I Need Advice on Digital SLR's
 

Do any of you have any preference on cameras. Which one is better Nikon or Canon? Which produces better quality, and is more user friendly? Thanks in advance.

- they're expensive as all hell
- nikon

it doesn't matter if it's user-friendly. if you're going to buy an SLR i assume you want to pursue photography seriously in which case you are going to need to know your equipment.

Ok, well I am it is my major, I just wanted something to hold me over for at least a year or so. Then upgrade and get a better one.

don't get an SLR if you're only going to use it for a year. you won't get your money's worth.

Well, I was thinking about a canon rebel, but I am also thinking of something more durable than that.

nikon d60 or canon eos 400d are entry level dslr and retail at about $1200au

you can take good pics on a happy snapper though. all the ones i have posted on here are shot on an a550 powershot. i am going to upgrade to a canon eos in a coupler of months

i have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_PowerShot_S5_IS



so far has produced excellent shots. macro/supermacro capabilities.

Well, my major is photjournalism, and I still have a film camera canon eos 3. However, the technology is moving towards digital so I need something that I can afford, and is still good. I would say my budget would be around 1200-1400.

i would go for one of the nikon SLRs if that's really what you're looking for.

I do like the nikon D60.

edit- I do have to go and check them out.

cool cantanky. you got a wide and a tele?

I might get this on the side.

it doesn't come with lenses but you can get in super close. however you obviously lose image quality in doing so, i don't really use the zoom function at all.

i'm probably gonna go for the eos 400d or the 450d with twin lens kit. i have done a photography course but havent been able to afford to upgrade my happy snapper to a real camera but i just scored a great contract for july which gives me a decent amount of spare dosh, so i may get a macro to go with it.

photog classes are bollocks.
i've never taken a class in my life. either you've got talent and you've got an eye or you don't. it's innate, not something that can be taught.

yeah mostly wasn't about taking photos, it was when i was 18 pretty much before digital cameras, so it was a 6 month dark room course. but i sold all of my dark room gear when i was about 25.

however i disagree, you can teach people the basics of a decent image. where to place something in a frame, how to avoid ugly background and foreground clutter. i do also agree that you can't teach talent. you can teach technique. but hey i just do it for fun. i may exhibit at a mates pub when i have had plenty of fun when i get my dslr.

edit: also how do you know classes are bollocks if you have never taken one.....

and i love the selfpotrait you posted in the photog thread

i actually have taken one now that i think about it (against my will i believe...) in high school. they told us WHAT to photograph and HOW to photograph it
also i think things like "rule of 3rds" and not to cut peoples heads off and about mergers and stuff which is bullshit because it completely depends on the photograph and what YOU as the artist want to happen and the point you want to get across

oh thank you btw

Really good advice.
I have an S3 IS (which I'd actually recommend, it's not much different from the S5 and it should cost less).
Catank, zooming (not with digital zoom) shouldn't make quality worse...lenses are pretty good.
macro can focus up to 0cm ha ha.
an amazing site to help you making up your mind is www.imaging-resource.com . Have a look there.

imo the basics of photography are interesting and fun to learn, even just reading and experimenting.

i'm talking about when you get WAY WAY WAY in close.

the macro/supermacro functions are brilliant though. i've got a close up of my eye (and a bunch of other peoples.) which i want to do something with.