a battlefield of some kind?
camera:
Canon EOS 300D or 350D
300s should be pretty affordable atm

I agree, Canon EOS 350D is great, I love it. Nikon has a simular model D7, but I prefer Canon.

the EOS 350D is perfect, get that one

I researched all the dSLRs and ended up with the new Minolta 5D.

Why? Because of AntiShake and other nifty features.

Why not the standard recommendation by everyone, the 350D? Because the grip absolutely sucks compared to the 5D, and it feels so plasticky. At least for someone with large hands, like me.

The Nikon D50 is also a possibility, great grip on that one too.

AntiShake? (grip - good)
haha, why bother with an SLR if you need such 'nifty features' ?
should have went with some Sony saopbar or something
Canon 300D is actually bigger then 350D, and has a better grip, imo anyway, but it's a nearly-professional camera at an affordable price. If you've decided against Canon and chose Konica, not even Nikon.. I kinda doubt you needed in the first place.

Do you know anything about cameras? :)

whats a camera? o_O

Also, do you know anything about photography? AntiShake? Does it have a gyroscope control as well? Ha
Which lenses are you considering for use with your Camera?

I can't believe you have no clue what antishake is and how much of a difference it can make :)

I have bought the minolta 24-105mm, sold off the kit lens, bought a 50mm F1.4 prime which was unfortunately broken during shipping, so waiting for a refund on that one.

What makes you think I have no clue? I know exactly what it is and how it works, and Its 50% a placebo, sorry. More over, if you're a seriouse photographer you shouldn't *need* it. MORE over, it can screw up a long exposure shot. MORE over, it's useless when you think you may really need it, like say runing, or a really long zoom shot, but that still doesn't have much to do with photography. Regardless, minoltas matrix is quite inferior to Canons CMOS, while the line up of optics pretty much suck in comparison. Now, the price would be an even bigger deal for me, since you can find a Canon 300D for 566$ right now, or I've seen a body only for a measly 125$, while canons lens line up is un-arguably the best :)

you really don't have a clue it seems - I'll let you stay with your opinions, there is no convincing a fanboy/russian.

Look, I might express myself badly, but honestly, do you know how AntiShake works? Like technically? Shooting from a distance with a long lens, anti-shake could be useful, but only to marginal degree, a gyroscope isn't gonna help you when you swing 'a lot', or something moving in front of you. It's gonna screw up your stuff when you're taking a photo in the same moving eviorment as your object. It can bork things up when you're using a tripod so you have to turn it off. It's not gonna help you anymore then the canon lens' built in stabilization. Regardless, my point was that if you need 'AntiShake' so much, you bough the wrong type of a camera. You really don't need DR or Minolta 5D for taking family pics, I'm not sure why you keep ignoring that point.
Am I clueless for knowing that konica makes good beginner lenses and ...?
"I'll let you stay with your opinions, there is no convincing a fanboy/russian."
Should have stuck that pretty showing 'Fanboy/russian' somewhere earlier, so I wouldn't have wasted my time on someone with a teenage mental development. I'm not sure why I'm say all this, quite a waste of time.

well yelstin is correct in what he has been saying.. the honest truth is .. antishake is not really a measure of a good camera or a bad.. there are other things in it .. if u are going for a DSLR.. some of the important things u should be considering is the speed it can shoot at .. the shutter count.. the megapixel.. the ISO sensitivity (this helps in solving shake as well) and well ofcourse the lenses..

if u have a 2.8 L canon lense u can shoot in extreemly low lights and there will not be any shake.. the picture will be damn sharp as well .. but the problem is the lenses usually cost shitloads more than the camera..

i have a 350 D its a brilliant camera.. its affoardable has great results.. and now maybe id buy a good lens someday too..

the nikon d50 on the other hand is cheap and all but the CCD technology they were using is pretty much over since its not crossing the 6 megapixel barrier.. and now they are too switching to the CMOS technology that canon has been using since a while..

also .. the iso rating if u push up the ISO to 1600 at night u usually wont have a shake in the picture..

but then again if u are going for antishake then Canon has the IS series lenses .. extreemly expensive and pretty cool too have.. thats real anti shake.. also nikon has the VR series lenses .. those are expensive as well .. but u gotta love em for that..

but honestly.. you should only buy the camera u feel comfortable with .. the 350 isnt bulky.. i can carry it for hours and i love it :)

Yey!!! :-)

is that the scene from the first film, where lady arwen (?) is escaping on horseback with frodo to the um.. rivendell indeed! :)

Rivendell? =)

"How do they manage such low prices?"

is the place where golum found the ring...bwuahah

as for camera, note this:

CANON>>>>>>>ALL!
I'm a proud owner of an a95 model and it rules!

the place where the anchormen from the cities different tv networks battle?

Public News Team is taking a break from its punchdrive (spl?) to kick some ass - NO COMMERCIALS, NO MERCYYYY!!!

this is where Sam and Frodo were engaging in private intimacy, abruptly and brutally interrupted by Gollum's fingers

most impressive

no idea if this still is holds truth..saved it from the Inquirer the christmas 2004, so about 10 month old or so. Anyways

Buying a digital camera has never been harder
FOR THIS Yule season, digital cameras can be divvied up into four different types – junk, still pictures, good enough, and consumer overkill. I bought my first digital camera back in 1997, a one-megapixel Kodak DC-120 that devoured AA batteries but captured still pictures good enough for either web site or print use. Today, I'm on my third "generation" of digital camera and my latest is good enough for just about anything most mortals need.

I've got five rules for buying digital cameras for 2004 – you may disagree, especially if you are a shutterbug – and you know who you are with that stash of lenses and three flashes in your tote bag.

Rule One: Spending more than $500 for a digital camera is overkill unless you are a die-hard shutterbug.

Some people need, want, and/or desire the ability to swap lenses, switching from their wide-angle to their telephoto for the best nature photos and whatnot. "Prosumer" gear to compete with the analogue style 35mm SLR gear starts at around $800 on up for 35mm camera replacement bodies. For example, Canon's EOS Digital Rebel is a beautiful camera for the "shutter bug" that wants to control every single aspect of their picture taking. I confess that I do covet the Canon for its ability to continuously take 2.5 frames per second – a must for sports and other action photography – but I don't lose sleep over not having it.

Rule Two: Optical zoom is good. Digital zoom is bad. Multiplying the two together for "Total Zoom" is useless marketing crap.

Optical zoom describes the ability to use glass lenses to "focus in" on a subject, and typically runs the gauntlet between 2x (times) and 4x in the $300-500 price point. Digital zoom basically makes pixels "bigger" and degrades image quality as it is used. In order to make a "bigger" number, marketing wonks multiple optical zoom with digital zoom to get total zoom like this = 3x (optical) x 4x (digital) = 12x total zoom. Ignore total zoom, ignore digital zoom, get a camera with (at least) 3x optical zoom. Bonus points if you can disable/turn-off digital zoom. Anything without optical zoom is not worth bringing home to put under the tree.

Rule Three: 4 Megapixels is more than enough, unless you are a hardcore consumer junkie.

With four megapixels, you can print out pictures up to 20 by 30 inches. At 3.5 megapixels, you can print out pictures up to 11 x 14 inches with some cropping. A typical picture "print" is 4 by 6 inches and a typical ink jet printer can print out around 8 by 10 inch photos, give or take. So, 4 MP is sufficient to cover anything coming out of your off-the-shelf inkjet printer or might get down at the local drug store. Yes, 5 or 6 or 7 megapixels sounds better, but it's overkill once the smoke clears.

Rule Four: Picture capture speed and burst speed count. Look for them.

Cheap and earlier generation digital cameras take an agonizing l-o-n-g time to capture an image once the time the button is pressed. This is very awkward when you are trying to take a picture of anything involving motion. Further, the time between shots can be agonisingly awkward on lower-end cameras. You want to get a camera that takes pictures anywhere between 1.2 and 1.6 seconds from the time you hit the button and preferably a model that has a burst capability of taking multiple pictures in sequence. There are a number of cameras in the $300-400 range that will take 4 to 6 pictures in a "burst" to capture action shots.

Rule Five: Standard removable media is Good. Proprietary media = Evil.

This is my own personal prejudice, but I can't stand xD and Sony Memory Stick. Most digital cameras use stamp-sized SD memory these days. You can find name-brand SanDisk 512MB SD for under $50 after all the rebates are applied. Buying more than 512MB SD might be a waste – at 4 MP, a 512MB SD card will hold around 392 pictures. That's a lot of pictures between visits to a hard disk for downloading.

Other things to think about
I have a slight prejudice for cameras that use standard-size AA or AAA batteries over rechargeables. In a pinch, I can buy fresh batteries or raid them from another device. Rechargeable batteries require management, either via a standardised evening visit to the charger or in the form of carrying a charged-up spare battery in the back picket. It's annoying.

Cameras come with a variety of interface options, including docks for printing and recharging, USB ports for moving over pictures, and even specialised PictBridge software to allow you to print directly from camera to printer over USB cable. Given the price of printing photos, it makes more sense to slip out the SD card or other removable media, review and edit pictures, and then print them off. Slipping out the card also means you don't burn battery time on the camera. µ

Compare prices in the UK

www.dpreview.com

you seksi seksi paki!
can I have some support from you? :s
on the canon > nikon > konica? Am getting butchered with a clue stick here ;(

what kinda support do u want :)

I donno, I'm being regarded as a clueless russian/fanboi in the above posts :( Makes me cry :(

hows the message down there? :P

pretty good :)

jebus, this camera stuff sounds like hard work.

by the way its Isengard.

lies...

noway hozay. they used a bit of komputer grafficz too..

Ha, I guessed that! Not that strange, I've seen it three times :)

You seem to have a great feeling for taking nice photo's. I can't offer much advice on camera's, but I agree that you can't go wrong with Canon.

yle="font-size:64pt">CANON > all

yle="font-size:64pt">MOTHER CANON!!!!!

i hate you so much :<

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ewya...cannon.jpg

mother called cannon

looks more like a cannonball than a cannon!

i've told you so ;]

so you bought a new camera ? :P

The pic is infront of Helms Deep? The plains infront of the castle?

hey how did a photographer get into my garden ?

poland?