You only need the high MP that some cameras offer
if you want to make posters from any of your shots
My sons is 12 MP I think,
Printable View
You only need the high MP that some cameras offer
if you want to make posters from any of your shots
My sons is 12 MP I think,
Winnie, my 2 cents - don't go getting a good DSLR if you never intend to use its features and just leave it on Auto mode all the time. A quality point and shoot is cheaper and will do just as well.
And whilst I don't disagree with the choice of a Nikon or Canon, as they are most common, lens quality is probably more important. Olympus, Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic and Sony all do great cameras and have excellent lenses when compared to the 'kit lens' that comes with most entry level DSLR packs. Some also do fantastic video, which might be something you also want.
If you want simple and very portable then grab a good point and shoot with a good optical zoom. If you want better lenses and more features, then a DSLR with interchangeable lenses is the way to go. Personally now, I would pay extra for a better lens, than get a body with all the features under the sun and a huge number of pixels.
Budget determines everything as usual.
Thanks mate, to be honest this will probably be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by FNQGU
I am looking at the Nikon P610 which is what we were using on the weekend. I will wait and grab the pics from it and see how they turned out.
I have an olympic point and push in the patrol
but never use it as my Phone takes great pics.
But really must start taking more pics
Pics r awesome from the weekend and Chris should be a photographer
i'm still using my nikon D40 it's about 8-9 years old and still like brand new. only got 6 megapixals but its still good enough for me
I'm using a Panasonic 24-600mm zoom with f2.8 all the way through the zoom range so it lets heaps of light through for fantastic pics.
We have few Canon and Nikon SLRs and most of the traveling shots are with the Pano for ease of use and zoom characteristics.
Edit- this is the model http://m.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you haven’t already checked out mirrorless cameras as an alternative to DSLR’s I reckon they are worth a look. Interchangeable lenses, equal image quality to DSLR’s, great in low light but the real advantage is lower weight & bulk if wanting to carry them on bush walks etc.
I’ve only played with one, the now discontinued Sony NEX 7 (which was around $1500 just for the body at the time) & would have to say it was without a doubt the best camera I’ve ever used. They can be picked up second hand in your price range with lenses today. http://www.sony.com.au/product/nex-7
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/dslr-vs-...ews-17736.html
My experience owning a Sony high end compact camera (T1) was that it was a brilliant & dependable bit of gear. Very high quality results from a ‘point & shoot’ smaller than a pack of smokes, mainly a result of the high quality Carl Zeiss lense. It cost around $1000 at a time when you could buy a low end point & shoot from any of the manufacturers, including Sony, for $200 or less. Of course it was relatively limited compared to the professional mirrorless & DSLR cameras, but owning it gave me a great confidence in Sony as a camera maker. It’s portability (shirt pocket) meant that it captured many shots which would have been missed with anything more bulky. Unfortunately my T1 failed to survive being dropped down a Karijini cliff. I would have no concern about buying a used Sony professional camera based upon my previous ownership.
It will be hard to decide what to get when I upgrade my now 6 year old Canon ‘superzoom’ (SX10is) - Mirrorless or DSLR, but knowing that a camera which gets left behind at camp when going bushwalking isn’t going to capture any great shots will have me seriously looking at the mirrorless offerings.
If anyone here has had experience with both (my only SLR experience was with a pre-digital Olympus OM1) I would be interested in your thoughts.
Just remember when you do make a decision about the camera, it's not the megapixels number that counts, it's the quality of the image processor (the bit that actually "takes" the photo, or where the film would go in old school cameras.)
A camera with 10mp and a good processor will take a better photo then one with 20 mega pixels and a cheap processor.
For the record, we have a canon 70d and it's great. Takes amazing photos and is fairly simple to use. I also know a few people with them as well.
Yes I have a 10 yr old Sony dslr that takes awesome pics when I remember to use it instead of the phone 😜