OK, the Nikon Coolpix 10 just isn't cutting it
- Thread starter TheFanatic
- Start date
TheFanatic;1650130; said:
Point and shoots will be rather basic and limited in settings while a SLR camera typically has endless settings and the ability to swap lenses. Point and shoots still let you play with certain settings but to nowhere near the level of an slr. For someone just starting out, it would be better to go with a point and shoot because an slr can only give you a great photo if you know how to use it.
Sti;1650164; said:
OK, so I have a P&S right now. It's great after the St. Patty's Day Parade where we have a float every year in St. Louis to take shots of our drunk asses making fools of ourselves but it blows for taking pics of my fish. I want something that does that better. Are the low end SLR's any good? I'm seeing the low ends at around $500 and up.
As for knowing how to use it, I would think the learning curve is much faster with a digital camera because there is an immediate sense of what the setting/lens/lighting did for the picture. I'm all for experimenting with it. I have done so with my P&S, but have just come to the conclusion that it is very limited.
You can get a nikon d40 for about $450 new. If you look for a used one it'll be around $350. You still need a flash and a better lens to take full advantage of an SLR but it still would beat any P&S in terms of image quality and ease of use specially with trying to take pics of moving subjects like fish. The only real advantage P&S really have is their portability and ability to take videos.
TheFanatic;1650487; said:
I have a Sony Alpha. The first one that they made and couple lens for it. The camera body itself was maybe $800 but when I bought all the lenses it was a whole lot more. I spent over a grand on the 50mm and 100mm macro lenses and I have a couple others so the total costs of everything was around 3k. I love the camera but to this day I'm still working on being able to take the "perfect" photo so I wouldnt say the learning curve is short by any means.
Sti;1650751; said:
I didn't say it was short. Just faster than it used to be. Before you had to take the picture and wait for them to be developed. Now you can look at the results instantly....There is immediate feedback which is the best for any learning experience.
TheFanatic;1650828; said:
OOh yea I hear you on that. I guess I never thought of it that way since I've never had any type of film camera. I wasnt trying to say it would be hard to learn or anything and if you have an interest in it then you should go for it for sure. To me its been almost as addictive as fish keeping just a little less expensive. Its a lot of fun though going about learning the camera.
Sti;1650868; said:
How sad is it that you just said you dropped about about $3K on camera equipment and it's LESS expensive than fish keeping!!!!
I'm so glad my wife doesn't look at prices on the few occasions she goes with me to a pet store. If she had any idea how much I spent she would kill me!!!!
