# Digital SLR question



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

With a budget of Â£300-Â£400 what woulld you buy? Nikon D40X?


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

You've hit the nail on the head


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?/photo ... .html#400d

or

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s35965/1-1 ... 0D-(Silver)-%2b-EF-S-18-55mm-Lens/details.aspx

Canon is much better than Nikon :roll:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I've been playing around this evening with my latest lens for my 400D. Got it a few weeks ago, but not had any time to play...

Seems very good so far! Canon EF50 1.4

I do like the Canon kit, but I've no experience of anything else.


----------



## Mackem (May 22, 2002)

Either that or the Canon 400D which may just have the edge over the Nikon.

Anyway, they both do pictures in monochrome (black and white)!

DP Review is your best source of reference: http://www.dpreview.com/

Cheers,


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

I can thoroughly recommend the Canon EOS 400D - so very easy to use but has all the manual set-ups if you want to DIY. Superb images and operates seamlessly with a range of manufacturer's lenses - the Canon lenses being quite (very) expensive!!


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

J55TTC said:


> Canon is much better than Nikon :roll:


Hold them both than decide. <cough> Nikon


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

First time ever with this lens, shooting indoors, taken straight from the camera. No post-processing, no external flash, no filter, no hood, no tripod, nothing...


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

Nikon for me :wink: but the Cannon is a good camera. As John C points out hold and have a play with both then decide :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Or










or


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

Just to give you an idea of how sharp the canon 50mm F1.4 can be


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

J55TTC, that's really sharp, what does f1.4 mean?

i got myself a used nikon d40, pics are great on just freehand auto focus etc.

i really need to learn how to use mine


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Yep, 400D is great.

Had one for a few months, plenty of pics on my Flickr stream


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I wasn't going for 'sharp'... :lol:

Moody...


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

p1tse said:


> J55TTC, that's really sharp, what does f1.4 mean?
> 
> i got myself a used nikon d40, pics are great on just freehand auto focus etc.
> 
> i really need to learn how to use mine


F1.4 is the lowest (widest) possible aperture of the lens. At F1.4 the focussing is very shallow as demonstrated in the pic above.


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

i so need a lesson or two on mind and understand the settings


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Thanks for the all the replies will be out fondling cameras in the morning :wink:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Nikon can do sharp too!


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

J55TTC said:


> Just to give you an idea of how sharp the canon 50mm F1.4 can be


Respect, v nice.


----------



## ashrey_tt (Sep 29, 2007)

both good cameras but get the canon, the metering and flashguns etc are much better than nikons offerings although not quite as good build quality on the canon


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

If you go Nikon, then save up for the excellent 18-200mm VR lens (see http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm ) currently around Â£500, but worth every penny 8)


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I decided on the Nikon ,so next question where to get the memory cards from?


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

wallsendmag said:


> I decided on the Nikon ,so next question where to get the memory cards from?


www.7dayshop.com


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

John C said:


> J55TTC said:
> 
> 
> > Just to give you an idea of how sharp the canon 50mm F1.4 can be
> ...


Thanks Johc C I like your one of the TT

but the canons sharper :roll:


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

ashrey_tt said:


> both good cameras but get the canon, the metering and flashguns etc are much better than nikons offerings although not quite as good build quality on the canon


I agree with everything apart from the build quality, my 40D's build quality is exceptional.


----------



## DeanTT (Sep 11, 2006)

It's not the camera, it's the person behind it....or something like that. Seriously though, who gives a damn what anyone thinks is the best, you just prefer one or the other. Between the 2 brands and the image results there's nothing in it really. Whatever feels right for you.

Nikon are the best though :roll:


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

DeanTT said:


> It's not the camera, it's the person behind it....or something like that. Seriously though, who gives a damn what anyone thinks is the best, you just prefer one or the other. Between the 2 brands and the image results there's nothing in it really. Whatever feels right for you.
> 
> Nikon are the best though :roll:


I agree with most of the above but I have to reiterate, Canon are the best.

To prove this just take a look at all the white lenses on the sidelines of all the major sporting events :-*


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

:lol:


----------



## DeanTT (Sep 11, 2006)

Strange that, most Canon sports shooters I know (in the cycling world) are now swapping to Nikon gear for the full frame 12 frames per second D3.

EDIT: also the national press association are equipping all their photogrpahers with Nikon gear now.

I kinda wish I bought a canon tbh as the big Lenses are cheaper (no worse for it though).

I just prefered the feel of the Nikon and the build quality compared to canon.

Edit again:: Plus digi Fisheye was a must for me and Canon ddnt offer that at the time.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Agree, get a camera that feels right for you. Hold it, use it, assess the menu interface, have a think about what you will be mostly capturing, then decide. Very little to choose between them realistically and ease of use and comfort are more important than fine details.

For me the 400D one - but having used Nikon as well there is very little real world difference.

Here is another 400D shot:


----------



## DeanTT (Sep 11, 2006)

jdn said:


> Here is another 400D shot:


You do like your trees. Great colours.


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

DeanTT said:


> Strange that, most Canon sports shooters I know (in the cycling world) are now swapping to Nikon gear for the full frame 12 frames per second D3.
> 
> EDIT: also the national press association are equipping all their photogrpahers with Nikon gear now.
> 
> ...


Admittedly Nikon are not far behind Canon now, the D3 is a good camera but canons 1D mkIII will do the job just as well 

Ive bought too many expensive canon lenses now to even consider going to Nikon.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

J55TTC said:


> Ive bought too many expensive canon lenses now to even consider going to Nikon.


...although we are having Canon/Nikon fun here this is actually a very good point. Once you have committed to a brand and have a few lenses/flashguns/accessories this will be a major factor.

I have more value in my lenses and flashguns than the camera itself so changing a body is cheaper than changing the whole thing.

Go for what you fancy then you will probably have sorted your upgrade route for the future.

J55TTC just made the wrong first choice, never mind, others will learn. :wink:

It also goes in cycles, I used to sell cameras for a Saturday job at school in 19 canteen. Those days Nikon and Minolta were top of the pops with Canon a poor third. Today most of the press use Canon but as said some are moving back to Nikon. Gladly the whole debate is Ferrari/Porsche and not Ford/Vauxhall. Both fine machines! (no small print)


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

John C said:


> J55TTC said:
> 
> 
> > Ive bought too many expensive canon lenses now to even consider going to Nikon.
> ...


 :lol: good one John C, Im al out of comebacks now :lol:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

J55TTC said:


> John C said:
> 
> 
> > J55TTC said:
> ...


<bows> <winks>


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

jdn said:


>


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

jdn ~ I love this picture:










As someone who has recently purchased an entry level Canon S3 IS, and been pleased and interested in help from other forum members, can you tell me ....how the hell?

What have you got and what settings did you use?

Also, and very far from it for me to 'criticise' but it most certainly isn't a criticism but more a point of understanding, I note the original photo size of 3886 x 2710 is quite noisy especially in the sky. So, is there a benefit of taking the picture at this size in the first place i.e. why take up so much memory card space if the optimum view would only be say 1024 x 714?

If I didn't have to be up for work in 4 hours I'd probably gasp in awe at the rest of your stunning looking pics. :wink:


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

TT2BMW said:


> jdn ~ I love this picture:
> 
> As someone who has recently purchased an entry level Canon S3 IS, and been pleased and interested in help from other forum members, can you tell me ....how the hell?
> 
> What have you got and what settings did you use?


You need an "Exif" viewer - download V2.3 from here:

http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/index.html

Once downloaded, right clicking on the picture will give the opportunity of seeing what type of camera, settings, programme modes were used etc.

Handy little programme 

Dave


----------



## slg (May 6, 2005)

I heard an advert on the radio this morning from Canon offering Â£50 cashback on their camera + online "how to take pictures" guides.


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

slg said:


> I heard an advert on the radio this morning from Canon offering Â£50 cashback on their camera + online "how to take pictures" guides.


Canon quite often do this see:

http://www.canon.co.uk/promotions/Index.asp

Once you buy the camera at full price there is a voucher in the box that you send off and Canon give you your Â£50 back. At the moment it only applies th the 40D and the 400D. Got my Â£50 cashback on my 40D with no hassle at all


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

slg said:


> .... + online "how to take pictures" guides.


Don't let that sell it to you. It's shite. Aimed more at my 11yr old!! :?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

TT2BMW said:


> jdn ~ I love this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for your comments. You are right to pick up on the noise issue - a clue as to how the pic is produced. This is a composite picture of three seperate exposures (aka Exposure bracketing) combined together to produce a High Dynamic Range - HDR - photograph which I am a fan of. It gives the rich colours and tonal range you see here although can look very odd if overdone. One side effect - particularly with low light photos is noise is introduced to dark areas. I am not at home but at some point will post up the original 0EV version so you can compare.

Many of the shots in my photostream are HDR. There is an excellent tutorial on how to do it here:

http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/

If you camera allows you to adjust the EOV or exposure setting you can do this, it is significantly easier if you have AEB - automatic exposure bracketing - whereby it will fire off the three or five shots needed in quick succession - minimises the need for a tripod.

Taken on a 400D but before this I used a Sony Cybershot to take HDR pics like this:










I always shoot large as you can also process a single RAW into HDR - which is how the tree shot posted earlier was processed.

Also see the Photmatix site - you can download a trial version:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/examples.html

There is loads more I could spout on about if you are interested!

Hope that helps.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

Thanks mate.










Again, simply stunning.

So, you take the same pick with 3 different exposures then? I always thought that the exposure just determined how 'bright' a picture was and didn't make any difference to the actual colours!

Do you think, having actually been there, that this gives a more accurate reflection of the actual scene in front of you or is it more 'art' and visual pleasure than true colour accuracy?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

TT2BMW said:


> Thanks mate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good questions. You expose at 1 - 2 stops below baseline to retain details in bright areas - sky,clouds, reflections and 1 - 2 stops above to overexpose shadows and dark areas. When combined the dyamic range is greater. You can add more colour. When done well it does look more natural than a single exposure and more real life, but you can over do it and make it more vibrant. With the car above I deliberately over tonemapped to make it more vivid as I felt this suited the subject matter more, as compared to the tree shot where I have tried to keep it more natural.

As another example here is a 'normal shot':










and here is a tone mapped version (slightly strong HDR on reflection):










Look how the engine bay and foot well as exposedas well as the bright reflections. Some argue similar to the human eye view as you move your eye around a scene compensting for exposure where needed.

jdn.

PS - I can do non-HDR pics as well!


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

fantastic photos jdn, I need to give this exposure braketing a bash - should work well with the autumnal leaves that havent quite all turned black / brown yet.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Indeed, very good for foliage and trees. There are some truly awesome shots on Flickr.

Here's another one of my recent Autum / Winter shots:


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

jdn ~ Thanks for the response.

So basically you can apply this HDR to any still/tripod subject?

I've been back to your Flickr pages and they are amazing. Also, been off on a tangent looking at some of the pics of those that have commented on yours and then on to others etc and came across this:


__
https://flic.kr/p/2094233812

How can anyone give a comment of "Great shot & beautiful processing..." to this? It's a complete crock of shit or am I missing something far more technical than the layman can see? :?


----------



## DeanTT (Sep 11, 2006)

HDR works really well for landscapes and you have some great examples jdn!

However, on cars, it just looks absolutely ghastly! [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

TT2BMW said:


> jdn ~ Thanks for the response.
> 
> So basically you can apply this HDR to any still/tripod subject?
> 
> ...


Agree, looks dreadful. Horses for courses I suppose.

Check out pictures by 'Stuck in Customs' and 'Uncommon' as they are HDR masters (if you are on Flickr let me know your tag and I can send you links).

Cheers.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

neil.hy

Thanks mate.


----------

