Photography newbee

madhan_2005 · Nov 17, 2011

HEllo guys, great to see you all here. my name is madhan and i am relatively new to photography. Just starting into it. I am planning to buy my first camera. But I have a little confusion. I amthinking of buying a sony dsc 100v which is a super zoom camera 16.2MP but its sensor size is smaller than rebel t2i that has a larger sensor so it can capture more details. but the hx 100v comes with 27 -810mm lens in it. and rebel t2i has only 70 - 300mm for telephoto. I mostly intend to use the camera for general point and shoot and som good bunch of macro's. shall i go with dsc hx 100v with raynox 250 or rebel t2i(with 18-55mm and 70 - 300mm) with raynox. i want to be able to get great macro shots and great quality in general photos. will DSC 100v's 810 mm with raynox give better magnified macros than t2i's 300mm with raynox

please help me...

beds · Nov 17, 2011

the sony is a bridge camera with a fixed lens, the canon is a dslr and you can purchase different lens for different scenarios, i would take the canon every time

Futurelight · Nov 17, 2011

Canon! Basically, sony have their fingers dipped in WAY too many pies and I find that their colours are flat and lifeless, their sounds are way too bass heavy to compensate for the lack of quality and their tv's have so much grey wash. Go for the Dslr (either canon or Nikon [even though until recently sony made the nikon sensors]). It is WAy better to have a camera you can upgrade the lenses on than a standard point and shoot. It will open up so many options for you as you progress.

madhan_2005 · Nov 17, 2011

but the canon does not have panoromas, 3d photos, in camera HDR. for pros these do not seem to matter but for a newbee like me these definitely are more useful and worth to have in a camera. Can you suggest any other good camera within 500-600USD that can be a best buy for me. please advice me of a good camera...

TCD photography · Nov 17, 2011

One of the differences between a point and shoot and a DSLR is that a P&S does a lot more in camera editing, while the majority of DSLR users do their editing once the photo has been uploaded to the computer. All cameras can make panoramas, you just need to know how to use it. An understanding of exposure and a decent photo editing software is all you need - personally I was disappointed with both of my cameras' "panorama" feature. As for HDR, take advantage of the camera's exposure bracketing and learn how to make good HDR photos instead of letting your camera decide what looks best. 3d photos - again, there is editing software and techniques for that.

I would recommend the Canon PowerShot SX20, or Nikon's equivalent.
Amazon.com: Canon PowerShot SX20IS 12.1MP Digital Camera with 20x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.5-Inch Articulating LCD: Camera & Photo

thereyougo! · Nov 17, 2011

madhan_2005 said:
but the canon does not have panoromas, 3d photos, in camera HDR. for pros these do not seem to matter but for a newbee like me these definitely are more useful and worth to have in a camera. Can you suggest any other good camera within 500-600USD that can be a best buy for me. please advice me of a good camera...

In built pano's HDR, 3d? Do you want to use gimmicks or do you actually want to learn photography? Not attacking you, different horses for different courses, but I get no sense of achievement by picking up my Sony compact putting it on sweep panorama mode. That's not photography as I'm not taking the photograph, the camera is, I'm just a machine operator in this instance. It all depends what you want from it, if you just want snapshots, then go ahead and buy the superzoom bridge camera with it's tiny sensor if that's what floats your boat. If you actually want to learn to take photographs rather than snapshots and want to take pride in your achievements then a DSLR (canon or an other) is the way to go. All depends what you want from it. No contest for me, the DSLR would win every time - I have a Nikon superzoom and in good light it's fine. Anything less than perfect and it struggles. I hardly use it.

ETA: If you want to take quality macros ie 1:1 ratio, it will need to be DSLR.

KmH · Nov 17, 2011

madhan_2005 said:
but the hx 100v comes with 27 -810mm lens in it.

Sorry, but because of image sensor size the Sony lens is only equivelent to a 27-810 mm lens (look closely at the specifications for equiv.). They do that to impress people with big numbers. It's called marketing.

By the same token the Canon 70-300mm on a T2i would be equivelent to a 112-480 mm, also because of the T2i's image sensor size, but Canon doesn't hype the numbers for marketing purposes.

xnoirox · Nov 17, 2011

I'd get the rebel, that way you can get multiple lenses to do the things you want.
Would it be better to get camera featuring a fixed lens that does some things you want?
Or purchasing a camera that can interchange between lenses? That way you can exercise shooting with varying lenses.

KreGg · Nov 17, 2011

I was that close to purchasing a bridge Nikon P500 camera. I was amazed by the 35x zoom or something like that and other big numbers there.
But (thankfully!) i got my facts straight just before I finalized the deal and in the end after lots of thinking I purchased a Nikon D3100, an entry level DSLR, that you can get for around 550 dollars.

The fact that I wouldnt have a big zoom and had to change lenses "all the time" was a negative side of DSLRs for me atthe beginning, but now I see why it is how it is.

Anyway, I couldn't be any more happy about my choice.
What I am saying is, get an entry level DSLR like Nikon D3100. Yes you won't have that super zoom but the quality in your pictures won't even be close.
And with a DSLR you will learn and grow and then decide if you should continue on expending ur arsenal or what.

A friend of mine has a superzoom bridge camera. Trust me, he almost never uses that superzoom. But yeah, each one is different.

thereyougo! · Nov 17, 2011

KreGg said:
I was that close to purchasing a bridge Nikon P500 camera. I was amazed by the 35x zoom or something like that and other big numbers there.
But (thankfully!) i got my facts straight just before I finalized the deal and in the end after lots of thinking I purchased a Nikon D3100, an entry level DSLR, that you can get for around 550 dollars.

The fact that I wouldnt have a big zoom and had to change lenses "all the time" was a negative side of DSLRs for me atthe beginning, but now I see why it is how it is.

Anyway, I couldn't be any more happy about my choice.
What I am saying is, get an entry level DSLR like Nikon D3100. Yes you won't have that super zoom but the quality in your pictures won't even be close.
And with a DSLR you will learn and grow and then decide if you should continue on expending ur arsenal or what.

A friend of mine has a superzoom bridge camera. Trust me, he almost never uses that superzoom. But yeah, each one is different.

It's the P500 I have at home, and it's a good point and shoot, but it hardly gets any use at all now.
The problem with the ultra zooms also is that a lot of people don't use tripods with them and if you are shooting at the equivalent of 800mm you're either going to get a shot that isn't sharp thanks to motion, or one that is incredibly noisy because of high ISO and the low signal to noise ratio that you get from a point and shoot. For anything other than snap shot the extended range is of little use if it's not top notch quality

paulanton · Nov 18, 2011

I'm an old film photographer from decades ago. I kinda gave it up for awhile and just for giggles I got a little P&S. It got me hooked back into it. I didn't need a darkroom anymore. A P&S is a good place to start. but you can't really grow with it. They are handy to put in your pocket and carry around when for unexpected opportunities. However, since you already have one I would recommend stepping up to a DSLR. For several reasons. A most of the newer ones will have much of what you were righting about. But more importantly as you grow in your skills and understanding, so will your demands on your tools. A DSLR is not just a camera, it is a system, almost infinitely expandable. You can start out with a basic or mid level body with 1 lens. and down the line, another lens. and maybe another. Good, quality glass. Maybe a flash, or two. (Most of today's DSLRs have a built in flash for basic needs.). lets say in a couple years you realize you want more out of your system, great all you need is a new body, you don't have to buy all new lenses and flashes, Myself, I have 3 bodies and 8 lenses , 2 tripods and a mono-pod that doubles as a hiking staff. No I didn't buy them all at once, I started with one camera body and one versatile lens.

madhan_2005 · Nov 21, 2011

thanks guys for all your answers . I just made some decisions about my first camera. I decided that as i am not going to invest contuinously in buying new cameras( i am going to keep this first camera for an otherr 5-8 years) so I decided to increase my step from 550 to some 800 dollars( really depending on thanksgiving and Christmas to make my first purchase). So i am thinking of choosing
(nikon d 5100
canon t3i
sony a 580

each have their own merits and demerits. t3i cannot focus in movies,slower burst rate.
nikon does not have live histogram,etc)

please advice me. I think live histogram is greatly needed. and i am slightly inclined towards nikon. or can i go for sony)

Thanks

EchoingWhisper · Nov 21, 2011

Nikon D5100. Definitely, I am one D5100 user. Canon is too overpriced. Sony is not trusted yet.

madhan_2005 · Nov 21, 2011

is live histogram really important . i mean it can be used to find correct exposure values. but do any of you use it often?

KreGg · Nov 22, 2011

I thought about Nikon d5100, but in the end I decided to buy the nikon d3100, body only for 439 dollars (now its 579, same place! and i just bought it 2 weeks ago... lucky!), and spend the extra money on better lenses (nikkor 50mm 1.8 and tamron 2.8 28-75mm.
All in all I spent like 900 or so for this set.