Could anyone possibly advise us which of these cameras would be the better choice. This is our first venture into Digital SLR photography, and nature and portraits would be the main topics. Max spend £450 tops.
In article <fp56f5dsmunqss4ho95n2km45chik9o...@4ax.com>, Vicky
<Venusia...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could anyone possibly advise us which of these cameras would be the > better choice. This is our first venture into Digital SLR photography, > and nature and portraits would be the main topics. Max spend £450 > tops.
go to a camera store and see how they feel in your hand, if the buttons and controls are easy to use, etc. see which one feels right to *you*. it's like test driving a car.
nospam wrote: > In article <fp56f5dsmunqss4ho95n2km45chik9o...@4ax.com>, Vicky > <Venusia...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Could anyone possibly advise us which of these cameras would be the >> better choice. This is our first venture into Digital SLR photography, >> and nature and portraits would be the main topics. Max spend £450 >> tops.
> go to a camera store and see how they feel in your hand, if the buttons > and controls are easy to use, etc. see which one feels right to *you*. > it's like test driving a car.
> Could anyone possibly advise us which of these cameras would be the > better choice. This is our first venture into Digital SLR photography, > and nature and portraits would be the main topics. Max spend £450
The D3000 is an attempt to achieve rock-bottom prices, so it has some corners cut. The 450D price is more the result of the availability of its slightly better brother the 500D, but remains a very good camera with a very decent kit lens.
The real challenger of the D3000 on the Canon side is the 1000D, while the 450D is more a competition for the D5000.
>> Could anyone possibly advise us which of these cameras would be the >> better choice. This is our first venture into Digital SLR photography, >> and nature and portraits would be the main topics. Max spend £450
> The D3000 is an attempt to achieve rock-bottom prices, so it has some > corners cut. The 450D price is more the result of the availability of its > slightly better brother the 500D, but remains a very good camera with a > very decent kit lens.
> The real challenger of the D3000 on the Canon side is the 1000D, while the > 450D is more a competition for the D5000.
I just wish the better Nikons had an articulated viewfinder.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:29 +0000, Vicky <Venusia...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>Could anyone possibly advise us which of these cameras would be the >better choice. This is our first venture into Digital SLR photography, >and nature and portraits would be the main topics. Max spend £450 >tops.
>Thanks in advance
>D&S
I''ve got a D3000 and I'm very happy with it. The 18-55mm kit lens is a bit short, but I've added the 55-200 to round out the kit. Still fits in your 450 pound range. Nice things about it for me are the VR lenses, the excellent battery life (pick up a spare for backup) and the 11 point focussing. The "Guide" mode makes it easy to become familiar with the camera for someone's "first venture" into DSLR.
The down-side is that it doesn't have "Live View"--the ability to compose on the screen. You'll shoot through the viewfinder, which for someone weaned on a conventional SLR is no problem and my default anyway.
The D5000 is the first level of Nikon with a Live View capability and it also has an articulated view screen.
>>> - Lens price and lens choice. just incase you try to invest in the >>> whole >>> system.
>> on that note it may be worth noting, before you commit to Canon/Nikon >> that Pentax cameras have antishake in the body.
>> This means you reap the benefit with all your lenses, and dont have to >> pay a premium for Image Stabilised lenses.
> This also means that it's a bit less efficient, and doesn't stabilize the > viewfinder nor the autofocus system.
Many years ago, during the late 70s, I was playing with a gyroscopic stabilizer. The biggest drawback was the battery weight. (It was powered by a lead acid battery.)
When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have increased and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
> Many years ago, during the late 70s, I was playing with a gyroscopic > stabilizer. The biggest drawback was the battery weight. (It was powered > by > a lead acid battery.)
> When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have > increased > and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still > intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
> When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have increased > and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still > intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
Actually, looking at that site, I have to wonder if they're engineered more for movie film cameras and not for SLR's. IOW, with less mass and a more compact package (not to mention less power and batteries) you could get sufficient gyro stabilization for a DSLR.
However, in the end, the stabilization in camera (whether lens or body) achieves the end for a lot less weight, dollars and energy.
>> When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have >> increased >> and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still >> intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
> Actually, looking at that site, I have to wonder if they're engineered > more for movie film cameras and not for SLR's. IOW, with less mass and a > more compact package (not to mention less power and batteries) you could > get sufficient gyro stabilization for a DSLR.
> However, in the end, the stabilization in camera (whether lens or body) > achieves the end for a lot less weight, dollars and energy.
Actually the original stabilization developed by Kenyon was for use with binoculars and sniper rifles from tanks, planes and other moving and inherently unstable platforms. You are correct some of the stabilization was for use in motion pictures. However that professional market has become dominated by other companies. Yes it is high end and for use only where a tripod would be inpractical. Certainly not for the P&S or casual shooter.
Actually your last paragraph is not correct. The gyro stabilization is for a totally different use and has a completely different feel. think of it as a tripod that lets you drop the camera but resists side to side and dampens up and down motion.
>>> When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have >>> increased >>> and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still >>> intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
>> Actually, looking at that site, I have to wonder if they're engineered >> more for movie film cameras and not for SLR's. IOW, with less mass >> and a more compact package (not to mention less power and batteries) >> you could get sufficient gyro stabilization for a DSLR.
>> However, in the end, the stabilization in camera (whether lens or >> body) achieves the end for a lot less weight, dollars and energy.
> Actually the original stabilization developed by Kenyon was for use with > binoculars and sniper rifles from tanks, planes and other moving and > inherently unstable platforms. You are correct some of the stabilization > was for use in motion pictures. However that professional market has > become dominated by other companies. Yes it is high end and for use only > where a tripod would be inpractical. Certainly not for the P&S or casual > shooter.
> Actually your last paragraph is not correct. The gyro stabilization is > for a totally different use and has a completely different feel. think > of it as a tripod that lets you drop the camera but resists side to side > and dampens up and down motion.
Your last paragraph is incorrect. Gyros resit rotation (pitch and roll - but not yaw [rot. about the axis of rotating mass]).
They have no real effect (except the resistance to moving a mass) on translation movement (up/down//sideways//fore/aft).
The only thing that would count, in your last paragraph, would be a figure of merit for how many stops advantage you get with the gyro over the camera based systems - eg: in the context of still photography.
For many reasons, binoculars use stabilization that is similar to the in-lens types (Canon/Nikon). It is a lot less weight and power. This of course is useless to a sniper and marginally useful to a movie maker.
>>>> When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have >>>> increased >>>> and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still >>>> intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
>>> Actually, looking at that site, I have to wonder if they're engineered >>> more for movie film cameras and not for SLR's. IOW, with less mass and >>> a more compact package (not to mention less power and batteries) you >>> could get sufficient gyro stabilization for a DSLR.
>>> However, in the end, the stabilization in camera (whether lens or body) >>> achieves the end for a lot less weight, dollars and energy.
>> Actually the original stabilization developed by Kenyon was for use with >> binoculars and sniper rifles from tanks, planes and other moving and >> inherently unstable platforms. You are correct some of the stabilization >> was for use in motion pictures. However that professional market has >> become dominated by other companies. Yes it is high end and for use only >> where a tripod would be inpractical. Certainly not for the P&S or casual >> shooter.
>> Actually your last paragraph is not correct. The gyro stabilization is >> for a totally different use and has a completely different feel. think of >> it as a tripod that lets you drop the camera but resists side to side and >> dampens up and down motion.
> Your last paragraph is incorrect. Gyros resit rotation (pitch and roll - > but not yaw [rot. about the axis of rotating mass]).
> They have no real effect (except the resistance to moving a mass) on > translation movement (up/down//sideways//fore/aft).
> The only thing that would count, in your last paragraph, would be a figure > of merit for how many stops advantage you get with the gyro over the > camera based systems - eg: in the context of still photography.
> For many reasons, binoculars use stabilization that is similar to the > in-lens types (Canon/Nikon). It is a lot less weight and power. This of > course is useless to a sniper and marginally useful to a movie maker.
I refuse to get into a pissing contest. Frankly I really don't car about your theory. I've actually handled and evaluated earlier incarnations of that equipment and know what it could do do, as well as some of its limitations. So, be happy ignorance. But, please to spread it to me.
>>>>> When writing this I decided to take another look. The prices have >>>>> increased >>>>> and the weight of the power supply has decreased. The concept still >>>>> intrigues me, but weight is still a significant factor.
>>>> Actually, looking at that site, I have to wonder if they're >>>> engineered more for movie film cameras and not for SLR's. IOW, with >>>> less mass and a more compact package (not to mention less power and >>>> batteries) you could get sufficient gyro stabilization for a DSLR.
>>>> However, in the end, the stabilization in camera (whether lens or >>>> body) achieves the end for a lot less weight, dollars and energy.
>>> Actually the original stabilization developed by Kenyon was for use >>> with binoculars and sniper rifles from tanks, planes and other moving >>> and inherently unstable platforms. You are correct some of the >>> stabilization was for use in motion pictures. However that >>> professional market has become dominated by other companies. Yes it >>> is high end and for use only where a tripod would be inpractical. >>> Certainly not for the P&S or casual shooter.
>>> Actually your last paragraph is not correct. The gyro stabilization >>> is for a totally different use and has a completely different feel. >>> think of it as a tripod that lets you drop the camera but resists >>> side to side and dampens up and down motion.
>> Your last paragraph is incorrect. Gyros resit rotation (pitch and >> roll - but not yaw [rot. about the axis of rotating mass]).
>> They have no real effect (except the resistance to moving a mass) on >> translation movement (up/down//sideways//fore/aft).
>> The only thing that would count, in your last paragraph, would be a >> figure of merit for how many stops advantage you get with the gyro >> over the camera based systems - eg: in the context of still photography.
>> For many reasons, binoculars use stabilization that is similar to the >> in-lens types (Canon/Nikon). It is a lot less weight and power. This >> of course is useless to a sniper and marginally useful to a movie maker.
> I refuse to get into a pissing contest. Frankly I really don't car about > your theory. I've actually handled and evaluated earlier incarnations of > that equipment and know what it could do do, as well as some of its > limitations. So, be happy ignorance. But, please to spread it to me.
I have a _lot_ of experience with gyros in practice and as part of systems design for navigation systems. Gyros can only resist tilting their rotation axis. I did fail to add that you could have two rotating masses at right angles to each other and then it would resist rotation in all three axis' - and very strongly in one axis ... but resistance to horizontal or vertical movement is neutral.
It's not about pissing but correct terms and nature.
> Peter wrote: >> I refuse to get into a pissing contest. Frankly I really don't car about >> your theory. I've actually handled and evaluated earlier incarnations of >> that equipment and know what it could do do, as well as some of its >> limitations. So, be happy ignorance. But, please to spread it to me.
> I have a _lot_ of experience with gyros in practice and as part of systems > design for navigation systems. Gyros can only resist tilting their > rotation axis. I did fail to add that you could have two rotating masses > at right angles to each other and then it would resist rotation in all > three axis' - and very strongly in one axis ... but resistance to > horizontal or vertical movement is neutral.
> It's not about pissing but correct terms and nature.
Life isn't just about rules and theories but also about what's achievable and how people feel. That's the bit you forget, Alan and why you can look like a pompous wanker at times even if that isn't what's intended.
|
