Any input would be nice these are my options.

 

older model and all.

pretty good camera.


but id rather find a d50 for that price.

 

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/ele/264608398.html

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/sys/264543939.html

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/ele/264394001.html

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/ele/264058756.html

:ywia:


=)

 

A R

 

has kodak every really stood out in the digital market? I mean yeah, invented modern film....w00t w00t...but have they done much in the digital world?

 

i used that kodak last nite at my aunts and it does a pretty good job of taking upclose pics very cheap price for what it is i am amazed with the megapixel too.

 

i think you're retarded.














jk jk...pix soon?

 

Yeah ***** hurry up and finish your car

 

Is that just the body, or is that with the lense too? I couldn't see when I sped through the desciption. If it's with the lense I'd say go for it, that's a great price for a new dSLR.

 

yes that is with the lens

 

Yo,

when I was getting my first DSLR (canon Rebel XT) I didn't really do my research. The factory lens is not that great and I paid too much for a bundle.

It really depends what you are looking for in an SLR. Are you looking to do club/jazz/nightclub photography? If so an SLR even on program or auto mode takes way better pictures than a regular digital. In a club you can play with the flash to get good dark shots illuminating dancers as well as background - the flash is pretty key for low light indoor photography.

But then that's kinda pointless unless you are doing it for a promoter or just really feel like it since you can't really party with a huge camera around your neck. This I found out quickly and lost interest in that area of photography.

So that's a good arguement for getting a DSLR just to take better "normal" pics even ifyou are not hardcore photography. HOWEVER you can get PRETTY damn good pics with a prosumer camera (more expensive compact digitals), so I advise you really do research on forums and ask questions and such.

If you are trying to get into hobby photography than I recommend you get the body only. Rebel XT body only goes for <500 even though the kits go for 7, 800. Then do research and see what lens you want.

Ambert

 

id stick to nikon or canon if you are getting a dSLR. They are tops in performance as well as in additional lenses and add-ons availible if you decide to get hardcore

 

but I forgot to mention RE: prosumers - you can do white balance, ISO, shutter speed, I think maybe aperture (I'm not exactly sure about them) but I know in some situations my friend can get as good pics with his prosumer as my DSLR, albiet he spends a bit more time tuning the settings.

 

Verc
Mainly for car pics during the day and a few nite shots but yes as of now im leaning towards the d50 i only used the kodak in the house didnt really go outside with it so when i get a chance i will take some pics wit it and post the difference.
Thanks for all the input guys keep it coming i have till feb 4 to decide.

 

If you are only choicing from the 2 I would take the Nikon. Kodak I am not familar with but they are not know for cameras. I doubt they have good lens choices. Don't be mistaken the lens is the vital part of taking good pics. Having the right aperturn and shutter speed setting all comes down to the F-stop of the lens when you are taking low light pictures or what not. The body itself is just a processor that process the information and storing it.

Nikon has a wider varity of lens that you can choose from.

D50 is a very outdated model and Megapixal is not the main thing in taking great pics. It's only allow you to pics ur pictures bigger when u print it out.

Depending on your price range consider getting a nikon or canon.

Anyone correct me if i am wrong