ClubWRX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, I was looking at Amazon.com and found a Canon EOS k2 with the lens new for $170. Free delivery too.

Is this a good deal? Any other cameras come to mind? Any ideas would be great. Thank you.
 

·
Administrator ...De Rerum Natura
Joined
·
20,139 Posts
No interest in a digital slr?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
No interest in a digital slr?

I would love one but I am doing this as a hobbie. I did see a Canon DSLR for $420. (body only). I am not sure that $700 for a camera would be wise in my situation.

I also suck at computers and would have to call my brother (Artist, graphic designer, freak) when I downloaded the pictures or wanted to print them.

Another thing is that I am familiar with the 35mm back in Highschool.

I cant justify spending more for a Digital. What are the advantages for me. I dont plan to take this further than just a hobbie or cute pictures of my daughter.

If anyone can help me with the advantages of a digital over a 35mm, that would be good too. I am really a noob to this so please be patient:rotfl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,751 Posts
The advantages to you of a digital are:
1) No cost of film.
2) You don't have to pay to develop pictures you don't want. Just print what you want.
3) Share pictures with friends and family for free.
4) Post pictures online without having to buy a scanner.
5) Take more pictures without fear of wasting film. Click away and delete whatever you don't want. Take it from a guy with 2 kids, you get much better pictures of your kids this way since you're not constantly waiting for the perfect shot. Just keep clicking away and see which ones come out nice.
6) Digitally crop/zoom pictures.
7) Digitally fix things like red eye.
8) Smaller size / Portability. A film camera can never be anywhere near the small size of a digital. You can take it anywhere with you and you'll be more likely to get shots of your kid and other things.

Those are the things that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there's other advantages. In the long run, a digital camera will cost you less because of these things and you'll overall be happier with it. Just one guy's opinion.

As for learning to use the camera with your computer, it's really easy:
1. Plug one end of cable into computer.
2. Plug other end of cable into camera.
3. Turn on camera.
4. Open Windows explorer and go to the camera, which will be listed in your folder list.
5. Copy the pictures you want to your computer.
 

·
Administrator ...De Rerum Natura
Joined
·
20,139 Posts
The advantages to you of a digital are:
1) No cost of film.
2) You don't have to pay to develop pictures you don't want. Just print what you want.
3) Share pictures with friends and family for free.
4) Post pictures online without having to buy a scanner.
5) Take more pictures without fear of wasting film. Click away and delete whatever you don't want. Take it from a guy with 2 kids, you get much better pictures of your kids this way since you're not constantly waiting for the perfect shot. Just keep clicking away and see which ones come out nice.
6) Digitally crop/zoom pictures.
7) Digitally fix things like red eye.
8) Smaller size / Portability. A film camera can never be anywhere near the small size of a digital. You can take it anywhere with you and you'll be more likely to get shots of your kid and other things.

Those are the things that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there's other advantages. In the long run, a digital camera will cost you less because of these things and you'll overall be happier with it. Just one guy's opinion.

As for learning to use the camera with your computer, it's really easy:
1. Plug one end of cable into computer.
2. Plug other end of cable into camera.
3. Turn on camera.
4. Open Windows explorer and go to the camera, which will be listed in your folder list.
5. Copy the pictures you want to your computer.

+100

Trust another guy with two kids as well... Digital is the only way to go. Additionally, as stated it will be cheaper in the long run because it is way more efficient then film (especially for novice photographers). The only way I would recommend film is if you are a seriously skilled film person with your own development setup.
 

·
SuperNova
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
GO DSLR!! You will spend the additional up front money in film and processing in less than a year.

If you want a good cheap "hobby camera" the nikon d40 is a good start for a newb.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000KJQ1DG

To give you an idea in cost savings of just taking pictures:

avg film cost for 27 exposure 400 speed ~ $10. You have to get them developed ~ $10.

So every 27 exposures good or bad it costs you $20. Figure you'll take 1000 pics the first year.

1000 pics /27 picsperroll =~37 rolls of film. Thats $370 in developing costs $370 in film purchasing costs.

In the first year alone without any editing or blown up pics you are in it $740 in film processing + $170 for the camera. Thats $910 and only for 1 year.

Keep in mind I have had my DSLR for over a year and shot 8000 pics, done tons of digital editing and had several prints blown up 20x30.

Now which is cheaper?

Go digital
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
It all depends on if you want to just shoot or actually understand what the camera is doing when you click the shutter release. IMO film is the best way to learn. Keep a notebook and write down each exposure. Note the aperature and shutter speed, light conditions, ISO of film, flash or not etc. Trial and error. I took photo classes in highschool and learned TONS! I took my photo 12 class 3 times and ended up teaching when my teacher was off for 2 months with a broken leg (easy credits :)).
If you want to just shoot and have the perfect exposure every time and the ability to see the picture seconds after it's taken go digital. Digital is much easier to use. Mind you film is easy to use if you stick to 400iso film and keep it on the auto setting... It's really up to you. You will have to pay for the advantages of digital though.
Goodluck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
To give you an idea in cost savings of just taking pictures:

avg film cost for 27 exposure 400 speed ~ $10. You have to get them developed ~ $10.

So every 27 exposures good or bad it costs you $20. Figure you'll take 1000 pics the first year.

1000 pics /27 picsperroll =~37 rolls of film. Thats $370 in developing costs $370 in film purchasing costs.
Solution: Spend $370 and buy the equiptment to develop is yourself. Learn a lot and use the old school "photoshop" :)
 

·
Administrator ...De Rerum Natura
Joined
·
20,139 Posts
Keep a notebook and write down each exposure. Note the aperature and shutter speed, light conditions, ISO of film, flash or not etc. Trial and error. I took photo classes in highschool and learned TONS! I took my photo 12 class 3 times...
This is fine... when you are in high school and have all the time in the world. Try this when you are an adult that works 50-70 hours a week and you want to capture the birth of your child or when at some family event/holiday/birthday when you have multiple/several kids running around that all want to touch your camera equipment and your wife is going on about this or that, etc., etc...


Solution: Spend $370 and buy the equiptment to develop is yourself. Learn a lot and use the old school "photoshop" :)
That's certainly a good option for someone with a serious passion (and the time and space for equipment...) to learn in-depth photography skills. However, not really a good option for somebody that just wants to take a bunch of nice pictures of their kids. Most people with kids do not have the motivation to invest the time needed for all that (unless they are a serious photography enthusiast, etc.). Additionally, this guy is already sweating a few hundred dollars in camera price, I doubt he would be up for the whole "home development" gig.

+1 for the Nikon D40

I have a Nikon D70 and have been very happy with it.
 

·
Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Admin
Joined
·
48,699 Posts
This is fine... when you are in high school and have all the time in the world. Try this when you are an adult that works 50-70 hours a week and you want to capture the birth of your child or when at some family event/holiday/birthday when you have multiple/several kids running around that all want to touch your camera equipment and your wife is going on about this or that, etc., etc...
+9000

I vaguely remember having all that time to just pursue hobbies endlessly...it's beginning to fade. :rotfl:

I was a holdout; I used to have my own darkroom setup, and took great joy in staying up nights optimizing my prints. Once I finally moved to digital, there was no going back.

I'm usually the guy who advocates PC's, but if the OP is not good with computers, and wants to engage in the digicam hobby, a Mac is a great option. Even my wife can manage it, print, make adjustments, etc, in iPhoto, and she's tech-useless.

And I'll also cast my vote for the D-series of Nikons, though the Rebels are also very nice. Seems like anyone can get great prints out of a Rebel.
 

·
SuperNova
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
Solution: Spend $370 and buy the equiptment to develop is yourself. Learn a lot and use the old school "photoshop" :)
OK but you still gotta buy the film. $370 a year to buy film blows. Unless you know of a method to make your own out of toilet paper and table varnish....:rotfl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,751 Posts
This is fine... when you are in high school and have all the time in the world. Try this when you are an adult that works 50-70 hours a week and you want to capture the birth of your child or when at some family event/holiday/birthday when you have multiple/several kids running around that all want to touch your camera equipment and your wife is going on about this or that, etc., etc...
+858,578,234,243,875
 

·
Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Admin
Joined
·
48,699 Posts
OK but you still gotta buy the film. $370 a year to buy film blows. Unless you know of a method to make your own out of toilet paper and table varnish....:rotfl:
Yep, and you've spent nothing 'til you decide to print something. I wasted uncountable rolls of film looking for that "perfect shot". Plus the digicam spoils you by letting you take a look at the picture instantly, even if it is on a small screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Is there a 35mm that has a screen in the back? I thought some of the 35mm SLR's let you choose which picture to keep? I am probably wrong.


If i were to get a digital, what printer would you guys suggest? I will probably get my brothers Ibook or some mac laptop from 3 years ago but I need a printer if I get a digital. I have an old printer that will not be good with printing pictures.

Thank you again for your opinions, it is definately helping me. So a nikon or Rebel would be good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
This is fine... when you are in high school and have all the time in the world. Try this when you are an adult that works 50-70 hours a week and you want to capture the birth of your child or when at some family event/holiday/birthday when you have multiple/several kids running around that all want to touch your camera equipment and your wife is going on about this or that, etc., etc...

This has me thinking digital. Especially about the wife talking too much:rotfl: "Put the camera down and help me with the cake"
 

·
SuperNova
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
Is there a 35mm that has a screen in the back? I thought some of the 35mm SLR's let you choose which picture to keep? I am probably wrong.


If i were to get a digital, what printer would you guys suggest? I will probably get my brothers Ibook or some mac laptop from 3 years ago but I need a printer if I get a digital. I have an old printer that will not be good with printing pictures.

Thank you again for your opinions, it is definately helping me. So a nikon or Rebel would be good?
Its not even worth buying a printer. With snapfish, photobucket, imagestation, flickr, slide, SAMs Club etc, you just upload your photos to them and order the ones you want in the sizes you want, and either have them shipped or pick them up in an hour at their local vendor.

FYI I know Yahoo photos used Target, Sams Club uses themselves, one of them uses Walgreens, etc.

Buying the photo printer and then buying the paper and keeping it restocked isn't cost effective. A 4x6 cost like $.17. Heck my 20x30 hanging behind me right now was only $19, and you can't print that on a consumer printer.

Worth noting, out of 8000 pics with my DSLR and 10,000 on my FZ5, I have ordered >300 in hard copy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Its not even worth buying a printer. With snapfish, photobucket, imagestation, flickr, slide, SAMs Club etc, you just upload your photos to them and order the ones you want in the sizes you want, and either have them shipped or pick them up in an hour at their local vendor.

FYI I know Yahoo photos used Target, Sams Club uses themselves, one of them uses Walgreens, etc.

Buying the photo printer and then buying the paper and keeping it restocked isn't cost effective. A 4x6 cost like $.17. Heck my 20x30 hanging behind me right now was only $19, and you can't print that on a consumer printer.

Worth noting, out of 8000 pics with my DSLR and 10,000 on my FZ5, I have ordered >300 in hard copy.


Nice. I never knew about ordering your photos online. Very nice.

I will have to convince my significant other that it is a smart purchase. :rolleyes:

I have been convinced, Digital is better and will save money in the long run.

Maybe a Body only for now. Is there a difference between the Rebel or the Nikon D40?

I heard that there are lens that are cheaper because they are only for Digital SLR cameras. Again, just heard and I have no clue.
 

·
SuperNova
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
Nice. I never knew about ordering your photos online. Very nice.

I will have to convince my significant other that it is a smart purchase. :rolleyes:

I have been convinced, Digital is better and will save money in the long run.

Maybe a Body only for now. Is there a difference between the Rebel or the Nikon D40?

I heard that there are lens that are cheaper because they are only for Digital SLR cameras. Again, just heard and I have no clue.
If you have any old 35mm SLR lenses, or anyone in your family does, often they can be used on a DSLR. Many use this as their criteria for selecting a camera body. I didn't have any existing lenses so I researched and opted for the Sonly Alpha A100. But I had plans for more than "hobby" use. The Nikon D40 or the D40x are good "Hobby Cameras". As are the Canon Rebel XT and XTi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
If you have any old 35mm SLR lenses, or anyone in your family does, often they can be used on a DSLR. Many use this as their criteria for selecting a camera body. I didn't have any existing lenses so I researched and opted for the Sonly Alpha A100. But I had plans for more than "hobby" use. The Nikon D40 or the D40x are good "Hobby Cameras". As are the Canon Rebel XT and XTi.


Thank you. I am glad that you understand my Noobness and Hobby usage of the camera:rotfl: I will probably end up going with the Rebel XT Body and get the lenses later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Just posting up quickly, as I need to get ready to go pick up my new car soon. :D

I got a Nikon D40 a few months ago and its a great camera.
My sister got the Canon Rebel XTi (or some such..) for Christmas.

These are probably the most popular of the "entry level" DSLRs.

The Nikon can be had for around 500, is 6.1 megapixels and will take pictures about as good as you need.
The Canon my sister chose was the slightly upmarket version with 10 megapixels- found a deal for about 700. (There is also a 6 megapixel version, as well as Nikon having the D40x with 10 megapixels.)

Picture quality between the two is pretty much indistinguishable.
Both are great cameras.
The Nikons are slightly cheaper because they are a bit pickier on lenses:
the autofocus stuff requires using special lenses with the focus motor built into them.
The Canons have the motor in the camera body, as with a traditional 35mm camera.
Understandably, autofocus lenses for the Nikon are slightly more expensive.

For me, not an issue as I have no lenses at all, and a friend highly recommended the Nikon to me.

Oddly enough, depending on what your real needs ARE, you may not really want an SLR:
I did some testing for an article and compared the the D40 to a Canon Powershot 450, and using full auto settings for both, the Powershot image was pretty much just as good.

To get a DSLR, these are pretty much the cameras to choose from, and the money to spend:
Nikon D40
Canon Rebel (6mp version)
Around $500 USD

Nikon D40x
Canon Rebel (10mp ver)
$700 to $1200 USD

Unless you really are into photography, or have lots of money to spend, the cheaper versions of both are plenty good enough for any use I can think of, except maybe printing 4'x6' posters. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top