| Blogs > statix |
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
A friend recommended a Canon rebel sos but he got it a while ago so there are probably better alternatives now. It has to be able to take relatively high quality photos, be not too bulky, and have decent battery life. Something with lithium ion batteries would probably be best right? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Edit: My budget is probably around 900-800 or less.  | ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
statix
United States1760 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
dunno what they are called in America. Rebel somethings.. edit: oh hah i just re-read the op, your friend is right, if you read the manual on the way there you should be able to make sexi pics. edit2: yes the cannon 500d is the newest in the rebel series to my knowledge. | ||
|
Daveed
United States236 Posts
Google Product Search Results OK, so the reputable sellers on that page have it going over 1k, which is probably too much for you. Still, the d40 (something around $450) works extremely well for me. I don't know too much about Canons, as far as I know, there's not too much difference between the cameras at matching price points. DSLR quality is good these days - you can't really go wrong with either company. I guess it's all about the lenses that you can get for each (and those are pretty similar too). Good luck getting a camera! And if you do end up getting a DSLR, remember to RTFM (and learn what all the settings mean) before going on your trip! | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
I've had mine for quite a while (Canon T1i) for almost a year, and even though the detail of the pictures is nice, most of the photos are lacking because I have limited artistic skills. Low-end ($200~ish) cameras have caught up immensely in terms of detail to DSLRs. Plus, if you're not printing and you're just going to resize it for web use, there's no point to having more than 5 Megapixels. Also, DSLRs are bulky. It is a bit of a hassle, especially if you invest in multiple lenses and a  Flash. If I were to do it over again, I'd probably get a Canon G10/G11. It has manual controls and isn't as bulky as a DSLR, which makes it great for learning. You can also add an external Flash to it. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On April 08 2010 01:47 kainzero wrote: If you don't know how to take photos, there is no Point in getting a really nice camera. I've had mine for quite a while (Canon T1i) for almost a year, and even though the detail of the pictures is nice, most of the photos are lacking because I have limited artistic skills. Low-end ($200~ish) cameras have caught up immensely in terms of detail to DSLRs. Plus, if you're not printing and you're just going to resize it for web use, there's no point to having more than 5 Megapixels. Also, DSLRs are bulky. It is a bit of a hassle, especially if you invest in multiple lenses and a Flash. If I were to do it over again, I'd probably get a Canon G10/G11. It has manual controls and isn't as bulky as a DSLR, which makes it great for learning. You can also add an external Flash to it.If he just reads the manual for whatever camera he is getting and also googles basic composition he'll be fine. I think there's a photo guide on TL actually. | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
|
buickskylark
Canada664 Posts
To give you a headstart, before I bought my current camera I really wanted a panasonic LX3. At the time it was the highest rated camera. It's compact, costs about 500 brand new, and has top quality for an inbetween a point and shoot and a dslr. Also, something to think about is videos if you plan on taking videos. I know people say that a digital camera is for taking photos, but sometimes you can have the enjoyment of great picture quality and high quality video. Don't think that the more expensive a camera the video quality is proportionate, because I had this old model canon that recorded the best video i've ever seen in a camera whereas my current, much newer camera, has shitty video but I didn't buy it for the video. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On April 08 2010 02:32 ShaperofDreams wrote: If he just reads the manual for whatever camera he is getting and also googles basic composition he'll be fine. I think there's a photo guide on TL actually. It takes a lot of practice and experience to take good pictures, you don't just read stuff and automatically understand and shoot phenomenal pictures. A lot of that practice and experience doesn't require a DSLR and I really think you should only get one once you understand why you need it and you feel limited by a compact. | ||
|
Daveed
United States236 Posts
On April 08 2010 05:03 kainzero wrote: It takes a lot of practice and experience to take good pictures, you don't just read stuff and automatically understand and shoot phenomenal pictures. A lot of that practice and experience doesn't require a DSLR and I really think you should only get one once you understand why you need it and you feel limited by a compact. That's fine and good, but this guy isn't asking how to become a great photographer. He just wants to get a nice camera to take with him on a trip. I do feel that the automatic settings on DSLR's are nicer than with compact cameras anyway - so why not? | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On April 08 2010 09:45 Daveed wrote:That's fine and good, but this guy isn't asking how to become a great photographer. He just wants to get a nice camera to take with him on a trip. I do feel that the automatic settings on DSLR's are nicer than with compact cameras anyway - so why not? With a Point and Shoot, versus a DSLR out of the box, you get better zoom (Canon and Nikon both start you out with 18-55, versus 37-222 on a Lumix LZ3), better macro, and portability. You lose image quality, (possibly) manual control, burst fire, and the ability to change lenses. For Canon, a used 28-135 lens set me back an extra $150. You can also take phenomenal photos with a Point and Shoot as well. Lately, the quality of Point and Shoot sensors has been improving a lot and again, if you end up resizing your picture, you lose a lot detail anyway. I feel like there's no reason to get a DSLR now unless you plan to take it seriously as a hobby and even then, there's still many benefits to Point and Shoot cameras. | ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On April 08 2010 09:45 Daveed wrote: That's fine and good, but this guy isn't asking how to become a great photographer. He just wants to get a nice camera to take with him on a trip. I do feel that the automatic settings on DSLR's are nicer than with compact cameras anyway - so why not? you buy a DSLR just to use its EZ mode... >.< | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
| ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
On April 09 2010 05:01 caelym wrote: unless you want to get into serious or sport photography, don't bother with DSLRs. you should check out the canon g11 or s90. Both are great point and shoots with enough manual controls to satisfy your curiosity. they take pretty good photos and are easier to learn and carry around. you buy a DSLR just to use its EZ mode... >.< I don't agree with this. DSLR cameras produce photos in much better quality because of the physical design of cameras. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
AfreecaTV Starcraft Tea…
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
OlimoLeague
Fire Grow Cup
OSC
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
