First off, congrats on the kid - I think nature dictates your kid will be cute, to you at least ;)
As for whether to go SLR or not - I suspect the salesguy was a biased source of information - SLR means a higher initial cost as well as an increased opportunity for more sales (lenses, bag, etc), and they look like they would be better, so he had the incentive to steer you that way.
Otherwise, I highly doubt you *need* an SLR to take amazing pictures of said incoming Personal Home Destruction Machine.
If you are going to be taking pictures, regardless of what it is that you are taking pictures of, the are only two things you care about: 1) composition (which includes the subject, real or implied) 2) light
Everything else is just a means to an end.
(LJ is telling me I type too much, so more in a follow up)
On the issue of having the shutter open for longer, that simply means more opportunity for the image to come out blurry. Not a big deal these days if you can get a camera with image stabilization
( ... )
Well, thanks a ton for the detailed response(s), I really do appreciate it. (And sorry to be slow to reply, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck to do.)
As I break down my options, in summary:
-Full Frame is out of my budget -I have a point and shoot that I am happy to keep using when we are out and about and I want to just throw something in the pocket.
So, I guess I am leaning towards an entry-level type SLR. If nothing else, I'll be able to mount a flash with it and (hopefully) get superior indoor results to what my little Casio is capable of.
well, in case you were wondering i ended up going with a Nikon D40. I got a package deal that included an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens. i also bought a flash (SB-600)... results forthcoming! thanks again for the tips.
Comments 6
As for whether to go SLR or not - I suspect the salesguy was a biased source of information - SLR means a higher initial cost as well as an increased opportunity for more sales (lenses, bag, etc), and they look like they would be better, so he had the incentive to steer you that way.
Otherwise, I highly doubt you *need* an SLR to take amazing pictures of said incoming Personal Home Destruction Machine.
If you are going to be taking pictures, regardless of what it is that you are taking pictures of, the are only two things you care about:
1) composition (which includes the subject, real or implied)
2) light
Everything else is just a means to an end.
(LJ is telling me I type too much, so more in a follow up)
Reply
Reply
Reply
An SLR may be a pain in the neck to lug around and get the settings right - but they startup fast and are usually better in low light or for sports.
A little point and shoot is easy to always have on you, easy to hand to someone else, but are usually slow to startup.
Reply
As I break down my options, in summary:
-Full Frame is out of my budget
-I have a point and shoot that I am happy to keep using when we are out and about and I want to just throw something in the pocket.
So, I guess I am leaning towards an entry-level type SLR. If nothing else, I'll be able to mount a flash with it and (hopefully) get superior indoor results to what my little Casio is capable of.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment