# Tv's & Cameras



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

TV's and Cameras

I need a new TV and would like a digital SLR









*TV*

Flat screen, LCD, Plasma, Hige Definition, SED .... confusing







they all look very nice and save space but the picture is nowhere near as good as a good old fashioned cathode-ray tube (CRT)







Try watching football on an LCD







So what's all the fuss about? Strikes me that these things are still very much in the development stage and it will be a good few years yet before we have an industry standard. Perhaps SED will become the standard in 5 or so years? Also they are bloody expensive







and will eat too much into the watch buying budget







.

I have more or less decided to get a wide screen CRT set and let the flat screens develop for a few years more. Is this the right decision?

*SLR CAMERA*

I am looking for an entry-level SLR ... seems that the Canon EOS 350D and Nikon D50 are getting the best reviews. Although the EOS has more mega-pixels than the D50 it is criticised for overdoing the colour at the expense of sharpness while the D50 has been criticised as variously overexposing or underexposing by half a stop depending on the review you read









I am wondering if it would be better to save up a bit longer and get the Canon EOS 20D or the Nikon D70 ??? I get a feeling I would get a few more years usage out of these.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Have you seen a High definition TV demmo? ....Incredible picture


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

jasonm said:


> Have you seen a High definition TV demmo? ....Incredible picture
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, they had a hard-drive hooked up to a demo-model. It did look good ... but expensive .... I could buy a Brietling or an Omega









It also sounds as if it will be some time before HD is transmitted on Freeview .... I have no desire to get Sky/Cable


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

I think with plasma/LCD you get what you pay for. The expensive ones are very good whilst the cheaper ones (especially plasma) are pretty horrible. I've been very happy with my 23" Philips LCD. Prices are tumbling at the moment too









I still fancy a Nikon D70 with macro lens but I keep buying watches instead so haven't yet taken the plunge


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

When I was buying my DSLR, six out of the nine Photomags put the Canon ahead of the D70......I dont regret buying the EOS (I had no real previous brand loyalty).

I have since had the loan of the D50, and, for me, the EOS walks all over it.

Roger


----------



## in_denial (Aug 3, 2005)

Roger said:


> When I was buying my DSLR, six out of the nine Photomags put the Canon ahead of the D70......I dont regret buying the EOS (I had no real previous brand loyalty).
> 
> I have since had the loan of the D50, and, for me, the EOS walks all over it.
> 
> ...


Really? In what way? I'm in the market as well; no 'lens loyalty' and looking at the D50 vs. 350D. I will pick both up in the shop, but no way can I find out which has the best user interface , best kit lens, best battery life, flash etc. in a ten-minute fiddle.

I've been told the Nikon has marginally better build quality and lower noise levels. I've also heard that Canon lenses are better; although I forgot to ask if that was 'kit' lenses, or the ultimate 3000 quid a go jobs. Some reviews knock the Canon kit lens. The Canon is also about 100 quid more expensive. I'm really all confused!

thanks for any hints!

Tim


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I'd go for the Canon EOS 350D if I had the choice.









I'd use Canon lenses on it and not third party offerings.









Maybe I'm wrong?









For now, I'll stick with crayons.


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

> I'd go for the Canon EOS 350D if I had the choice


Tim,

you wont go wrong with either.

My preference for the Canon was basically 2 things..........

Bulk.....in my 35mm days, I used a lot of Olympus gear which was always compact and good to handle...I found the Nikons far too bulky for my taste.

Speed.....my interest is photography has always been MotorSport and particularly Rallying.......I shoot almost always in RAW mode and also in "burst" mode usually 5 frames per shot.

The Canon has a distinct edge on speed, and combined with todays ultra-fast CF cards, is ideal for me......also the lack of "bulk" is useful when scrambling around in dense forest, looking for a good vantage point.

In summary, both are good cameras, but for me the Canon wins.

Roger


----------



## albini13 (Jan 25, 2005)

LCD HD screens are not that expensive up to 26" if you do go for one i'd personally go for a Panasonic Viera or a Sharp. Empire direct do some great deals on the panasonic lcd's. Make sure it is Hi Def ready and not Hi Def compatible. Two different things. Hi Def ready has the correct input so when sky bring out their Hi Def units it will use a DVI or HDMI input. A Hi Def ready TV will allow these. Plus LCD is far superior to plasma. Brighter and sharper. The bracket for wall mounting wil cost but you don't have to wall mount. XBOX 360 outputs Hi Def which is perfect as it runs as a DVD player.

As for a camera i agree with Stan the EOS 350 is a beaut.

(Just read this back and it's quite coherent for the state i am in.... Hiccup happy new year)


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Happy New Year Mr. Pacino.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> Plus LCD is far superior to plasma


Now Im confused, I have a pal who has just forked out 2K on a 42inch Plasma, he reckons he did his research and plasma is best







They take more looking after in regards screen burn and stuff but he says its better in the long run....

I must say I was impressed, he has a 9.1







speaker system which is awsome! we watched the shoot out scene from 'Heat' and Saving private Ryan and I was blown away....


----------



## albini13 (Jan 25, 2005)

jasonm said:


> > Plus LCD is far superior to plasma
> 
> 
> Now Im confused, I have a pal who has just forked out 2K on a 42inch Plasma, he reckons he did his research and plasma is best
> ...


I suppose it depnds on what you spend. Plasma screens are good and both suffer from screen burn if you play a lot of computer games on them or use them as an extension of your PC monitor. For me LCD is far superior, i spent a long time in showrooms looking and comparing the two. Plasma screens just aren't sharp enough and pixelate a lot. (I must add the ones i saw weren't great, i didn't see the entire range). There will be a new Organic LCD screen on the market with 5 years so spend wisely because i'm told these babies are going to be amazing.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Glad you advised don't buy cheaper makes. I was getting excited about the prices tumbling.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

We went from a 37" CRT (industry best at the time) which at 13 years old was starting to show its age to a 42" Hitachi Plasma, the only plasma at the time (2 years ago) which looked sharp! I had seen every high rated plasma on the market at the time and was about to forget about plasma when I saw the Hitachi of all places in Richer sounds running a DVD through component, and I was very impressed. So I went somewhere else and bought it









We watch sat through sky exclusively and I have never been unhappy with my choice (I have in the past shot video and film professionaly on broadcast equipment so am a bit picky). Just waiting for the introduction of HD sky now, should be good for a few hundred more lines res!









As for the stills cameras, either are great cameras. I personally have always been a Nikon man (a short spell with a Canon F1n in the 80's turned me back to Nikon!).

Whatever, you really have get out there and hold and handle the gear, see which one feels "good" in your hands......depends what you plan on using it for and how much you are willing to spend, at the moment the fav is the Nikon D200 looks a cracker but will be around Â£1000....the Canon 350 is a lot cheaper and will feel it as will the Nikon D50.....but either of those will give you excellent quality if you can use them properly (which I am sure you can).

If I had to recommend a budget DSLR...the Canon 350

If I had to recommend a brilliant DSLR..the Nikon D200

Both makes lenses are as good as you will ever need for digital, if you want to pay less look at the Sigma range for excellent quality and value, you will be hard pressed to tell the difference ona digital print.

Once again though, depends entirely on what your planning on shooting with it?

Right tool for the job........

best regards David


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Well it has taken me a year but I have finally got a TV









Got one from Middlesbrough in the sales ..... Sony Bravia HD ready flat screen ..... to me it seems huge 26 inches







.... picture isnt bad but nowhere near the quality of a CRT .... had no choice; CRTs are history. Now for the camera







another year maybe??


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

Now for the camera John,

Is it an absolute necessity to have an SLR?

One of the best buys around (if you can still find one) is a Fuji S7000 all the features you could ever want AND macro down to 1cm!

When I last saw one new, it was about Â£250

Needless to say, when I bought mine, it was a lot more!!

Roger


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Still haven't got around top buying my DSLR either









Still fancy Nikon over the others.


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

I keep looking at DSLRs but, for me at least, they are just too bulky for everyday, convenient use.

I've had many 35mm SLRs in the past but that was when I was a keen amateur photographer and was willing to lug my heavy photo bag + lens everywhere I went. I used to photograph bands for NME and Sounds --- who remembers Sounds (the best music paper in my view), Howard Devoto and Magazine? One of my NME 1978 photos has appeared on this page, complete with acknowledgment







, Howard Devoto. Many hours were spent in darkrooms pushing ASA 400 film to

ASA 6400







.

Back to cameras....Canon A620 is my current favorite for watch photography. It also has macro at 1 cm, 7.1 mega pixels, large movable LCD screen, every mode you could possible want and all for less than Â£200. My larger Canon G6 is just not getting used.

Paul


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I think one of the best things about DSLRs has to be the instant 'shot'. I get most annoyed about the lag between pressing the button and a photo getting taken on a compact....


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Silver Hawk said:



> who remembers Sounds (the best music paper in my view)


Agreed! I loved Sounds. NME was for New Wave poseurs and Melody Maker was for little kids


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

I think one of the best things about DSLRs has to be the instant 'shot'This was the main reason for me choosing the Canon EOS350 over its Nikon rivals...the multiple shot capability is something like 15 continuos shots at max resolution, before the memory runs out...the others were much less....important for MotorSport work.

Roger


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

JoT said:


> Well it has taken me a year but I have finally got a TV
> 
> 
> 
> ...


26" - huge............

What size was your last one John?


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

Mrcrowley said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> > Well it has taken me a year but I have finally got a TV
> ...


Yes my reaction too!


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Boxbrownie said:


> Mrcrowley said:
> 
> 
> > JoT said:
> ...


11 inches









and I have just measured my new one at 23 inches







still looks huge though


----------



## Alas (Jun 18, 2006)

When the wife and I first got married we watched a portable tv for the first year until I could afford a real tv. When we finally got a massive 20" Mitsubishi I couldn't believe how you had to move your eyes to watch the action on screen.









How sad was that.


----------

