Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: school me on digital cameras please (Read 7852 times)
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
In our neverending quest to stay only 5 years behind the times, La Gallina and I are in the market for a digital camera. However, we know jack and shit about the subject. We aren't shutterbugs and have no aspirations of creating art. We just want something that can take a nice-looking snapshot. Anyone have any suggestions? Would like to keep it to $400 or so if possible, but cheaper is always better.
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603
tazelbain
|
Can I get a course on Rice Cookers?
|
"Me am play gods"
|
|
|
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999
|
google-fu: http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/If you're not creating art and just want to take pictures at the family picnic just check the chart about half way down that page that compares mega-pixel to print size. We have a 3.2 megapixel camera and it serves us just fine. The only downside is that it takes like 2-3 seconds after you push the button to actually take the picture. You may want to look into that on whichever digital camera you choose. If you want to start your new career as a wedding photographer you'll probably want something with a higher pixel count.
|
|
|
|
Bunk
Contributor
Posts: 5828
Operating Thetan One
|
Best review site I know: dpreview.com
He goes extremely indepth in the reviews, but I think its worth while. Its more of a technical and spec review than the opinion based reviews you get from other sites.
I'd offer advise, but I spent more than $400 on my last lens, so my experience is a little out of your price range. I offer a few points though: - completely ignore anything called "digital zoom' it's nothing but smoke and mirrors - optical zoom is all that matters. - 3.5 MPxls is enough for computer based snapshots, look at 5 Mpxls + if you want to make large prints - fast startup time is a godsend when taking snapshots, nothing hurts worse than missing a shot while the camera initializes
|
"Welcome to the internet, pussy." - VDL "I have retard strength." - Schild
|
|
|
Lt.Dan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 758
|
Not sure if you want recommendations but I recently bought a Canon SD300 and can highly recommend it. Small (7oz), 4 mega pixels, 1.5"LCD screen, 3x Optical zoom (plus digital too but I never use that), and shoots 640x480 video. I got it and a 512 MB memory card for under $400. You can get the next model up for that now - 5 mega pixels. All from newegg.com (including no tax).
Works fantastic for family and holiday shots.
|
|
|
|
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60350
|
|
|
|
|
Fargull
|
I own a Nikon Coolpix 885, but today, I would go with Coolpix 8400 and holy shit is that price good. Do some reviews, but my Nikon is sexy.
|
"I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit." John Steinbeck
|
|
|
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23657
|
I agree with Bunk that www.dpreview.com is the best site for digital camera reviews and discussion. Other sites with good digital camera reviews include: http://www.dcresource.com/http://www.imaging-resource.com/http://www.steves-digicams.com/Is your $400 budget just for the camera or for the camera plus everything else you'll need to actually use it? While you can use a digital camera "out of the box", so to speak, you'll typically need to buy some additional flash memory since the memory the camera comes with is pathetically small, and you may need other accessories depending on your usage such as an extra battery and carrying case. For overall quality over their entire digital camera line I would recommend either Canon or Sony. Canon typically lags a bit behind other camera makers in coming out with the latest and greatest features (except on their pro Digital SLR line where they are the leader) but their overall image quality is almost always at or near the top. Sony is a little more on the bleeding edge in terms of features than Canon in the consumer market but you get reamed on the extra cost for Memory Stick media (a handful of their cameras will take more standard media). As as starting point you should take a look at the Canon SD450 and the PowerShot A610. Those are basically the same camera in different form factors. On the Canon line, everything else being equal, you should go with a camera that uses the DIGIC II processor which those two use. You'll get faster response times and slightly better features (e.g. better movie mode) compared to DIGIC I. If you can give me some information about how to plan on using the camera I can give you some more specific information about what to look for in a camera. For example, are you interested in learning more about how to take better pictures? If so, you might want to get a camera that offers more manual controls (e.g. manual control over shutter speed and aperture). Are you going to taking pictures of moving/changing subjects like little children? If so you'll probably not only want a camera that has a fast startup time but you'll also want one that has fast auto-focus as well. Do you like taking landscape photos? If so you might want a camera with a wide angle lens (e.g. something around ~28mm effective or smaller). Do you like taking closeups like of flowers or miniatures? Then you might want a camera with a good macro capabilities. And so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
littledude
Terracotta Army
Posts: 13
|
Anyone have a good idea for a easy to use camera, waterproof/resistant, able to capture wide and closeup shots? Looking for a camera for work on the ambulance, and sometimes just handing the nurses in the ER what the wreck looked like is worth it. Plus crazy ass shit is easy to document in detail, especially if you think it is going to be a court case.
I've heard mixed reviews on Sea Life line, and have seen a couple of Sony cameras that are water resistant.
|
|
|
|
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23657
|
Anyone have a good idea for a easy to use camera, waterproof/resistant, able to capture wide and closeup shots? Looking for a camera for work on the ambulance, and sometimes just handing the nurses in the ER what the wreck looked like is worth it. Plus crazy ass shit is easy to document in detail, especially if you think it is going to be a court case.
I've heard mixed reviews on Sea Life line, and have seen a couple of Sony cameras that are water resistant.
Canon makes waterproof cases for some of their cameras. E.g.: here's one for the S80 and here's one for the SD550.
|
|
|
|
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440
2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST
|
Considering that you can get the pictures on a CDROM when you have your film developed, we have no need for a digital. My wife is almost an amateur photographer and she does not deviate from the Canon Rebel 35mm. She's on her third or fourth one. Just sayin'.
|
Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question. They called it The Prayer, its answer was law Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
|
|
|
Hanzii
Terracotta Army
Posts: 729
|
You do realize that unless you use a professional negative scanner or get it done at a professional place (not the local supermarket or photo shop) then your digital copies on cd doesn't compare favorably to the ones a proper digital camera makes? There's a reason 99,9% of professional photographers use digital cameras. Add to that all the other benefits of a digital camera. Get your wife the 350D, you won't regret it. google-fu: http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/If you're not creating art and just want to take pictures at the family picnic just check the chart about half way down that page that compares mega-pixel to print size. We have a 3.2 megapixel camera and it serves us just fine. The only downside is that it takes like 2-3 seconds after you push the button to actually take the picture. You may want to look into that on whichever digital camera you choose. Just looking at megapixels is the numer #1 beginners mistake. A lot of cheapish cameras boasts 5 to 7,2 megapixels, and it doesn't matter if the obtics is cheap chines crap. Most ordinary people don't need 5 megapixels and beyond, and I'd take a 4 megapixels Canon over a 7,2 megapixel Acer, BenQ or any of the other non-traditional camera makers that have entered the digital camera market. Don't even consider a brand you'd never heard of before. Another mistake is listening to the salespitch about digital zoom. Digtal zoom has nothing to do with zoom, it just means that you cut away the edges of your picture to focus on whatever you're "zooming" in on. Basically cropping your picture inside the camera and lowering the resolution. Of course if you have a good camera with a lot of megapixels, then you can do the digital zoom much better, once you load it into your image editor of choice. If you don't mind the camera being slightly more bulky and you're not buying a SLR where you can exchange lenses, then consider a camera with more optical zoom. 3x is standard and anything less, you shouldn't even consider. But you can buy cameras with 4x to 12x optical zoom - great for holidays and sporting events. You really should tell us, what you're planning on using it for. There's so many tradeoffs to consider. I second anything Trippy said including the Canon love. I bought a Canon EOS 20D last year. A 300 or 350D would probably have suityed my needs fine... but I just had to own the big brother. Unfortunately, now I need a quality zoom (at least 200mm) and I also need a second camera for the wife, holidays, the beach and other places where my somewhat bulky SLR is out of place. Cameras I've personally tested and can recommend: Canon Powershot s610 Canon Ixus 40 (great second camera - sooo sleek) Sony T7 HP Photosmart S817 (really userfriendly) Kodak V550 (the most userfriendly camera, I'bve ever teted and with surprisingly good optics - ie most people couldn't see the diffrence between this or a similar priced Canon) Anyone have a good idea for a easy to use camera, waterproof/resistant, able to capture wide and closeup shots? Looking for a camera for work on the ambulance, and sometimes just handing the nurses in the ER what the wreck looked like is worth it. Plus crazy ass shit is easy to document in detail, especially if you think it is going to be a court case.
I've heard mixed reviews on Sea Life line, and have seen a couple of Sony cameras that are water resistant.
Unless the ambulace goes underwater too, you don't need a camera housing built for diving - they're also bulky to use. Fine while diving, but unhandy above water. Go with the Pentax Optio WPI It's a good little camera and you can submerge it in blood without ruining it.
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to discuss this more with you, but I'm not allowed to post in Politics anymore.
Bruce
|
|
|
Shockeye
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 6668
Skinny-dippin' in a sea of Lee, I'd propose on bended knee...
|
Get the biggest optical zoom you can afford. Optical zoom is wonderful and fun. Check the review places to find which cameras have the lowest pin-cushioning and barrel distortion.
|
|
|
|
Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2190
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 11, 2005, 11:37:12 AM by Krakrok »
|
|
|
|
|
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23657
|
I don't care for the battery option on either of the below cameras but for me the biggest requirement is the optical zoom.
My vote is for the Sony DSC H1. Amazon has it for $419. 12X zoom 5.1 MP.
If you go the "super zoom" route you give up on the "pocketability" that smaller cameras have. That one does not have an image stabilization feature making it harder to get sharp pictures at the higher zoom levels.
|
|
|
|
Jamiko
Terracotta Army
Posts: 364
|
Not sure if you want recommendations but I recently bought a Canon SD300 and can highly recommend it. I have the SD300 also, it is a great camera. Battery recharges super fast and SD cards are very affordable. Love the larger LCD and the fast charging battery. We print 8x10s out all the time and the quality is fantastic. The compact size of the camera made me nervous but now I love it because we take the camera with us all the time simply because it is so easy to bring along. My recommendation is to make sure you include a large memory card in your cost. Cameras don't normally come with much standard. I chose the SD300 in part because I have several SD cards laying around for my Dell Axim. I did have a problem with the LCD breaking shortly after buying it (wouldn't light up) but Best Buy gave me an exchange no questions asked. No problems at all with the second one.
|
|
|
|
|
El Gallo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2213
|
You really should tell us, what you're planning on using it for. There's so many tradeoffs to consider.
I'm sure 99% of the pictures we take will be of our cats doing things that only we think are amusing, because we are not only DINKS but real, live dinks. Generic pictures of family and friends, and your typical tourist pictures of landmarks and whtnot when we travel would make up the other 1%. Photography is not an important part of a life (evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a camera of any sort in years). We've been talking about getting one for a while, and are going on a vacation next week so now seems like a good time to get one. To answer other questions, money is not a big deal, I just don't want to spend a lot on features I don't need. Thanks for all the info everyone. I haven't had the chance to read through the review site yet. How can you tell how long it takes for the camera to set the picture?
|
|
« Last Edit: November 11, 2005, 01:29:06 PM by El Gallo »
|
|
This post makes me want to squeeze into my badass red jeans.
|
|
|
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23657
|
|
|
|
|
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440
2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST
|
You do realize that unless you use a professional negative scanner or get it done at a professional place (not the local supermarket or photo shop) then your digital copies on cd doesn't compare favorably to the ones a proper digital camera makes? There's a reason 99,9% of professional photographers use digital cameras.
I had no idea that pros had moved to digital. Could be because I don't associate with photographers anymore, not since early 1990s. The machine they use at Sam's Club makes .jpg that look fine to me. I'm not claiming to have high standards or anything.
|
Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question. They called it The Prayer, its answer was law Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
|
|
|
AOFanboi
Terracotta Army
Posts: 935
|
I had no idea that pros had moved to digital. Could be because I don't associate with photographers anymore, not since early 1990s. The machine they use at Sam's Club makes .jpg that look fine to me. I'm not claiming to have high standards or anything.
Pros generally shoot in some RAW or TIFF uncompressed format, unless they want to take many shots rapidly or have a slow memory card. Some cameras, like my Ricoh Capilo R2 compact, have built-in RAM that you can store pictures on - somewhat faster than saving to a flash card, but it's limited (24 MiB if memory serves).
|
Current: Mario Kart DS, Nintendogs
|
|
|
Signe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18942
Muse.
|
That is one fucking nice rice cooker!
Anyway, why would anyone need anything but a phone to take photos with? You people just make life so complicated!
|
My Sig Image: hath rid itself of this mortal coil.
|
|
|
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117
I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.
|
I bought my mother a Canon, s80 or a80 or something. Very nice little camera, some easy buttons but you can drill down to alot of mechanics, too. Got her a 512MB stick (because 1GBs were scarce then), because I knew she'd have to have me download the images to her mac. Nice perq: I borrow it for vacation, had about 250 photos from Vermont + a nice 30 second movie of a 360º view of the view from Deer Leap Overlook.
I haven't blown anything up to poster size, but my sunsets are making the rounds at the office as wallpapers.
|
|
|
|
Furiously
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7199
|
I'll keep my mouth shut except to say I really like my Nikon D-70. Which is more then you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Bunk
Contributor
Posts: 5828
Operating Thetan One
|
Yeg:
For me its more of a case of what you can do with a digital image vs. just developing film shots to a CD. With a digital SLR, you can shoot in raw format and manipulate the photo in photoshop. There is a huge difference in what you can do with a raw format image from a camera in Photoshop, vs. what you can do to a .jpg: White balance, exposure, contrast, curves, etc. can all be manipulated in raw without data loss. You do anything to a .jpg though, and you lose data with every change. It sounds like a bunch of technology snobbery, but trust me, it makes a huge difference when you are delaing with high quality photos.
As to the the "mega zoom" cameras, I had a Sony DSC f717, which featured a high quality, 10x zoom lens. Great camera, took really nice pics - but they are huge and expensive.. Add in the fact that you can got to Canon 350 (Rebel XT) digital SLR for a few hundred bucks more, and they are questionable worth.
I love my 350, but beware the danger of getting in to digital SLR. Since paying $1200 for the camera, I have forked out $800 for lenses, $250 for a flash, $260 for memory, and $700 in photography classes. Oh, and I'm still itching for $1800 L-series zoom lens.
|
"Welcome to the internet, pussy." - VDL "I have retard strength." - Schild
|
|
|
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440
2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST
|
I understand everything you are saying, Bunk. Not something I do. The wife, on the other hand does... so why does she do things the not-so-keen way? I don't want to find out. I am afraid that if I start talking about it with her, I'll be out even more money. The 35mm was a gift, and she got PhotoShop CS from some Russian friends, so I am just staying out of that. If she gets good shots of our son for the scrapbook, it's fine with me.
|
Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question. They called it The Prayer, its answer was law Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
|
|
|
Furiously
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7199
|
I'd take her to a brick and mortar and ask her which she likes. Also looking for annoyances like the sony - press button wait 5 seconds then have picture taken. Then buy online. All of them are going to take a decent snapshot. One thing you can do, is look how big the element at the front of the lens is. Not necessary a great method to determine how good of photos it will take, but possibly a small indicator. (Big glass = good).
|
|
|
|
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23657
|
For me its more of a case of what you can do with a digital image vs. just developing film shots to a CD. With a digital SLR, you can shoot in raw format and manipulate the photo in photoshop.
There are consumer and "prosumer" cameras that can shoot RAW/TIFF. As to the the "mega zoom" cameras, I had a Sony DSC f717, which featured a high quality, 10x zoom lens. Great camera, took really nice pics - but they are huge and expensive.. Add in the fact that you can got to Canon 350 (Rebel XT) digital SLR for a few hundred bucks more, and they are questionable worth.
The F717 only had a 5x optical zoom. The current batch of super zooms are a lot smaller than the F717/F828-style of camera and a lot cheaper.
|
|
|
|
littledude
Terracotta Army
Posts: 13
|
Unless the ambulace goes underwater too, you don't need a camera housing built for diving - they're also bulky to use. Fine while diving, but unhandy above water. Go with the Pentax Optio WPI It's a good little camera and you can submerge it in blood without ruining it. Not saying on a really rotten day that we couldn't end up underwater...but if it is bounce proof, weather resistant, able to handle being wiped down with bleach based cleaners and still take some nice photo's I'll buy it. Pentax sounds pretty decent, the other rugged cameras have not had much reviews on them. Of course I'll then have to bring a picture printer on the rig...because every god damn hospital has to have a diffrent computer, diffrent software, diffrent printers at each place.
|
|
|
|
Sobelius
Terracotta Army
Posts: 761
|
Considering that you can get the pictures on a CDROM when you have your film developed, we have no need for a digital. My wife is almost an amateur photographer and she does not deviate from the Canon Rebel 35mm. She's on her third or fourth one. Just sayin'.
All other discussion notwithstanding, you also have to: - buy the filmas soon as you run out - don't want to "waste film" - take the film to be developed and wait (even if it's only an hour) With digital (assuming you have a home PC of recent vintage) you: - buy the film once (digital storage card) - take as many photos as your storage card allows (never worry about taking a "bad" or frivolous picture because it would "cost film") - have the pictures immediately ready once you pop the digital media into your computer - if you have a decent quality inkject photo printer and paper, make prints yourself But as even a casual photographer will attest, probably the best thing about digital is that, if your camera has a preview monitor, you can immediately see whether the shot you took was any good any whether you need to re-take it. As a budding amateur/pro, going digiital has enabled me to learn about photography (specifically taking photographs), rapidly because the immediate feedback allows me to learn at the moment I'm taking the shot.
|
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire "A world without Vin Diesel is sad." -- me
|
|
|
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440
2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST
|
If it was up to me I think we would go digital, if only because we take eleven to thirteen rolls of film into Sam's Club to be developed every month. Then again, she would end up spending bank on printer supplies if she used a digital, so it works both ways. And I'm really not interested in buying a still camera now that our year-old JVC camcorder died, just in time for the holidays.
|
Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question. They called it The Prayer, its answer was law Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
|
|
|
Furiously
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7199
|
I'd do a cost analysis. I used to shoot Fuji Velvia for the pretty saturation. Ran me about $8.00 a roll. 36 Shots per roll. I'd mail it to Fuji for developing. Seventy-five cents postage + $3.49 for the processing. So it was about $12.24 per roll, and then the cost of any prints. (I would average about 1 or 2 prints per roll).
On a vacation I would go through 10 rolls or so. (I'm a bit odd - I don't print much, and when I do, I generally print in larger format. Something that worries me a bit about recently going digital. No more 48x30 prints).
So for my shooting style I figure I have saved money after I go through about 100 rolls. I'm not there yet :)
|
|
|
|
Bunk
Contributor
Posts: 5828
Operating Thetan One
|
The F717 only had a 5x optical zoom. The current batch of super zooms are a lot smaller than the F717/F828-style of camera and a lot cheaper.
You're right, my goof - it had a 5x zoom. You do get some advantages (picture quality, larger f-stop range) in having a full size lens like that Sony line and the Minolta DiMage have, but the trade off is in size of course.
|
"Welcome to the internet, pussy." - VDL "I have retard strength." - Schild
|
|
|
Raph
Developers
Posts: 1472
Title delayed while we "find the fun."
|
I just went thru this two weeks ago and ended up with the Canon SD450.
|
|
|
|
Demetra
Terracotta Army
Posts: 30
|
Roomie went nuts today and bought a new camera, it's a Sony DSLR a230. Does anyone know if that's a good one? She wants to be able to take pictures in our garden including things like single flowers up really close and other very small things.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
 |