Digital Photography Thread

[Bibs]

I am thinking of getting a nice camera, to take nice pictures of our nice cars. Makes sense, non?

Anyone have any thoughts on this bad boy?

http://www.canon.co.uk/eos400d/

Also, if anyone knows where I should be shopping for my kit to get a good price, please let me know

[gghc87]

try here me old fruit.

http://www.digital-cameras.com/

great way to compare all the cameras and prices are pretty keen

Edited April 17, 2007 by gghc87

[Tentenths]

It's reckoned to the best in class at the moment

Oddly enough, was chatting to my neighbour about this only yesterday - he's just upgraded to a 400D. Although he's only had it for fortnight he reckons it's the dogs danglies... and he's a very talented, highly respected exhibition standard amateur photographer.

As to where to buy, think you'll probably find Purdy's are about the most competitive (net of cashback).

[oneshot]

I bought the EOS 300D when it first came out. It was certainly the dogs danglies at that time - I don't see why the 400D shouldn't be better.

[Jonathan]

Depends how much you have to spend Bibs. I am a Nikon man myself, we've used them in the force for ages, mainly D100's and D200's and they're just superb in every single respect. Mine is the D70s, again I bought it becuase work has all the kit so I have access to some silly lenses and if I can use my camera I can use a D200 without messing about with manuals.

Canon have always been feature rich and good value, however the 3-4 models I looked got shelved because of their fragility and imo terrible design which was based around statisitc (ie lightweight and dimensions) over the day to day use - before I slam it the picture quality was very good, but no better than the Nikon which is why I went the other way. Again on the plus the Canon focus is sublime, lightning quick mechanically and electronically (ie it doesn't search back and forth) - this was a plus on the Nikon but again the Nikon has the same continuous focus features and I very rarely find the camera searching if I use it properly.

My D70 is a brick, drop it and the floor will break, the Canon's flexed in my grip and feels very plasticy, some of the later models were impossible to hold and the focus ring knurled your hand when auto focusing - bad design imo. The other thing I hates was their lightness - put them on a tripod and set the timer....tick tick tick 'click' and the shutter would casue the camera to MOVE on the tripod !!! Longer lenses were also a problem as the light weight means the additional weight of the lense is too far forward, couple this with the useless tiny grip made for pixies and elves and you have cramp in your hands after a few mins holding it.

Again this is not a feature of the Nikon ranges - they're heavy, yes, but for a reason as they introduce steadiness esp on the tripod and with lenses.

This is the kinda thing you cant get from a statistics review - YES a camera might have impressive functions but are you going to use them ?

The 400D looks like the one I tried...useless grip becuase the body is WAY too small, I have big hands anyways - looking at the head on I can see the same problem - auto focus = stripped knuckles, your trigger hand is way to close to the lens.

The Canon stuff I trialed also had wierd controls, if you compare the Nikon to the others you can alter any of the controls without taking your hands of the shooting position. On the canon you have to play the SLR equivalent of finger twister to adjust things like the shutter and the apperture, exposure lock, focus lock etc.....its horrible !

The only thing I liked on the Canon range was the picture quality (not that it was any better on a VDU than the others I tried but it was good, colours and noise are my likes) and the menu system - other than that I couldn't live with it personally and thats my point. On the other hand there are some cracking credit card type cameras out there made by Canon with huge resolution (if you want that) and fantasitc picture quality without the bulk. Your only real advantage with SLR is the lenses and control - for web photo use these

[mayevora]

Was in a camera shop last weekend - couldn't believe how many cameras are up to 10 million pixels now. Massive change over last five years.

[matk]

Think Jussi's pics are a good starting point (remember his stunning photos from the factory day?). IIRC he uses a Canon Powershot Pro 1. Got to be a recommendation for a Canon?

[Tentenths]

Jon makes some good and very valid points.

After many years as a Nikon devotee my neighbour has just switched to Canon. His only real criticism of the Canon is that the build quality is not quite up to Nikon standards. But, on the other hand, he feels that the lighter weight/smaller size of the Canon system does have its plus points, particularly if you're out and about on foot for long periods.

As Jon says your best bet is to go to somewhere like Jessops and have a bit of a play. Meantime, have you seen the comparison test in the May edition of Which Digital Camera? Like many magazine tests it's a bit light on content, but worth a read nonetheless. The most comprehensive reviews are to be found on the interweb. These are reckoned to be about the best:-

Digital Photography Review

Steve's Digicams*

Digital Camera Resource Page*

Lets Go Digital

Have fun

[* The 400D is sold as the Rebel Xti in other markets]

Edited April 18, 2007 by Tentenths

[juki75]

Hello guys!

I'm camera technician so my opinion is only for the "service" point of view so Canon and Nikon is the best choice.

Jukka

[jimmybondi]

The other thing I hates was their lightness - put them on a tripod and set the timer....tick tick tick 'click' and the shutter would casue the camera to MOVE on the tripod !!! Longer lenses were also a problem as the light weight means the additional weight of the lense is too far forward, couple this with the useless tiny grip made for pixies and elves and you have cramp in your hands after a few mins holding it.

This is why many D400 users choose the battery grip option, I suppose.

Coming from the photographic industry, I would recommend the Canon or the Nikon, but if you are not a NIKON-Pro, I would lean towards the Canon - because of the automatic sensor dustcleaner and the AF system - stay away from that Minolta-Konica-Sony thingy !

[Bibs]

Reading those reviews it seems that the Nikon D80 is better than the Canon 400D but at a price.

I didn't want to spend more than

[Loteuk]

Reading those reviews it seems that the Nikon D80 is better than the Canon 400D but at a price.

I didn't want to spend more than

[islandbloke]

My 2p...

Unless I wanted to go pro, impress my clients and do REALLY specialised photography (with lots of lenses, filters, flashes etc) I'd just buy a small pocket digi with a decent lens and a big chip - and maybe a wide-angle adaptor for car shots.

In my opinion it's more a case of being in the right place at the right time - and a camera you can pocket is much more likely to be there with you!

A good photographer is rarely constrained by his equipment - it's more about having an artistic eye for composition and framing (assuming the basic image quality is acceptable).

And with Photoshop, you really CAN polish a turd...

[Bibs]

I already have a very good pocket digital, cost a pretty penny and has all the bells and whistles.

The trouble is I also go to a lot of gigs and taking pics with an automatic is hard work as it meters for a flash picture however the flash has little effect unless you are real close. If you set it up for a longer exposure then the action blurs the pics terribly. A decent DSLR would help here and I get AAA or Press passes if I want so can set myself up right infront of the stage on the right side of the barriers but would feel a bit of a wally with a credit card sized camera!

I love taking gig pics and love good pics of good cars. I think an upgrade is in order.

And another thing, with the

[Tentenths]

It can work in your favour but couple of things to be aware of:-

1. VAT/duty - fair chance you'll get caught for VAT & import duty when the package arrives in the UK. That'll add 30 - 35% to the costs. Still potentially saving money... just not as much.

2. Warranty - the standard manufacturer warranties on most US sourced photographic/electronic gear are not valid in the UK*

* A possible solution

Edited April 18, 2007 by Tentenths

[Bibs]

Sweet, that's only

[esprit350]

for what its is worth my late godfather was head photgrapher on the manchester edition of the daily express, he would not use any othe camera other than Nikon, he had many offers from other makes for free kit but always said he knew the Nikon would work when he picked it up from wherever he had thrown it ...

[esprits4de]

After my Casio exlim I got myself a EOS 350 Set. Seems to outperform the 400 in some tests....

Anyway, I got the small kit, EOS + EF 18-55 lens and seperately the 210 Zoom lens. I found that I got the stuff much cheaper than the full EOS set, containing exactly the same lenses..

So also compare the bundels and special sale items....

[MPx]

Another question on this for you knowledgable types....

We've got an EOS5 35mm film set up that we've had for ever, and it works really well....but it is film. Our first generation Digital Ixus is OK but not really good enough any more being just 2.1MegaP. My thoughts were that I could buy a 400D body or similar and carry on using my old EF 70-300 IS USM and 28-105 USM lenses. But I've seen that the newer (eg 17-85) lenses are only compatible with the digi series cameras and there's words written like - "its equivalent to .....(different focal length)...".

So will my old lenses work on a new Digital Canon? Including the AF facility? And can anyone explain about the effect on stated focal length?

Cheers Mike

[Tentenths]

Mike, yes your 35mm Canon lenses should fit/work on a digital Canon. As a general rule most lenses are backwards compatible and should be okay. But I'm not 100% sure about retention of AF facility on Canons. Suggest you check with a dealer/Canon for avoidance of doubt.

Owing to the fact that the sensor on a digital SLR is smaller than a single piece of 35mm film your lenses will, however, produce a rather different field of view. The conversion factor is tied in to the size of the camera's sensor. The absence of an industry 'standard' sensor size means that the conversion factor varies slightly from one make of digital SLR to another. In the case of Canon it's 1.6x.

Siimply multiply the focal length of the lens you intend using by the conversion factor to give you its angle of view, were it being used on a 35mm film camera. Since 35mm film cameras have been around for a while most photographers are more familiar with the approximate angle of view that 35mm lenses cover. A 28mm lens on a 35mm camera is a moderately wide angle lens, but when used on a dSLR with a smaller-than-35mm sensor size, its angle of view becomes smaller. Multiplication factors on Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta cameras are 1.5, Canon, 1.6, and Olympus 2.0. So an 18mm lens (18 x 1.5 = 27) on the first three takes in the same angle of view as a 27mm lens on a 35mm camera. On a Canon, it would be 29mm, and on an Olympus, 36mm.

So, stick your 70-300mm lens on a digital Canon and it effectively becomes the equivalent of a 35mm 112-480 lens, and the 28-105 to 45-168. Not a problem if you shoot portraits, wildlife or sports but it can be more restrictive if you like to use wide-angle lenses for landscapes or photojournalism.

Lenses made specifically for digital cameras are usually smaller and lighter and are designed to cover the area of the smaller sensor. In other words, if you used them on a 35mm film camera, the image would be vignetted i.e. darker in the corners. They are also are designed to bend light rays so they hit the sensor more or less straight on which, manufacturers claim, results in a better image. But in reality the consensus seems to be that 35mm film lenses can produce equally good results because they cover a much larger area than the sensor and use only the centre of the lens - the so-called "sweet spot" - to produce images. The fact that they often have larger maximum apertures than digital lenses can also be beneficial.

James

[Bibs]

I spent a fair amount of time in Jessops last night with 'Jim' who knows his stuff. Although my mind had swapped to the D80 from the 400d he did his job well and convinced me that the cheaper camera, the 400d was the better one and he's got a Nikon himself! I told him that the majority of the pics would be motorsport, gigs and static cars.

I'm popping down there on Saturday I hope to pick one up.

[Tentenths]

I'm sure that was time well spent. As Jon said it would be a mistake to make a decision based solely on the reviews, as useful as they may be.

Don't think you'd go wrong with either tbh. From what I've read/heard, overall, they're very similar cameras but, all other factors being (more or less) equal, the price differential seems to tip the scales very slightly in favour of the Canon.

Look forward to seeing some of the results in due course

Edit - just happened across this side by side comparison

Edited April 21, 2007 by Tentenths

[jimmybondi]

I'm popping down there on Saturday I hope to pick one up.

[Bibs]

My business stationary supplier (!) has informed me that they can get me a body only for

[MKE40]

My business stationary supplier (!) has informed me that they can get me a body only for

Edited April 21, 2007 by MKE40