Guide to your Perfect Digital Camera 603
Alan Dang writes "I've just posted a new digital camera buyer's guide at FiringSquad titled A Tale of Two Cameras. It explains why the digital SLR may not be the best camera for you, and helps you narrow down your holiday digital camera buying to a short list."
Yay (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yay (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, the article itself was quite basic. "A portable digital camera it's what you need, unless you're a serious photographer; then get a SLR". Nice pictures though.
Article not useful (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is - if you're looking to get a digital camera and you don't even know what SLR is, don't get one. It's designed for advanced and more knowledgable photographers.
That being said, I own a Canon A80 which I am quite happy with. Also, a good book on digital photography which I also own is Complete Digital Photography 2nd Ed [amazon.com]
Re:Article not useful (Score:3, Insightful)
Canon's make good into cameras, I have a Powershot S330, then a year later I moved up to an Olympus C740 UZ as it had a 10x optical zoom in a still small body, it was one of the first.
When it comes to cameras, just get something that looks good, eg a lower end canon, then figure out what you like don't like and want for the next one.
Re:Article not useful (Score:5, Informative)
A large part of the rest of the article deals with all those manual settings an SLR offers you and how bad that is when you just want to take a couple of quick snap-shots. Again, this is nonsense, because in reality a good SLR will give you the possibility of setting everything according to your preferences, but doesn't force you to do that. They have autofocus and auto-exposure just like cheaper models, and usually they choose these parameters more cleverly as well. As a bonus, they don't only allow you to take a quick snap-shot as any other camera, but a good one will take a dozen uncompressed, high-quality pictures in a matter of one or two seconds. You can choose the one you like best and discard the others. Now that gives you a good snapshot.
In summary, the more you pay for a camera, the more options and possibilities you will get. Surprise surprise, who would have thought that. Depth of field and ease of use are non-isues, the article gets this very wrong. But yes, if you couldn't care less what depth of field or aperture even is, you might never want to set these manually and thus not want to pay for such advanced optiones.
Re:Article not useful (Score:3, Insightful)
One area where a DSLR would be well worth it is in capturing action. The A70 makes very good photos, but it's slow to start up and there's a lot of delay between pressing the shutter release and actually taking a picture. You can mitigate this by half-pressing the shutter release to pre-focus/meter, but that's a problem with a moving subject (like a toddler!). You end up with a lot of eyes-closed-missed-the-cute-moment photos.
Second issue: on camera flash is evil.
Re:Article not useful (Score:4, Informative)
slow to start up and there's a lot of delay between pressing the shutter release and actually taking a picture. You can mitigate this by half-pressing the shutter release to pre-focus/meter, but that's a problem with a moving subject (like a toddler!).
Try setting the camera to "action" mode, so it continuously re-focuses while the shutter release is half-pressed.
Second issue: on camera flash is evil. Only a few compact cameras give you a hotshoe. DSLR's will give way better flash results with their bounce flash/diffuser capability. Almost every flash picture I have yields terrible red-eye. Photoshop Album can generally fix this, but not all the time. Even without red eye, you generally get a sterile, harshly lit result.
As a former pro photographer, (newspaper, studio, wedding), I appreciate the advantages of an SLR, and how a pro or avid hobbyist benefit from these more costly, larger and more complex pieces of equipment. But a pro or avid hobbyist does not need to read this type of article. As for myself, I've grown too lazy and cheap to drag $2,000 and 8 lbs of camera gear around with me and go through the ritual of setting-up flash brackets and bounce cards anymore. If I need that stuff, I still have the gadget bag with over $5K of Canon gear. Instead, I use a Panasonic Lumix [panasonic.com], which is still at the upper-end of size and weight for most consumers.
On the other hand, when the typical consumer asks "what's the best camera" what they really want to know, when questioned, is what's going to give them good snapshots of the kids and easily print quality 4x6 and maybe the occasional 8x10. For them, something with a good zoom range, relatively quick focus and release time, decent low-light capability, built-in flash that sits-up high enought to avoid red-eye in most cases, and at least 3 megapixels, coupled with a pl
Re:Article not useful (Score:4, Insightful)
Iff you know how to use it, any Digital or Film SLR should have whatever depth of field you need, and should be really fast to dial in the right setting. On my Canon AE-1 Program (a 1980 film SLR) it takes me seconds to dial the shutter speed to one that will force the aperature to what I want. Shooting portraits, I use a fast shutter to force a shallow depth of field; shooting landscapes, I use a slow shutter to force a wide depth of field.
For better results, sometimes I use the simplified zone system [normankoren.com] with the built-in lightmeter.
My Minolta DiMAGE 7 (a digital cam midway between a compact and a dSLR) only has wide depth of field. This can be handy for some shots, but I find it annoying for others. Also the shutter and aperature are awkward to adjust manually, which makes the simplified zone system difficult to use. I greatly prefer the clarity (and NO LAG!) of my SLR viewfinder to the LCD and evf of my digital camera.
Re:Article not useful (Score:3, Informative)
Re:digital SLR - why?? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you hit the shutter on a digital SLR you take the picture immediately. On a compact it takes about 0.5 seconds. This is because the sensor is only used taking a picture on an SLR. On a compact it is continually in use, so when you hit the shutter what actually happens is the the sensor the shutter is closed, the sensor reset electronically, and then the picture is taken.
It is also completely impossible to focus manually with a compact camera. Then you get to depth of field
Re:Yay (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, what ever happened to good old HTML? And why so much border? You have a whole browser, fill it up, I had to put my glasses on to read the text and all I wanted to know was where to get a good digital camera for around $150.
Another case of designing for the PHB. What looks good on the latest PC on a high speed connection at work, might not even show up in the browser of the average user. And did you even check to see if it runs on Macs or Linux???
You bet I would fill it up to the walls (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had a living room, bedroom or bathroom that measured 19" or less diagonally, you can bet I would fill it up to the walls.
Go to a newsstand and check how many publications use 30% whitespace on their pages. It's just not practical to do that when your purpose is to present informative articles.
Sites that use tons of whitespace think of themselves as museum walls. That's not even appropriate for most photo sites. Think more in terms of a family photo album. You put several photos on one page so p
White space (Score:3, Funny)
I couldn't agree more.
Re:Yay (Score:3, Interesting)
When you're ready to come back down to earth, I once read something about web designers are always trying to shoehorn print design into web design
Designing a web page to fit in a fixed area is like designing for a piece of paper. What's the point of having different monitor resoltions, scrollbar
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you rather have lines of text that go all the way across your 1600x1200 monitor? I make my web site scale up to a point, but when you start getting past a certian width of text, it becomes hard to read. That is why I limit the width of text to 30em. That ends up with about 12-14 words per line, which is much more comfortable to read than 50 or 60 words per line that you would see if I let it "take advantage" of your 1600x1200 display.
There is nothing wrong with using print design on a web page. You do not have to design for a fixed-size box to use print design on the web. You can quite easily make that "fixed size box" be a "fixed proportion box" and scale up or down to whatever size the user is displaying it at. The key is to make it so it is still comfortable to read at high or low resolutions, or anything in between.
I would not shove my site into a fixed-sized box in the middle of your screen, I would make it take up whatever amount of space it needs to have a comfortable 12-14 words per line, in a font that is a reasonable size for you to read, without looking huge.
Whitespace (Score:3, Informative)
Well, yeah actually--to a point. In my house I tend to put the furniture and stuff "right up to the walls". There is "empty space" but it is towards the centre of the room, in the middle of my stuff.
Space is good! It allows movement.
I see no point in allowing so much movement arount the outside of the room (or a page) when all the useful stuff is crammed in the m
Re:Yay (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Funny)
ahmen, brothah (Score:3, Informative)
I got a Nikon D70 earlier this year. It's proven to be one of the best purchases I've ever made. One of the strongest examples of how it's improved my photography is shooting at night with slow shutter speeds.
With my film cameras, I was never willing to invest the time and wasted film to experiment with tricky lighting and night shots. I always wanted to be sure I got the moment, so I'd always use a flash.
With the D70, I could see immediately how my shots were turning out and adjust settings to dial
Re:Yay (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yay (Score:2, Funny)
Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Funny)
A camera without flash would be pretty useless.
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it wasn't pointless. For example, you generally can't use copy-and-paste to copy part of the text to another window. This is done for a couple of reasons. The obvious one is copyright protection, since it makes exact copying difficult. But a more important use is to interfere with criticism, which often requires copying significant chunks of text to explain what's being criticised.
For example, consider the following paragraph (which I've laboriously retyped:
I'd originally intended to comment on this, and the comment could well go here. This paragraph is rather discrediting to any reader who knows any physics at all. Your eye and your camera are subject to exactly the same laws of physics, and photons don't change their behavior for either one. Fact is, your eye doesn't have an infinite depth of field; it just has a very fast "autofocus". And it's difficult for most humans to look at something without automatically focusing on the subject of interest. The only real difference with a camera is that the picture preserves the focus from when the picture was taken, so you can look at the out-of-focus portions easily. It takes training (that most people don't have) to do the same with your eyes.
Anyway, I'd consider this paragraph a "howler" that instantly discredits the rest of the text. I'd suggest that it be rewritten in some way that's not blatantly incorrect (to someone with a bit of knowledge of optics).
It even gets worse in the next paragraph, which starts "A digital SLR has a shallow depth of field,
OK, so this was aimed at the PHB, not anyone with even a minimum of knowledge of optics. So I'm pissed for having my time wasted like this by an abstract that promises more than it delivers. I suppose I should have known the second I saw the white space and the flash, and hit the Back button. I'll go away now.
Is this article really up? (Score:4, Funny)
"/pfucata_digicam_guide_04/lowres/upgrade.
The document you are trying to view is not available or the URL is incorrect. Please double-check the URL you are trying to visit at the address bar above. If you know the URL is correct and you are still viewing this message, please contact FiringSquad Tech Support.
Website (Score:5, Informative)
dpreview buying guide (Score:3, Informative)
One feature the dpreview buying guide [dpreview.com] doesn't ask you for is the orientation sensor. Not all new cameras have it; I know Canons generally do. The orientation sensor saves you the trouble of rotating from landscape to portrait because EXIF information is written that lets programs like jhead do it automatically. If you take photos in batches, I highly recommend buying a camera with this feature.
I do agree that dpreview is a great source of information overall, and I didn't have patience to work through
Longtime DPreview reader... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like walking into a Chevy, Ford, or Dodge dealership and asking them, "Hey, what's best?" You can predict what might happen.
Lately, there are fewer and fewer "experts" and more and more newbies. More and more complaints about Canon, Nikon and the lack of progress on this or that. Lots of rumors. If you like rumors, give the place a try. Especially with PMA coming in February.
If you want to hear people whin
Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
I just think it would be helpful when making a "buyer's guide" like this to include some printer recommendations for the layman all the way up to the pro...
Re:Funny (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny (Score:2)
Re:Funny (Score:2)
Many people think about digital the way you do--they want to go totally paperless. That's me for the most part. Still, though, even I recognize that in order to truly see a photo, you need to print it.
I've often felt conflicted about this until I read in a photo rag that the human mind is able to see subtle differences (almost at the subconscious level) between different high rez shots. A very high res print will seem more 3D, the colors more saturated...more like you're there. The highest resolution a m
Re:Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you a bit. Ever since getting my D70, I have had more and more "keepers" compared to the total amount of pictures I have taken due to the fact that I am getting more practice(I usually take my camera out every day), and the instant feedback lets me know if something I tried works or not. It has been teaching me a lot about photography.
Re:Funny (Score:2, Insightful)
Its funny people even buy printers... (Score:3, Informative)
I have an Alps MD-5000 dye sublimation printer, and at a cost of a buck a print, I can make prints quite a bit better quality than a consumer optical process can do, or those dyesub Kodak kiosks. But for $.24 a print, I can get them printed as true photographs at Wal(greens|mart), and will end up with a quality tha
Re:Its funny people even buy printers... (Score:2)
Also, you figure most people are going to buy an IJ printer anyways, so they might as well get one capable with photos too, right?
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
They always give me a dumbfounded look when I tell them not to print any photos on any of the entry level photo printers, instead have them printed at a reputable photo lab. "Isn't that expensive?" they ask. Nope, not when compared to the total cost of the paper, the ink cartridges you used and the quality of the prints.
Unless you are a pro (or a VERY serious photo geek) and can afford a pro quality photo printer,do not print digital photos at home.
Re:Funny (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how true that is anymore. Images from either my Canon Digital Rebel (3072x2048) or Powershot G1 (2048x1536) printed on my pretty low-end Epson C84 look very good. I don't have quite the same kind of gloss you'd get from a professional lab (Actually, they're much like a professional grade "matte finish"), but the image looks excellent. Plus, I get to control the de
Re:Funny (Score:2)
Umm... and why should it discuss photo printers? A lot of people just bring their memory cards to Costco/some photo lab and get their 4x6s that way.
Quality in prints now is limited to printer quality, not image resolution, if I am not mistaken.
You are mistaken.
Technically speaking it depends on the original image resolution, the size of the print, and the printing techno
Re:Funny (Score:3, Informative)
If your CDR backups are failing within a couple of years, you are either using POS cheap media and/or not storing them correctly. Please be aware that there are only something like 12 companies in the world that manufacture CDR discs, and everything else is a rebrand of those. (i.e. There is no such thing as a Memo
Gah (Score:5, Insightful)
Why DSLR might not be right for you (Score:2, Interesting)
DSLR Cameras: $1200 and up
Point, shoot and wait cameras: $200-500
Re:Why DSLR might not be right for you (Score:2)
I purchased a P&S camera for $500, and it didn't do what I needed it to do. So, did I save myself money by going with it? Nope. True value is carefully considering your needs and then purchasing the appropriate camera to meet those needs.
Besides, you can *easily* get a Canon Digital Rebel for $700 these days (less if you get lenses with the stacking rebate). High-end P&S cameras are in that range, too. So, again, it's a matter of your wants and needs...
Re:Why DSLR might not be right for you (Score:2)
Re:Why DSLR might not be right for you (Score:2)
as far as I can tell, SLR is an excuse to really pump up the cost of a digital camera with expensive mechanical parts, so that people have to pay a lot just to get interchangable lenses.
Or is the jiggle from mirror slap a "feature" these days?
I guess people who have used analog cameras for years find it hard to squint through the LCD to line up their shot just so. (To be fair, even though you'd think that the LCD and the image taken would match, some
Re:Why DSLR might not be right for you (Score:3, Informative)
1) You can see the picture the instant it is taken. Viewfinder does not go black.
2) Shutter can fire instantly. With a traditional SLR, you have to wait over 100mS for the mirror to flip up. This might be useful to take a picture of lightning strikes if you wire up an automated light-activated trigger.
But I will admit that I
Re:Why DSLR might not be right for you (Score:4, Interesting)
They're Huge
Most normal consumers want a digital camera so they can take it to parties, take it on holiday, etc. Even the 3/4 size DSLRs have physically large bodies and get even bigger when you add lenses. They're not the kind of thing you want to carry on a night out unless you're really serious.
They're Heavy
See They're Huge. Even if you don't mind the bulk, you probably don't want to carry the weight of one everywhere you go.
You Can't "Sneak Them In"
That tiny little DSC-T1 will get passed all but the most determined concert security. There's no way you'll get a DSLR with lenses and flash past them.
They're Complicated
Command line is far more useful than a windowed file manager for geeks. For everyone else, it just adds far too much confusion. They want to point, press a button, get a picture. Maybe some other features would be nice but they don't want their grandmother to be intimidated when they ask her to quickly take a family picture.
They Don't Have Previews On The LCD
As the mirror's down to let you look through the view finder, the sensor isn't capturing anything until you press the release. As a result, you don't get live previews on the LCD. This makes holding it up in the air and getting a shot over a crowd way harder than when you can preview that screen. Sure, a serious photographer would never use an LCD for quality reasons - but a typical consumer cares far less about that than the convenience.
No Movie Mode
As the mirror can either send the image to the view finder OR the sensor, if it tried to shoot a movie it'd leave a black viewfinder. Sure, the quality sucks but people still like to be able to email a 30 second clip of wishing grandma a happy christmas.
No Gimmick Features
Why does technology advance? Because the common man can use it for porn. Sony's DSC-V1 is a little camera that lets you take shots in absolute darkness, without flash - perfect for your home porn movies. The movie features mentioned above are just the same. All of those gimmicks are essential to the common man.
Porn Excuse Number 2
Slipping out your little compact with your date might be a little cheeky and adventurous. Pulling out your DSLR, changing lenses, setting up the tripod and mounting your TTL flash is just plain creepy.
DSLRs are amazing things. I can take images I could only dream of with my digital compact. But, for all that, they really aren't anywhere near as flexible for the average person who wants convenience [and the low price point] over spending hours obsessing over the perfect shot.
Finally, as any photo journalism professor will tell you: The best camera you can ever own is the one you always have with you. Very few photojournalist had their DSLRs out when the planes went in to the twin towers. The tourist with his cheap and nasty video camera did. End result? The tourist got the shot. The best camera for you is the one you'll use the most. For most people, DSLRs are just too big, heavy and inconvenient to use that much while a tiny compact can go everywhere with them.
Nice, but late... (Score:2)
Re:Nice, but late... (Score:2)
For me, for now, I don't need a SLR. I might want one, and surely within a couple of years I'll have one, but until then it's great to learn the basics on. If anyone had an inkling of taking up photography as a serious hobby, I'd recommend going for a cheapie with as many manual settings as you can get - unless y
Re:Nice, but late... (Score:2)
Consumer Reports rates the Canon A75 very highly on it's 3MP list. I think it rates it second or third out of all 3MP camera's they tested.
Re:Nice, but late... (Score:4, Funny)
I can imagine. I got my first camera when I was closer to 7 or 8 (9?). My brother and I each got a Kodak disc camera [wikipedia.org] for christmas. I used up most of my first two discs (15 exposures each!) just photographing my presents. I calmed down a bit after that :) They went into the closet after a few years because of the inconvenience of only 15 exposures and the trouble of getting new film. If there was anything important to photograph then we used my mums' much better 35mm compact. Now with the extreme convenience of digital photography, I can't imagine going back to such a world. Well, except for semi-serious photography [kievaholic.com].
So what sort of things does a 4.5 y/o with a digicam photograph? How does she handle transferring the photos to a PC? And/or does she use the composite video out?
No Flash (Score:2)
Users without Flash then get redirected to what appears to be intended to be an instruction to upgrade (I can't, and wouldn't if I could) which is actually a 404 error page.
Does anyone have a mirror which doesn't depend on Flash?
Re:No Flash (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.steves-digicams.com [steves-digicams.com]
http://www.dpreview.com [dpreview.com]
Re:No Flash (Score:2)
depends on light, yes, but Flash, no.
Re:No Flash (Score:2)
The best digital camera (Score:2)
I have the ubiquitous 1.3Mp, compact-flash, USB 1.0 model. I got it on sale a couple of years ago, and take pictures maybe two or three times a year, usually in a batch of 50 or so.
Until someone can tell me why I should upgrade when my simple needs are already met, I'll stick with the devil I know.
newer camera better for batches of 50 (Score:2)
The eyes' depth of field (Score:4, Informative)
Well, actually most of what one sees is out of focus, since the eyes constantly adjust to favor a specific depth of field at any one time, leaving everything else fuzzy. If you compare this to an autofocussing camera, they are actually quite similar, and well within the "laws of physics". The future's flexible lenses will bring cameras even closer to the model used by the eyes.
Re:The eyes' depth of field (Score:2)
Re:The eyes' depth of field (Score:5, Informative)
SLR's can also have a larger depth of field, it just depends on the aperature setting. And most SLR cameras have a Point and Shoot mode, at least at the hobbiest level.
After seeing these mistakes, I also wondered about the statements that you don't see what you get when use the LCD viewer of an SLR. That doesn't make sense to me at all.
3 words.... (Score:5, Informative)
Decent very basic primer... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, though, there are two types of camera users: Hobbyists and casual users.
A hobbyist wants a DSLR and is willing to buy accessories and learn to use it. If you're not willing to do these things, you'll be disappointed. I'm one of these guys, and I'd suggest that people find a cheaper hobby. As a side note -- $900 for the dRebel? *After* rebate? Shop around a little, pal...
Casual users are a little more involved, but it comes down to three things that are easy to answer once you get asked the questions:
Megapixels: You almost certainly don't need more than 4.
Zoom: Think carefully here. Most cameras are 3x zoom, but is that enough? Are you planning to take pictures at Disneyland or at, say, your kid's soccer game? At Disney for a posed shot, 3x zoom is enough. Otherwise, a 10x or 12x megazoom with IS might be worth spending money on.
Size: Remember that the best camera is the one you have with you when you need it. What is easiest for you to carry around?
Think that over, then go to www.dpreview.com and look at the test shots for the cameras that meet your specs. I usually end up recommending one of the Canon Sx00 series (S410, S500, etc) for a good balance of size and picture quality. I'd specifically stay away from the Minolta Z line myself (very disappointed with the Z3).
And for the love of God, shop around! Don't buy at Best Buy unless you're ready to pay $100-$200 extra. Go on PriceGrabber.com and consider the retailers with good reviews -- I won't specifically mention those I've bought from in the past, but the retailer reviews are a good guide; don't go with someone poorly reviewed to save $20.
Re:Decent very basic primer... (Score:2)
and besides.. the whole thing could have been "pocket vs. system cameras". no shit inexperienced photographers are in trouble with manual settings.
Re:Decent very basic primer... (Score:2)
I just bought the Minolta Z2 and so far I'm quite happy with it... I saw review of the Z3 and they were not that good. However, the Z2 score fairly well in reviews. The Z2 has no image stabilization but so far it's not a problem (I've used the zoom at 10X only on well lit subjects).
Re:Decent very basic primer... (Score:4, Informative)
By this definition a hobbyist also has much deeper pockets! Enthusiasts do pay a premium, but you don't need to go DSLR necessarily.
I chose the Nikon CP 8800 (point-n-shoot) over the D70 or 20D because it's less than $800 (street) and has 10x zoom w/ IS. That is hundreds less than the D70.
Sure, the D70 is, in most technical respects, a better camera, but to take complete advantage of its strengths you need to spend another grip of money on lenses. And then you need to carry the lenses around with you in a big heavy bag, or compromise and mount one lens for a trip.
I know I am not the kind of guy who is interested in changing lenses all the time. I also know that I am not willing to spend a lot on new lenses, even if they are nice. Instead, I got a high-end point-n-shoot type camera, because it is cheaper and very flexible out of the box. I am willing to live with the lesser quality pictures. (though if you check the reviews and sample pics you will see it's still quite nice. good enough for this hobbyist, anyway.)
With the money I saved on the camera I was able to get some high-quality support equipment, too: Bogen-Manfrotto 3021 Pro [adorama.com] tripod with a Kirk BH-3 [kirkphoto.com] ball head/quick release plate.
other good links:
KenRockwell.com [kenrockwell.com] -- lots of good info on Nikon DSLRs and lenses. Be warned though, this guy has a very heavy DSLR bias and thinks you are a chump for getting a "prosumer" camera. If you are a pro, you probably are. If you are a hobbyist, maybe not, depending on your needs and budget. (If you only have about $1000 to spend and you want 10x zoom, you ain't getting a DSLR.)
DPReview.com [dpreview.com] -- Good reviews. Active forums, though they are mostly full of 1) whining and 2) pictures of cats.
Butterfly Photo [butterflyphoto.com] -- Good prices and a real manufacturer's warranty. Be warned, they WILL call to upsell you accessories before they finalize your web order, but if you don't want any they do ship the camera: it's not a NYC bait & switch.
Re:Decent very basic primer... (Score:4, Funny)
"Mommy, why am I cut out of the soccer team picture?"
"Because you're ugly and I hate you, son. Why can't you be pretty like that Robertson kid?"
"Waaaaah!"
"Shut up and get back to pushing the wheel of pain."
Yeah, yeah, I know what you really meant.
Karma-whoring Article Text: (Score:5, Funny)
Who needs a flash animation to tell you this? (Score:2)
Re:Who needs a flash animation to tell you this? (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Other artistic photography options include: Medium Format, Large Format, and Pinhole.
For the uber-artist with hacker tendencies, Pinhole Photography is the technique of choice, since you can build your own camera to whatever specification your mind fancies, and process your negatives and prints in the discomfort of your own darkroomized closet.
Argh! (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, this segment is the MOST likely to have a wide range of quality for the price point. Does anyone have advice here as to makes or models in the $200 or less price range? "Don't bother for less than $X" is also valid advice if you can back it up, of course...
Xentax
I have so many questions about digital cameras (Score:2)
I don't understand why cameras with big sensors need to be SLR. Are there professional grade cameras with interchangable lenses that don't depend on the optical viewfinder?
Are there semi-compact digital cameras with high quality lenses and big sensors?
Why does every digital camera have a crappy motor-driven zoom? Aren't there others out there that would prefer a normal (no-zoom) lens? Isn't a motor-driven zoom totally useless?
Are there decent digital cameras with decent macro len
Re:I have so many questions about digital cameras (Score:2)
Re:I have so many questions about digital cameras (Score:3, Informative)
Short answer: They don't, technically. Epson just came out with a digital rangefinder with an APS sized sensor (like most DSLR's have).
Long answer: The reason you don't want to use an LCD screen on a DSLR for most things is for creative control. Try manually focusing... with the current displays, this is very difficult because ev
I just got a D70... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some Advantages of Digital for me (I shoot Concerts):
-ISO 1600 is very usable, enabling VERY low light pics like this [umbc.edu] one.
-Auto White Balance (or simply the ability to change it) alows me to go from outside to inside to inside w/flourescent lights
-I can carry the equivalent of 4 rolls of film on a 1GB CF card, which is more than enough most of the time.
Whichever one your friend spent more money on (Score:4, Funny)
For Convenience, the Sony Mavica CD... (Score:2)
All of this griping about Flash (Score:2)
A Tale of Two Media Formats (Score:2)
Don't use flash for text.
red eye (Score:2)
Are there any cameras that take 1 sec to take a picture with flash and have eliminated red eye?
dSLR cameras, not quite there yet (Score:2)
The main thing to focus on when buying a digital SLR isn't the cost of the camera itself but the lenses.
The camera itself will set you back around $1000, and if you're particularly lucky you'll get a lens in your package, as with the Canon digital rebel kit.
However, unless you already own lenses from your traditional camera days (AND they have the right mount! Canon mounts usually require Canon lenses!), you better be prepared through the nose for a lens that's equivalent to the the 10x (35-350mm)optic
DSLR == Narrow depth of field???!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the reasons extolled at length for choosing one type against abother is that a DSLR has a narrow depth of field and a "standard" digital camera has a greater depth. As anyone who knows about photography would know this is total tosh.
The depth of field depends upon the aperture of the iris. A small aperture acts rather like a pinhole camera and hence will give a great depth of field. A large aperture relys upon the lens for focus and hence depends greatly on the focal length of the lens system giving critical focus and a very narrow depth of field.
Cheap "standard" digital cameras will usually have a small lens and small (fixed?) aperture hence a large depth of field. More expensive "standard" digital cameras are more sophisticated and allow the user to change the aperture and have a larger lens, so they can have a narrow depth of field.
Digital SLRs are totally dependant upon the lens system. However, because they have a variable iris within the lens systems they can have either a very wide depth of field (if they're stopped right down) or a very narrow depth of field (iris wide open). Both the end points of these will depend entirely on the characteristics of the lens systems.
How many people would accept an article which said that you shouldn't buy a 35mm SLR because you only get a narrow depth of field?
Re:DSLR == Narrow depth of field???!!! (Score:3, Informative)
This is true but depth of field depends also on the focal length and magnification (which is related to the sensor size). The large magnification means that the lens "circle of confusion" should be smaller.
Try any "depth of field calculator", e.g. here [dofmaster.com] and you will see that on Canon A75 at 16.2 mm telephoto (which has the same filed of view as 105mm 35mm lens) the total depth of field for an object 3m apart at f/5.6 is 2.15m
In contrast for Can
Re:DSLR == Narrow depth of field???!!! (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not.
DOF is not only dependent of the aperture, but also on actual focal length and how large your circle of confusion is.
While the smaller circle of confusion on compact digcams reduce the net DOF, the biggest difference is due to the very short focal lenghts
Re:DSLR == Narrow depth of field???!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Cheap digital cameras frequently have remarkably bright lenses -- f/2.8 is very common. The depth of field is quite large because the magnification of the image on the sensor is very low, because the sensor is
Why is the "bottom" of the market $350? (Score:3, Insightful)
a really good site for digital camera info (Score:4, Informative)
It has quite detailed reviews of pretty much every digital camera out there as well as sample images (there are even pages that allow you to compare images of the same thing taken by different cameras) and discussion forums.
I found it particularly useful when I was picking out my camera.
Few people consider... (Score:4, Informative)
People will spend $900 to $1500 on a digital SLR, then spend $130 on a "consumer" zoom lens, and find that the images produced are not very good.
There are 2 reasons for this:
The "average" lens is really good at "average" conditions.
Few people realize how much "post-processing" is done "in-camera" with a point & shoot. With a DSLR, most of it is taken care of afterwards in software, Photoshop, Capture1, or some other software. Sure, you can set a DSLR to do sharpening, saturation, contrast, and a few others in-camera... but letting the camera decide defeats part of the purpose of having almost infinite control that a DSLR offers.
There are a lot of things to learn with a DSLR. Consumer-grade lenses are not going to be much help in adverse conditions. Yet, many people bought a DSLR for just that reason. They don't understand that a great lens is 50% of the deal.
Trying to take wedding pictures in a dimly lit church with a $130 zoom lens ins't going to cut it. Wait til the bride finds out that Uncle Ted and his new toy didn't get any "dreamy" shots of the wedding. He got a bunch of dark, gloomy junk! Suddenly, the $3000 she saved on a pro wedding photographer doesn't seem like such a bargain.
Low light means you need better lenses. Fast action indoors (basketball, volleyball, etc) means you need something better than that $130 75-300 f4-5.6. You can do ok, probably better than the average point and shoot, but it takes some skill, and it takes time to learn how to handle the equipment, and most people don't have the patience. They just want a point and shoot that will do it for them. For those willing to learn, it's worth it.
Re:Few people consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.rupertphotography.com/ [rupertphotography.com]
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuji S602Z
Fuji S7000
Fuji S5000
Olympus C-750UZ
Kodak 6490
I went for the C-750. The S602 was good, but bulky and, I felt, rather conspicuous for inner-city photography. The S7000 was also good, but was similarly bulky and cost more. The S5000 was also bulky, but cheaper, and with a zoom that matched the C-750, but had rather over-aggressive JPEG compression, forcing one to use RAW mode and post-process more extensively than might otherwise be the case. I'll confess to not examining the 6490 as closely as perhaps I should have, but I gather it is rather more limited in terms of manual controls and also uses a proprietary Li-Ion battery.
The C-750 was the right choice for me, for now. I might well be shopping around for a D- or film SLR in a couple of years, once I've improved my technique with the C-750. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Give me SLR or give me death (Score:3, Funny)
And that X-Ray Spec lens that removes the clothing from every person of whom you take a picture. It's polarized so it will only remove women's clothing, but if you are so inclined, rotate it 90 degrees and it will remove men's clothing, but the women will all look like busty Dark Elves, so not a complete loss.
I might have dreamt that second lens.
My experience (Score:3, Insightful)
The one place where the 20D and other DSLRs excel is that their much larger sensor allow for very low noise, even at very high ISO settings. But again, 95% of the time you are never going to notice the difference, and programs like Neat Image and Grain Surgery do an amazing job in situations where there noise is noticable.
Another problem with DSLRs is that good lenses are very very expensive. Even in DSLR bundles, the lens that comes with the camera is not likely to be as versatile as the built-in lens of a good 'pro-sumer' camera like the G3. Granted, DSLR lenses are probably much higher quality than the built-ins, but again, it's quality that you don't notice most of the time. So you will end up spending extra money for a wide-angle and a zoom lens, and these things are not cheap.
I guess the moral to the story is, that unless you really know what you are doing, and know you want to explore that 5% of photography where the DSLR excels, you are better off with a good pro-sumer model.
Dust in the Wind (Score:3, Interesting)
I have two P&S digitals, neither of which work. One is on a slow boat back to its maker for warranty repairs. Thus, I'm looking at alternatives.
what about burst and speed? (Score:3, Insightful)
burst - the time from when you press the button to when the picture is actually taken, and
speed - the time it takes to store the picture to the memory device
I have not used many digital cameras, but the (low budget) ones I have used are terrible at both of these. I never seem to capture the fleeting smile of my kids because of the 250-500 ms burst delay and I have to wait 2 seconds or so (longer when the batteries are low) for the picture to save before I can try again.
I'd rather use my 35mm SLR, but I love the instant-review and capacity of a digital.
Why Digital SLR's Still Rule. (Score:4, Informative)
I have been doing photography since I was 12 years old. By "photography" I mean that I actually go take pictures, develop film and do my own prints. Recently it has been hard to do so due to do so because I haven't seen one bedroom apartments with dark rooms. Therefore, I decided to get a digital SLR instead. After months of investigation, I decided to go with Nikon D70.
Digital SLRs are not created equal. If you are into new things, take a look at cameras with 4:3 ration (Olympus E1 and Evolot). They have an ability to dust off the sensor before taking every shot, thus pics stay dust free. If you want to get a pro-sumer DSLR, take a look at Nikon D70 and Canon (although I recommend Nikon better due to its low noise). Why spend all $$$ on these cameras if you can find a point-and-shoot for cheaper? Here are my pointers:
Lenses.You are not creaing pictures with a camera. You create pictures with a lens. If you can exchange lenses, you give yourself more flexibility. This is a must if you want to take pictures of animals, close up shots, wide-angle shots, etc.
Color. Digital SLRs tend to have larger sensors with larger photosites. When you take pictures, you work with light and it is essential that you get enough light in order to process it correctly. Larger photosites do a better job, hence they have less noise. If you take a look at pictures produced by standard digital SLRS (based on 35mm cameras) vs. pictrures made by Olympus cameras that implement 4:3 technology (the latter have smaller sensors) you will see the difference.
No LCD monitor. Despite whatever you may think, this is a plus. First of all, your camera does not suck batteries for what you can actually see through a lens, secondly, your view is unaltered. You see colors and objects as they appear.
Depth of field. This one gets me everytime somebody says that DSLRs lack depth of field. In fact, if you have more than two brain cells, you will be able to vary the depth of field by adjusting your shutter speed and aperture. Most of cameras come with a "depth of field preview" button that will let you judge the picture that is going to be recorded.
There are several things that you must remember about digital SLRs (and digital cameras in general):
Run away from any person who tries to sell you a more expensive camera by saying "Well, it has more megapixels." Megapixel is a number that is related to the area of the sensor in terms of the number of pixels. Thus, a small linear enlargement (like adding a few megapixels to the horizontal side of the sensor) will affect the number. If a sales person tells you that a 6MP camera will give you much larger prints than a 5MP camera at the same sharpness, slap them in the face: the difference in size will be rather small. In order to increase the size of the print by 2, you'll have to increase the megapixel count by 4 in order to maintain the same image quality.
There are two different types of censors. CMOS and CCD. CMOS sensors are smaller than CCD. It appears (from my tests) that cameras with CCDs produce less noise; however, CMOS will soon improve. CCD technology is rather old. You can learn more about it by googling :)
Flash-sync speeds are really important for fill-in flashes. Typically, you want somethin above 1/250 in a pro-sumer camera. If you have no idea what a fill-in technique is, you'll learn it once you start taking pics during nice sunny weather.
Dust on sensors is pain in the rear. I have a lense that I use primary with my D70; thus, I haven't experienced it yet. You can clean it off yourself or take it to a shop. If you are concerned, take a look at Olympus cameras. E1 and Evolt use ultra-sound to take dust off the sensor before taking a shot.
Night photography sucks.... Yes. You heard me right. With a film camera, this is a pretty easy due to the lack of noise and purple frinding. With digital SLRs it requires more training, but can be done. I do not like high
Re:Why Digital SLR's Still Rule. (Score:3, Informative)
I won't argue that all Canons are better then all Nikons have less noise. But I can say that the current crop of Canon DSLR's (1Ds MarkII, 1D Mark II, 20D, DRebel) have noticibly less noise then their Nik
Depth of Field, Quality etc. (Score:4, Informative)
The reason you can't reduce depth of field with most non-SLR cameras is that they have cheaply designed lenses that won't open up to large apertures. It would actually be both technically easy and (compared to SLRs) cheap to provide fast lenses which offered low depth of field creative options on non-SLR digital cameras, but the market doesn't seem to want them. Indeed, the 35mm SLR market was already moving to zoom lenses incapable of large apertures (and with commensurately poor low light performance) before digital cameras became competitive.
Two features of digital SLRs are simply legacy.
1) Interchangeable lenses. There remains a significant demand for cameras that can use the lenses originally developed for 35mm photography. There's no reason why cheaper lenses can be developed for smaller format digital cameras. Sony has started offering this option with its DSC-V and DSC-W cameras. You get Carl Zeiss lenses for far less than comparable 35mm lenses, but the camera CCDs so far cannot compete with the larger CCDs in the Canon and Nikon SLRs.
2) No digital preview. This seems to me a horrible and unnecessary flaw in digital SLRs. With a good non-SLR camera I can preview motion blur in my photographs and manually adjust exposure settings for time exposures while seeing the results in real time.
At the moment, we seem to be able to produce nicer CCDs at slightly larger sizes. Thus you can get better pictures from a 6.3MP Digital Rebel than from an 8MP Sony DSC-V3. By the same token if Hasselblad were to produce an even larger format digitial camera it would quite possibly be better still (and cost $100,000). In the end, I suspect the market will create smaller format digital cameras that offer all the benefits anyone much cares about at prices substantially lower than the Digital Rebel et al.
Re:Okay, what does SLR stand for? (Score:4, Informative)
Single Lens Reflex. In an SLR camera, you are looking through the lens when you put your eye to the viewfinder. In a simpler camera you are not.
Re:Okay, what does SLR stand for? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Okay, what does SLR stand for? (Score:2)
Or CCD, in this case...
Re:In short (Score:3, Insightful)