DSLR Expert mode: < $500

[dalarev]

First of all, I'd be willing to spend up to $500 MAXIMUM for DSLR. I'm not really sure the real differences between a DSLR and a SLR, but I know it's the newest technology so that's enough for me. This will be my first camera, but I definitely think I have a (relatively) good eye for photographs which is why I'm going straight for one of the popular Nikon's or Canon's. Recently I have only researched the Nikon models, such as the D40, D50, and so on. I haven't looked at the Canon Rebels at all.


A cousin of mine picked up a Digital Rebel, 10.6 MP (I think) on special for about $400-$600, not exactly sure which model. I've seen the pictures it takes with the stock lens, and I was impressed. Also, I like the fact that he was able to print out some pictures at Walmart, 2' x 3' I think, which looked amazing. The lens it came with wasn't really a zoom lens I don't think, but moving it around definitely zoomed a bit while providing focus control. I mention this because some people recommend to opt out of a zoom lens for beginners, and also because sometimes the cameras are sold body only.

I suspect I will be taking landscape pictures mostly, abusing the macro option for close ups I'm sure. The Canon I used also took some great "sport" shots. The focusing time (beeps whenever it's ready to focus on a moving target) on the digital rebel, on sport setting, seemed, ehrm, fast enough for me I guess.


Few things that bothered me when reading some Nikon reviews:

Firstly, the claim that the Digital Rebel has almost twice the saturation of colors as something like a D40. This is very important to me, and in general I would assume, as it provides a richer, fuller visual.

Secondly, Canon's are usually recommended for beginners because of the flexibility with changing lenses and all that.



I preferred Nikon automatically at first simply because my cousin already has a Canon. Silly, I realize, but it is definitely not set in stone. I've been able to find Digital Rebel's better priced than the Nikon's. Again, something that costs me $300 would be IDEAL, in my case, even if it's just the body. I say that with no knowledge or experience using a camera without an external lens, but I'd imagine it will still take great quality pictures. This would also help with my budget management because I can always wait a month or two and spend something like $200 on a separate lens down the road.

Long thread, I know, but my money is very tight and I want to make sure I can milk it using a camera with image quality that will never let me down and allow me to "grow as a photographer". Thanks in advance..

 

[GonzoP]

Given your relative noviceness you might want to try something which is more of a starter model [not a DSLR] and graduate up next time. For $300 you can get a decent model with many of the manual features you'll find on SLR's. You wont find much in the way of a DSLR for that pricepoint though.
I was in a similar position in that I wanted a quality camera but I self imposed a budget cap on myself. I looked at a budget DSLR but you're really getting well past $500 once you get all necessary add-on's. In the end I went with the Panny FZ28. Plenty of manual controls for shutter speed, aperture, etc. Plus a killer 18x optical zoom. I got mine for $250 from amazon [they're normally $300]. You mentioned a desire to abuse the macro mode. Check this thread out:
Here

 

[dalarev]

Will check out the other thread more in depth in a bit when I'm at work but, does that thing shoot HD video? Holy crap if it does, especially at that price.

And I should note, before I saw the thread you linked, I was about to say (and this is where my fanboy is showing) that I would almost exclusively prefer a camera with that "professional look" similar to a Nikon D50 (random choice).


Great post, thanks for that link.

 

[Raikiri]

From reading your post I would suggest you buy, as GonzoP suggested a bridge camera of some sort.

You mention taking advantage of the macro mode; well, there's no such thing on a DSLR. You need a macro lens (or certain accesories that allow you to focus closer). Unless you are willing to spend a lot more than the initial outlay of $500 on lenses, flash, tripod and so on a DSLR probably isn't for you.

As also mentioned the FZ28 is currently one of the best available and certainly worth your consideration.

 

[dalarev]

From reading your post I would suggest you buy, as GonzoP suggested a bridge camera of some sort.

You mention taking advantage of the macro mode; well, there's no such thing on a DSLR. You need a macro lens (or certain accesories that allow you to focus closer). Unless you are willing to spend a lot more than the initial outlay of $500 on lenses, flash, tripod and so on a DSLR probably isn't for you.

As also mentioned the FZ28 is currently one of the best available and certainly worth your consideration.

It's very likely that I'm misunderstanding the macro setting in essence, because I messed around with my cousin's Rebel, stock lens, shooting stuff up close and I did get the effect that I thought was macro. However, his camera did have the "flower" option; does that mean it's not an SLR?


About the FZ28, are you able to change lenses? I don't think it will really matter, in my case, since I know next to nothing about lenses (except maybe something about a $20 polarized lens), just wondering.

Scratch that, I see the available lenses on dpreview.com. This camera looks amazing...I will keep researching this for about a week to see if anything else pops up, but this looks like a great freakin camera. And 720p video mode, hot damn.
This camera was also suggested:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120282

 

[northrop]

the only thing the little "flower" does on the camera such as DSLR is change the settings for exposure, which the camera thinks are appropriate for the given situation. it's just like selecting "Sports" mode, it will automatically select faster shutter speeds, and rise your ISO settings. like Raikiri said, unless you have proper gear for the job, DSLR don't come with a "macro" mode by default. and while you could use a regular lens, and try shooting pictures from 2 inches away from the subject, that's not really what macro photography is all about.

also, since you asked, SLR stands for Single-Lens Reflex, and DSLR stands for Digital Single-Lens Reflex. the first is the film camera, the latter is what you're interested in.

to answer your last question, No, you cannot change lenses on the FZ28. and what the heck is a $20 polarized lens? if you mean polarizing filters, those are nowhere near $20... but rather $200 for a quality filter alone.

Nikon or Canon? go with what you like better (as in, hold both cameras in your hands, and see which one is more comfortable to you). both of them will produce quality pictures, and you won't be disappointed by either. however, if your budget is set in stone at $500, i wouldn't jump into DSLR world.

just to put it in the perspective, you said you're interested in landscape and macro photography. well, then you'll need a camera body (duh), wide angle lens, micro lens, tripod (legs+ballhead), strobe. this is a very basic setup:

Nikon D40/D50/D70 - about $450 for body only (i'm not counting kit lenses, sine you will need a wide angle lens and macro, so you'll need to get that separately)
wide angle lens: Nikkor 10-24 or Nikkor 12-24 will set you back another $850
micro lens: Nikkor 60mm - $450 or Nikkor 105mm - $900
strobe - SB600 - $225
tripod+ballhead - anywhere between $300 up to $1000 (depending on what you want/need)

for a grand total of $2275-$3425. and that's just the beginning. sure, you could go with a third party lens, from likes of Tamron or Sigma, but in the end you're still in the thousands.

it's really hard to get into DSLR photography with only $500 in your pocket. if you feel like this is something you want to sink in all your savings in, then we can start giving you a more precise advice, but as it stands, an FZ28 seems like a way to got for you.

 

[dalarev]

Nikon or Canon? go with what you like better (as in, hold both cameras in your hands, and see which one is more comfortable to you). both of them will produce quality pictures, and you won't be disappointed by either. however, if your budget is set in stone at $500, i wouldn't jump into DSLR world.

just to put it in the perspective, you said you're interested in landscape and macro photography. well, then you'll need a camera body (duh), wide angle lens, micro lens, tripod (legs+ballhead), strobe. this is a very basic setup:

Honestly, the way I see it is that even with no optional lenses, I could find something like a D50 with lens kit for about $400. I figure I will be entertained enough with a high end camera like that even with the most basic (stock) kit. Pictures will come out with great quality and, for a novice like me, it should be "good enough". Later on, perhaps, if I'm still serious about it, then I could start looking in to all the lenses and all of that, but with the camera already taken care of.

I'm aware that I won't fully appreciate all the adjustments that a DSLR would allow you to maneuver, but it should be enough to entertain an inexperienced user like me for a year or so, no?

to answer your last question, No, you cannot change lenses on the FZ28. and what the heck is a $20 polarized lens? if you mean polarizing filters, those are nowhere near $20... but rather $200 for a quality filter alone.

Hahaha, that's hillarious. You're right, I actually meant a $20 UV filter that you can find at Walmart. That's how inexperienced I am about lenses.





edit: For example, http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000KJQ1DG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244074327&sr=8-1

Only $100 more or so, and I can take my sweet time playing around with all the settings. Even in automatic mode, the picture quality will be superb for someone in my situation.

 

[northrop]

but it should be enough to entertain an inexperienced user like me for a year or so, no?

this could go both ways. you'll either have a blast with the camera, or get so frustrated with the complexity of the camera you'll sell it on eBay for half the price. there's no in between IMO.

anyway, http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx sells used equipment, and you can pick up some decent gear at so-so price. i've heard good things about KEH, as well as some not so good opinions about the quality of the used gear they sell. if you want to get new camera, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ you can't go wrong with B&H (they also have used equipment).

 

[dalarev]

Can someone explain the DRAMATIC difference in quality between these 2 pictures taken with the same camera:

&

The first one looks extremely grainy to me. In fact this looks like a picture taken with a $50 Kodak camera. I'm most concerned with bright/vivid colors, just make the picture stand out.

That zoom is really, really impressive though.

 

[northrop]

the grainy look is due to the high ISO speed (1600). without going into much detail, the higher the ISO, the more grainy the picture will come out. newer models do a better job at high ISO speeds, but the grain is unavoidable.

and to answer your next question, you need higher ISO speeds in order to compensate for the missing light in the frame. it's directly connected to the focal length and the shutter speed. you can use lower ISO speed (and make your picture less grainy), but then you'll need to slow down your shutter speed by the appropriate amount (and/or change focal length). however, with moving subjects like in your example, this isn't an option. there's a ton of resources out there that can explain ISO speeds, shutter speeds, and focal lengths in great details. also, you might want to pick up this book

 

[VictorChan]

If you have critical eyes for photography, you are in for a surprise. $500 is enough to start. Once you want to have good looking night time, indoor shots, or shooting birds and wild life, you will begin to realize that the lens that makes these shots possible would cost more than your body. If you want to get serious with photography, get a DSLR and prepare to spend some extra money for extra lenses and an external flash unit. Otherwise, I would recommend a Canon G9 or G10. Remember that you can't change lenses with these cameras. Their ISO noise performance is usually very poor (more grainy looking).
Here is a shot from my XTI and a 50mm F1.4 lens at ISO1600. The shot taken with one of these Point and Shoot cameras the graininess would be a lot worst.

 

[bobdole369]

I've seen the pictures it takes with the stock lens

Lets start here. The PHOTOGRAPHER takes the pictures. A certain camera does not do wonders for your photographic skills. I know a pro who uses a toy camera for a good 50% of her sellable shots, the thing costs $30 and she makes pictures that make me go WOW! She also has a 5dmk2 - which is a beast of a camera... She puts it down in favor of film all the time.

Can someone explain the DRAMATIC difference in quality between these 2 pictures taken with the same camera:

Here is your answer - in a nutshell.

White Balance: As Shot
Creator Tool: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

The bee shot is photoshopped - specifically its post-processed in lightroom. The rodeo shot is straight from the camera.

Lightroom is used to modify colors and make more vivid pictures.
AND it looks like the user tries to hide the photoshop tag: XMPToolkit: Image::ExifTool 7.16

However - the rodeo shot is taken at ISO 1600 - on ANY camera that is a stretch. Most cameras do very well up to about 400 ISO - newer ones do better, but its a fact of life. It's also at the long end of a superzoom - not known for very high quality. On a superzoom the focal length is MASSIVE - on that "dslr-like" camera its 18x. You don't really want that wide of a range on a real lens. (Not being condescending here). 18-55mm is 3x, and its a bit too much. 70-200mm is 3x too and is pretty much the max range you want on a dslr lens. It's because the wider the focal range, the more compromises go into the lens. So on an 18x lens - you are packed with bad IQ from the get-go. Camera makers do tricks in software and hardware to compensate. But its like audio/video - the less you mess with it, the better it looks.

Northrop's suggestion is great. Understanding Exposure is a helluva book and something everyone getting into photography should read and understand like it was the bible.

The first one looks extremely grainy to me. In fact this looks like a picture taken with a $50 Kodak camera. I'm most concerned with bright/vivid colors, just make the picture stand out.

I took those with my $50 Canon film camera. Well thats what its worth now (Rebel 2000). It's my best film camera.

Here is a toy camera (Blackbird Fly) - it's a Dual Lens Reflex - a design created in the 40's. The camera is new, but its film, cheap, and makes better pictures than a lot of current tech cameras:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/punkclown/3532481854/

And another one - this ones a Diana - They were free in the 60's with a lot of stuff. The red bit is a light leak - actually wanted in a lot of cases (subjectively) - users of these cams love em for some reason - it adds character.

I'm not really sure the real differences between a DSLR and a SLR

DSLR = Digital Single Lens Reflex
SLR = Single Lens Reflex

Same camera style - different tech. In any SLR - The image is sent through the lens, focused behind the lens onto a capture device. On an SLR this is 35mm or 120 film. On a DSLR its a digital image sensor. Any SLR is notable for that the camera uses a mirror placed in the image path to reflect the image up to the optical viewfinder. YES, perhaps you didn't know, but on a DSLR you only use the LCD screen to review the picture AFTER you take it. You do not hold it in front of you at arms length like a noob. You take pictures the time-tested traditional way - with eye to viewfinder, viewing the image directly with no electronic modification other than some indicators inside the viewfinder.

I think you may have SLR and "Point and Shoot" or "dslr-like" mixed up. a point and shoot is the square pocketable small camera with which you see soccer moms taking silly pictures at arms length. A DSLR-like - aka superzoom or bridge camera - has a prominent zoom lens permanently attached, often with a dslr-like grip. They have an LCD, and often an electronic viewfinder.

 

[Gee1785]

I would go used if you can. I keep seeing tons of used rebels and higher end 20d, 30ds on craigslist.org for cheap. Most of them seem to have very low shutter count, under 5000 and come with several accessories. If you end up not liking it you can resell it for little or no lose in value.

 

[Zepher]

this was taken with a Kodak Point and Shoot 1.3MP camera. Camera is from 1998 and that pic was taken in 2001.

 

[VictorChan]

Lets start here. The PHOTOGRAPHER takes the pictures. A certain camera does not do wonders for your photographic skills. I know a pro who uses a toy camera for a good 50% of her sellable shots, the thing costs $30 and she makes pictures that make me go WOW! She also has a 5dmk2 - which is a beast of a camera... She puts it down in favor of film all the time.



Here is your answer - in a nutshell.

White Balance: As Shot
Creator Tool: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

The bee shot is photoshopped - specifically its post-processed in lightroom. The rodeo shot is straight from the camera.

Lightroom is used to modify colors and make more vivid pictures.
AND it looks like the user tries to hide the photoshop tag: XMPToolkit: Image::ExifTool 7.16

However - the rodeo shot is taken at ISO 1600 - on ANY camera that is a stretch. Most cameras do very well up to about 400 ISO - newer ones do better, but its a fact of life. It's also at the long end of a superzoom - not known for very high quality. On a superzoom the focal length is MASSIVE - on that "dslr-like" camera its 18x. You don't really want that wide of a range on a real lens. (Not being condescending here). 18-55mm is 3x, and its a bit too much. 70-200mm is 3x too and is pretty much the max range you want on a dslr lens. It's because the wider the focal range, the more compromises go into the lens. So on an 18x lens - you are packed with bad IQ from the get-go. Camera makers do tricks in software and hardware to compensate. But its like audio/video - the less you mess with it, the better it looks.

Northrop's suggestion is great. Understanding Exposure is a helluva book and something everyone getting into photography should read and understand like it was the bible.





I took those with my $50 Canon film camera. Well thats what its worth now (Rebel 2000). It's my best film camera.

Here is a toy camera (Blackbird Fly) - it's a Dual Lens Reflex - a design created in the 40's. The camera is new, but its film, cheap, and makes better pictures than a lot of current tech cameras:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/punkclown/3532481854/

And another one - this ones a Diana - They were free in the 60's with a lot of stuff. The red bit is a light leak - actually wanted in a lot of cases (subjectively) - users of these cams love em for some reason - it adds character.

For shooting film, yes, the body matters little. Is the type of film you use that makes it a difference. For shooting digital, the body is all the more important, second most important and first is the lens you use.

Here is a shot with my 1dmarkIII at ISO1600 with little noise reduction used.

 

[NoxTek]

*sniff* it's not fair that he used my absolute worst rodeo shot as an example.

I was shooting at ISO1600 for crying out loud, with a CCD based camera!

The HD videos turned out way better and in my opinion is one of the best qualities of the FZ28:

Rodeo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMPck_bKFzQ&fmt=22

Roaring Rapids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8zhcyPjHJU&fmt=22

 

[dalarev]

Lets start here. The PHOTOGRAPHER takes the pictures. A certain camera does not do wonders for your photographic skills.

Of course, that is certainly true. All I can say about that is when I played around with the Digital Rebel, I was getting pics, with little to no effort, of similar quality to this:

That's all I'm looking for, really. It would piss me off if I'm trying to get an "easy" shot and it were to come out grainy. That's my biggest fear and would turn me off completely from that camera.

That is an amazing shot, by the way..

YES, perhaps you didn't know, but on a DSLR you only use the LCD screen to review the picture AFTER you take it. You do not hold it in front of you at arms length like a noob. You take pictures the time-tested traditional way - with eye to viewfinder, viewing the image directly with no electronic modification other than some indicators inside the viewfinder.

I think you may have SLR and "Point and Shoot" or "dslr-like" mixed up. a point and shoot is the square pocketable small camera with which you see soccer moms taking silly pictures at arms length. A DSLR-like - aka superzoom or bridge camera - has a prominent zoom lens permanently attached, often with a dslr-like grip. They have an LCD, and often an electronic viewfinder.

I was aware of this as well, and again, when I used the Rebel that's exactly what I used it for. You mention a bridge camera, is the Panasonic linked in this thread a good idea in your opinion?



edit: Haha, BlueFalcon, yes in all fairness, the HD video looks amazing. It piques my interest especially because my laptop was designed for 16:9 720p. But in all seriousness, that camera looks amazing, it's just the overwhelming grain that turns me off.

 

[dalarev]

So far, I'm liking the Panasonic FZ28. This one was also recommended, though:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120282&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-Digital+Cameras-_-Canon+USA++Inc.-_-30120282

Shoots video as well. I wasn't really looking for that originally, but 720p is definitely very nice. Any obvious advantages of one over the other, or is it a "depends what type of shots you want" type of comparison? If so, I think the HD video is enough to reel me in.

 

[dslrjunky]

i say used route would definitely go long ways in fact most photographers started that (at least most of the guys i know...) FM and POTN can help you with that...

 

[Rix2357]

See if people are dumping their older rebels on craig'slist. I got my start into the dslr world with a rebel xt+kit lens+ 28-105+flash for $300...

 

[Mak]

...

That's all I'm looking for, really. It would piss me off if I'm trying to get an "easy" shot and it were to come out grainy. That's my biggest fear and would turn me off completely from that camera....

I just wanted to address this portion of your post. Graininess is not necessarily a bad quality to picture. There are many times where you must shoot in ISO1600/3200. You can correct for it by overexposing by 1/3rd stop or so depending on the situation. I realize that you are a novice when it comes to cameras, but I wanted you to see that graininess can be controlled and still look fine.

The rodeo shot also has a color cast to it from the cycling fluorescent lights. This is something that can be remedied to a degree with a custom white balance. Unfortunately, this is not a 100% solution because the lights cycle through slightly different colors. Especially if you are doing mostly landscape work, as you learn about manual control of the camera, you will find that you can shooting mostly ISO100 except for extreme examples like star trails and astro-photography which are a whole different type of "landscape" photography.

 

[dalarev]

I just wanted to address this portion of your post. Graininess is not necessarily a bad quality to picture. There are many times where you must shoot in ISO1600/3200. You can correct for it by overexposing by 1/3rd stop or so depending on the situation. I realize that you are a novice when it comes to cameras, but I wanted you to see that graininess can be controlled and still look fine.

The rodeo shot also has a color cast to it from the cycling fluorescent lights. This is something that can be remedied to a degree with a custom white balance. Unfortunately, this is not a 100% solution because the lights cycle through slightly different colors. Especially if you are doing mostly landscape work, as you learn about manual control of the camera, you will find that you can shooting mostly ISO100 except for extreme examples like star trails and astro-photography which are a whole different type of "landscape" photography.

That's very helpful, and you're right, I didn't consider this aspect of it at all.



I see in a review of the FZ28 that the EVF eyepiece is hard plastic, which can become uncomfortable especially with prolonged use. Anybody have experiences with something like that?

 

[ben chi(f4)]

I use a Nikon D50. Photos can be seen [url="http://www.flickr.com/chrisperscky]here[/url]

The quality of the photos are pretty good dependant on the glass I use. When you get to the higher ISOs thats where some of the grain really shows.

The D50 is pretty versitile for an older camera. But, I'd suggest to go out and touch some cameras to see what you like.

 

[VictorChan]

I just wanted to address this portion of your post. Graininess is not necessarily a bad quality to picture. There are many times where you must shoot in ISO1600/3200. You can correct for it by overexposing by 1/3rd stop or so depending on the situation. I realize that you are a novice when it comes to cameras, but I wanted you to see that graininess can be controlled and still look fine.

The rodeo shot also has a color cast to it from the cycling fluorescent lights. This is something that can be remedied to a degree with a custom white balance. Unfortunately, this is not a 100% solution because the lights cycle through slightly different colors. Especially if you are doing mostly landscape work, as you learn about manual control of the camera, you will find that you can shooting mostly ISO100 except for extreme examples like star trails and astro-photography which are a whole different type of "landscape" photography.

I think most point and shoot cameras can't handle noise well at ISO 400 or higher. Maybe the Sigma or Canon G series is better. They are $500 camera BTW. An XTI should handle noise well up to ISO800.

 

[GonzoP]

So far, I'm liking the Panasonic FZ28. This one was also recommended, though:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120282&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-Digital+Cameras-_-Canon+USA++Inc.-_-30120282

Shoots video as well. I wasn't really looking for that originally, but 720p is definitely very nice. Any obvious advantages of one over the other, or is it a "depends what type of shots you want" type of comparison? If so, I think the HD video is enough to reel me in.

When I was looking for my superzoom or whatever they're called I got down to the Nikon L100[quickly gave it the boot], the Canon SX 10 IS and the Pan FZ28. The Canon has the articulated LCD and most will say it has slightly superior image quality [debateable] but thats about it head to head versus the Panny. The Panny's LCD is bigger 2.7 vs 2.5" [despite not rotating]. The Panny does 720p video versus 640x480 for the Canon. The Canon is around $360+ and I got my Panny for $250, even if you paid $300 its a bit cheaper. The Canon is like 22oz versus 15oz for the Panny.
Oh this might matter too. The Panny does only have medicore mono audio; so if you're an audiophile this might disappoint. The Canon is stereo and sounds a bit better but IMO it was not enough to push it past the Pan

 

[GonzoP]

That's very helpful, and you're right, I didn't consider this aspect of it at all.



I see in a review of the FZ28 that the EVF eyepiece is hard plastic, which can become uncomfortable especially with prolonged use. Anybody have experiences with something like that?

Admittedly I use the LCD about 90% of the time but when I do use the EVF I dont press my eye/lid against the EVF anyway. I think to see properly you have to have your eye a fraction back.

 

[Markyip1]

Lots of great discussion here as an introduction to some of the ins and outs of digital photography. It looks to me that the OP is new to cameras in general -- and I would suggest that in addition to what is discussed here, that he/she look for a book that covers in some detail the world of digital photography from a novice point of view (Ben Long's Digital Photography books I think are quite good for this purpose -- covering a nice mix of technical, craft of shooting, and editing / post processing information.)

The first decision the OP should make is whether to get a DSLR or point-n-shoot digicam. (Note that DSLRs aren't the latest fad in camera technology -- it's a fundamentally different type of camera system.) For point-n-shoots, I tend to like Canon, Casio, and Panasonic over Nikon and Sony models. Canon seems to lead the pack in general Point-n-Shoot features and quality, while Casio has some very neat options for high-speed shooting. Lastly, I've always liked the operation of Panasonic's super zooms and Lumix bridge cams -- and their G1 is a very interesting product.

For DSLRs, recommendations become more difficult, as options are more complicated and the user's skill and knowledge about photography matter a great deal. I'm a Nikon fan in particular -- compared to Canon, I think they build a fundamentally better camera (although much of this debate is subjective.) Canon, on the other hand, does have a broader range of lenses, especially in their mid to upper range of full-frame glass. While I've met a few happy Olympus 4/3rds system users in my travels, I usually don't recommend going with a non Canon/Nikon dSLR, as if this becomes a serious hobby, you'll benefit from their much wider range of products and support.

Note that you won't find a dSLR that can shoot video for under $800, and that older models like the Nikon D50 or any Rebel before the XSI/400D don't have live view (which is viewing the frame from the LCD -- something you may be expecting.) The benefit of a DSLR however is that in many cases you don't need live view. SLR stands for single lens reflex, which means there is a mirror between the lens and the view finder that focuses the image from the lens right into your view finder clearly and cleanly. Point and Shoot cameras (booth digital and film) contain a (usually low quality) secondary viewfinder that only gives you an approximation of what you're shooting. In digital point-and-shoots, these are often designed to be throw-a-way features -- the lcd is intended to be used to frame a shot. With DSLRs even with live-view, the viewfinder is intended to be used to frame a shot. If you're not comfortable using a view finder, you may want to reconsider a DSLR for the time being. Also keep in mind that even though a dSLR is digital -- they still bring a very mechanical feel to photography (which in my opinion is a very good thing indeed.) Most Point and Shoots these days are entirely electronic (except for the lens of course) and feel like cell phones. With a DSLR, even though you have a sensor instead of film, an image processor, and a big lcd on the back, you still have a mechanical finder, a mechanical mirror reflex system, and most importantly, a mechanical lens. On a Point and Shoot, you usually zoom by pressing a button -- and I'm not even sure how you would focus manually on most models. On a DSLR, you'll turn rings on a lens -- it's a very nice feel and provides for a responsiveness not seen on even the best point and shoots.

Note that while this discussion can get pretty technical, remember that the photographer matters way more than the technology used in creating a quality photography. Any decent point and shoot or DSLR will be capable of taking the types of image you want -- but on neither system will high quality results be delivered automatically. Great shots take skill and a real understanding of the photographic process (as both an art and a craft--from framing, to exposure, to post processing.)

If you want a camera you can learn on, and don't mind giving up some of the conveniences available in many point and shoots (such as video) -- I would recommend an entry level DSLR like the Nikon D60 or Canon Rebel XS. While many Point and Shoots have manual controls, they are not as easy to use as on a DSLR -- yet every DSLR these days has the automation (like flower mode -- which btw isn't really macro) you would expect to find on a pocket camera. With a Nikon D40/60 or a Canon Rebel, you can start on auto, use the scene modes, and then whey you're ready, begin the real adventure of learning how to drive your camera off autopilot -- learning the ins and outs of aperture and shutter speed and ISO -- seeing how they all effect exposure.

Also beware that if you really get into photography, you'll soon want to expand on what you have. You may be looking at buying new lenses, filters ,and flashes sooner than you think - and after a while you may be thinking hard about what it would be like to have a full frame model like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II. If you think computers are an expensive hobby, high end photography will certainly add a bit of perspective there. Just a heads up

 

[dalarev]

I usually don't recommend going with a non Canon/Nikon dSLR, as if this becomes a serious hobby, you'll benefit from their much wider range of products and support.

This is exactly why, as the thread progressed, I talked myself out of a dSLR. If I were to purchase a dSLR now, I would want a Nikon/Canon for that exact reason, and that's not something I can afford right now. Plus, I wouldn't know what to do with it even if I did .

older models like the Nikon D50 or any Rebel before the XSI/400D don't have live view (which is viewing the frame from the LCD -- something you may be expecting.)

Actually, no, I wouldn't expect, nor want, to have live view mainly because of battery life. Playing around with a digital rebel I just naturally used the LCD to review shots that had been snapped, like somebody mentioned. Does anybody know if the Panny FZ28 has live view?

With a DSLR, even though you have a sensor instead of film, an image processor, and a big lcd on the back, you still have a mechanical finder, a mechanical mirror reflex system, and most importantly, a mechanical lens. On a Point and Shoot, you usually zoom by pressing a button -- and I'm not even sure how you would focus manually on most models. On a DSLR, you'll turn rings on a lens -- it's a very nice feel and provides for a responsiveness not seen on even the best point and shoots.

Aww crap, I was afraid of that. I absolutely love the feeling of manually rotating the lens for focus/zoom. I hope the FZ28 works this way, I don't know how to search for that feature. I agree with you, pushing a button to zoom in/out gives it less of a personal feeling.

If you want a camera you can learn on, and don't mind giving up some of the conveniences available in many point and shoots (such as video) -- I would recommend an entry level DSLR like the Nikon D60 or Canon Rebel XS.

A Nikon D60 is actually what I had set my mind on; that was before checking out the prices though. I see (through amazon) that a D60/lens kit runs for roughly $500. I just can't do that. Even the $300 that the Panny costs is pushing it in my current situation, but I'm willing to pay the price. This would be my first "real" camera, and actually, my very first camera in general (that I've owned personally).

Also beware that if you really get into photography, you'll soon want to expand on what you have. You may be looking at buying new lenses, filters ,and flashes sooner than you think - and after a while you may be thinking hard about what it would be like to have a full frame model like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II. If you think computers are an expensive hobby, high end photography will certainly add a bit of perspective there. Just a heads up

Haha, that is a scary thought . I've certainly been down that road and know what it's like with computers. Thanks for the very informative post, greatly appreciated.

 

[VictorChan]

Expensive hobby??? Hell yeah. Is hard to find good and affordable lenses less than $300. Mid range lenses with good quality are about $500. Pro quality lenses are into the thousands. Long range pro quality lenses are into couple of thousands. Yeah, I got one....

 

[Markyip1]

Sounds like you have your mind made up then. Good luck on your purchase. One note of clarification however:

Actually, no, I wouldn't expect, nor want, to have live view mainly because of battery life. Playing around with a digital rebel I just naturally used the LCD to review shots that had been snapped, like somebody mentioned. Does anybody know if the Panny FZ28 has live view?

Live View on a DSLR is an on-demand feature. By default it's off and you turn it on only when you want it. Generally speaking, a DSLR with Live View will have no worse battery life than a DSLR without -- and DSLR batteries in general can go a very long time before a recharge. (DSLR battery life is based usually on shots taken vs standby time.) On my camera, a D700, I can crank out about 1000 shots on a single charge -- and the battery will last weeks (perhaps months) between outings w/o a recharge. With the grip attached (and AAAs or the D3 battery inserted,) the shot count before a recharge more than doubles.

 

[dalarev]

Sounds like you have your mind made up then. Good luck on your purchase. One note of clarification however:


Generally speaking, a DSLR with Live View will have no worse battery life than a DSLR without -- and DSLR batteries in general can go a very long time before a recharge. (DSLR battery life is based usually on shots taken vs standby time.)

Oh, I figured live view was the reason that made standby mode suck up charge;

And, unless I find an obviously better camera in the next few days, the FZ28 will be the purchase. I posted a similar thread in another forum, and the Panny wasn't even mentioned (the SX10 was the favorite), so I gotta give big thanks to those who recommended it.

 

[GonzoP]

Oh, I figured live view was the reason that made standby mode suck up charge;

And, unless I find an obviously better camera in the next few days, the FZ28 will be the purchase. I posted a similar thread in another forum, and the Panny wasn't even mentioned (the SX10 was the favorite), so I gotta give big thanks to those who recommended it.

Good choice. Obviously Blue Falcon has the huge thread here at [H]. If you truly cruise the entire Internet you'll see in the superzoom catergory the SX10 IS and the FZ28 always run #1 and #2. For me and for you dalarev I think the 4 selling points for the FZ28 over the SX10 IS are price, RAW, 720p video and size/weight.
You wont be disappointed with the FZ28 if you go that route.

 

[dalarev]

Good choice. Obviously Blue Falcon has the huge thread here at [H]. If you truly cruise the entire Internet you'll see in the superzoom catergory the SX10 IS and the FZ28 always run #1 and #2. For me and for you dalarev I think the 4 selling points for the FZ28 over the SX10 IS are price, RAW, 720p video and size/weight.
You wont be disappointed with the FZ28 if you go that route.

I'm there with you. I hadn't thought much about that, but you're right, 1 lb seems ideal.

I gotta say though, the poor sound quality is kind of a turnoff. I plan on using the video recorder mainly to capture family events, but I'd like them to be more for memories rather than records. In other words, I'm not sure that dubbing the videos with external sounds will be good enough to suit my style/needs.

 

[GonzoP]

I'm there with you. I hadn't thought much about that, but you're right, 1 lb seems ideal.

I gotta say though, the poor sound quality is kind of a turnoff. I plan on using the video recorder mainly to capture family events, but I'd like them to be more for memories rather than records. In other words, I'm not sure that dubbing the videos with external sounds will be good enough to suit my style/needs.

And that is its biggest [only] downfall. But at the end of the day you're always going to compromise something at this pricepoint. No digital camera truly substitutes for a dedicated camcorder. Stereo would have been preferable and if Panasonic actually upgrades this model [and does not merely go for a mirco 4/3] Im sure it will be done. So the Canon does have better sound but again its the overall impression/package that has me in Panny's camp.

Now the Canon SX1 IS does everything the Panny does and more. 1080p, RAW, 2.8" articulated LCD blah, blah, blah but then you're spending over $550 and you might as well be looking at DSLR's.

IMO there is no better overall package for $300

 

[NoxTek]

Now the Canon SX1 IS does everything the Panny does and more. 1080p, RAW, 2.8" articulated LCD blah, blah, blah but then you're spending over $550 and you might as well be looking at DSLR's.

Also keep in mind that video on the SX1 IS can be downright horrible due to the rolling shutter effect unique to cameras with a CMOS sensor. The pictures it takes are stunning though.

When I bought my FZ28 I was bouncing back and forth between it and the SX1 IS, the FZ28 won out because I do just as much video work as I do photo work and the HD output (even at only 720P) is simply outstanding, especially when you consider what the camera costs.

And you guys have to remember I am no pro, those rodeo shots could have been much better had I really spent time working with the manual settings on the camera. The FZ28 is capable of some really awesome shooting and the noise to ISO ratio is actually better than most super-zoom cameras in it's class.

 

[dalarev]

Well, this thread was a success. Several cameras were compared, and I especially liked the sample shots. I will give it a couple of days to see if the prices fluctuate, but it's a done deal.

I was going to post this question in BlueFalcon's thread, but to conclude this one, what memory card would be the best choice for the FZ28?


I currently have a "normal" 4gb microSD card that I use on my phone. This is the exact one:
http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-MicroSDHC-MicroSD-Capacity-SDSDQ-4096-E11M/dp/B000Q8623U

Will I be able to use this for the cam? I keep reading stuff about "Class 6" SDHC cards; I know nothing about that.

 

[GonzoP]

Well, this thread was a success. Several cameras were compared, and I especially liked the sample shots. I will give it a couple of days to see if the prices fluctuate, but it's a done deal.

I was going to post this question in BlueFalcon's thread, but to conclude this one, what memory card would be the best choice for the FZ28?


I currently have a "normal" 4gb microSD card that I use on my phone. This is the exact one:
http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-MicroSDHC-MicroSD-Capacity-SDSDQ-4096-E11M/dp/B000Q8623U

Will I be able to use this for the cam? I keep reading stuff about "Class 6" SDHC cards; I know nothing about that.

Microsd wont work unless you have the adapter. You really want a Class 6 SDHC card especially if you're going to utilize the 720p video recording. Im pretty sure Blue Falcon went with a 16gb model, I did as well. You could get a 8gb but I like the 16gb for this camera. One note on the video mode. The FZ28 has a 2GB video clip limit. In 720p this only nets you about 8.5 minutes which is not a lot since the FZ28 does not use some of the better compression modes like avchd. So if you went with a 8gb you'd only have room for around 34 minutes of 720p video with no pics.

 

[dalarev]

Microsd wont work unless you have the adapter. You really want a Class 6 SDHC card especially if you're going to utilize the 720p video recording. Im pretty sure Blue Falcon went with a 16gb model, I did as well. You could get a 8gb but I like the 16gb for this camera. One note on the video mode. The FZ28 has a 2GB video clip limit. In 720p this only nets you about 8.5 minutes which is not a lot since the FZ28 does not use some of the better compression modes like avchd. So if you went with a 8gb you'd only have room for around 34 minutes of 720p video with no pics.

Ahh I see, bit of googling and I found what I needed. I see the 16gb cards are about $40.

Also, if the card I linked above (4gb sdhc card) can be read directly connected to my laptop (via the adapter, of course), then a 16gb Class 6 SDHC card should be no problem correct?



Btw, can you answer whether you can manually turn the lens on the FZ28 for something like zoom? Or is that done with +/- buttons?

 

[GonzoP]

Ahh I see, bit of googling and I found what I needed. I see the 16gb cards are about $40.

Also, if the card I linked above (4gb sdhc card) can be read directly connected to my laptop (via the adapter, of course), then a 16gb Class 6 SDHC card should be no problem correct?



Btw, can you answer whether you can manually turn the lens on the FZ28 for something like zoom? Or is that done with +/- buttons?

No you do not physically turn the lens like on a DSLR