Help to choose my camera please

[Samanax]

so what should be better?

The Sony DSC-H50

The Sony DSRL-a300 with 18-70mm Lens Kit

Whit the lens it comes do you think i can get better photos than with the h50?

Not sure what you mean by "better"...better image quality? A DSLR will almost always have better image quality than a P&S because it has a bigger image sensor. In this case, bigger is better.

But will it take better photographs? I'd have to say no. Both cameras take pictures...it's the person behind the camera that makes the photograph.

 

[jubbin2001]

Just my 2 cents, as I was once in your situation...trying to figure out if I wanted a point and shoot camera or the SLR.

I tried to capture some of the points you made in your post.

I am finding out myself just how incredibly difficult just my crappy macro work can be. With out a good lens you will be VERY disappointed with the results. I have 3 lenses for my Nikon D80: Nikon 18-55mm that came with the camera, a Tamron 28-300mm zoom, and I (my wife actually ordered it for me) just got a Vivitar 100mm macro lens (used off ebay). I can tell you the difference between the Vivitar lens, the Nikon, and Tamron lenses are quite evident, (for 1 the 100mm is made for macro, so I can bring in subjects really close, and in better detail) but then again the lenses were designed for different applications. But on the flip side, if I were to slap a Nikon 60mm macro lens (which was suggested to me, though there is no way I can afford it right now) on the camera, it would blow the Vivitar out of the water....but that's the difference between a $150 lens off ebay, and a $500 macro lens. Am I happy I got it, YES ofcourse! It has opened up a new area for me to experiment in, and see if spending the additional money on the other lens is something I can justify.

Can you still do some macro work with the lens you get with the SLR? Probably, if you are talking flowers and stuff like that. But if you are looking at true macro (1:1 production) like you see with bugs that are really up close, then no it won't do that. As Overread was mentioning before, there are other lenses designed for that type of work, and those come at an added cost.

Point and shoots are really nice for the average everyday user capturing family photos, vacations, and that stuff. They are easier to carry around, and can take some great pictures. The drawback is you really loose more "specialized" type shooting situations where if you had an SLR you could just swap accessories.

Think of SLR's as more of a professional camera. You have tons of control at your finger tips, which can be even more frustrating when things don't turn out the way you want them to. There is a bit of a steeper learning curve with an SLR as well, working with my camera, I am still learning something new everyday. It can be quite a long process. The trade off though for having all that control, is more expensive accessories, steeper learning curve, and more frustration :mrgreen:.

As you already mentioned, lenses can be spendy. Specialized ones can be even worse. There are companies out there (Sigma and Tamron) that Overread mentioned, who offer pretty good lenses at less than a premium price. Probably every experienced person here will probably tell you, you will get what you pay for. Don't expect your $400 28-300mm zoom lens on macro mode to perform as well as a $850 105mm macro lens, because it just won't.

Personally if it were me, I would go with an SLR just because of the versatility you get with it. You're not limited to a fixed lens that comes with the camera. Down the road you will find something cool you want to do, and find out your point and shoot will require a teleconverter or some funky attachment that srews into your lens to make it work, or you just won't be able to do it at all. Not saying that you won't find the same thing with the SLR, (or that there won't be a time when you want some crazy $5000 lens ) but, I still think the versitility, control, and accessories of an SLR camera far outweigh the higher price tag, especially now when you can get a pretty respectable SLR with a lens for less than $500.

Just thought I would throw that in there....sorry for the long read
Hope you reach the decision that isn't right now...but right for you.

 

[nicholasw]

My friend recently bought a Nikon P80, he has taken some very solid shots with it, I'm not sure how it performs on the macro end but it is a great solid little camera. I'm sure there are plenty of online reviews for it as well.

 

[avilamillar]

Just my 2 cents, as I was once in your situation...trying to figure out if I wanted a point and shoot camera or the SLR.

I tried to capture some of the points you made in your post.

I am finding out myself just how incredibly difficult just my crappy macro work can be. With out a good lens you will be VERY disappointed with the results. I have 3 lenses for my Nikon D80: Nikon 18-55mm that came with the camera, a Tamron 28-300mm zoom, and I (my wife actually ordered it for me) just got a Vivitar 100mm macro lens (used off ebay). I can tell you the difference between the Vivitar lens, the Nikon, and Tamron lenses are quite evident, (for 1 the 100mm is made for macro, so I can bring in subjects really close, and in better detail) but then again the lenses were designed for different applications. But on the flip side, if I were to slap a Nikon 60mm macro lens (which was suggested to me, though there is no way I can afford it right now) on the camera, it would blow the Vivitar out of the water....but that's the difference between a $150 lens off ebay, and a $500 macro lens. Am I happy I got it, YES ofcourse! It has opened up a new area for me to experiment in, and see if spending the additional money on the other lens is something I can justify.

Can you still do some macro work with the lens you get with the SLR? Probably, if you are talking flowers and stuff like that. But if you are looking at true macro (1:1 production) like you see with bugs that are really up close, then no it won't do that. As Overread was mentioning before, there are other lenses designed for that type of work, and those come at an added cost.

Point and shoots are really nice for the average everyday user capturing family photos, vacations, and that stuff. They are easier to carry around, and can take some great pictures. The drawback is you really loose more "specialized" type shooting situations where if you had an SLR you could just swap accessories.

Think of SLR's as more of a professional camera. You have tons of control at your finger tips, which can be even more frustrating when things don't turn out the way you want them to. There is a bit of a steeper learning curve with an SLR as well, working with my camera, I am still learning something new everyday. It can be quite a long process. The trade off though for having all that control, is more expensive accessories, steeper learning curve, and more frustration .

As you already mentioned, lenses can be spendy. Specialized ones can be even worse. There are companies out there (Sigma and Tamron) that Overread mentioned, who offer pretty good lenses at less than a premium price. Probably every experienced person here will probably tell you, you will get what you pay for. Don't expect your $400 28-300mm zoom lens on macro mode to perform as well as a $850 105mm macro lens, because it just won't.

Personally if it were me, I would go with an SLR just because of the versatility you get with it. You're not limited to a fixed lens that comes with the camera. Down the road you will find something cool you want to do, and find out your point and shoot will require a teleconverter or some funky attachment that srews into your lens to make it work, or you just won't be able to do it at all. Not saying that you won't find the same thing with the SLR, (or that there won't be a time when you want some crazy $5000 lens ) but, I still think the versitility, control, and accessories of an SLR camera far outweigh the higher price tag, especially now when you can get a pretty respectable SLR with a lens for less than $500.

Just thought I would throw that in there....sorry for the long read
Hope you reach the decision that isn't right now...but right for you.

Thanks for all the help, today ill go to best buy, there they have both cameras, im going to test it and see what i like more. but your post inspired me again for the DSLR hehe

thanks again

 

[avilamillar]

Hi, i liked the Sony alpha300 and i saw it in US1PHOTO.COM (do you think they are good sellers?)

there are 3 options:

Camera with 18-70mm & 55-200mm Lens Kit ($595)
Camera with 18-70mm Lens Kit ($459)

What are the diferences on 18-70mm & 55-200mm Lens Kit??

Thanks!

 

[Samanax]

Hi, i liked the Sony alpha300 and i saw it in US1PHOTO.COM (do you think they are good sellers?)

You can always check to see if a retailer is good or not with Reseller Ratings. Here is the rating and comments for US1PHOTO.COM. I'd avoid them.

there are 3 options:

Camera with 18-70mm & 55-200mm Lens Kit ($595)
Camera with 18-70mm Lens Kit ($459)

What are the diferences on 18-70mm & 55-200mm Lens Kit??

Not quite sure I understand what you're asking.

 

[lschaaf]

The Nikon d40 kit isn't too bad to start, you can find it for $450 at Ritz Camera, no tax or shipping right now with the standard kit lens. The nice thing about a dslr is you can add to it instead of constantly starting from scratch (plus the better quality photos, better control of depth of field, etc...)

I have a Panasonic FZ28 Super Zoom that I think is real nice for Macro. I've had things touching the lens and they still were sharp (I think min focusing is 1 cm). I got mine on Amazon for around $300. I also got (on Amazon) a Rayonex 150 Close up lens and an adapter ring for more macro shots, they are nice because it really gives a nice shallow depth of field, which is normally hard to achieve with a p&s. The lens was around $50 and the adapter ring around $20 (from another site, but its a start for price comparisons). I bought everything in the last 3 months, so the prices should be somewhat current! The camera also takes excellent HD video, I really love it and it's still small enough to toss in my large purse. It also shoots RAW, has complete manual controls, including focus, if you ever go that route. The inability to control the depth of field unless completely zoomed in or out is what frustrates me (a p&s issue, not camera specific)

I did just buy a dslr for that reason and all the reasons people prefer dslrs (my husband: "didn't you just buy a camera 2 months ago?") With kids and carrying a lot of junk around, I like having both, a p&s and dslr!

Lisa

 

[avilamillar]

hi, i decided to buy the H50 and read and learn more about the DSLR cameras so later i could buy one of those... thanks for all! in 2 days i should have the camera and ill put some photos here.

thanks!

 

[avilamillar]

I have just bought my new camera, and it is the DSC-H50. But it came with this thing:

is it only the adapter for the lenses? or it has other function??

im looking for some macro lenses for this camera, and i have found this:

10x Close-Up Macro Lens Kit for Sony DSC H9 H7 H50 - eBay (item 360121319138 end time Jan-10-09 15:45:40 PST)

Do you think it ll work?

 

[Samanax]

The thing on the front of the lens is the lens hood. It helps prevent stray light from entering the lens that can cause lens flare. Also helps protect the front element of the lens.

Not sure about the macro lens kit. Opteka has been around for awhile with alternative accessories that are cheaper than the camera company original parts.

 

[avilamillar]

Ok, the think is that the sony doesnt has macro lenses, that why i want the opteka. i also found some telephoto and wide angle lenses in ebay that arent sony. do you think they are good guality??

thanks