jomeer

Hello Mike, I will investigate the lens issue.The info on the split screen looks like what I want - thanks for the comprehensive instructions - very helpful.

Hello On old SLR's many used to have a split screen for focusing - when the two segments matched the image was in focus. On my 5D I - the screen is very dark and 'muddy'. Is it possible to change the viewfinder/screen to achieve a brighter image and possibly a split screen as old?

Thanks Mike and hj. I was reasonably sure on camera cropping was not possible. I wonder why they allow zoom and selector without editing? I suppose to see if the image is sharp? I will look at the phone suite suggestion - it may be useful when out and about.

Hello Can anyone sit is possible say if it is possible to save pictures in playback mode that have been zoomed in using the selector (enlarge button). It would be very useful if I could edit (crop) on the fly instead of doing it all off camera using software on my PC. Thanks

In regard to both my threads I agree it would be a waste of my money and effort to increase my budget. However, I believe after reading quite helpful comments here that it is still perfectly possible to use the convenience of digital recording around my budget - but using an older model that has manual control and one or two lenses to start with carrying out some outdoor nature/architecture and photo reportage, together with small scale studio work. I think a free digital editing software would be fine for my limited needs and in view of digital being simply a means to an end for me. My main concern was to find out what hardware is available for APPROXIMATELY the budget I mentioned. The only real question remains as to how small scale digital stands up against medium - large format film results. From what I have read even older DSLR results may be acceptable depending heavily upon lens. I think for now I have achieved the goal set for myself. Thanks again to those who made some helpful comments.

To answer your 3 points first: (These answers depend upon camera body - lens - work mix), until I decide which combination they are merely ideas. Having said that: FL - My personal lens choice would be a wide angle and a reasonably long focal length lens. I tend to leave standard 50mm lenses alone due to my own taste. Of course actual lens choice will also be influenced by quantity or work (whether outdoors or studio). I do not at this stage intend to have a full range of lenses - and make do with two. Also I can see that many more zoom lenses are available which allows some flexibility here. Lens speed - I envisage most outdoor work t be in poor light (without flash) so would mainly use a mix of long exposure, ISO and any available aperture flexibility. Again I would be working with the idea of 'make-do' rather than perfection. Post Production - The only interest I have in digital is its relative inexpense and speed of seeing a result. My view is that older medium and larger format produced very good quality. If digital can match that (using small format) that's great - if it can't, I will again make-do. I have no objection to a limited amount of digital/electronics/screens - but only in order to obtain quick imaging and a decent camera. In any case - It seems this now is all that is available at my budget. Post production - I will use a free digital editing suite on a PC (reluctantly). With reference to what you say about the EOS 5D having a different set of dials to the 40D. Can you say how the aperture and shutter speed are set manually with the 5D and how that differs to the 40D?

Edit: I can see the imaging quality is much better with the EOS 5D.

Thanks, that's a good idea. Can you expand on why the Eos 5D?

Thanks for the suggestion on camera. The answer is - 'in addition to'. But I may use the lightness of a 100 D body for outside work and have the more bulky 40D/5D? for studio if there is a difference in quality that requires it and i have the resources. This assumes all Canon items - but if I went Nikon then of course body and lens would have to match also. Really in addition to general use, I am just trying to find out if there is a major difference in items for still life work using small format DSLR. I assumed there was a large difference in quality re: MPixels etc but some reviews suggest outcomes are similar between 10 and 12 MP or even higher. It seems a very technical area.

Tripod is already to hand and will be used to ensure low ISO speed (to hopefully keep image quality up) and use potentially large apertures to create interesting depth of field shots. I could be doing anything from near macro to 2 metres distance. I will have suitable spots, and some daylight (in studio). The lens will be within the price range a second hand body and suitable lens allows at the modest end of the market. (circa £100 + each). I notice the D300 has a flash sync port whereas the canon 40d and 100d only have a shoe. Is the sync port more useful for studio work with strobes and flash? I may need that.

I used to use a Pentax 6x7 in my work. You could hear the shutter go off in the next room)). It might frighten any potentially nervous portrait sitter. A very well built camera though and as has been said before extremely weighty. Probably only ok for studio work. If the OP moves on and towards medium format film. I think you could not do better than the old Rolleiflex twin lens. It was the standard portrait photography camera of its day. Of course now it is probably vintage although I have seen one or two good specimens on second hand sites at big money. Beautiful unsurpassed lens.

I am looking to do some still life studio work. My budget is tight so second hand and older equipment readily available on Ebay etc is probably what is within range. (circa £100 per each for body and lens). Firstly, I know 35mm SLR was at the lower end of quality anyway.This may have changed somewhat with the advent of digital SLRs. Also I am aware the lens is also a major factor - so please assume regular lenses within the above low end budget. Also some may say small format is not the ideal for studio and high quality imaging but I am not sure of what this 'small format' is capable of nowadays. I do like the idea of digital convenience and cost. So which older model will give the best quality availability considering M Pixels etc I am unsure what models give the best quality image. At the moment under consideration are Canon EOS 40 D and 100D mainly due to lower cost. But there may be better models. What model DSLR would people recommend considering the above difficult constraints?

A further question - on the Canon 100 D model I notice it has two dials. Can the shutter and aperture be separately controlled with these (as with the 40D) or is it like all rebel models where an extra button must be pressed for aperture using the same dial as the shutter?

Thanks guys and especially Mike for the photos - very useful ( a picture says a thousand words - no joke intended). I have just had a brief look through the 40D manual online and with Mike's photos it all looks reasonably intelligible. Do these cameras take normal SDHC cards- is there a limit to memory size? Is there any other way to take the images from the camera - maybe a USB or firewire slot? I can't see it in the handbook at first look.

Thanks - really sound advice from contributors. It looks as though I will go for 40 D body (budget limits me on this), a 55-250mm to in effect give me 80- 400mm approx. On wide angle I can see from reviews the 17-55 EF-S lens produces a better image than the 18-55mm (at a price), but if I want a true wide angle would I need to go for the 10-22mm? The crop (x1.6) effect seems to make a wide angle more of an old fashioned standard lens (55mm) at this end of the lens range? I may have this wrong.