. mostly fairly narrow-angle shots (my
Flickr
> stream will give you an idea of the kind of thing I mean). So I'm
thinking
> that my main lens is likely to be Canon's 70-300mm IS USM lens. The kit
> lens might also come in handy, but I've heard that the quality isn't
that
> good; however, while I don't do a lot in the way of
landscape/architecture
> WA shots, I would like a lens (preferably a zoom lens) to cover the wide
> end.
Poit your browser to the 2 links (abve) and may wanna check with
www.fredmiranda.com (I hope I have the name right) to read the feed backs
of
the 70-300mm and you may wanna check other as well.
> Since I'm still very much a beginner, I'd be grateful for the advice of
> those who've already made similar decisions. So my questions are:
>
> 1) Does the combination of D40 and 70-300mm lens seem like a good
option,
> given what I've said above?
LENS is one of the most im****tant part of the whole system, and usually
more im****tant than the body itself. No, I don't have the 70-300mm (and
you
may wanna inclue the F-STOP and other detail of the lens as they can be
very
im****tant parts of the lens.
> 2) What would be a good lens to go with it, say somewhere in the 28-70mm
> range, that would be better than the kit lens that comes with the 400D
or
> the 40D?
For ZOOM? in general F2.8 is what you may want to look at, and they can
be
pretty expensive (lot of them are more expensive than the body). Some go
for the IS which I don't own any on this current Canon system.
> 3) Since the 450D isn't a very big improvement on the 400D, is it worth
> waiting for it, or would you just go for the 40D instead?
I can tell you this much, when you wanna build the DSLR system then you
may want to start with something good then move forward, or if you start
with the bottom then you will always wish to have a better one, and you
may
not be happy with what you have. The 40D is a real good start, and it
isn't
that expensive
> 4) I'm not that familiar with Nikon, Olympus, Sony or other major camera
> manufacturers; is there an equivalent in a similar price range
> (£800-£1,200) that might be worth considering?
Well, if you wanna be Canon basher <bg> then Nikon D3000 seems to be a
pretty good camera, it's lot more expensive than Canon 40D, and many
comparing Canon 40D with Nikon D3000 (or D300?)
> I should add that photography is now my number 1 hobby and I'm not
intending
> to go pro or sell anything; I just want to get better at it, so I want
> better kit.
>
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts or suggestions you might offer.
Well, I would spend another 6 months to read as much as I can while
continue to enjoy the current camera to improve the photography skill. Or
no need to rush when you try to build a WHOLE SYSTEM *not* just a single
camera. This is what I can suggest
- Get a GOOD BODY. Don't have to be the very top but not the bottom
- DO NOT settle for cheap lens. You won't learn much from cheap lens but
disappointments, and when you move up to a good lens then it will make the
good lens more expensive (or you should use the $$$ on good lens instead
of
cheap lens)
- And the other suggestion is sharpening your post processing skill as the
more you know the more you can benefit and enjoy your new camera gear.
|
