semi or pro DSLR?

Rose · Dec 14, 2005

Hi there, i am new here so i am not sure whether this has been discussed here, but i was wondering if anyone out there could fill me in on the difference between a Semi-Professional and a Professional Digital SLR camera! I am just looking at buying one and am not sure whether spending the extra money on a professional is going to pay off. Many people say that they wish they had bought a Professional to start with, but if one isnt going to use the functions i dont see the point.

So what are the differences ?

I am studying photography, cant really specify the area of photography that i do, i am trying to be an 'all-arounder'!

Thank U

..sorry to come on here and burst all these questions but you all seem like a helpful bunch...:thumbup:

DocFrankenstein · Dec 14, 2005

Pro bodies have more functions, better build, better AF, more FPS... etc etc

But if you don't know what you're shooting, and what functions you're going to use, then we're sure won't be able to decide for you.

You can learn with just about anything and you get what you pay for in terms of performance.

Rose · Dec 14, 2005

whats is FPS?

Yes you are right, most people i have spoken to have confirmed that very thing! however is it naive to assume that the pro cameras might one day (soon hopefully in the next 2 years) come down price-wise to where the semi-pro camera lie, say the Canon 350D @800 EURO ?....

im guessing that youre :lmao:

Rob · Dec 14, 2005

Frames per Second - the rate at which the camera can take pictures.

Mack · Dec 14, 2005

I'd say get a DSLR D50, im completey new to all this DSLR stuff, and the D50 is amazing, whack it on Autofocus and you take any shot and its perfect!

Rob · Dec 14, 2005

As a photography student, I am sure that you will need only a basic SLR with fully manual control functions. If you are getting a DSLR then the 350D or D50 would be more than capable of doing the job.

The only advantage to getting a true pro camera from your persective is for the superior build quality. As a student on a budget, I do not think this is sufficient justification for paying an extra 0 on the price.

Rob

hobbes28 · Dec 14, 2005

Rob said:
As a photography student, I am sure that you will need only a basic SLR with fully manual control functions. If you are getting a DSLR then the 350D or D50 would be more than capable of doing the job.

The only advantage to getting a true pro camera from your persective is for the superior build quality. As a student on a budget, I do not think this is sufficient justification for paying an extra 0 on the price.

Rob

Ditto. Very well put Rob.

Rose · Dec 14, 2005

yes thats true thank you for clarifying that its basically 'only' the build of the camera- and if i was going to go into sports id probably need the extra FPS, but as im not sure its most likely not going to pay off-!

just been checking out the Nikon D50, finding its a bit more expensive then the 350 D Canon, and the reviews are not as positive - i think canon have really become the leaders in the package of 'low price + compact DSLR', they more quickly seem to reduce their prices, making it affordable for the masses- however i always thought nikon were better quality- wise ?!

or is it not possible to put it this plainly?:thumbdown: :thumbup:

photoboy15 · Dec 14, 2005

Which ever brand you go with (canon) I would rather have better lenses (canon) with a slightly less of camera body. OK all kidding aside, Nikon canon and some others all make good cameras but you will notice more quality with better lenses. Some of that changes in the digital world when you compare a 16mp to 6mp and the resolution.

Mack · Dec 14, 2005

Rose said:
yes thats true thank you for clarifying that its basically 'only' the build of the camera- and if i was going to go into sports id probably need the extra FPS, but as im not sure its most likely not going to pay off-!

just been checking out the Nikon D50, finding its a bit more expensive then the 350 D Canon, and the reviews are not as positive - i think canon have really become the leaders in the package of 'low price + compact DSLR', they more quickly seem to reduce their prices, making it affordable for the masses- however i always thought nikon were better quality- wise ?!

or is it not possible to put it this plainly?:thumbdown: :thumbup:

D50 more than 350D noway! 350d with lens is 1500 AUD and D50 with lens is 1200 :drool:

Rose · Dec 14, 2005

photoboy15 said:
Which ever brand you go with (canon) I would rather have better lenses (canon) with a slightly less of camera body. OK all kidding aside, Nikon canon and some others all make good cameras but you will notice more quality with better lenses. Some of that changes in the digital world when you compare a 16mp to 6mp and the resolution.

so youre saying canon have better lenses? or are you saying that none are good...:meh: ??

is it true that the 350 D used to come with a carl zeiss lens, a friend of mine told and i cant quite believe it!

danalec99 · Dec 14, 2005

350D or the D50? That is similar to a Pepsi or Coke debate

.
Both are good cameras. Go to your nearest camera store. Hold both the models in your hands and pick whichever you like.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 14, 2005

Rose said:
is it true that the 350 D used to come with a carl zeiss lens, a friend of mine told and i cant quite believe it!

Not true...

WTH would that be? 350D + a sonnar kit? :lmao:

There's more to it than build. But both D50 and 350D are fully capable.

photoboy15 · Dec 14, 2005

Canon and Nikon have very good lenses. Canon auto focusing systems are a little faster, but both of are very good quality. Canon and Nikon come with their own lenses in their kits. I've never heard of Zeiss's coming with either camera.

Rob · Dec 14, 2005

DocFrankenstein said:
Not true...

WTH would that be? 350D + a sonnar kit? :lmao:

There's more to it than build. But both D50 and 350D are fully capable.

Whoever said it was probably thinking of that new Sony big boy... that's got a Zeiss lens, but it's a ZLR / Semi DSLR or whatever we're calling them.

Rob