Quick thoughts...

[kimana517]

+ Happy birthday to Isaac! He is now only 12 years away from 40. Hehe. And he is the best husband ever!

+ I feel like I live at Home Depot and Walmart. I've been to each of them at least 4 times this week.

+ I'm trying to laugh at the fact that the first night this week that I finally got enough sleep preceded the one day I really could've used an extra few hours of awake time.

+ Ghirardelli chocolate chips being the same price as Walmart brand makes me very happy.

+ Apparently I've been lusting after cashmere sweaters all these years, when I could've just bought them; there are tons of them for great prices on Ebay! Oh, this is a bad, bad discovery for my budget.

+ 30% cash back on Ebay Buy It Now purchases is love.

+ Can any of you convince me that the quality of photos taken by a DSLR is worth it despite its heft when compared to a good digicam that has all manual options but an attached lens? I love the quality of DSLRs, but I also like having a camera that fits in my purse and doesn't weigh 3 lbs because of the lenses. So, yeah - convince me.

+ Hanging pictures is a lot easier than I thought it was. Therefore, I hate myself for waiting 3 years to do so.

+ I have an unhealthy obsession with soft blankets. And Cherry Coke.

+ 18 people have RSVPed for the party tonight. That is workable, assuming they don't all stay for the debate and want to sit in the living room. (Our dining room is basically just an extension of our living room though, so it'll be fine.)

+ I don't actually believe that it's October. Everyone is lying to me.

Comments

[lilia2000.livejournal.com]

DSLRs are wonderful things to have. They allow you to do things that you couldn't do with point and shoot. I love, love, love my SLR.

However, I do at times wish I had a smaller camera that I could slip into my purse. And I'm actually looking into one.

If you get an SLR you have to be willing to invest in at least two lens. My camera and first lens cost me $600 all together. And that was with a used lens. I think my second lens was about $100. And you have to be very careful with it.

However, if you are still planning to go to Europe, it is worth the investment. I would trade my SLR for the world. I have some amazing pictures from Russia and England that I credit with my SLR and it's fast response time. Most of the cameras that aren't SLRs do not have the great response time that DSLRs have.

To me, I would say BUY THE SLR!!! But also, consider looking into something smaller. Realize that carrying the SLR everywhere for every occasion can get kinda tiresome. But if you really want to do good photography, get an SLR.

*steps of soap box*

Hear hear!

[craneke.livejournal.com]

I ditto just about everything that Lilia2000 said, including the "occasionally wish I had a smaller camera" part, but the only times I wish for that are when I'm on a video shoot and want something to take production/"behind the scenes" stills - generally, the only thing we ever do with those is post them on facebook or blogs. Nine times out of ten, I would still select my SLR, and would probably be afraid to NOT take it if I ever had a smaller camera for fear that I would want it. Generally I feel that ANYTHING I want to print (especially enlargements) I use my SLR.

If you decide against an SLR, one thing you need to be especially careful of is the sensor quality on P&S cameras. Higher megapixel doesn't necessarily mean better quality. My dad and I spent days researching P&S cameras to find one for my mom. A lot of their sensors are crappy and otherwise decent cameras got chucked because they took grainy pictures.

Your noise control on a DSLR is going to be MUCH better than a point and shoot. MUCH faster response time. Easier to get good depth of field on an SLR.

Some of my bigger beefs with digital P&S cameras is that they flatten out color ranges... you don't get the nuances from various lights and shadows that you do with film, and DSLR cameras CATCH those nuances.

I don't necessarily agree with needing to invest in two lenses for just consumer purposes - my Nikon D80 came with an 18-135 lens that is fairly good quality and is very flexible as far as doing very wide angle and moderate telephoto distance, so it would be possible to get away with just one lens. They also make 18-200's that are decent, just a little pricey. You usually get a little distortion on those at your wider angles, but it doesn't bother me that much most of the time.

Last, but not least, even if you don't plan to get more lenses immediately, you have that option in the future. What if you decide that your 10x optical zoom on your P&S camera isn't enough? I think they do make some tele-attachments for some models, but I'm not sure how good they are.

If your only complaint is the weight, get the SLR and use a bigger purse. Mine generally fits in my purse(s) and it's fine as long as the lens cap is on securely. I realize that your budget would have to be a little bigger, but you have an eye for and enjoy photography; get yourself a good camera to use. ESPECIALLY with Europe coming up.

/essay

Me Three

[katharhino.livejournal.com]

Um yes, I ALSO agree with almost everything above.

I've never actually owned a regular P&S digicam, but those I have borrowed, used, or seen in action are nowhere NEAR the quality of my base-level DSLR. It really is a huge difference.

I also disagree that you need two lenses. I still just have the modest lens that came with my camera kit (something like 18-55mm, it's nothing special at all) and though I've occasionally drooled over telephoto lenses, I still don't have a pressing need to get one.

I got a nice, compact camera bag for mine, and when I want it I just take it along. It's got a comfortable strap and it's not that heavy. It would probably fit in a large purse, and the quality of photos MORE than makes up for any inconvenience.

I have a Nikon D50, which they don't make anymore. My brother just got a DSLR before going to Rome, and did some research -- he said the D40s are no longer as good as the D50 was, and he ended up getting a Canon, I believe.

In conclusion, I would like to say... Buy a DSLR.

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

Thank you and God bless America.

Re: Me Three

[lilia2000.livejournal.com]

Kay... let me explain my two lens comment...

I have a Canon Rebel XT (the best!) and I bought a 28 to 90mm lens for it. It is a great lens that allows me a huge range. However, when I was in Europe and several times since, I kept thinking "I wish I had a zoom lens"

So earlier this year I bought a 70-300mm zoom lens that I love. Admittedly it is much heavier than the other lens, but it has allowed me to take some great pics at Comic Con and I know it will be great when I (hopefully) go to Europe next year.

So I don't suggest buying a longer lens right away... first figure out if you are willing to spend the money and whether or not it would be something you would use. For me, I think it will be and I'm very glad to have it.

I suppose that is a personal preferance.

And as to brand... I'm a Canon fan all the way. This is what my photography teacher recommened and this is what both my parents have owned the past 30 years. The XT is great, however you can know get the upgrade, the XTi for about as cheap as I got my XT. Personally I think its features are easier to use as I have used a friend of mines Nikon and don't like it as much. But that is a personal preferance too.

lenses

[katharhino.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if I were going somewhere special like Europe, I would probably consider the zoom lens too. I've definitely thought about getting one, but I've used my camera mostly for just average daily life kind of stuff. I do like to take pics in the woods near my house at close range, but I've never felt too restricted by my lens there either.

So it really depends on what you're going to do. And as you said, it's not something you'd need instantly. It probably also depends on how serious you are about photography and whether you're likely to get annoyed when you can't do a long zoom. Me, I'm a contented amateur and I don't do much traveling.

MY photography teacher in college had all Nikons, which is why I looked at them first. I really like my D50, the way it fits in my hand and where the controls are. But my mom has a D40 and I don't like the interface as much. And my brother is REALLY happy with his Canon. So... yeah, preference.

Re: lenses

[craneke.livejournal.com]

Ditto the "all about preference" thing - I've used both Nikons and Canons and prefer Nikons, but I know people who are as equally passionate about Canons. The one REALLY nice thing about one of the highest-end Canons is that the sensor is the same size as a 35 mm, so you don't have to do any "focal length conversions." Most DSLR's have sensors that are smaller than a 35mm frame, and so there's a conversion factor - multiply the number on the lens by 1.5 to get what your focal length really is. An 18mm lens looks like 27mm, 200 is 300, etc.

One thing re: needing a telephoto or not - if you have 10+ MP's, as long as you don't want to enlarge anything massively, you can often crop an image pretty far to zoom closer. I do this especially when I'm in low-light situations and can't afford to lose the open aperture when I zoom in closer. You could also probably get yourself an old manual telephoto lens pretty cheaply if you really felt like you needed it; you'd just have to learn to use the manual controls on the camera quickly. Add an extra pound to your bag, though.