Deciding on a new camera help?

[Mr.Jones]

Hello,

I am in the market for a new camera. I've browsed many websites reading about them, I am just still unsure of which is best for myself and my uses.

I am looking at a Canon SX30 or a Nikon D3000. Obviously the Canon is a "Point-and-Shoot" and the Nikon is a DSLR. I am still very much an amateur photographer. I have no idea what shutter speed and aperture all mean or even ISO. My best camera at the moment is a Fujifilm Finepix S1000fd. I really like it, aside from the fact that it is terrible in low-light conditions, doesn't have the greatest zoom capabilities, and lacks image stabilization (I have very shaky hands). I really enjoy it. The Canon SX30 seems almost perfect to me.

The Nikon, being a DSLR, is supposed to take superior photos with additional lenses. I'm just concerned that I am biting off more than I can chew if I buy the Nikon or any DSLR and an armada of lenses. Before today, I didn't even know what a DSLR was. Not to mention that I may not be able to afford said lenses.

My uses: I take photos almost strictly of invertebrates (spiders, insects, etc.) and not much else. The darkest times I take photos is when I am in the shade, it's a cloudy day, or I am in a museum, which are typically low light. I got into photography because I raise tarantulas, true spiders, centipedes, and scorpions in captivity and I wanted to take good photos of them to document my collection. I then started photographing wild invertebrates. I'm not interested in blurring anything, altering colours, or any such activities. As long as the photos are clear, have good colour, and I can take photos of things that are small, I think I'll be satisfied.

Based on what I have said, which camera would likely be best for me?

Thanks,

 

[DiskoJoe]

sounds like you want easy. which camera would be easier to use?

 

[jaomul]

^^. If you get DSLR you need a macro, as you already know. Very few macro lenses have image stabilisation. Some DSLR bodies do but not Nikon. Your interests suggest a point and shoot with macro ability and IS

 

[powasky]

^^. If you get DSLR you need a macro, as you already know. Very few macro lenses have image stabilisation. Some DSLR bodies do but not Nikon. Your interests suggest a point and shoot with macro ability and IS

If I were you I'd get a cheapish tripod, a used body from KEH, and a used macro lens. I think you'd be more satisfied with the IQ of a DSLR on a tripod as opposed to a P&S handheld, even with IS.

 

[Mr.Jones]

^^. If you get DSLR you need a macro, as you already know. Very few macro lenses have image stabilisation. Some DSLR bodies do but not Nikon. Your interests suggest a point and shoot with macro ability and IS

If I were you I'd get a cheapish tripod, a used body from KEH, and a used macro lens. I think you'd be more satisfied with the IQ of a DSLR on a tripod as opposed to a P&S handheld, even with IS.

I have a tripod already. The problem I feel with it is that it is very impractical when it comes to photographing insects. Considering the insect could fly or run away at any given moment, I have a very brief window of opportunity to take a photo. Neither are tripods as flexible as my arms are when encountering natural and man-made obstacles, a frequent occurence. If I get a DSLR, I'll still be doing it handheld majority of the time I think.

 

[chaosrealm93]

i would go with the DSLR, better image quality and more room to expand in the future

 

[rpm]

well i think for the most part ideally you'd have a macro lens with a good amount of working room if you're dealing wit insects. if so, a tripod will only help to improve your IQ and in some respects your technique as well, hand held is fine too but it may become limiting if you ever start shooting at slower speeds (which will be relative to the focal length of your lens). i could be wrong here...but that is what i recall from my reading...

 

[Mr.Jones]

well i think for the most part ideally you'd have a macro lens with a good amount of working room if you're dealing wit insects. if so, a tripod will only help to improve your IQ and in some respects your technique as well, hand held is fine too but it may become limiting if you ever start shooting at slower speeds (which will be relative to the focal length of your lens). i could be wrong here...but that is what i recall from my reading...

I don't know what slower speeds means? I've only ever used the auto mode.

How about a Nikon D3100?

But, in all honesty, I've only ever pointed and clicked. I have no idea what ISO, aperture, slower speeds, lenses, any of that is.

 

[rpm]

the real qn is how serious are you about exploring this?

investing into a dslr is an investment into a system and honestly not worth it if all you do will be pointing and shooting (imo). will you take the time to learn what aperture, shutter and iso do? will you bother to understand the exposure triangle and attempt use it to your desired effect?

i personally wouldnt recommend a DSLR if you'll be only shooting it in auto especially since macro glass doesn't come cheap and it will end up being a wasted expense (imo). im sure you'll be better off with an advanced P&S with macro abilities...