Originally posted by fruitybix
Whether to get a consumer, prosumer or a digital SLR really, at the end of the day, depends on what you want to do. If you are a recreational "birthday parties" type, then do consider getting the consumer type. A good recommendation is the Canon A70, gives you full manual controls, versatile, and is relatively cheap for the wallet. I cannot recommend this cam enough, because at the price level, and among its peers, it is a distinct winner.
But if you already know what is aperture priority etc, have ben shooting in manual mode, and have been using film for some time, then you might want to try out the prosumer type (5700, F602Z, 7Hi, G3 etc). But you might hate them, for all DCs suffer from varying degrees of lags (shutter release lag, AF lag, read/write memory lag etc). And you might find the large depth of field a put-off. And you might find learning and manipulating your images in Adobe Photoshop a pain in the proverbial place.
What DAVID mentioned is absolutely true. There really is no short cut for learning photography. In digital, newbies to photography take tons of pictures with scant regard for techniques, thinking that Photoshop will rescue a poorly exposed shot, or badly composed image, or improper white balance.
You learn when it hurts, and through film, you learn the hard way, but you will learn what it really is all about.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Good points u made there fruitybix. Prosumer digicams are very good learning tools for beginners to photography because they also offer manual controls and are feature packed. I myself started out that way too. However I soon found out that the shutter lag and AF lag was really a pain in the neck to bear and hence sold off my prosumer and got myself an SLR.
Agree wif your point that there is no short cut for learning photography. For instance, getting a DSLR or SLR doesn't immediately make one an expert photographer overnight. However, it does give u a boost in the technical aspect, i.e generally speaking, lower shutter lag, faster AF, the flexibility of interchangeable lens etc. Whether or not it helps the individual to take better photographs depends on his or her ability to learn, and also having a good grasp of photography basics also helps.
In digital, newbies to photography take tons of pictures with scant regard for techniques, thinking that Photoshop will rescue a poorly exposed shot, or badly composed image, or improper white balance.
Not to be critical but I think it is too sweeping a statement. Not all newbies are like that, perhaps some (or a few) are guilty of it, those that fall in this group just need a little guidance and help from more experienced photographers to get their shots right and not to rely too much on PS to disguise or hide their mistakes.(This forum for e.g is a GREAT place for that). Everyone needs to start somewhere, and you or me or anybody else could have taken their first shots badly too, perhaps liek u said, bad composition, and try to use PS to crop the picture to a better one.
In this respect I feel that I totally do agree with your last point. Film is brutal in its honesty...what you take is what you get, warts and all. I just started using a film SLR, and most of my first few rolls had shots that were over/under exposed, bad composition, motion blur, camera shake etc. that you cannot erase away or sprinkle some PS magic on. Every roll I had perhaps only around 10 shots (or even less) that were keepers. At about $18.00 per roll for costs of film and developing costs, yes, it is hard on the wallet, but is probably the most effective (and "painful") way to learn photography. As you had mentioned, the "hard way".
Just my humble 2cts, pls dun flame me. :angel: