# DSLR - can anybody beat £378.04 (delivered)



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

... for a Canon EOS 450D 18-55mm IS Kit?

I'm finally getting my ass into gear and buying the DSLR I have been promising myself for months (  )! The cheapest price I have found is £378.04 (delivered) which includes the £50 cashback Canon are currently offering, but does anybody know of anywhere cheaper?

I know there a few people on here at the mo' looking at DSLRs, so this thread could prove handy for a few people.


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

kmpowell said:


> I know there a few people on here at the mo' looking at DSLRs, so this thread could prove handy for a few people.


Well it would if you said where you were getting it from. 

That's an excellent price. Ppl will struggle to beat that I'm sure.


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Can't say if it's a good deal or not however I bought a kit and have never used the lens that came with it.

So if I was doing it again I would only buy the body. You need to decide what you are going to use the camera for and then buy the appropriate lenses. Otherwise it's wasted money and not such a good deal.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I just bought the latest IXUS (14.7Mpix and DIGIC IV processor 8) ) from 7dayshop and depsite it only being out for a week or two the already had £100 off it.

I've just checked and it looks like the 450D is £404 which you can then get £50 rebate.

(I'm assumming you're talking camera body only?)

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product ... _id=103549


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Doh! Just seen you was comparing the kit.

They do it for £463 - £50. :roll:

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product ... _id=103551

p.s. Where's you're price from. I want to see if my IXUS was any cheaper! :lol:


----------



## redTT (Nov 16, 2006)

The price sounds very cheap if it includes the kit lens. Does the site selling it make direct reference to the cashback, as the cheaper D-SLR's can be grey imports which do not qualify for cashback or UK warranty service ? Who is the seller ?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

ResB said:


> Well it would if you said where you were getting it from.


Whoops, sorry, forgot to point that bit of important info out 

It's currently at Dixons.

Price = £438.04, use 'SAVE10' to save a further £10 in the basket, use 'FREEDEL299' to get free delivery, then claim the £50 cashback from Canon via the form. Giving a total price of £378.04.


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> ResB said:
> 
> 
> > Well it would if you said where you were getting it from.
> ...


Quidco give 4% cachback for Dixons too, so another £15.12 if you include that. In fact, probably another 2 quid as they'll not take the Canon cashback off.

Oh - and FANTASTIC camera!


----------



## redTT (Nov 16, 2006)

Dixons are no longer on Quidco, probably why their prices are much sharper now.

They and Jessops are emerging as amongst the cheapest now for camera equipment. Jessops tend to price match too.


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

redTT said:


> Dixons are no longer on Quidco, probably why their prices are much sharper now.
> 
> They and Jessops are emerging as amongst the cheapest now for camera equipment. Jessops tend to price match too.


Ah your right - my bad - didn't realise it was Dixons entertainment only.


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

Kev, go for it!

Had mine for 2 months now & shot under a ton of different conditions, night time long exposures, theatre shoots under stage lighting when 'film' speed is of the essence & a bunch of HDR shots with RAW via CS3.

I have to say that the camera doesn't fail to impress every time - you'll love it.

My next purchase for it is a 10mm lens for doing panoramas, but at £400 it'll have to wait a while


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

kmpowell said:


> ResB said:
> 
> 
> > Well it would if you said where you were getting it from.
> ...


Dont forget a further 3% from your favourite casnback site


----------



## skiwhiz (Feb 17, 2008)

cuTTsy said:


> Can't say if it's a good deal or not however I bought a kit and have never used the lens that came with it.
> 
> So if I was doing it again I would only buy the body. You need to decide what you are going to use the camera for and then buy the appropriate lenses. Otherwise it's wasted money and not such a good deal.


agree with above, consider the 17 to 85mm lens its more versatile (cost more) and one you will use alot then all you will need is a 70 to 200 later depending on what you plan to shoot
normally you get a discount if you buy the body and lens together
try www.photographyblog.com


----------



## skiwhiz (Feb 17, 2008)

£419.99
including VAT & 12 month Manufacturer warranty. Insured carriage £9.99. In Stock. A further £50 Cashback is available from Canon for purchases between August 21st and January 12th 2009
available from burton on trent from www.bentonvillemall.co.uk


----------



## davidg (Sep 14, 2002)

Does anyone think the eos 40d is worth the extra ££££s ?????


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

skiwhiz said:


> cuTTsy said:
> 
> 
> > Can't say if it's a good deal or not however I bought a kit and have never used the lens that came with it.
> ...


Being a complete newbie to DSLR photography I don't yet know what I will be specifically using for. Moving objects is a complete must, so that's track days, sports etc. Then scenic photography (holidays), and also 'on the fly ad-hoc stuff like parties etc. I also want to explore lots of still life though, getting close ups, compusore etc. So in all I'm after a good all rounder?!?

Will the 18-55 cover all this, or can you recommend a lens that I should get instead (if I buy the body only)?





skiwhiz said:


> £419.99
> including VAT & 12 month Manufacturer warranty. Insured carriage £9.99. In Stock. A further £50 Cashback is available from Canon for purchases between August 21st and January 12th 2009
> available from burton on trent from http://www.bentonvillemall.co.uk


That's more expensive (just!) than Dxons by my calculations? £379.98...


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Will the 18-55 cover all this, or can you recommend a lens that I should get instead (if I buy the body only)?


My last (Nikon DSLR) had a 18-55 and 55-200 lens. I found most of my photography was in the 40-70 range so was forever swapping lenses with the inherent risk of getting dust on the sensor. I changed for a Nikor 18-200 VR lens (which is now in use on my new Nikon D80) which does just about everything very well. However I also picked up a 24-70 which I occasionally use in low light.

I know the above is Nikon specific but the same principles would apply with Canon.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I have a 400D with a few different lenses. My body seems to spend most of its time with a 50mm f1.4 lens attached to it, as the sharpness and clarity have to be seen to be believed. It also can have the most beautifully shallow DOF for taking portrait shots.

Combined with a 430EX flash, the whole unit remains very portable.

I really don't like (in comparison) the kit lens. Feels very plastic, and is really lacking the sharpness of the 50mm, but with the obvious advantage of having zoom capability. I'm looking to replace it with something better, though... probably in the 17-85mm range, and will also get a really really wide (10mm-ish) for wide indoor / outdoor shots. I already have a 100mm Macro lens (which is pretty cool) as well as a 70-200L (which is effectively 'pro' quality glass) - which is great for longer distances, and I have a 1.5x teleconverter too for some extra 'length'.

TBH, the kit lens is probably worth the few quid it costs over and above the cost of the body-only. I shot quite a bit with mine whilst I worked out what lenses I wanted in my armoury. You NEED a lens which you like to have on the body most of the time, but obviously not 1 single lens will cover everything you want to do. Something which gives you the 'length' you need for some things, might not give you the 'speed' you need for something else. Length AND speed in the same lens? That'll dwarf the ~£350 cost of the body.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

So what you are saying is that I might be better off buying the Body only (which I can get for £339) and spunking a bit more on something like this, which is a perfect all rounder and will last me a lot longer than the kit lens that I will need to replace in a short space of time?

Or will the kit lens suffice a bit further after I've found my feet?


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> So what you are saying is that I might be better off buying the Body only (which I can get for £339) and spunking a bit more on something like this, which is a perfect all rounder and will last me a lot longer than the kit lens that I will need to replace in a short space of time?
> 
> Or will the kit lens suffice a bit further after I've found my feet?


I bought the lens kit myself and its been great for me to find my feet.

I found it lacking a little when I went on holiday, but I still got some fantastic pics.

Personally I think its good for starters and if its only costing £40 more than you can get the body for, its good value. Re: the one in your link, I don't believe it has image stabilisation, which you really need on the lens, especially for a decent zoom.


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

jampott said:


> My body seems to spend most of its time with a 50mm f1.4 lens attached to it, as the sharpness and clarity have to be seen to be believed. It also can have the most beautifully shallow DOF for taking portrait shots.


I have exactly the same on my Nikon D80 and couldn't agree more...

I was also advised to buy lenses that you could use with film as well as they should be future proof.(it's something to do with the lens sensor) DX lenses only work with certain sensors I believe...


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Try Ken Rockwell for advice http://www.kenrockwell.com/search.htm


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

7dayshop have it for £354 inc the cash back

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default ... ARCH&comp=


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jbell said:


> 7dayshop have it for £354 inc the cash back
> 
> http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default ... ARCH&comp=


For that price it's the Body only Jon.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

How about EOS 400d 18-55mm kit for £270? Poss less.

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Outlet_Canon-EOS-SLR-Cameras_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ3QQftidZ2QQtZkm

We got a 350d from these Canon Outlet folk (part of Canon UK). It's perfect at the price.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> How about EOS 400d 18-55mm kit for £270? Poss less.
> 
> http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Outlet_Canon-EOS-SLR-Cameras_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ3QQftidZ2QQtZkm
> 
> We got a 350d from these Canon Outlet folk (part of Canon UK). It's perfect at the price.


I want 'LiveView' though, so it has to be the 450. If it wasn't for the LiveView I would go for the Nikon which isa slightly smaller unit then the 400D. I've been looking at the canon outlet and also sent them an email, but they say that the 450D won't be appearing fro some time becasue it is still too new. 

Had a stroke of luck today though - I spoke to one of our clients (a big online retailer of leccy goods) today and casually slipped into the conversation my want of a 450D and he said he could get me one for 'cost'! Don't know why I didn't think of that sooner!He's coming back to me with a price!


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Thanks for all the advice guys - got it this morning, so now to work how the hell it all works!


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

So how much was 'cost' in the end then? Or is that a secret?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Kell said:


> So how much was 'cost' in the end then? Or is that a secret?


In the end I bought it from Jessops in Bristol 'Mall' becasue I whilst clearing out a drawer this morning I found a £30 'Mall voucher' I had for my birthday a while back that I'd forgot about! Package was £443.99, minus £30 voucher and £50 cashback made it £360 odd quid. If I hadn't of found that voucher then I would of ordered at Dixons. I spoke with our client and he said he can't buy them that cheaply (bear in mind he buys and sells to the likes of eBuyer and Amazon etc!), and told me I should snap Dixons price up!


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> I would *have* ordered at Dixons.


Don't let your standards slip, Mr P. :lol:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> > I would *have* ordered at Dixons.
> 
> 
> Don't let your standards slip, Mr P. :lol:


Sorry! 

4gb Sandisk Extreme III card just ordered for a paltry £13.99 (thanks R6B for the tip!), so now all I need is a good case/bag.

Any suggestions of a good case/bag for this particular camera?


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > > I would *have* ordered at Dixons.
> ...


I've got the Lowepro Slingshot AW100 backpack. Lightweight, and fits everything in great.


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

Also - 8gb Sandisk card

£9.99


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I recently bought a 16Gb SD HC card for £17.99

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product ... _id=104379

Scary considering that a few (quite a few) years ago I paid £96 for 32Mb CF and £199 for 1Gb CF


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

senwar said:


> Also - 8gb Sandisk card
> 
> £9.99





scoTTy said:


> I recently bought a 16Gb SD HC card for £17.99
> 
> http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product ... _id=104379
> 
> Scary considering that a few (quite a few) years ago I paid £96 for 32Mb CF and £199 for 1Gb CF


Are these good enough though?!? I thought that the Extreme cards were best for Digital photography due to the speed requirements, especially with DSLR?

:?:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

The SD HC is class 6 which is 6Mb/sec. I think that's about as good as they get.

edit - although Wiki suggests this is 40x and you can actually get up to 200x. It obviously depends whether the camera can run at that speed on whether you get an advantage. Plus most cameras now have a decent size buffer so it's only when doing continuous shooting for a long period that it comes into play


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Kev,

I have a load of Crumpler bags... one for my laptop, a small one (pretty boy) which fits the body, a single lens, and the flash unit, and I have a bigger bag which I can store multiple lenses.

http://www.crumpler.co.uk

They are very very well built, and quite quirky. Nice bags for Macbooks too


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Another vote for crumpler bags.

Just make sure you get one that is big enough(the size they give can be a little tight) and buy online as they can vary in price considerably, so shop around.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Are they too manly to make an xmas pressie for a 12 year old girl into DSLR?

http://www.crumpler.de/?product=Jim...live&page=details&product_id=JBO300-004&size=

Or are they too 'girly' for grown men?


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

Or wear this one like the lead singer of Cameo
http://www.crumpler.de/?product=Jimmy_B ... -003&size=


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

cuTTsy said:


> Or wear this one like the lead singer of Cameo
> http://www.crumpler.de/?product=Jimmy_B ... -003&size=


Could be.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Got it all properly unpacked today and popped in the new memory card. A quick read of the manual to find out what I wanted then I nipped outside to have a play with a few of the features. I Decided to try and take a few pictures with a blurred background, concentrating on the object in the foreground. After much knob twiddling and pressing of buttons to get the right ISO and aperture, I think I've got the hang of it. Certainly not the best pics in the world, but they're a start, what do you think (click on the to see larger)?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

good stuff


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Similar effect, but indoors:


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Blimey, you need to increase Lisa's allowance so she can get to the hairdressers Tim 

I bought a Lowepro Rezo 160 with my D40 from Amazon Kev, it works well for me as I will prob get a 55-200 as well if Santa is listening to me which should fit in nicely. I may be able to fit my camcorder in too .

I tend to think for chargers etc as a separate item as you dont need to carry them around with you.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lowepro-Rezo-Sh ... 402&sr=8-1


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

Kev,

You need to buy the battery grip now too (about £85 + a second battery iirc). It will allow you to shoot loads longer & really weights the camera perfectly


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

By the way, nice pics - a shallow DOF really brings out your subject


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Got it all properly unpacked today and popped in the new memory card. A quick read of the manual to find out what I wanted then I nipped outside to have a play with a few of the features. I Decided to try and take a few pictures with a blurred background, concentrating on the object in the foreground. After much knob twiddling and pressing of buttons to get the right ISO and aperture, I think I've got the hang of it. Certainly not the best pics in the world, but they're a start, what do you think (click on the to see larger)?


Nicely done. Great DOF on the first one. Would make a great shot when covered in rain drops and lower lighing.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Kev,
> 
> I have a load of Crumpler bags... one for my laptop, a small one (pretty boy) which fits the body, a single lens, and the flash unit, and I have a bigger bag which I can store multiple lenses.
> 
> ...





cuTTsy said:


> Another vote for crumpler bags.
> 
> Just make sure you get one that is big enough(the size they give can be a little tight) and buy online as they can vary in price considerably, so shop around.


Just to let you know I took your advice and went and got myself a Crumpler today - I tried various styles out but found that this was the best fit. Nice and snug, but also plenty of room for other stuff like an additional lens, battery etc etc


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Kev,
> ...


Great stuff very similar to the one I have, need a bigger one now just can't make my mind up which one.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Awesome. And not the only muffin-top to be seen around Bristol either. :lol:


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

head_ed said:


> Kev,
> 
> You need to buy the battery grip now too (about £85 + a second battery iirc). It will allow you to shoot loads longer


Think I need to get myself one of them!


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

IIRC, the deal we got at Wildings was £429 for the initial kit, plus the £50 cashback bringing it down to £379, then a package for £90 which included an extra 2yr P&L guarantee, an extra battery, a lens filter, a 4GB 45X SD Card (got a drawer full of 2BG's) & a choice of bags ranging in price from £20 to £60 & i plummed for the Tamrac Adventure 3.

Just gonna fill out the cashback card now. Still another 3 sleeps until i can play [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Just gonna fill out the cashback card now.


Been over a month since I sent mine off - still not had the cheque back yet. :?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > > I would *have* ordered at Dixons.
> ...


Kev, where did you get the card from? Got a 4BG 45X with the 450D & have a raft of 2GB's all over the place, although i'm not sure they'd be quick enough as are a couple of years old. Fancy an 8GB hi speed so i know i'll always have capacity even when on longer trips.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Kev, where did you get the card from?


4GB
8GB


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Hmmm - this thread has made me consider getting a DSLR. Currently just have a Canon Ixus point and shoot, which is great for what it is, but some shots taken on a recent trip to NY weren't all they could have been. Admittedly I just have it on the one auto setting and shoot away, but I guess that's what they're for really.

What do you fellas do re 'showing/displaying' your photos? In the digital age does anyone actually get many printed off anymore? Seems a shame to take loads of photos and just have them sitting on a hard drive, although the PS3 I've recently bought means I can stream media to my 42" Panny plasma, which is a step forward I reckon.

Must be quite a palava to be going out somewhere and have to take the bag and all the kit etc? Don't want to spend £400 odd on a camera if it just gathers dust :?


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

WozzaTT said:


> Hmmm - this thread has made me consider getting a DSLR. Currently just have a Canon Ixus point and shoot, which is great for what it is, but some shots taken on a recent trip to NY weren't all they could have been. Admittedly I just have it on the one auto setting and shoot away, but I guess that's what they're for really.
> 
> What do you fellas do re 'showing/displaying' your photos? In the digital age does anyone actually get many printed off anymore? Seems a shame to take loads of photos and just have them sitting on a hard drive, although the PS3 I've recently bought means I can stream media to my 42" Panny plasma, which is a step forward I reckon.
> 
> Must be quite a palava to be going out somewhere and have to take the bag and all the kit etc? Don't want to spend £400 odd on a camera if it just gathers dust :?


I've got an Ixus too. The quality between pics is significantly different. The DSLR ones just better colours and crisper.

I personally got my 450d for a trip to San Francisco as I wanted to have some good shots that I could put up in my kitchen. To be fair, as I only ended up going for 6x4 prints, the ixus would have been OK but some of the bigger shots just look far superior. I always print my pictures these days (well a selection of). And a picture I have of the bridge is my background on my PS3 and looks awesome on my Samsung Plasma.

Obviously they're not as handy as the point and shoot, but since I got mine I've found myself actually going out specifically with the camera to take pics.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

WozzaTT said:


> Hmmm - this thread has made me consider getting a DSLR. Currently just have a Canon Ixus point and shoot, which is great for what it is, but some shots taken on a recent trip to NY weren't all they could have been. Admittedly I just have it on the one auto setting and shoot away, but I guess that's what they're for really.
> 
> What do you fellas do re 'showing/displaying' your photos? In the digital age does anyone actually get many printed off anymore? Seems a shame to take loads of photos and just have them sitting on a hard drive, although the PS3 I've recently bought means I can stream media to my 42" Panny plasma, which is a step forward I reckon.
> 
> Must be quite a palava to be going out somewhere and have to take the bag and all the kit etc? Don't want to spend £400 odd on a camera if it just gathers dust :?


There will be times when you simply can't be bothered... but for those moments, keep your Ixus (and learn a bit more about how to use it!).

But for the times when you want to get some good photos (and places like NYC cry out for doing it properly!) a good DSLR and a good choice of lenses will hopefully get you the results that you want.

Slideshows on the PS3 are fine


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

WozzaTT said:


> What do you fellas do re 'showing/displaying' your photos? In the digital age does anyone actually get many printed off anymore? Seems a shame to take loads of photos and just have them sitting on a hard drive, although the PS3 I've recently bought means I can stream media to my 42" Panny plasma, which is a step forward I reckon.


I've been using iphoto here is a link to some of the stuff some great Christmas prezzies for the grandparents as well as making some nice books from holidays etc...

http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/printproducts/

I also have an Apple TV so I quite often have them as a screen saver on the LCD while listening to music.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

The thing about cameras and the digital age is this. With Digital (and a big memory card) it's easy to get great shots as you keep clicking until you get a great one.

However, in the old days of film, a pro photographer could put together an exhibition from one roll of film.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that a good photographer with an Ixus, say, would outdo a crap photographer with some really good kit. Practice makes perfect, but I would say never take one shot when 10 would do.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Kell said:


> The thinkg about cameras and the digital age is this. With Digital (and a big memory card) it's easy to get great shots as you keep clicking until you get a great one.
> 
> However, in the old days of film, a pro photographer could put together an exhibition from one roll of film.


I don't think it is 'easy' to get great shots. In fact, although technology has advanced somewhat, the average DSLR photographer has an almost identical set of camera options available to him, and many of the same pitfalls / trade-offs as your average SLR owner.

Being able to keep clicking does have its benefits, but unless you learn from the clicking process, and understand which of your shots was the 'best', and (most importantly) why... then ultimately you only have a very slim chance of getting great shots. That's a bit like saying, "if you point a decent HD camcorder at a subject and shoot several hours of footage, you can still-frame 1 great shot from it." Not true. Even if the composition is right, unless you are adjusting manually to compensate for other variables, to get the shot to look exactly as you want it to, you won't end up with a 'great' shot, unless you get lucky. It isn't about the number of shots you can take, but how you setup the shot (and the camera) - and this is still the same as it used to be with SLR.

The benefit, as I've alluded to, is that you get more chances to *practice*.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

The most 'experimental' I got in NY was taking some of the same shots both with and without the flash and it was amazing (at least to me) how many were better without the flash.

Too many I took were grainy, which was disappointing, and yet a couple of the best ones were taken hurriedly from the back of a cab which you would have thought would be poor being taken both through glass and whilst moving.

There's obviously a great deal to learn, which is the attraction I guess. Think maybe I need to make the effort to learn some of the different settings on the Ixus before I consider stepping up to a DSLR although, as has been suggested, having both would be ideal.

Some of the great shots I've seen on this thread, and others recently, have inspired me though


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

WozzaTT said:


> The most 'experimental' I got in NY was taking some of the same shots both with and without the flash and it was amazing (at least to me) how many were better without the flash.
> 
> Too many I took were grainy, which was disappointing, and yet a couple of the best ones were taken hurriedly from the back of a cab which you would have thought would be poor being taken both through glass and whilst moving.
> 
> ...


A camera flash is only good for illuminating subjects which are relatively close by - even the flash built into a DSLR. As you've probably worked out, when triggered incorrectly, a flash can over-lighten the subject in some images, or make not the slightest bit of difference in others. Problem with a little camera - the settings built in will compensate for there being a 'flash' used, when often it shouldn't be. You'll often get far better results setting the camera NOT to flash, but compensating with a longer exposure time instead - but then, even with a DSLR, there is only so much you can do without stability (eg a tripod) unless you are used to playing musical statues 

That's where having a good quality lens, which is sharp in the focal range you are trying to use, combined with good ambient lighting and NO flash can give a really good quality picture.

Taken to the extreme, on a largely sunny day, Dean setup about 3 'slave' flash units when taking photographs of my car. They weren't really set up to brighten the picture, or to make the car be 'seen', since it was daylight... but what they DID do was help focus on the car, by reducing shadow. Which is an awesome use of 'flash' really, and with very impressive results.

The pokey little flash on the front of an Ixus? Good for snaps, probably bad for 'photos'... :wink:


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

Kev, I hope you realise that buying a Canon DSLR is that start of an expensive money funnel !

I myself started with a 300D about 4 years ago - and now I've spent a small fortune (it's the damn lenses!). I'm still very much learning and I don't spend enough time 'shooting' to justify the expense, but never mind - you're only young once.

450D is a great camera. I had a 350d and loved that but them moved up to a 40d. You can see a mix of shots from 300d, 350D and 40d here at my little site: http://www.drb-web.com/#gallery/Home/Start

I would agree with advice from others - if you really want to start using the 450D as it's intended - you'll outgrow the kit lens very quickly.

Now I'm hankering after a 5D Mark II :/ (neeeed that ISO performance )

One other word of advice, in the last year or so, Nikon have kind of moved ahead of Canon a little - if I was starting from scratch now I'd have to give very serious consideration to a Nikon.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

snaxo said:


> Kev, I hope you realise that buying a Canon DSLR is that start of an expensive money funnel !
> 
> I would agree with advice from others - if you really want to start using the 450D as it's intended - you'll outgrow the kit lens very quickly.


Having now had it for a month and a bit, I must say that I am glad I made the choice of starting with the kit lens. It's been a good starting point for a novice like me to learn from, and for the extra few quid on top of the body it was worth it.

Before I bought I decided that I was going to save for a 18-200, and I shall be buying one in the new year when I have my pennies saved.



snaxo said:


> One other word of advice, in the last year or so, Nikon have kind of moved ahead of Canon a little - if I was starting from scratch now I'd have to give very serious consideration to a Nikon.


No 'live view' on Nikon though, and the body's are bit weightier. Two considerations that made me go for the Canon in the end (oh and the cashback!)


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

Ah didn't realise you had it already. Excellent, well it's a good choice no doubt about that. And I actually find the Canon lens range to often be a little cheaper than the Nikon equivalent - though far from cheap!.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

jampott said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > The thinkg about cameras and the digital age is this. With Digital (and a big memory card) it's easy to get great shots as you keep clicking until you get a great one.
> ...


I like the way you cropped out the bit of my post that agreed with you. :roll: The bit about practice.

What I was saying is that unless you're doing this as a serious hobby, and spend time learning about lighting, composition, depth of field, etc you'll get similar results with a cheaper, point and shoot camera.

Case in point: a friend of mine has just bought a Canon G10 (a sort of go-between between point and shoot and SLR). Obviously in our business, we meet lots of photographers and he bought this on the recommendation of his mate who bought a G10 as a back up to his £20k Hasselblad and can't tell the difference between the shots.

Another case in point: when I studied photography at college, we were armed only with 50mm lenses to learn the basics before stepping up to macro and zooms. The camera will help when you're good, but you need to be good for the camera to help. I still get better shots with my 6 year old Pentax Optio 550, than friends of mine do with their full SLR kit.

(Though I have just bought a Lumix TZ5 to replace it as it was literally falling apart and held together with duck tape.)


----------

