like a 50 1.4 for £190
I could afford that.
What I couldn't afford right now is a 30 1.4 I found for £260.
I don't like 50 on a crop anyway, it's too tight.
I'm looking for a decent priced digital point and shoot camera. Something that's good for all occasions but is compact enough to fit into a decent sized pocket. Durability is pretty important since I'll be taking it to an Airbourne/Iron Maiden show next month. I'm looking to spend about £100 on something. I did look at a Nikon Coolpix L20/L22.
Coolpix is supposed to be a pretty good series from what I hear, and the L22 has Vibration Reduction which would probably be really helpful at those shows.
From 1000D to 1D II - Good choice?
I'd rather find a used 1Ds i-ii/5Dc than a 1D.
Just cause f.frame
Still a 1D II is one hell of a improvement.
I have the original 1D, which still is a beast of a camera, although it only has 4mp.
What do you guys think of the Nikon Coolpix P500 overall? It seems like a good camera to me although I haven't heard much about how well it handles darkness nor its shutter speed.
The P500 is -OK-, but only that. It's one of the better superzooms, but if you're looking for quality it's better to spend a little extra money on a used micro 4/3rds or old-ish DSLR (For example, a used Canon 1000D).
It's not that it's a bad camera at all, but it's quality overall will be noticeably lower. When I was looking to buy my first camera, I used snapsort.com to give me a rough idea of what models and makes are around, then I checked for the best bargin.
Get old SLR, not micro 4/3rds since then you have a lens system to build up from.
-snip i didnt read the discussion properly-
yeah do what the thread title/endangered says.
And never get a bridge camera. Never.
Also, if you really can't afford anything digital, then you can pick up a decent film camera these days for next to nothing. Better than a compact, especially if you buy Nikon, then you can buy all the old lenses and use them on 'most' new digitals.
I've actually been looking at the Canon T2i and Pentax k-r recently. Both of them look decent, however...
According to Snapsort, the Canon T2i has no image stabilization, no HDR and lower color depth. I'm wondering if Snapsort is just being picky and all of those aren't actually a problem with 18MP.
The Pentax K-r however seems to be really good according to Snapsort for everything besides movies. Which is fine to me.
I've looked at sample photos of both cameras but I haven't really seen much in the "Indoor, low-light, nighttime" category and am curious to know how both of those cameras perform in those environments.
All in all, what would you guys recommend? What will get me the better quality overall in all environments?
Image stabilisation? that would be in Canon IS lenses. HDR just use a tripod and take more photos and edit them, that's all the HDR function saves you. Lower colour depth is expected with lower end bodies.
The k-r still has the important stuff such as better ISO (that's low-light) performance and dynamic range.
See those two are fine ass beginner cameras, but you probably won't use them to their full potencial right after taking either out of the box (assuming it'll be your first DSLR), so if you're just learning the basics you'll get your shit blown by the possibilities, and you shouldn't really worry about numbers or statistic.
By the time you've learned to use all those features to your advantage you'll probably know if photography's your kinda stuff and be ready for an upgrade anyways.
Canons range of lenses are far better though (I know the Pentax can take old K mount lenses, but most of Canons current lenses are better verses Pentax).
what does it matter he wasn't going to buy a whole range of lenses, not to mention he wasn't going to buy either's top-of-the-line or specialized lenses
Really i'm just looking for the best I can get for the money. I'm not really in a position to be lax on choice. Chances are this will be the camera I use for a good 2+ years.
I'd get the Pentax for the better ISO performance, and it's cheaper price. Plus, they could use some customers. They produce quality products but are largely ignored for some reason.
I second the k-r. You might get some off looks from canon/nikon fags, but it's a good quality camera.
Then again I could always fork out a little more and go for a Nikon D5100
See which one feels better in your hands.
get the canon then wank off to L glass like me
The Pentax K-5 is the APS-C DSLR with the BEST image quality in regard to ISO performance, dynamic range, colour rendition, etc. People are very quick to knock Pentax but they make some very, very nice camera gear.
Also don't bother with a d5100, get a much better camera for that price, the ol' classic d90.
much better in what regards?
build - yes true
video - not a hope in hell
IQ - new technology not better?
If he cared about video, he'd be looking at a Canon.
The D5100 is slightly ahead in terms of IQ, but in every other regard, like control (dual control wheels, more settings like shutter delay for tripod use, bigger viewfinder with pentaprism), build, ergonomics, and ability to use D lenses autofocus, the D90 is ahead.
If you're worried that the difference in IQ would hold you back, it won't, you can make great art with literally any camera. The D90 shares the sensor of the D300, which has been a staple of pro users for years.
That's kinda funny since it's from 2008.
I want a 1D I/II now... they are just so amazing
I had a high exposure to a man with dual 1D bodies, one with dual 5D II bodies and two guys with 5D IIs and 70-200/100-400
using my 1000D I started to get tiny dick syndrome
I can't wait to get my D3100
Going from old entry level body to new entry level body isn't worth it, you should at least wait until you can afford prosumer.
I thought the 60d was a lower end prosumer body?
I would be mainly upgrading for video and better ISO performance.
i keep getting told to sell my 1000D and get a 550D and im like "i don't have fucking money flowing from every orifice"