Jump to content

Advice Please


nursejudy

Recommended Posts

Judy

 

If your wanting to shoot birds, and the price range your allowing youserlf allows - I would seriously consider a Canon or Nikon Digi SLR ... you can get a very good Canon or Nikon starting around £400-£450 witha kit lens, and maybe even cheaper after xmas. You'll be sorted for your landscapes, and general shooting with a kit lens ... then look at adding a Canon/Nikon or Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm zoom for when you need more reach ... you dont have to pay crazy money for one that gives half decent shots.

 

The SLR gives you much more control of the shots your taking. One thing that lets down compact digitals is the noise at higher ISOs, so your hoping for good light most of the time if your shooting birds in flight so you can increase your shutter speed to get the shot you hope for.

 

On a 6 Mega Pixel camera you can get nice sharp photos up to 30 inch x 20 inch (thats the biggest I have had printed, and sold)

 

A SLR is going to last you for years - the current crop are superb cameras in their own rights, but if you have your heart set on a compact digi, I'd still say the Panasonic is the best of the ones you have been looking at.

 

Gillies

tha fis agam a bhe iasg nuth dunidh sasain!

 

www.gilliesmackenzie.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Den here is a review ,http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

the panasonic also has a folding thingy...While I understand the SLR camera's will give me the better quality ,I cannot cope with all the manual stuff,I dont mind on the odd time trying to get everything right but so much just won't click with me and I think it would be too complicated and I would end up not using the camera,Its been suggested today a lap top might be better!But I really want to take more and better pictures.

Edited by nursejudy

nurse.gif

 

AKA Nurse Jugsy ( especially for newt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judy,

 

It can be confusing and fortunately I still remember how confusing it was for me, some people click quicker than others but its not beyond you and you shouldn't let that one single factor determine which is the right camera for you.

 

Next time you come over this way to see your son, we should meet up and I reckon I could get you confident with setting a camera manually inside an hour. It's as difficult to read as it is to write, showing is so much easier.

 

Steve...:)

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

 

Focal Planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont forget, on D,SLR's there is the full 'Auto' program and 'Auto P', giving the same level of point and shoot you are used to? The advantage of SLR quality? I believe this is a 'red herring'. For the type of pictures we see on the forum a quality compact or semi compact is more than adequate.

 

For the 'ultimate' in flexibility and quality perhaps? selling picture etc. But this is for fun and compacts are great. My take on it is the 'wide angle' is where compacts fall down, they just dont go wide enough, but even that is my personal preference, most people seem to want telephoto/zoom?

 

D,SLRs get pricey on the glass front, even a low cost T/P zoom lens is £200-£300 on to the cost of the basic body/lens kit. Draging this extra large lump of glass around is a pain and then seeing the shot, a bird? appear and disapear, and you have the standard lens on, it takes time to change!

 

In all, as one who has both types of camera, for forum type work, I use the compact 90% of the time, I have don a lot of semi pro work for specialist mags for which the D,SLR is the choice. I do apreciate the extras that SLR's offer, but in all, modern compacts are so good these days . . . . and then a little tweek from Photoshop!! hay-presto.

 

If your hobby is 'photography' and it attendant 'dedication' aspects, then the aspiration to a D,SLR is obvious. If your pleasure is producing an image of '800pix wide' on a computer, a personal family album, you dont wish to drag large heavy lenses around, go for the compact.

 

CJS2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advantage of SLR quality? I believe this is a 'red herring'. For the type of pictures we see on the forum a quality compact or semi compact is more than adequate.

 

 

 

CJS2

 

 

Well said CJ but I'd just like to pick you up on this point. I can see that Mr Wiggly's pics are of a very high standard and quality. Thats got to be the canon. But, mostly I agree with what your saying. Personally, I cant wait till we get a DSLR, just seeing the difference in Chippy's and others (Mr Wiggly's being another) pics is enough to spur me on.

 

HB

rb_getcreative.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said CJ but I'd just like to pick you up on this point. I can see that Mr Wiggly's pics are of a very high standard and quality. Thats got to be the canon. But, mostly I agree with what your saying. Personally, I cant wait till we get a DSLR, just seeing the difference in Chippy's and others (Mr Wiggly's being another) pics is enough to spur me on.

 

HB

 

O'dear . . . Mr Wigglys Canon D20 is a fine machine, nearly jumped ship when I was considering my Nikon 70D, but the Nikon kit lens is better and I had a 70-300 sigma, from my film days, no idea what lens he is using, but if its the kit lens???

 

However I believe it goes further than that. Mr Wiggly is using the RAW files to go through Photoshop and then converts them to JPEG . . . I have brought this up with Steve, however, as you bring the subject up. Its not playing by the rules in my book. Raw is a better medium to take and store the image in, RAW files (colors) are individually tweaked for best image then combined with no loss before being converted to an AN Photographic JPEG Competition picture.

 

I pose the question is that fair? not all want to, want to be bothered with or indeed, have the ability to use RAW, in fact the spirit of the site and its competition encourage the average photographer. No longer a level playing field. I believe all submitted pictures should be original JPEG files.

 

RAW is great as a step up for the enthusiast, and an advanced competition category could be developed for the enthusiastic hobbyist but as it stands, RAW in the comp????

 

As I say, you mentioned it, sorry if the subject is controversial, but HB, be aware I believe you will not get pictures like Mr 'W' without using RAW. My opinion as I understand the workings of RAW. May not be the whole story, but I see a bogey??

 

CJS2

Edited by CJS2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have this ingrained Cliff, RAW conversions at competition size will be just as compressed and do not detract from taking a good photograph in the first place. And I correct me if I am wrong but Mr Wiggly has not won a challenge just yet although I'm sure he will. I just had a quick look through the "Roll of Honour" and it would seem that compacts v's slrs are about even in terms of wins.

 

The real bonus (among other things) in RAW is the image quality allowing you to enlarge and print at reasonable resolution, another factor is allowing the user to process differently, such as warming, cooling, tungsten lighting, sunny, cloudy whitebalances etc etc. resizing to 800 pixels and most would struggle to see a difference.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Chippy and Jaybee are the only people who have used RAW photos, converted, entered and won, as an aside both have also entered other challenges and not won...take from that what you can.

 

Steve...:)

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

 

Focal Planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Twould seem that the Panasonic will capture in Raw as well :)

 

I've not used or handled the Panasonic or the Canon mentioned by Judy, but I did spend years with an SLR and different lenses.

 

Judy, correct me if I am wrong, but I figure you want a camera that is versatile without changing/purchasing other lenses. A camera that will operate in Auto mode and zoom in and out as the mood/scene changes, and which will deliver good clean sharp images without resorting to adjusting the white balance (what is that :) ) or anything else.

 

All those cameras you mentioned have all the bells and whistles that you could ever need, and you can learn to use them as and when you feel the need to at a later time.

 

Forget about "noise" at 1600 ASA, don't bother with it, just do what you do very well, and that is to "see the shot" frame it a shoot.

 

Forget about converters (until you want to get in closer still :) )

 

Picture quality? do you really think a DSLR will give you better looking pics on a PC or prints up to 10X8? The only time I can see any real loss in quality is with landscape shots, and that may just be my camera and printer.

 

CJ, could you put a couple of shots on here of the same subject under the same conditions with your two different cameras ? may be very helpful (to me as well :) )

 

 

Den

"When through the woods and forest glades I wanderAnd hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,And hear the brook, and feel the breeze;and see the waves crash on the shore,Then sings my soul..................

for all you Spodders. https://youtu.be/XYxsY-FbSic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks guys looks like its the panasonic,although trev has asked me if i would rather have an ironing press!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

will wait till the sales though me thinks....

nurse.gif

 

AKA Nurse Jugsy ( especially for newt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A win is about the photograph, photographer and judge, then the members. I said nothing about a win. It seems to me that if a photo is taken in RAW, the same one in JPEG according to the samples I have seen before anything is done to either, the RAW photo has more detail, especialy in the highlights. So, assuming you do the same basic things in PS, the final result will be that much better.

 

Now I have never used RAW, but I have seen comparative samples, lets put a figure of 10% more detail on the untouched RAW shot compared to an untouched JPEG.

 

Rework the RAW picture colour by colour, adjusting the values which can be different from colour to colur to obtain the best picture. A JPEG picture can only be adjusted as a whole according to the rules, the picture is 10% down on quality anyway (arbitrary value). Convert the RAW to JPEG, with its 10% better quality, it will still be 'XX' percentage better that the standard JPEG.

 

Thats my take on it. You cant just loose 10% quality for nothing, assuming the 'photoshoping' is competently done, might be down a bit because of the transfer from RAW to JPEG?? but its questionable as to how much.

 

As you rightly said, how many have won, give it time? I was as much as anything pointing out to HB that he needed to take RAW in to account??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.