digital SLR cameras

[Guest ozzie]

I am looking to buy a new SLR camera mainly for my up coming trip to Airventure. I have been looking at the twin lens offers, Canon/Nikon, willing to spend around a grand. Any tips and advice on what i should be looking for.

 

this will be my first SLR and would like a camera to 'grow into' and continue using when i return.

 

Cheers

 

ozzie

 

 

[RickH]

hey Ozzie I don't know a lot about camares but I have an old Fuji 5000 digital slr 12 times optical zoom and 6 megapixels. A mate of mine at the time had a you beaut cannon cost him a packet more than mine we both took a pic of a piece of fruit hanging high in the rainforest. his showed the fruit, mine showed it much more clearly, he was a bit dissapointed in his camera after that. The cannon was 10 mega pixels and 10 times optical zoom so in my opinion what you want is megapixels, opticalzoom and probably the type of lens has alot to do with choice, not necessarialy price. Others may care to comment on this I would be very interested to hear.

 

 

[Thirsty]

Cheapest on the internet I reckon - http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/ Of course warranty would be an issue but the price is right. Bought my daughter the twin lens E620 twin lens from this site - camera arrived very quickly. Can't really advise on the best camera though 'cause I have no idea about cameras - was just buying what I was told to :)

 

 

[dazza 38]

My Nikon D5000 works good i beleive.Im not that good with Cameras, I put it on auto.

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

A Nikon D3100 looks good. I have a Canon 450D and find it pretty good :)

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

Yes megapixels does certainly not mean quality! A while ago I used to use an old Kodak camera of my parents that was about 5 megapixels I believe, the quality of the images it produced were pretty much the same if not better than my $1300 DSLR camera.

 

 

[Jimmydz]

if you dont already have a iphone 4 its will worth a look at ....The camera in them is Awesome!!

 

Only 5mp but still takes some great shots, also the ease of use only one button and tap to focus what more could you want.

 

oh and its a phone too :D

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

If you are looking at a budget of $1K, then you would probably be better off with a high end Compact camera, sometimes called a "Bridge Camera" because it has almost all the features of an SLR, but without the interchangable lenses and much lower cost.

 

Having said that I use a Canon G9 (latest model is G12, although I don't think the subsequent models in the Canon Bridge Camera range are as good as the G9 {not just my opinion}.), and bought the wide angle and telephoto adapter lenses. I also have a bigger flash that will clip on to the flash shoe instead of using the built-in flash.

 

As you may have noticed, it takes rather nice photos (see the Redbubble site linked in my signature).

 

The disadvantages of the "Bridge camera" compared to an SLR are:-

 

• Smaller image capture sensor that is prone to higher noise levels. Usually only noticable under certain lighting conditions (deep shadows that you have enhanced using post processing or High ISO shots in low light conditions).
   
   
  
• Usually does not have a "Bulb" shutter setting that enables you to hold the shutter open for a long time, as when capturing the night sky with star tracks. The G9 goes to 15 seconds maximum.
   
   
  
• While the images captured with the wide angle lens adapter are excellent, the telephoto adapter results in photos that are a little bit grainy at full magnification. Back it off a little and it's fine.
   
   
  
• Even with the telephoto adapter, the zoom is not quite up to getting high flying airshow shots, though low flight shots are fine.
   
   
  
• Framing your shot through the viewfinder does not show exactly what you are taking, because it is not "through the lens", however if you use the LCD, you are seeing what the capture element sees through the lens.
   
   
  

 

 

Advantages of the Bridge Camera:-

 

• A fraction of the cost of a good SLR and lens(es). You could easily pay $1-1.5K for a good SLR Body and then that again (or more) for a good lens.
   
   
  
• Light and compact to carry around.
   
   
  
• You can frame your photo using the LCD screen. (SLR's usually use the LCD only for showing what you took, not what you are about to take.
   
   
  
• In most situations, people looking at the photos will not be able to tell the difference between a picture taken with an SLR and one taken with a Bridge Camera.
   
   
  
• A good SLR with a poor lens will not be as good as a good Bridge Camera, but will cost a lot more.
   
   
  
• Plenty of professional photographers use them as a "second camera" or when traveling where carrying the SLR and all the accoutrements is difficult.
   
   
  
• Handles a wide range of situations, from Macro through to telephoto. With an SLR you will need multiple lenses to cover the same range.
   
   
  

 

 

If you are going to buy a good SLR camera, don't skimp on the lenses. You do get what you pay for! A bit like buying "Bunnings aircraft bolts" :ah_oh:

 

Often with the SLRs, the "body and 2 lens bundles" don't represent good value in terms of the choice of lenses. While the Body may be a good one, the lenses will often be a poor choice of focal lengths and often have high values of F Stop for the wide open setting (F4). If you are looking to utilise "depth of field" in you shots to put the foreground or background into soft focus, the F4 is not good enough. F2.8 is much better but you can get lower values at much higher cost. The number of lens groups that comprise a lens and the arrangement is an important quality choice. As a crude rule of thumb, more is better. The sort of telephoto zoom lens that high end hobbyists use for sporting events and airshows is going to set you back around $2-3K. It is also going to be 40 or 50 cm in length and be much heavier than the camera Body, so you end up holding the lens, not the body.

 

If you are trying to compare focal lengths for compact camera lenses to 35mm SLR lenses, it is difficult. Sometimes the compact camera lenses will give "35mm equivalent" focal lengths, but otherwise you have to know the size of the CCD sensor and do calculations. Often a compact camera lens will have a focal length a third to a quarter of that of the 35mm lens for the same viewing angle.

 

My advice would be to think about what you want the camera to do, and then talk to some camera specialist shops about what would suit those situations. Some will be knowledgable and want to genuinely help. Alternately contact the local photography club and get some advice. In any case, look at both compact and SLR camera's before making up your mind.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i love my Canon 45D..

 

 

[Yenn]

I have used Nikon SLR cameras for over 30 years and in my opinion they are not as well built as they used to be. If I was starting from scratch I would probably go to Canon, but having Nikon lenses keeps me in their camp.

 

I find SLRs are better because they are faster and I prefer the through the lens viewfinder, but it is a lot of money to shell out for those minor preferences.

 

The use of interchangeable lenses brings up a disadvantage of digital cameras. When you take the lens off it is easy for dirt to get in onto the sensor, doesn't matter how careful you are it, will happen, and you will get blurry black spots in the picture.

 

If you are going for air to air shots, you will need to use manual focus. I have found that auto focus has trouble finding a plane in the distance and focussing on it. You can see the plane, but it hunts in and out of focus until eventually it is gone.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

When you take the lens off it is easy for dirt to get in onto the sensor, doesn't matter how careful you are it, will happen, and you will get blurry black spots in the picture.

There's more than a few people who have damaged the CCD sensor trying to clean it too.

 

If you are going for air to air shots, you will need to use manual focus. I have found that auto focus has trouble finding a plane in the distance and focussing on it. You can see the plane, but it hunts in and out of focus until eventually it is gone.

Too true. I often find that I have to angle the camera towards the ground or a different patch of ground to get it to focus. Every time it fails to focus in this way, I end up doing manual focus.

If you are pointing up in the air to catch aircraft flying overhead, you will need to do manual exposure too, as the sky background will shut down the exposure so the aircraft is only seen in silhouette.

 

Actually, almost every shot I take is manual F Stop, manual exposure and set to shoot RAW so I can post process the images. You do have to be a bit serious to go to that extent though

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Wow lots of info there to digest, going to have to really put some thought into this investment.

 

The camera i am using now is a Sony cyber-shot 7.2 mega pixel. it basically lives in my pocket. never know where a great photo opportunity will turn up. i have taken some great photos with it and have been overall really pleased with it. But when it comes to taking photos of airborne aircraft at air shows etc or needing to zoom in on a subject it can come up a bit short. So the main use will be for fast moving distance subjects. i will continue to use the little Sony for day to day use.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[turboplanner]

SLR stands for Single Lense Reflex Oz, so I don't know where these twin lenses are coming from.

 

I've got a Canon EOS 550D with 18-55mm lense as standard

 

You can then buy tele, macro, fish eye lenses for specialist work

 

Quality is good enough to see feather structures in parrots, and mechanical shots are crisp as well

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

You have to also remember that with a DSLR the body is usually good no matter which model, it's the lenses which make the difference. So you could really have the one DSLR body and just acquire different lenses as you need (or can afford) them.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i bought my 450D SLR as a twin lens kit, all the twin lens kit is, you get the SLR body, and 2 seperate lenses, one is 18-55mm and the other 55 to 200mm, and basically a SLR means when you are looking through the viewfinder, you are actually looking through the lens as the sensor will see it. when you hit the shutter button, the viewing mirror flips up and exposes the sensor. hence that distinctive sound when you take a shot.

 

also, with DSLR (digital single lens reflex) cameras, dont worry too much about megapixel count, the real image quality comes from the size of the CMOS (image) sensor. a camera phone can be 10 megapixels, but they are crammed onto a sensor the size of a pinhead, the lens has to focus all the light onto a tiny spot, whereas a Cannon 7D for example has a sensor that is almost 1 inch, well 22.4mm to be exact. so you get the same light spread over a larger area giving far more detail.

 

as said before, a twin lens kit is a good starter for SLR stuff, but the lower the Fstop value a lens can get, the better. some lenses can cost well over 10 times the cost of the camera. at least with a Canon/Nikon body, you cant go to far wrong, its the lenses that make the camera.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

SLR stands for Single Lense Reflex Oz, so I don't know where these twin lenses are coming from.I've got a Canon EOS 550D with 18-55mm lense as standard

You can then buy tele, macro, fish eye lenses for specialist work

 

Quality is good enough to see feather structures in parrots, and mechanical shots are crisp as well

Twin lens.

 

Ok i have been looking at adverts for SLR cameras that come with two lenses they call them a "twin lens deal"

 

For example Hardley Normal has on offer a Nikon D3100 DSLR twin lens kit for $1196. that includes camera, with 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses.

 

Good value for a first SLR? And would it be suitable for my needs as stated above.

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

Twin lens.Ok i have been looking at adverts for SLR cameras that come with two lenses they call them a "twin lens deal"

For example Hardley Normal has on offer a Nikon D3100 DSLR twin lens kit for $1196. that includes camera, with 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses.

 

Good value for a first SLR? And would it be suitable for my needs as stated above.

Very good value. The 18-55 mm will suit landscape shots and the 300 will provide you with a heap of zoom for photos of aircraft. My lens only goes to 250 and I find that provides plenty of zoom for me.

EDIT: Also I think that Nikon cameras generally seem to have a better picture quality if using any auto modes, which is one reason I wish I went with Nikon.

 

 

[Thirsty]

http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/nikon-d3100-twin-kit-with-nikon-18-55mm-vr-and-55-300mm-vr-lenses-digital-slr-cameras.html add on about $50 for shipping.

 

Of course the problem with buying online is warranty - ie you don't really have any unless you pay to ship the camera back to the supplier - maybe.

 

Here's a good camera review site as well - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3100/

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Twin lens.Ok i have been looking at adverts for SLR cameras that come with two lenses they call them a "twin lens deal"

For example Hardley Normal has on offer a Nikon D3100 DSLR twin lens kit for $1196. that includes camera, with 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses.

 

Good value for a first SLR? And would it be suitable for my needs as stated above.

I think the lens combo will drive you nuts. 50mm is the most common general purpose focal length, so you typically want to go a bit lower for some wider shots or higher to zoom in. With this combo, you will be forever swapping lenses and missing shots while you do so.

It may seem counter intuitive, but you don't actually use wide angle lenses for landscapes. They put too much foreground and sky in the shot as well as creating distortion of the image (think fish eye, but to a lesser degree). Landscapes are usually taken with between a 50 and 150mm focal length. Keep in mind, I've indicated that my Canon G9 has a 6X optical zoom and that isn't enough. At 6X zoom the 35mm equivalent focal length would be 210mm. Add to that the telephoto adapter that multiplies the focal length X2 and 420mm is still not enough for small high flying aircraft, but fine for formations where you want to get more than one aircraft in the image.

 

Wider pictures are done by taking multiple shots and stitching them together later. The software that comes with digital cameras these days mostly has that capability built-in. For in-air airshow shots you will need a zoom lens. My thought would be 100mm to 400mm zoom:-

 

• Canon
   
   
  
• Nikon
   
   
  

 

 

To that you could add a "Multiplier" adapter that multiplies the focal length of the lens. As these reduce picture quality and light (hence needing longer exposure) I would opt for 1.5X, giving you up to 600mm with either of the example lenses linked above.

 

Jake, above has indicated that 250mm is fine for him. Just shows that what suits you depends entirely on what you are taking, how big it is, how far away it is, and how much of the picture you want to fill with it.

 

You said you had a Sony CyberShot camera. It no doubt has a zoom lens. It would be useful for you to compare the focal length in 35mm equivalent terms, but to do so you need to derive the Focal Length Multiplier (FLM). To do so, divide the diagonal measurement of a 35mm negative (43.3mm) by the diagonal measurement of the CCD sensor in your digital camera. Now use the derived FLM to multiply the focal length of the Sony lens to get the 35mm equivalent focal length. That will give you a comparison as to whether what you are looking at in a 35mm lens is going to get you closer to the subject or not.

 

You might just be better off with a Compact camera that has a 12X optical* zoom! The lenses I've suggested weigh over a kilogram without the camera body.

 

When you want to look at image sharpness and the resolution or ability to pick out detail on a print... Google "Circle of Confusion" (CoC).

 

Some more food for thought :-)

 

Edit: Optical zoom is that which is produced by the lens, and the only zoom worth having. "Digital Zoom" is a marketing gimic whereby the camera uses a smaller area of the sensor and upscales the image, thus doing exactly the same thing as on your PC when you crop the photo and enlarge the cropped image. In other words you lose pixels and therefore resolution and sharpness.

 

 

[Spin]

Ozzie you're not likely to get any consensus here, photographers, even amateurs are worse than pilots when it comes to arguing their particular corner. Think Jabiru vs Rotax....

 

What I can say is I was in your position a year or two back and after asking around ended up with a basic Canon twin lense kit. The second lense, a 75 - 300 has the cogniscenti turning up their noses, but it cost all of $40 extra as part of the package and I've had a couple of photos, taken with it, published already. Yes, I would like a better lense and will probably get myself a 100-400mm with image stabiliser at the end of the year, but it will cost more than the entire camera package did and I plain couldn't justify the money starting out. The current crop of low end SLRs will take you a long way and IF you do end up outgrowing one (most people don't), you'll either sell it on or want to keep it as a second body anyway.

 

I'll agree with David in saying that for the average bloke who wants good photos, a bridge camera is probably the way to go - I've a mate who is a pro and who carries one in his bag to use when things get hectic - no swopping lenses or switching from one camera to another. The only downside is what you see is what you get mostly, there is no way for it to grow with you if you intend taking the hobby further.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

38-114 is the lens on the cyber shot.

 

When i was at airventure last i posted what i thought was a neat photo of the F22 flying past with the weapons bay open was pleased with that until someone followed up with an exact same angle and really showed the limits of my little camera. sample below

 

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Ozzie;

 

I agree with Spin. You will get many conflicting opinions. As with aviation, it is a matter of making use the info provided, to assist your own research, and making your own decision, based on your needs.

 

I'll post a few images that I've taken with the G9 that demonstrate both that I'm pretty happy with it, but find that even with the equivalent of 420mm, it isn't enough for some airshow shots. Still; How often would I really need a DSLR with appropriate lens and a cost well over $3K versus my current kit which with the G9, wide angle adapter and telephoto adapter cost just less than $1K.

 

All the photos below were taken at full zoom on the G9 with the X2 telephoto adapter (equiv. to 420mm for a 35mm camera).

 

 

This one could have used a longer lens.

 

 

This one was fine, as to get both helos in the one shot the zoom was fine.

 

 

A longer lens would have been good here too.

 

 

Nice shot effectively over zoomed so the shot appears cropped, but that was on purpose. Shows aircraft detail, and the impression of the formation without actually backing off the zoom to catch the whole formation framed.

 

* Attached photos are low resolution scaled down images. The originals are 4000 x 3000 px. Unfortunately the conditions of entry to the event prevent using the images for other than private purposes, so I will never be posting the full resolution shots in a public forum.

 

 

[Guest Jake.f]

If you want to see a sample of shots I took with a Canon 450D and 55-250 Lens have a look at my thread here:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/a-few-photos-from-today.27072/

 

 

[Yenn]

To those of us who were into photography before digital, the Twin Lens camera has two lenses, one for viewing and focussing the image and one to take the photo. Examples are Rollei and Mamiya C220.

 

I have an old Rollei and it is still usable but the viewfinder is very dim, the other problem with them was that when you pan, the image goes across the screen in the wrong direction. They are just about museum piece nowadays.