Thread: Advice on digital SRL cameras

Not sure how much you already know but obviosuly you want a good camera with a good lens that can capture a lot of light. Also the higher the megapixel rating the better, as this means you can jump up in enlargements without sacrificing quality. If its for wedding pohotos, my guess is at least a 5MP camera and as you rightly say, quality in the lens/camera is everything. Canon is good. Nikon and Olympus are up the higher end of the scale.

Unfortunately the really good quality digital SLRs are going to cost up near the $2500 mark with a good lens. If your friend is tech savvy, then switching to digital SLR shouldnt be a major problem.

The advantage of course is that you can take a thousand photos and hopefully get a hundred or so really good one for print. Make sure you get a camera that can take the larger storage cards. 5MP cameras and up can consume space very fast!

I'm still watching the digital SLR's - I don't think they're yet at the price/performance level that would make me buy one. I bought a compact Sony digital about 6 months ago, and it's great - but shutter speed is a real issue with it and most of the lower-ish end of the market. Like Dean says, you need light to get the quality up and shutter speed down - and that takes a good lens, and they come from the traditional film camera makers - Nikon etc. A Nikon digital SLR is still way too rich for my blood

As an alternative - since you have a friend with a good standard SLR, my take would be get her to use that for the main photos, get yourself a compact digital for the party photos & extras, and buy a HP Photo Scanner to get the prints into a digital format - really nice results from mine and quite cheap really.

Do the video thing as well - even if you just set up a video camera on a tripod and tape the ceremony wide angle. Good for a laugh when things screw up if nothing else We had cameras all over the place, digital, print & video, at our wedding and didn't regret taking extra shots.

Stinky,

A good guide for selecting digital cameras can be found at BH Photo Video . They are a mob in New York who have been around for ages and I have found their advice to be sound in the past.

The cheapest I have seen a digital camera around Sydney is the Canon EOS 300D for around $1,700, which by all accounts is a great camera.

The big issue with cameras at the moment is the cost of storage, the more megapixels the camera has, the larger the file size and the more storage you need. So check what type of memory card the cameras take and get an idea of cost for the amount of memory you need. Check out Harris Technologies to get an idea on prices.
There is also a cool little device that is basically a laptop hard drive, 8 memory card reader and a rechargable battery in a box. When your camera memory card is full, stick it in the box and it copies it to the hard drive (40-120GB), then put the card back in your camera, empty the card and start shooting again.

Another good (non digital) idea is to put disposable cameras on the guests tables. A friend did this and got some good shots of their guests. I have to agree with DarrylF, the more shots the better.

Slavo

Stink,

We recently purchased a Kodak K8560 (I think thats the model...), its got 4Megapixels, 10 x optical zoom, german ground glass lens, a myriad of features - great unit.

At Hardly Normal for $1045 I got :

the camera,
a printer dock that prints normal picture size pictures that can be run direct from the camera or your computer over usb!,
a spare battery,
a 128G memory card to store images,
sh*tload of s/w,
usb cable etc...,
leather carry case

The photo takes excellent images - I recommend this camera highly

If you give me your email address I will happily send you some photos of images I have take at highest resolution so that you can judge for yourself. The resolution is incredible - it really is a great camera. if you want to go a bit funky theres a canon around now that has 4 megapixels but the pixels are octaginal so the resolution is even greater .... I will send you photos of scenery and some macro so you can compare...

I would recommend that you buy your mate about 20 rolls of 400ASA film, some batteries, give him your SLR (if you have one - so that he can use yours and his - saves him stopping to change rolls) and tell him to go for it, so long as you let him do the standard posed photos you cant lose even if he fargs up half the shots....

Cheers - have a good wedding. dont forget you WILL need a table saw eventually!!!!

Light is the photographers "paint" (hence the latin root of the word). Lens quality, however, is only part of the equation. If your subject is people under different light sources (indoors, outdoors, night time) you need a good flash. From dim memory I recall that most good units start at about $400+.

You will never see a professional wedding photographer doing "formal" wedding shots without at least one quality flash, and usually with a diffuser of some sort. A good flash and knowing how to use it will open up a lot more possibilities and provide you with better quality. Built-in flashes on "prosumer" digitals are next to useless because they point directly at the subject without diffusion and usually without control in the intensity. The result is not just red-eye but everyone looks like ghosts with bad acne!

In my experience the only really good natural lighting source for skin tones is outdoor sunlight on an overcast day at about 3-4pm and with the light behind the photographer. We were lucky to have these conditions on our wedding day and the shots turned out well (despite my ugly mug being in them)

For the indoor candid shots of the usual wedding hijinks, cheaper cameras are more acceptable but it comes down to luck so you need to get as many people taking as many photographs as possible.

FWIW, $2,500 sounds about average for a professional photographer, depending on whether they give you all the proofs and album. Most won't give you the negatives, but proofs can be scanned at high resolution and tidied up with cheap editing software these days.

We have just received a few quotes for the wedding photos, they tend to average around $2500 with so many conditions.

But don't forget the good wedding photographers ARE GOOD at what they do, generally speaking they are worth what you pay (no doubt there are also "dummies out there).

We have a friend who is quite good with the standard SLR,

The IF you are SURE that she is "quite good" enough, then why not let her use the camera with which she is familiar, and take the photos on film? MUCH less risk of "errors".

and we thought it may be a wise idea to invest around $1500 in a digital SLR and get her to take the photos.

Don't forget that this investment is ONLY for the camera. The cost of "home" printing photos is very high! The cost, time and inconvenience of printing larger format photos is even greater!! If you ultimately go the digital route, and have the photos done by a "commercial" developer, such as via a photo cd, they will still cost you a substantial amount for larger format images, and you LOSE the professional photographers eye for the image and those cropping/dodging/burning/soft focus features. With respect to your friend's ability, does she have a "good eye" for photos? It really does not matter so much as to which camera is used, but the eye of the camera user that counts. A GOOD photographer can take better images with an "ordinary" camera, than a lousy photographer can with the world's best camera.

Now the problem is finding a good digital SLR for that price. I have had two Canon digital cameras in the past 7 years and have been very happy with both.

HMMM? Investing in a good digital camera is a personal thing. What you might like may not be the preference of your friend. Useability and familiarity are needed. While I can see the interest in utilising the opportunity to invest in a digital camera is present (a man after my own heart - I would seek to use just such an opportunity myself ), think wisely! It is a once in a lifetime occurance. It is a VERY important day in the life of the bride and groom and those few missed shots, or those blurred (blank?) images will never be forgotten, they will remain everytime the wedding photos come out for display (should that be dismay?)

I dont want to touch Kodak. I know of a great site to find reviews, DP Review, but I need a bit of a start.

You see, you are already "behind the eight ball". I have no doubt that after all the reviews you read or hear, when you ultimately make that decision, soon after you will say something like "Oh I wished I could do this!" or "gee I should have bought that xyz brand", or "gee these settings are really fiddly to change" etc, etc. Been there, done that myself - more than once

Any clues?

DON'T do it yourself! Hire a professional. What little money you may save in the long run, is not worth the hassles of having poor quality photos and a mediocre wedding album. Yes the good photographers are expensive, but they ARE GOOD T WHAT THEY DO! Professionals take the time and have the knowledge to set up the photo correctly, background/lighting positioning the people, the hands, the feet, the clothing, the order in which photos are taken. ALL of these things are important and DO make a difference in the final outcome.

By all means have your friend take photos as well (USE FILM). At this time anaolgue is still better than even 5mp digital - though the digital is catching up FAST!!

Yes professionals have conditions, they need to make a living too! You could ask for permission to scan (into a pc etc) the photos they take, though I think such persmission would not be given.

The reason that many media/professional photographers are going digital is for speed and convenience NOT for better quality. In a review I read recently a professional media photograper had to change to digital (at a cost of $17000.00) to keep up with his competition. He had to get the photos on the editors desk before the "others". He still prefers analogue ie film as the medium in which to work for the best results, it just not fast enough!!

If you still choose to go with your friend and a new digital camera, I would suggest that you buy the camera at least six months in advance and give it to your friend for use for those six months. At least that experience will assist in creating a better quality image.

Well I hope this helps.

btw used to do photography as a hobby and part time employment - doing 21st's, engagements etc, and I have done a few weddings.

FWIW the pro photographer who did our wedding cost us a bit over $600 if memory serves, we got the negatives and he did a very nice job - well presented prints in a nice album, a heap of extras, the best of them scanned and on CD and he was great to deal with. So it is possible to get a decent deal.

So is a photo shoot really worth the cost of a 10" Jet Tablesaw, 6" Jointer, and a Performax drum sander combined?

30 years ago a pro photographer mate really screwed up badly and we ended up with two or three good shots on the day. That's all we seem to have needed ever since.

I am a bit bemused by the current trend to turn a wedding into a photo shoot with a crowd of people waiting on the other side of town to get on the turps! Seems no wedding photo collection is complete without sunrise, sunset, a lake, a bridge, a tree and all elevations and a sectional view of the bridal party.

Enjoy the day, and take photographs for what they are...a record of the event, not some setup gig in a park. Trust me, if they don't turn out it won't effect your relationship for more than a few months!

BTW an Apple iPod is a neat way of storing digital photos with a few other benefits as well.

Cheers,

P

G'day Sir Stinky,re your post for wedding pics, analogue film is about 12- 18
megapixels, so digi images still have a way to go !! My information about Kodak is they are OK while working, any probs you would be better to bin it than try repairs [ has to be sent to Singapore ]
I agree with other post, use rolls of 36 400 asa film and a good flash, a dedicated unit ,same brand as camera is the best way to go. Good luck.
Planepig

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

So is a photo shoot really worth the cost of a 10" Jet Tablesaw, 6" Jointer, and a Performax drum sander combined?

Well the boss has gone and booked a professional photographer ..... it is starting to make me think .... with the price of the ring, dress, venue, food and now photographer I could have a garage so full of goodies I would need to move house. The total is now in excess of 4 Jet tablesaws with plenty more to come. Oh well at least I get to hire the cars ..... mmmm ..... Jaguar. The only problem there is I don't get to ride in them.

Sir Stink,
As a reasonably professional ameteur, I would not go digital unless the professional was using using top end gear Nikon DR100 or Canon equivalent. In the end printing costs more for digital than can be achieved with photo negative paper and unless the digital is printed on similar type medium, ie your prints will start to deteriate from age.
My dog (Avatar) was featured in Aust Better Homes & Gardens last year and the spread was done by a professional with a digital. The results whilst good for the small mag shots did not lend themselves to high quality 8 x 10 prints for the walls.

To PlanePig
Always use a lower asa when possible ie outdoor garden shots or with high power flash as the film grain is smaller thus giving more vivid colours and will allow for better quality enlargements.
My film of choice was actually Kodak Eckachrome 25 for the very vivid reds and Agfa Proffesional 50 for portraiture work. But both of these films are now obsolete do to the mass market effect. Fuji velvia 100 is still a very good positive transparancy film and Fuji Superia 100 is acceptable for most other situations. You just need good quality (small F stop - 2.8 or 1.6) to shoot them

Originally Posted by Markw

My film of choice was actually Kodak Eckachrome 25 for the very vivid reds and Agfa Proffesional 50 for portraiture work.

Getting off the track a bit - but I do miss these excellent films. Modern 400 ASA films are certainly more flexible, but grain size will always be a barrier.

The biggest problem I find nowadays is someone who can actually develop film properly, rather than feeding it into a machine and hoping for the best. Good strong contrasts - forget it. The machine will up the exposure to wash out the whole thing. I even had a bunch come back with dust specks on them :mad:

Sorry - I feel better for that now

Sorry for the off subject

Originally posted by Bunyip
The biggest problem I find nowadays is someone who can actually develop film properly, rather than feeding it into a machine and hoping for the best.

If you're a high volume photographer, (My partner & I would easily expose 30 to 40 rolls of 36 in a weekend shoot at a zoo or some other animal place) our local Smiths Kodak shop will hand process the whole roll. This means resetting the machine for each print, not just the first shot on the roll. Had stunning shots from inside the cheetah cage at Canberra National Zoo!

Failing that, some of the photo labs in your closest major town should be able to hand print but this is expensive.

I still do some magazine work and use 6x6cm-6x4.5cm and 35mm, for the best results I use Bond Colour in Richmond.
THis is a pro lab and they have a number of options on packages for different levels of photographers.
They are not that expensive and are infinitely better than the instore one hour processing.
I agree that digital has a long way to go for this type of photography, but Mamiya do have a true 7 meg camera for about $35K and it is the closest I have seen to negative quality yet.
A lot of bickies for one occassion though.