 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / October 2005Digital advice please?
Hi folks, I am finally succumbing to buying my first digital camera. I've been shooting for pleasure and semi-professionally (in that I've sold my prints, note cards, enlargements, etc successfully in the past) with a Canon Rebel 2000. While I am not into selling and marketing my work as much now, and I cannot afford the $950 Canon 350D, I am interesting in getting a decent, easy-to use digital for under $350. Any suggestions? I've been told to get the most megapixels, and to pay attention to the 3x/5x zoom? What else do I need to know or for that price range should I just go to Walmart, Best Buy, etc and see what appeals to me? Any input really appreciated. To me it seems almost anyone can take great digital photos, tweak them, etc. At this point I just want access to a decent digital camera. If one day I decide to try to sell my work again, I'll get a better one. My birthday is coming up and this would be an excellent gift from family. Thanks so much - I am admittedly ignorant about digital....heck, there are still settings on my toaster-over I've never used! :) Jo in Connecticut > Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jo in Connecticut If you want a true point and shoot camera, there are (almost) hundreds to choose from. Don't be mislead by the claim that more pixels make the camera better; it takes really good optics and there are much fewer manufacturers who make good lenses than those who make decent user interface cameras. Nikon and Canon are probably the best. [BTW, it takes better optics to get great pictures from a small digital P&S than it does from a DSLR because the sensor is that much smaller]. Anyway, if you have to watch your budget, make sure you include all of the "extras" -- batteries, memory cards, tc -- in calculating your best buy. If you want a miniature camera rather than a P&S, then there are much fewer to choose from and they tend to be higher priced. I just ordered a reconditioned Nikon 5400 for $250 because it has 5 MP and almost as much control over the shooting as my D70 does. You can get really great 4x6 prints from even a 2 MP camera. You'll never notice the difference between 4 & 5 MP and rarely 4 & 6. This should give you the freedom to concentrate on features rather than just pixel counts. Norm > > Hi folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Norm Thanks Norm, I appreciate the advice! I really don't want a miniature camera at all. I also always thought the higher the MP the better? Jo > Thanks Norm, I appreciate the advice! I really don't want a miniature > camera at all. I also always thought the higher the MP the better? Look at it this way. Since the pixels cover a square area, the resolution doesn't double for doubling the pixel count but from multiplying it by 4 (2x2). It takes 20MP to deliver twice the resolution of 5 MP! For most practical purposes, I've settled on printing at between 250-300PPI on the paper. That means that a 4x6 print requires a mere 2.16 MP for really terrific display on the page. 8x10 needs 7.2 MP for 300 PPI but only 5MP at 250 PPI on the paper and you'd be very, very hard pressed to tell the difference without a magnifying glass. If you think -- as I do -- that 4-6 MP is sufficient for just about any casual (non-professional) shooting, then the best thing to do is to go for a camera in that range with the best optics you can find. The camera I just ordered to carry around 24x7 in my jacket pocket -- a Nikon 5400 -- has a zoom lens that's 5.8mm to 24mm (comparable to 28-116mm in a 35mm camera). That means that the sensor is roughly 1/5 the size of a 35mm frame and that's very small! The raw measure of a lens' resolving power is usually quoted in line-pairs per millimeter at the focal plane; this means that the optics have to be better than the optics on even the best 35mm camera by the ratio of the sizes to give comparable pictures. Fortunately for the designers, the shorter the focal length, the easier it is to design great optics -- but the downside is that it's harder for manufacturing to keep to the smaller tolerances. Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice even 33% in pixel count to get 50% better optics. What that translates to in my (admittedly) prejudiced mind is that I'm not going to look much beyond the big few camera manufacturers to get a small digital: Nikon, Canon, Minolta are my personal favorites. I used Minolta (semi) professional camera equipment for 2 decades before switching to Nikon and subsequently Nikon digital [I currently own and use 2 Nikon N90's and a D70, along with a 2-1/4" square camera and an antique Speed Graphic]. Bottom line: Once you get in the 4-6 MP range, optics trumps everything else. Norm > > Thanks Norm, I appreciate the advice! I really don't want a miniature > > camera at all. I also always thought the higher the MP the better? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Norm Wow, great advice, Norm, thanks! I have to learn more to absorb all this but it makes sense thus far! Jo At only $350 you don't seem to have much room to move. Remember that the cost of the camera includes a digital record of all your pics, and that you are not likely to print any but the best. Therefore your photodeveloping costs are likely to be dramatically lower than before. With film, your up-front costs are low but you pay each week at the photodeveloper. Overall costs end up being about the same, so expect to pay more for the digital camera. Unfortunately with digital, most of your cost is right at the beginning so if you drop the camera the day after, you lose. I suggest you allow yourself more room for up-front cost of your camera. I am a little surprised that a semi-professional would only be willing to pay $350, as it would be a definite step down (in image quality)from what you have now. If you do stumble across an outstanding image, you will have difficulty selling it because of the low resolution of your camera. Maybe stay in the film game until you can buy something with comparable quality. Dave > Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jo in Connecticut > At only $350 you don't seem to have much room to move. Remember that the > cost of the camera includes a digital record of all your pics, and that you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dave Um....I am buying this on a social worker's salary, and I've really gotten out of marketing and selling, so this is really more for my personal use than professional....hence the 'reasonable' price. As I said, when and if I choose to get back into the game, then I'll go the extra expense and get a better camera. By the way, it's just as easy to drop an expensive camera as a cheap one, right? heh Thanks though, Jo > > Hi folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > Jo in Connecticut > At only $350 you don't seem to have much room to move. Remember that the > cost of the camera includes a digital record of all your pics, and that you > are not likely to print any but the best. Therefore your photodeveloping > costs are likely to be dramatically lower than before. With film, your > up-front costs are low but you pay each week at the photodeveloper. I paid just under $900 for my D-Rebel. After a year or so of shooting, I did the math and figured out that the digital camera paid for itself in *less* than a year. Undoubtedly one of the best "bang for the buck" purchases I've ever made.  SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ > Hi folks, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jo in Connecticut Arrrrrrrrr, kind of a low budget to tackle this decently. Best bet would be to look for a used Canon D60 or D30 and use your existing lenses, though these bodies typically still go for more than you want to pay. However, a DSLR is going to make you happier than just about anything else, primarily just because of the lack of shutter lag and dependability in focusing. An LCD screen isn't going to tell you enough about critical focus, and digitals tend to be a little quirky in this regard. Failing that, maybe try for a used Sony F-828 or F-717, among the better of the point-n-shoot digitals I've tried. Good optics, decent range of features, halfway-decent user interface. Still seem to be higher than you're aiming pricewise, but there's always getting lucky. After being used to the Rebel 2000, any non-SLR digital is liable to be frustrating, but these models seem likely to keep this minimized. Good luck! - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net > > Hi folks, > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Arrrrrrrrr, kind of a low budget to tackle this decently. Best bet > would be to look for a used Canon D60 or D30 and use your existing > lenses, though these bodies typically still go for more than you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Failing that, maybe try for a used Sony F-828 or F-717, among the > better of the point-n-shoot digitals I've tried. Good optics, decent > range of features, halfway-decent user interface. Still seem to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Al. Thanks, Al...I definitely will look into the one's you've mentioned. Jo > -- > To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below > Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net I would echo Norm. I have a Nikon 5400 and I love it. It has 5MP (which is plenty) and allows you to shoot in fully automatic mode, manual mode, aperture priority and shutter priority. You can get new one on Ebay for about $250. You'll have to get a memory card, depending on capcity, for $50-$100. If you want to just crop and resize the photos you can use Picasa2 from Google, it's free. If you really want to play around with them, I'd recommend Photoshop Elements 4 for $99. Have fun - let's see some pics! > I would echo Norm. I have a Nikon 5400 and I love it. It has 5MP (which > is plenty) and allows you to shoot in fully automatic mode, manual [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > around with them, I'd recommend Photoshop Elements 4 for $99. Have fun > - let's see some pics! Thanks! I'll look into that one! I also have PhotoShop6, but barely know how to utilize half of it! Jo Digital is definitely the wave of the future. I've been selling my photos to publishers for more than 20 years - mostly slides and bw prints - and my 35s have been collecting dust since I went digital two years ago. No photo lab needed, I can change elements of the photo with a keystroke to make many bad photos publishable, then send them directly to an editor from my home here in the boondocks of Paradise, Michigan. If I need another copy - or a hundred - it's just another keystroke. I don't have a high-end SLR yet (I'm drooling after a Pentax ist*D), but I do own an HP 945 5.1Mp with 7x optical zoom, a Kodak DX7590 5.1Mp with 10x optical zoom, and a Kodak 2.0Mp point-n-shoot. Even the 2.0Mp camera's photos have been published in numerous magazine features and one of my books. Disregard so-called "digital zoom" features, only optical magnification counts. Editors tell me that 4.0 megapixel is as much as you need for publishing high quality prints in a magazine, so 5.0Mp or higher is more than adequate for media photogs and writers. Still, I want a higher-res camera because more megapixels allows you digitally zoom-in on a detail with greater clarity than lower megapixels. Len McDougall, author of the books: The Encyclopedia of Tracks & Scats * The Log Cabin: An Adventure in Self Reliance, Individualism, and Cabin Building * The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook * The Complete Tracker * Practical Outdoor Projects * Practical Outdoor Survival * The Snowshoe Handbook * The Outdoors Almanac * Made for the Outdoors Wilderness Guide/Survival Instructor for Timberwolf Wilderness Adventures, Paradise, Michigan USA > Digital is definitely the wave of the future. I've been selling my > photos to publishers for more than 20 years - mostly slides and bw [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Wilderness Guide/Survival Instructor for Timberwolf Wilderness > Adventures, Paradise, Michigan USA Thanks, Len, I'm learning a lot from everyone's advice! I'll have to check out your books as well! Jo >> Digital is definitely the wave of the future. I've been selling my ... >Thanks, Len, I'm learning a lot from everyone's advice! I'll have to >check out your books as well! >Jo Before checking out his books, you might want to check his credentials. Do a google search in the alt.backcountry newsgroup. Len gets pretty well panned on a regular basis when he posts where there are people who really do spend time in the "Outdoors". Perhaps he knows more about photography than he does about wilderness... SignatureFloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Yes, Jo, please do check out my credentials - I've spent more time in a wilderness peeing on trees than davidson will spend there in his life. My hundreds of published photos are proof enough that I walk the walk - after all, you've gotta be there to photograph it. Just type my name into the search engine of your choice, or go to www.amazon.com www.barnesandnoble.com www.booksamillion.com www.outdoorsmansedge.com www.militarybookclub.com , etc., or check local bookstores and public libraries. Len McDougall is author of the books: The Encyclopedia of Tracks & Scats, The Log Cabin: An Adventure in Self Reliance, Individualism, and Cabin Building, The Field & Stream Wilderness Survival Handbook, The Complete Tracker, Practical Outdoor Projects, Practical Outdoor Survival, The Snowshoe Handbook, The Outdoors Almanac, and Made for the Outdoors. He resides in Paradise, Michigan http://www.modernsurvival.net/art3pre.cfm >Yes, Jo, please do check out my credentials - I've spent more time in >a wilderness peeing on trees than davidson will spend there in his >life. Sure Len. Try proving that to be true though... ;-) Len gets dump on pretty bad over in rec.backcountry, where many of us aren't peeing into the wind about "wilderness" are available. He's probably never been anywhere that wasn't within 15 miles of a road... or 50 from a MacDonalds! ;-) [I snipped the rest of his self advertizing.] SignatureFloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Read the book recommendations closely on www.amazon.com . You will discover that Len's girlfriend writes glowing reviews on the book's Len wrote. I would question the quality of his books if he has to have his girlfriend praise them. What other less than ethical things does he attempt to pass off?? Speaking of peeing on trees, I didn't mean to start a pissing contest! Sorry, guys! Anyway, I think I've found my camera - it's the Canon PowerShot 7.1 megapixel Digital Model A620 for about $400. It's that vs. the Canon PowerShot 5.0 Mp Model A610 for $299. I think the better one might be worth the extra buck. Feedback on this decision welcome! jo > Yes, Jo, please do check out my credentials - I've spent more time in > a wilderness peeing on trees than davidson will spend there in his [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.modernsurvival.net/art3pre.cfm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.