1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NOOB

Discussion in 'Introductions...' started by Efstopdummy, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Quality doesn't depend just on the number of pixels. The 500D suffers from a fair bit of image noise, and in JPEG, quite a few image artifacts caused by noise reduction. The 1100D does rather better here. The 550D doesn't suffer so badly - it's a better sensor than the 15MP one.
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    No, that comparison is factually incorrect on at least one point (the 1100D has dust removal), and the truth is that the numbers just don't tell the true story anyway. I've never seen that site before, and I certainly won't be using it again having read that.
     
  3. Efstopdummy

    Efstopdummy Member

    Thanks Nick.

    This is the reason I joined a forum. To hopefully get collective wisdon and intelligence as well as the sharing of collective knowledge.

    So you still say the 1100D is better than the 500d even though it has less pixels?

    As far as I know, they both have zachery the same lenses when in kit form. (Maybe they are bad lenses and this is Canons way of getting them out into the market. (By dumping them on unsuspecting loons like yours truly. :confused:))
     
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I think the 1100D punches above its weight in pixel terms, the 500D slightly below. If you shoot RAW, and/or you only use low ISO settings, the 500D is perhaps a better choice. If video is important to you, perhaps the 500D is a better choice. Otherwise, personally I would go for the 1100D over the 500D. However, if you could somehow find your way to the 550D, that's a clear winner - but the truth is that any of these cameras would actually get you good results, to be fair - we're talking relatively small differences.

    As to lenses, well they generally come with some variant of 18-55mm. If you can get one with IS (Image Stabiliser), do so. The original kit 18-55 lens was pretty poor, the IS lens much better, and IS can be very useful. I believe the latest non-IS lens is OK, but I've no experience of it.
     
  5. Efstopdummy

    Efstopdummy Member

    Not only am I a noob on the forum, I am a complete noob when it comes to photography.

    I have little or no knowledge of F stops (hence my login name) and things like RAW and ISO mean even less to me.

    What I essentially want is a camera that will give me better results than the Pentax Optio (7.2 Mpix) that I have used a couple of times. (borrowed from my brother).

    As you can see, I have had some good shots with it but I find it difficult to use especially sitting in a car in the middle of an African day when it's almost impossible to see the image on the camera so you have no idea of how it will turn out. Battery life on the optio is about a day or 150 to maybe 200 shots.

    With a SLR camera, I can see the image in a view-finder and have a reasonable idea of how the shot will come out.

    The "trigger" to shoot the Optio is too firm so I find the camera moves and the end result is blurred where I think it might be better with a SLR camera. Also I cn shoot several frames of whiich one of a series should be good enough to use and I'll simple delete the rest.

    The plan is to shhot more birds than I have been able to because I think it would be easier to follow a bird with a SLR camera than a point and shoot.

    What I am saying is I plan to buy a camera. I don't plan to enter competions just yet, but I'd like to get a few really decent shots of birds in flight as well as general game.

    So all things point towards a SLR camera. Question is which one.
     

Share This Page