Really sorry if this has been asked many times. I'm well aware of how annoying these "what sort of digi cam should i get?" questions can be.
I bought a Canon PowerShot S45 late last year, was worried i bought something that was too much for what i could make out of it. I went from auto, and eventually to manual.
Now, i'm definately in need of a new digital camera. My question isn't which digital cam to buy (it won't matter too much in the end), but whether or not i should delve into the D-SLR realm or not?
At the very LEAST, i will be after something like the Nikon 5700, Sony DSC-717 and Minolta's 7Hi.
The D-SLR's in the running for my money are the Canon 10D, Nikon D100 and the FujiFilm's S2Pro.
Though the Canon is currently in the lead. I'm still doing my research.
This whole thing with interchangable lenses, with some lenses being more expensive than the body alone.. is really scaring me out of D-SLR's. I'm worried that it's just wayyyyy too out of my own league, like a little policemen buying an M16. Or a go kart amateur with a Formula 1.
I'm bothered by all these flashlights, flash meters, reflectors and other jumbo accessories that i have no idea what half of them even do. I'd be happy with a camera that supports roughly 35 (25mm a bonus) to about 200mm telephoto.
A nice macro setup would be nice as well, getting in as close as 2cm would sound nifty.
Compact Flash Type I and II support is absolutely essential, (so that scraps the idea of getting any Sony's )
This whole hotshoe flash stuff is beyond me. What DOES matter ALOT to me in the end..
Being able to use higher ISO sensitivities with less noise. Thats what matters to me the most.
I don't care if a camera can do ISO 1600, not like i'd ever need it. What DOES matter to me is the fact that it can do ISO 400/800 with the same amount of noise as my PowerShot does at ISO 50/200
Plus the added fact that ISO 100 on D-SLR's is absolutely smoother than a babys new born arse.
So this whole telephoto/wide angle/macro dosn't mean alot to me. Since the added accessories are available on the prosumer cameras anyway.
But i've found that they tend to be roughly the same price. For a telephoto converter for a prosumer camera for example - you could just buy an whole 200mm lens (cheapo one) for your D-SLR.
So maybe it's really not too bad after all - i'm just extremely bothered by the fact that i have to buy a lens when i get my D-SLR.
In other words.. i want to get in the D-SLR, i'm super impressed with the figures, and i beleive a prosumer camera just isn't going to be good enough.
But am i tredding in alittle bit too deep? Should i stay clear of D-SLR's because of their level of professionalism?
I beleive i've taken my little S45 to the limit, i take good photographs for an S45 owner - but i have no idea how i'm going to fare, if i make the bold move in investing in a D-SLR. I'm just worried that it might be too much for me to handle.
You can see some of my pictures here:
So ultimately, what is your opinion? Does my noise/iso reason justify my move into a D-SLR? Or am i making a move into something, that i really should'nt go near at the moment.
As a bonus reason for getting into D-SLR's... my 21st comes in a years time. It'd make the perfect gift, so in other words.. i don't really have to even pay for the body in the end. Probably just the lenses.
But still, should i stay away? I heard theres no preview/video out feed on D-SLR's.
Your advice, suggestions and comments would be greatly appreciated.
Ohh and as a final note - i'm an absolute fanatical user of adobe photoshop.