D3000 or Digital Camera?

[Scutch]

Firstly, I realise there are countless threads kicking about, so apologies as I'm trying to be specific to my needs. I'm an absolute newbie when it comes to photography, other than taking thousands of shots of my cars (as you'll know) and family with either a mobile phone camera or my trusty Sony Cybershot 7.2MP camera which I got for Christmas many years ago.

Couple of examples taken at the weekend :

Obviously the files have been reduced in size and therefore quality, but you get the idea.

I'm looking for an upgrade to the Sony Cybershot, and have noticed that the Nikon D3000 is available at Argos for only £299. As the RRP is £450, that's 1/3rd off. I'm assuming from the price market and also from looking at Revels DSLR guide that this is an entry level camera, but what I'm wondering is will I be pleased with this camera and is it suitable for a relative newcomer to the photography world? It seems like a low MP rating (10.2MP) compared to a lot of digital camera's on the market at the moment. Like I say, I take countless photographs, but I know nothing about lenses, differences between DSLR, bridge and digital, shutter speeds or any of the jargon that goes with photography.

Nikon D3000 Argos link : http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produ...ameras|25417975.htm#pdpFullProductInformation

Any help would be much appreciated, but I'm pretty much set on the D3000 as £300 is my absolute top line and as it's going on our Argos card that limits me from going elsewhere for a different bargain.

Basically, I just want some nice photographs, but are there any digital camera's that would offer the same, perhaps even with video recording too? Just as an potential option away from the D3000. Budget still stands.

Cheers guys.

 

[Gally]

Perhaps look at the Bridge cameras to quell the confusion?

Lenses ect, settings all take a bit of getting your head round.

I recently moved to a bridge camera and i'm very very happy with it so far, some of the shots produced are outstanding, even looking at the Flickr group of some cameras you're interested in gives you an idea of what can be achieved with practice.

I went for the Lumix FZ38 just so you know. I think they do the FZ45 in the Argos site.

Try not to be swayed by MP rating mate, look at honest reviews and comparison websites.

 

[Scutch]

Perhaps look at the Bridge cameras to quell the confusion?

Lenses ect, settings all take a bit of getting your head round.

I recently moved to a bridge camera and i'm very very happy with it so far, some of the shots produced are outstanding, even looking at the Flickr group of some cameras you're interested in gives you an idea of what can be achieved with practice.

I went for the Lumix FZ38 just so you know. I think they do the FZ45 in the Argos site.

Try not to be swayed by MP rating mate, look at honest reviews and comparison websites.

Thanks Kev. Much appreciated. I will look into the bridge stuff, but so many folk swear by the DSLR's that I'm kinda being swayed by all the talk of them, when in reality perhaps a £250 digital camera would do just as nicely?

It's a toughie. I'm sure I'd love the D3000, but for £300 it's a lot of money regardless of the thousands that can be spent on lenses and other accessories alone.

 

[Revels]

The sensor is the important thing. Megapixels are just for marketing really.

This is a chart to give you an idea..

Cybershot is probably the small grey box and then the D30000000000 would be the bigger grey box. Give or take anyway.

It depends what you want to do really, Scutchio. If you want to stop, fiddle with the settings, take a few more, get moaned about by the missus with 'Hurry up will you, I'm naked and the ice cream is melting' while you're checking to make sure the shutter is fast enough, then get an SLR.

That's not meant to put you off, but to get the best from one, you need to put the 'effort' into it. Now after a while you'll know that you're going to be able to shoot at 500ths and f4 and just twiddle then shoot but to start with, you're going to be learning. Then your pictures will look a lot better.

If you're more the 'pick it up, point towards the big shiny metal bird in the sky, back in pocket' type of guy but still want a better camera, then have a look at the Lumix range. I'm not personally a fan of a bridge camera.

 

[jenic]

I agree with the above about bridge cameras.

I find them like a fiddly to use SLR or oversized compacts.

Either go the full hog and get a DSLR or get a nice lumix

Dont just buy any DSLR though, go to the shops, try them all out, do research, find out what family and friends use (might be worth getting the same brand to share kit) etc

 

[Scutch]

Cheers Dan.

I agree with the above about bridge cameras.

I find them like a fiddly to use SLR or oversized compacts.

Either go the full hog and get a DSLR or get a nice lumix

Dont just buy any DSLR though, go to the shops, try them all out, do research, find out what family and friends use (might be worth getting the same brand to share kit) etc

So what exactly is the difference between the DSLR and that Lumix you've suggested? The Pana can do HD movie recording, which is a nice bonus, but what am I losing out on for this?

 

[Gally]

Just to Echo what the other 2 have said, buy a fancy Lumix compact if you're not going to put much effort into learning.

A DLSR and even a bridge to some extent have to be learned to get the best from them. Revels mentioned a while back iirc a DSLR will still pop out shitty pics if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[Scutch]

Like I say, I just want some photo's like the one's I've taken above but good quality. The Cybershot is starting to lose it's appeal now and taking pictures of the RB182 as well as the family I'm seeing the quality seemingly lessen. Maybe it's just me or the progression of better cameras.

 

[Revels]

The Lumix does a little bit of everything. It will zoom from the hairs on your arm to the window down the street where Mrs Robinson gets changed. It will give you a nice big screen, easy picture taking, turn up and press sort of thing.

An SLR will take more time to set up, you'll have to adjust the settings (if you use an SLR on auto, a kitten dies) and the zoom will be far smaller, depending on the lens but you won't have the wide range of the Lumix.

The SLR will take better pictures but it requires you to learn a bit and spend more but the rewards are far greater.

If you're intending to put these on the wall on a 4ft canvas, sit at home editing each photo for flickr, changing the white balance for the night shots, then reducing them from 4000px wide down to 600px, then get an SLR.

If you want to get home, hook it up, upload to facebook with no editing and print 50 at 6x4 for a photo album for the missus then get a Lumix.

 

[Gally]

Russ had some epic shots from his Lumix TZ series, I always thought he used a DSLR until he told me otherwise.

You may actually put some effort in if you get a DSLR though.

 

[Scutch]

Dan, you are a fountain of knowledge. In a photography sense. Oh and you too Gally and Jenix. I think the Lumix range might be for me, TBH. I'm a gadget freak but I don't think I could be arsed with all the messing about and editing, and TBH I could - in theory - still do that with the Lumix shots, surely, using a photography and picture editing software?

 

[Gally]

That's what I do with my FZ38 mate and it gives you a nice idea of what's involved editing wise, eventually i'll move on to a DSLR once i've mastered some stuff on the bridge.

Plenty of free editing software.

 

[Revels]

I think what it comes down to is what you're going to do with them at the end.

If you want big wall prints etc, then you're probably better off going with the SLR and putting in the required effort.
If you want small pictures on the fireplace and for your wallet, then the Lumix is perfect.

A lot of the time at a small size you won't be able to tell what camera it came from anyway.

 

[Scutch]

So on that sensor relation chart, the Lumix range will be the small grey box?

 

[Revels]

It'll probably be nearer the blue one TBH.

 

[Scutch]

Is something like this overkill then?

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/80675/show.html?cm_vc=PPZ1

I would have looked for the TZ18 but Argos don't seem to stock it, but then do stock that one.

 

[Revels]

That's probably a bit excessive.

You can get a decent one for half that. I think it was the TZ10 that Stefan/ukaskew had that they raved about.

 

[Scutch]

Ahh yeah. I did notice that one but thought it might be poverty spec.

Hmm. So I can get a D3000 entry level DSLR with non VR 18-55mm lens, or a pretty neat digital camera for less money that will still take nice shots.

 

[Revels]

Yup. You won't get the depth of field with the Lumix, you won't get the adjustability and you won't get pictures that as good enough quality that you can print the size of your house but other than that, it's superb.

 

[Scutch]

Ordered a Lumix TZ10 digital camera from Very.co.uk. It was in the sale, £100 off from £279 and also used £30 off promo code, so all in for £149.

At that price and from the reviews I've read, couldn't really go wrong. Point and click will do for now. Would have gone for an FZ38 but neither Argos or Very did that one, and the FZ45 wasn't rated as highly. Anyway, content with my choice at the moment!

 

[Gally]

Good choice Neily boy!

I know Russ loved his one, I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

 

[Scutch]

I really wanted the same as you, mate, but I couldn't find one on either website I was limited to. It got a 10/10 on Trustedreviews and great writeups elsewhere.

Bah.

I was slightly put off the D3000 by the fact you can't use the LCD as a viewfinder, so you have to use it as a proper camera.

 

[Gally]

A lot of DSLR's are like that, RenClio's Nikon doesn't even have an auto mode so you pretty much need to learn!

The TZ is very good from what I read. I read reviews and reserached other cameras for 4 months before buying mine.