Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Inland paddling
Post Reply
Ken
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:59 pm
Location: Maidenhead

Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Ken » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:07 pm

Am looking at a new camera,and can't decide between a pro-sumer (such as on of the Fuji's) or an SLR (looking at the Nikon D40 with a 18-55 lens). How much better will the SLR be? Also, how much zoom will that lens give me? 10x? 18X?
Cheers
Ken.

User avatar
Strad
Posts: 1884
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:27 am
Location: The Beautiful Borders of Scotland
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Strad » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:16 pm

Well, I would go with an SLR but would be more inclined to the Canon at the low end of the price range - the d40x is limited on the series of lenses it can use, so I would go with the canon EOS 1000D. £320 body only or £370 with the 18-55 lens take a peak around for a deal on the body with the 18-200 lens and you won't go wrong
Old School?? I miss my AQII..
Graham Stradling

User avatar
SwamP
Posts: 3101
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by SwamP » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:31 pm

If you buy a prosumer camera you will one day without doubt buy an SLR.

Think lenses; much like buying an all-round kayak....if you get into it you would, one day, inevitably require 2 boats+ to fulfil your requirements.

For that reason I’d say it’s a no brainer, SLR with large focal range to start off with. Then by the same timeframe you might have been looking to replace your prosumer with an SLR you’ll have yourself a kick ass camera with a small range of lenses.

So expensive though! :o(

Have fun and post your pics :o)
Lets not try to understand each other. Thanks.

User avatar
buck197
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Plymouth
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by buck197 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:50 pm

I haven't heard the term Pro-sumer but assume it is a compact camera?
Brian Taylor
Paddle Pirates

User avatar
Unstabler
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:01 pm

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Unstabler » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:06 pm

Strad wrote:Well, I would go with an SLR but would be more inclined to the Canon at the low end of the price range - the d40x is limited on the series of lenses it can use, so I would go with the canon EOS 1000D. £320 body only or £370 with the 18-55 lens take a peak around for a deal on the body with the 18-200 lens and you won't go wrong
You can actually get the D1000 and a l18-55 lens for £320, and Canon are doing a £30 cash back on this package so you get the lot for under £300.

For the same money, if you're looking at Nikon you can trade up to the D60, and Nikon are doing the same £30 cash back on this camera + 1 lens.

(See the Jessops, Canon or Nikon websites for further details of the cash back offers)

I know nothing about pro-sumer options.

Edit - See links.
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/cat ... /Show.html

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/cat ... /Show.html
Paul (Un)Stabler

User avatar
RVabdn
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: London

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by RVabdn » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:15 pm

I'd say you've got to decide your budget and if that's enough for an SLR and decent lens then that's your decision made.

If you want to save money then Something like a fuji-finepix will still take nice pictures for less than £150.
Richard Veitch

User avatar
Strad
Posts: 1884
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:27 am
Location: The Beautiful Borders of Scotland
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Strad » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:23 pm

Unstabler wrote:
Strad wrote:Well, I would go with an SLR but would be more inclined to the Canon at the low end of the price range - the d40x is limited on the series of lenses it can use, so I would go with the canon EOS 1000D. £320 body only or £370 with the 18-55 lens take a peak around for a deal on the body with the 18-200 lens and you won't go wrong
You can actually get the D1000 and a l18-55 lens for £320, and Canon are doing a £30 cash back on this package so you get the lot for under £300.

For the same money, if you're looking at Nikon you can trade up to the D60, and Nikon are doing the same £30 cash back on this camera + 1 lens.

(See the Jessops, Canon or Nikon websites for further details of the cash back offers)

I know nothing about pro-sumer options.

Edit - See links.
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/cat ... /Show.html

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/cat ... /Show.html
Wow, they've dropped price quickly since I nosed in the camera shop a couple of weeks ago (or my local camera shop isn't watching their internet price match promise that much)
Old School?? I miss my AQII..
Graham Stradling

Steve B
Posts: 5699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Taunton, Somerset

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Steve B » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:42 pm

Ken wrote:Am looking at a new camera,and can't decide between a pro-sumer (such as on of the Fuji's) or an SLR (looking at the Nikon D40 with a 18-55 lens). How much better will the SLR be? Also, how much zoom will that lens give me? 10x? 18X?
"How much zoom" is often misunderstood.

The best way to really understand this is to learn what it means in terms of the focal length of the lens - because that is what decides how wide your wide angle is, and how 'powerful' your telephoto is. A short focal length gives a wide field of view; a longer focal length is what you are using when you 'zoom in'. First, though, there is a problem. It's not so long ago that every decent camera used 35 mm film. But the sensors in digital cameras vary greatly in size, and smaller sensors use smaller lenses with shorter focal lengths to do the same job. This makes it difficult to compare cameras, and the solution which is used is to convert everything to the focal length it would be if the sensor was enlarged to the size of 35 mm film - if you double the sensor size, you double the focal length to maintain the field of view, etc. This is called the "35 mm equivalent" focal length; the number you have to multiply by to get it is called the "crop factor" for that camera.

The technical literature for any compact camera will tell you the 35 mm equivalent. (They don't tell you the crop factor, instead they do the calculation for you.) So, for example, it might be 35-350mm. (Confusingly, that 35 mm focal length has nothing to do with the 35 in "35 mm film". It's just a coincidence.) In reality the 35-350 mm might be, say, a 7-70mm lens and a crop factor of 5x - we don't know, and we don't actually need to know. Now, how does that relate to your question about 10x and 18x zooms? Well, these figure are often quoted by manufacturers and they are the *ratio* of the longest focal length to the shortest. So a 35-350 mm (equivalent) zoom is a 10x zoom because 350 divided by 35 is 10x. BUT a 28-280 mm zoom is also a 10x zoom. It has a wider wide angle (28 mm instead of 35 mm) and less telephoto magnification (280 mm instead of 350 mm) but both are 10x.

Now for the DSLR. Unlike the compact/P&S cameras, the focal lengths quoted for SLR lenses are always the *actual* focal lengths. This is because the lens is just a lens - it doesn't have a sensor so it doesn't have a crop factor. But put it on a camera and it does, and in the case of all Nikon's small DSLRs the crop factor is 1.5x. So the 18-55 lens you mentioned has an equivalent focal length of 27-82.5mm. You could also say it is a 3x zoom, because 55/18 is approximately 3.

Sorry that has been dull, and there are a lot of numbers to sort out in your head, but that is what you need to know to compare compact cameras with DSLRs.

You'll find that DSLRs typically have much smaller zoom ranges than the better compacts. This is because they are designed for image quality and, as a generalisation, more zoom range means less image quality. However, you have to be practical and image quality is not the only factor in choosing a lens. Nikon's 18-200 mm lens has been discussed in a couple of recent threads. Its image quality is ok rather than spectacular, but the important thing for paddling shots is that it has all the zoom range you need without having to carry additional lenses and swapping them on the bank or at sea. Doing the above calculations on it, by the way: applying the crop factor of 1.5x gives us 27-300 mm equivalent, so you can compare that with the technical spec of the 'prosumer' camera you are looking at. And (less usefully) it is an 11x zoom, because 200/18 = approximately 11.
Steve Balcombe

User avatar
Ross W
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:32 pm
Location: Dartmoor!
Contact:

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Ross W » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:41 pm

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... =3&t=44841

Here is the pictures advice I got from the good people here when I started looking at SLR's
Dartmoor / Plymouth based
www.rosswildman.co.uk

SPG
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:43 pm

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by SPG » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:58 pm

Much depends on the budget.

I regularly "borrow" my wifes Canon 400d, ( a present to her a couple of years back) and am constantly amazed at the quality of the shots I can get, as a complete muppet.

The ability to take sequence shots at a high quality also increases the chances of achieving a great shot, even though hundreds end in the recycle tray.

If you can run to it, a decent DSLR with image stabilised lens set will reap reward for most people.

ChrisMac
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:05 pm

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by ChrisMac » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:08 pm

Personally I would go for the DSLR and have done. The only advantage of the prosumer camera as far as Im concerned is that it is physically smaller so easier to take in the kayak. A DSLR and a couple of lenses takes some fitting into a kayak safely

ChrisMAC

Jones Chris
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Pro-sumer vs SLR cameras

Post by Jones Chris » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:26 pm

Now I am a DSLR man all the way, I love the quality that they give although I accept that they can take a while to learn. These two little beauties from Casio however, have just made the choice a bit more difficult, especially where action sports are concerned.

EX-F1
http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/H ... LIM/EX-F1/


EX-FH20
http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/H ... M/EX-FH20/

High speed bursts at up to 60fps anyone? Super slow-mo video? All from a point and shoot, choose your weapon DSLR wise, none of them will match this. Doesnt matter what the quality is like if you miss time the shot. Easy to stick in a boat, wont have to take a video cam along too. Almost seems to good to be true on first look.

Chris

Post Reply