something's hit me.
Recently I've been hit by an idea to buy something which has hit me on and off in the past. I can't really explain how I decided that perhaps I really do want one, though. It's strange. Perhaps it's the fact that two of my cousins have one each. Perhaps it's just that it runs in the family, my dad and brother having indulged in it in the past.
I'm talking about a camera. A DSLR, to be precise. Both my father and brother used to shoot in film in the past, and as far as I know my dad used to be a member of the photographic society of singapore, and was sufficiently proficient to develop his own photos - apparently he used the toilet at home as a dark room when i was much younger. Heh that's cute.
But I floated the idea around the both of them, and it seems like both were relatively supportive. Not that it really matters, though. I think for my dad it would be somewhat a trip down memory lane of sorts, seeing his son take up photography.
For me I guess what appeals to me is the potential ability to take stunning photos, to put on record that one moment in time which captures the essence of a particular moment. I use the term 'potential' of course, because it is a distict possibility that I'd never be able to do something like that, or even that I mightn't like it at all after getting one for myself. Plus, it's much cheaper these days since it's digital.
But i digress. Being me, i've gone and analyse in my head the millions of possibilities to this situation. What if I pay that thousand-odd dollars and find that hey, maybe i don't like it all that much? Is this really something I want to do? It's a relatively substantial initial investment, to be sure, and the only direction the dollar output can go, assuming I stay in the hobby, is up. But then the other way of seeing it, which is frankly what i'm leaning towards, is that if you don't try it you won't know. I mean, i've never actually held a DSLR in my hand and gone and shot with it. How would I know what value to tag to it?
At this moment in time i'm thinking perhaps i'll get a entry to mid level set, i.e., both the body and the kit lens (which is basically the term used for getting the lens together with the body as a set), and holding it for awhile. A few people i've spoken to have recommended different models, really, but now it's either the Nikon D90 or the Canon 500D.
The former is a 1.5 year old model, whilst the latter has been in the market for about 6 months now. According to all sources they're relatively comparable, and similar in terms of price as well. More importantly, they're within the budget I've got in mind.
Again, two schools of thought here. One is that I should just stick to the Nikon, whilst the other says that since the Canon has got the most technology behind it I should perhaps get that one. To confuse things even more, just two days ago Nikon launched a new model, the D7000, which is meant as an upgrade/replacement to the D90. But that one isn't much of a problem really, because the recommended retail price is quite abit out of my budget.
how now brown cow?
Carpe Diem,
Cokiee.
I'm talking about a camera. A DSLR, to be precise. Both my father and brother used to shoot in film in the past, and as far as I know my dad used to be a member of the photographic society of singapore, and was sufficiently proficient to develop his own photos - apparently he used the toilet at home as a dark room when i was much younger. Heh that's cute.
But I floated the idea around the both of them, and it seems like both were relatively supportive. Not that it really matters, though. I think for my dad it would be somewhat a trip down memory lane of sorts, seeing his son take up photography.
For me I guess what appeals to me is the potential ability to take stunning photos, to put on record that one moment in time which captures the essence of a particular moment. I use the term 'potential' of course, because it is a distict possibility that I'd never be able to do something like that, or even that I mightn't like it at all after getting one for myself. Plus, it's much cheaper these days since it's digital.
But i digress. Being me, i've gone and analyse in my head the millions of possibilities to this situation. What if I pay that thousand-odd dollars and find that hey, maybe i don't like it all that much? Is this really something I want to do? It's a relatively substantial initial investment, to be sure, and the only direction the dollar output can go, assuming I stay in the hobby, is up. But then the other way of seeing it, which is frankly what i'm leaning towards, is that if you don't try it you won't know. I mean, i've never actually held a DSLR in my hand and gone and shot with it. How would I know what value to tag to it?
At this moment in time i'm thinking perhaps i'll get a entry to mid level set, i.e., both the body and the kit lens (which is basically the term used for getting the lens together with the body as a set), and holding it for awhile. A few people i've spoken to have recommended different models, really, but now it's either the Nikon D90 or the Canon 500D.
The former is a 1.5 year old model, whilst the latter has been in the market for about 6 months now. According to all sources they're relatively comparable, and similar in terms of price as well. More importantly, they're within the budget I've got in mind.
Again, two schools of thought here. One is that I should just stick to the Nikon, whilst the other says that since the Canon has got the most technology behind it I should perhaps get that one. To confuse things even more, just two days ago Nikon launched a new model, the D7000, which is meant as an upgrade/replacement to the D90. But that one isn't much of a problem really, because the recommended retail price is quite abit out of my budget.
how now brown cow?
Carpe Diem,
Cokiee.