Dubstepforum.com

Any other photography nerds out there using nikon dslrs in here..

I still use a film 35mm slr, and some even older shit, but want to get either.

A nikon d80 since its so cheap now and will be discontinued with the month or next or buy just the d200 body.. for a hundred more, without a lens.

Canon suck jk.

When my freelance project closes up and I get paid I will be buying myself a new camera. Not sure yet. Looking at a D40...

d200!

I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

Its a one time buy though remember, its not like you have to buy a new one every 6 months

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

some of the coolest photos i've ever seen came from disposable cameras.

fooishbar wrote:

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

some of the coolest photos i've ever seen came from disposable cameras.

Screenshot or it didn't happen.

Ive got a D700 with 14-24 lens THATS a great combo

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

don't let the salesman pull the wool over your eyes. megapixels is a bunch of shit. its marketing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/techn ... pogue.html

nikon and canon are both realizing that 70% of the people buying new cameras don't use nearly 1/4 of the power of their cameras. 80% don't need more than a 12mp camera. the other 20% that would need over 12mp are professional photographers/surveillance and military people. unless you plan on printing posters from your work and selling it, you don't need more than a 4mp camera. obviously if you want advanced features, wider/special lenses or depth of field use, then you'll have to bite the bullet a pay for them, but most people don't.

What Seckle said... really over 5 Megapixels is really not noticable to most untrained eyes... like the difference between a 320 and a 256 MP3 encoded with the same encoder.

For about 100 dollars US you can buy a 7MP camera from any random electronics store. Look for them on sale, really.

Comp USA had a sale on recently, and coming soon, they'll be EXTREMELY cheap, as Christmas brings the pain. Day after Christmas is the time to buy though.

Ok cool, I was a sucker for the whole more pixle line tbh, thanks for that good read.

though what about those things that do make a difference, lense etc. I would like a good zoom as well.

does anyone have suggestions for a good quality camera for someone really just starting out but looking to take specific photo's, as a hobby rather than just a camera to take 'keepsakes'

leica m6 yespls.

450d is an amazing camera and you can get it for about £400 (including standard 18-55 lens, and after £50 rebate from Canon).

The 40d is a great camera, but the 450d is arguably the better choice and you MOST FUCKING CERTAINLY CANNOT justify the price difference between the two.

Ashley, I get the impression you'd get the 40d anyway, because its more expensive.

I'v looking at getting a canon. Money is a massive factor, its either the 350D or the 400D iv been keeping my eye on. Altho i prefer manual, im never too great in the dark room

seckle wrote:

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

don't let the salesman pull the wool over your eyes. megapixels is a bunch of shit. its marketing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/techn ... pogue.html

nikon and canon are both realizing that 70% of the people buying new cameras don't use nearly 1/4 of the power of their cameras. 80% don't need more than a 12mp camera. the other 20% that would need over 12mp are professional photographers/surveillance and military people. unless you plan on printing posters from your work and selling it, you don't need more than a 4mp camera. obviously if you want advanced features, wider/special lenses or depth of field use, then you'll have to bite the bullet a pay for them, but most people don't.

The op was clearly aiming his post at "photography nerds", and that's all you've got to say?

Maybe Elbe doesn't know that MPs aren't the be all and end all of a camera, but they're just that - not the be all and end all of a camera. There are MANY other factors to consider when evaluating a camera's price tag.

gwa wrote:I'v looking at getting a canon. Money is a massive factor, its either the 350D or the 400D iv been keeping my eye on. Altho i prefer manual, im never too great in the dark room

Check out the 450d. For the price (nearly £200 cheaper than when it launched a few months back now) it's a fucking AMAZING camera.

The 350/400 are almost insignificant in comparison.

Didnt it get released like 2 month ago?

Whats the basic for the 450D?

Some info..

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012 ... os450d.asp

Search for comparisons between the 40d and 450d on Google and you'll see that the couple hundred (maybe even 3?) between them just cannot be justified.. ok, bigger/better build, but I'm sure even a pro would tell you the specs on the 450d (overall) outclass the 40d.

felixGash wrote:450d is an amazing camera and you can get it for about £400 (including standard 18-55 lens, and after £50 rebate from Canon).

The 40d is a great camera, but the 450d is arguably the better choice and you MOST FUCKING CERTAINLY CANNOT justify the price difference between the two.

Ashley, I get the impression you'd get the 40d anyway, because its more expensive.

screw the 40d, 50d all the way! holy bejesus is that ever sweet.

seckle wrote:

eLBe wrote:I would love to get involved in photography but cameras are so fukin expensive

don't let the salesman pull the wool over your eyes. megapixels is a bunch of shit. its marketing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/techn ... pogue.html

nikon and canon are both realizing that 70% of the people buying new cameras don't use nearly 1/4 of the power of their cameras. 80% don't need more than a 12mp camera. the other 20% that would need over 12mp are professional photographers/surveillance and military people. unless you plan on printing posters from your work and selling it, you don't need more than a 4mp camera. obviously if you want advanced features, wider/special lenses or depth of field use, then you'll have to bite the bullet a pay for them, but most people don't.

can't read the full article, but having a good sensor is still pretty dang important, especially (and i can't stress this enough) for low-light stuff. you can't do useful non-flash, low-light photos with a p&s (unless it's one of the new hella highend ones with a mackin sensor).

the thing is that most standard cheap cameras going OMG NOW 10 MEGAPIXELS still have pretty much the same sensor, and essentially just make up noise to fill in the gaps. (not faking it or anything, but just that the sensor doesn't give you any better of a picture than before, so it's really still an 8mp sensor, quality-wise.) that's waste. but as you get into 'prosumer' (aka smartarse) cameras (canon 50d, nikon d300), it turns out that a 14mp sensor will generally be 1.4x as good as a 10mp sensor (though diminishing returns etc etc). so it's still useful as a guide, sometimes.

sites like dpreview.com and slrgear.com give you great rundowns at that level.

but yeah, 'tall depends on what you want. the camera doesn't take the photos for you.

Ashley wrote:

fooishbar wrote:some of the coolest photos i've ever seen came from disposable cameras.

Screenshot or it didn't happen.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/disposable/pool/