woodsy wrote:hmmm i feel a upgrade coming soon http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102001canon1d4.asp
only if theres no problems like the mk 3

I'm sure Rob Galbraith will find some issue, everyone else/ not so sure.

I'm in for a 7D soon, no way can I afford a 1D.

jamieinauckland wrote:Ohakune

Have you posted that photo before?
I'm sure that I have seen it before. Cool photo

Wakka wakka wakka

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM&NR=1

ok so they used dollys and a redrock but not bad for avalible light

(canon have removed it from vincents web im picking to create more interest)

Nocturn looks good, but not sure it looks any different to what the 5DmkII or 7D coud have produced?

Thought I'd take a look at the sun setting over the South Island from Kapiti last night. These are just straight from the camera, no touching up (yet).

Nice. I love the west coast sunsets. Waitarere a bit further up has put on some good shows for me too.

jnumbaz wrote::)

who let the cat out of the bag!?!?

Sunset last night was a good 'un...

Indeed it was. I looked at it several times, but couldn't be arsed walking the 20 feet or so to get my camera!

Ok, I know this will be a grossly overgeneralised post - but I'm going to make it anyway
I'm starting to look for a DSLR, it will be my first. I don't have tonnes of cash, probably looking at around the $1500 mark. Always liked the look of Canons, lots of people seem to have them which I figure must be a good thing.
Looking at their range I guess I'm somewhere around the 1000D twin lens kit or 450D kit price range. Are the twin lens kits worth going for, or are there better lenses to throw my money at? Would a twin lens kit lenses be pretty good for starting out with - or something I'd end up never using down the track?

With the lower end DSLRs what are the features (or lack of) worth looking out for? Is it similar to bikes where you get to a price point where features really start being worth something (I'm thinking about how much better a $4k trail fully is comapred to a $2k trail fully here), and then another price point where you're just throwing money away (like a $7k trail fully for example ).

As you may know I like the video side of things and am interested to see a lot of DSLRs now coming with HD capability. I've always thought that a camera (still or video) should be used for it's intended purpose. And another separate camera used for the other job. But are the video capabilities of a DSLR now up to a point where I really could kill two birds with one stone? I'm not entirely sold on the form factor of a DSLR for shooting video - but that's an experience thing I guess. I really love depth of field photography, something which I'd like to play with more in a video sense - but is fairly limited with a consumer video camera these days...

Any solid recommendations for brands/models/features etc (including things to stay away from) would be greatly appreciated.

IMHO steer away from the twin lens kits ... I bought a set like that and have been dissapointed ... sure they allow you to take images but I have never been impressed with their clarity/sharpness. My suggestion would be to get the 450D (I have a much older model 350D) and start of with a good 35 or 50 MM prime lens. Then save up your dollars and cents and get proper lenses.

As far as I know and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong the main difference between the more expensive and lower end models is the rate/way/speed at which images are processed and the way the different models are made. When you get to the really expensive stuff the image sensor gets larger too allowing for larger prints .... larger than A1. Those are the main difference as far as I know.

I have a 350D too. Getting a 7D soon I think.

I#ll also 2nd getting a 30-35 or 50mm prime. The 50f1.8 is super cheap (as things go).

If you get a 1000D or 450D get the IS kit lens if you can, else dont get a kit lens. The IS kit lens is very good for the money. Also the 55-250IS is a good lens, not the 55-200.

1000D is a pretty decent all rounder, downsides are 1.5fps in RAW for sports (does 3 for jpg) and a (350d like) iffy 7 point autofocus.

450D can do 3.5 fps in RAW and has a better 9 point AF.

You have to step up to the 500D for video, which is very good (unlike nikons), but it doesnt get you a whole lot more.

Theres realy not a whole lot you cant do with a 1000d/450D, so long as you have the lens(es) to do it, thats the most important (and expensive) thing, checkout my blog, www.zarphag.com , all taken with a 350D..

Nice stuff RJD ... with images like that I might just stop blaming my camera and start working on my skills hahahaha