Best slim camera in the WORLD? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Best slim camera in the WORLD?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 04:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Ah, I see. Well, I'm sure it's not a shit camera. I think that lenses make more difference personally (along with photographic ability/composition lol). What it comes down to is whether it will do the stuff you want it to.

And we ditched the pound a long time ago The queen'll be next!

Hmm it's a Nikon DX - AF-Snikkor 18-55mm 1.35-5.6GII ED one prob with this cam is that to be AF it need to have a motor in the lens.

But it is smaller than a lot of SLRs.

And hurahhhh on ditching being a subject! I am a Scot after all. But... my fav line ever is a prince phillip one (to PM Howard):

quote:
You don't have a king so you can not become a kingdom, you haven't a prince so you can not become a principality. I wholeheartedly suggest that you remain a country.

Posted by Sushipunk on Mar-07-2008 04:55:

Awesome line.

Posted by shaw on Mar-07-2008 05:13:

should've gone for the d40x. have fun finding lenses.

zing?

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:17:

Meh prob a phase, maybe zing in that I'll dump it in about a week

Also even my booze addled mind knows that all lenses will work just not with AF. And also have found that AF sucks. You get way better results doing it yourself. (so far anyway lol)

Posted by Sushipunk on Mar-07-2008 05:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
And also have found that AF sucks. You get way better results doing it yourself. (so far anyway lol)

Depends what you're photographing. I'm mainly shooting birdlife, so I would be fucked without fast AF.

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:20:

Does it work well that far put?

Posted by shaw on Mar-07-2008 05:25:

it would be one thing if you just couldn't use autofocus, instead of being banned from all lenses that happen to be capable of it.

on a related note, I have 0 functioning digital cameras now, and have for some time. I'm thinking 870, g9, or just being excessive & going for a 40d. I'm leaning towards the g9...

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:31:

Not sure I like your tine fella. Blahhhh it's not like I'm going to be buying 101 lenses. Since the whole kit cost me prob the cost of a proper lens above a true point and shoot I'm not too fussed.

That said I know what you're saying. Which is why I was really considering the Pentax, but this apparently is stronger for learners like myself (so the interweb said).

Posted by Sushipunk on Mar-07-2008 05:36:

quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
it would be one thing if you just couldn't use autofocus, instead of being banned from all lenses that happen to be capable of it.

on a related note, I have 0 functioning digital cameras now, and have for some time. I'm thinking 870, g9, or just being excessive & going for a 40d. I'm leaning towards the g9...

The G9 is supposed to be pretty fucking awesome. And, if you buy a 40D, you'll be spending a shitload on lenses. Because there's always a better one

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:39:

Hmmm camera talk, D40 vs 40D? lol

Posted by Sushipunk on Mar-07-2008 05:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
Hmmm camera talk, D40 vs 40D? lol

D40 = Nikon
40D = Canon

Very different cameras, spec-wise.

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
D40 = Nikon
40D = Canon

Very different cameras, spec-wise.

I'm guessing:

40D > > > > > D40 lol

Posted by shaw on Mar-07-2008 05:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
I'm guessing:

40D > > > > > D40 lol

good guess.

quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
The G9 is supposed to be pretty fucking awesome. And, if you buy a 40D, you'll be spending a shitload on lenses. Because there's always a better one

yeah, I know. I haven't even had an slr, but all the money goes into lenses, and by the time I've upgraded a couple, the difference between that and an xti will seem like a dumb upgrade to have skipped.

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:55:

quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
good guess.

short posts.

Posted by shaw on Mar-07-2008 05:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
short posts.

edited, just for you.

Posted by Dervish on Mar-07-2008 05:59:

quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
edited, just for you.

o.k.

Posted by Sushipunk on Mar-07-2008 06:07:

quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
yeah, I know. I haven't even had an slr, but all the money goes into lenses, and by the time I've upgraded a couple, the difference between that and an xti will seem like a dumb upgrade to have skipped.

So true.

My gf and I bought a 400D in September-ish last yeah. Since then, in chronological order:

- Bought a 75-300mm IS USM lens
- Sold the shitty 70-300mm kit lens
- Bought an 18-55mm IS lens
- Bought a 100mm USM Macro lens
- Bought a tripod
- Bought a 20D
- Sold the 400D (with the other shitty kit lens)
- Sold the 18-55mm IS lens
- Bought another 20D
- Bought a Tamron 17-35mm lens
- Bought a 300mm prime lens
- (About to) buy a 1.4x tele-converter

It never fucking stops.

Posted by shaw on Mar-07-2008 06:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
So true.

My gf and I bought a 400D in September-ish last yeah. Since then, in chronological order:

- Bought a 75-300mm IS USM lens
- Sold the shitty 70-300mm kit lens
- Bought an 18-55mm IS lens
- Bought a 100mm USM Macro lens
- Bought a tripod
- Bought a 20D
- Sold the 400D (with the other shitty kit lens)
- Sold the 18-55mm IS lens
- Bought another 20D
- Bought a Tamron 17-35mm lens
- Bought a 300mm prime lens
- (About to) buy a 1.4x tele-converter

It never fucking stops.

yeah, starting out with a 40d for a 'beginning' camera is probably dumb, but I know I wouldn't feel right 'til I'd spent at least as much on accessories as I had on the camera, and by that point with an xti...yeah. fuck that.

Posted by Rinster on Mar-07-2008 10:02:

Casio Exilim does it for me. awesome camera.

Posted by shapes on Mar-07-2008 12:30:

Nikon cameras below the range of the D200 are pure crap. Don't get them. I wouldn't get any of Canon's lower range cameras either.

Look at a used 20D, 30D, or a new 40D. 40D would be great. I have one, and I love it.

Posted by gehzumteufel on Mar-07-2008 21:37:

quote:
Originally posted by shapes
Nikon cameras below the range of the D200 are pure crap. Don't get them. I wouldn't get any of Canon's lower range cameras either.

Look at a used 20D, 30D, or a new 40D. 40D would be great. I have one, and I love it.

the prosumer dslr's by canon are much better than the same class nikon though. not that either is really as good of an investment as the much better 40d or 5d or 1dsMKIII

Posted by Dervish on Mar-08-2008 00:59:

Posted by tubularbills on Mar-08-2008 03:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
So what entry level cameras are good?

Cannon A520

also, i don't think anyone got it when you said 40d as in boob size.

Posted by Zewad on Mar-08-2008 03:55:

quote:
Originally posted by tubularbills
Cannon A520

in bazarro world..

Posted by shapes on Mar-08-2008 20:25:

quote:
Originally posted by Dervish
So what entry level cameras are good?

Buy a 20D...it's probably the same price as the entry level crappy cameras and it's 100% better. Or go for the 30D since the 20D has a really tiny screen

Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »