Digital Camera questions

[nwilliams]

A photographer's Perspective.....

When it comes down to it a high end camera can only get you so far. As a photographer I can tell you that there is a lot more to it than just having a camera that can take high resolution images. I've seen spectacular work done on some very cheap point and shoot digital cameras and some absolutely horrible work done with extremely expensive DSLR cameras.

This issue is not an old one, before digital cameras hit the market you had the whole 35mm vs medium and large format debate. A larger negative will make it easier to blow up your pictures to a larger size without as much loss of quality. I shoot 220 film and 4x5 mostly because I am blowing up images to a very large size. However for most people who just want a camera to take snapshots a 35mm is he or she needs.

The same is true with modern day digital cameras. You don't need the large number of megapixels unless you plan on making large prints. If all you are looking for is to make 8x10's and or post images on the internet then you can pretty much ignore the whole megapixel hype. Images posted on the internet should be posted at 72dpi and generally are not much larger than 640x480, so most digital cameras can very easily meet this demand.

I'm still more of a film guy than a digital enthusiast, I still do most of my fine art work with my Mamiya RB67 and 4x5 field camera. However I've owned a few DSLR cameras over the years as backups for travel and to post gun pics on THR. I currently have a Nikon D200(10.2mp) and a Pentax K20D (14.6mb). What really makes a DSLR camera shine is not the number of megapixels, its the quality of the image sensor and the quality of the lens being used on it.

Still to get to the root of your question for the budget you quoted I would suggest maybe a Canon Rebel 350D, Pentax K10D or Nikon D40, all are solid cameras, affordable and should give you fine results. Remember that the camera doesn't make the photograph, you do.

Hope this helps!


Pentax K20D with Sigma 17-70 lens

 

[sabre]

If you can swing the $$$ I recommend the Nikon D40. They can be had for $480 new, and I've seen factory refurbs near $400. 6MP is plenty for most uses (guns included) and I really think if you want to play around with photography you will be MUCH better off with a digital SLR. Better low light capability, faster shutter response (my D40 is instant), much better flash capabilities (in camera / optional flash units), remote shutter release (great for gun pics) and the ability to add lenses for specific purposes are all advantages over a P&S. FWIW, Nikon vibration reduction is in the lenses, so if you think you need it later you can buy a lens with VR.

I'm not saying you can't do what you want with a point & shoot camera, but for me the D40 has been a major step up in my photographic capability

From my D40:


If you have any specific questions feel free to ask, I always like talking guns & cameras

Bill

 

[Calibre44]

Nwilliams wrote:The same is true with modern day digital cameras. You don't need the large number of megapixels unless you plan on making large prints

Absolutely right – also higher pixels means you’ll use up more memory on your SD Card and also on your PC and it will take longer to download. Personally I get great results with only 3 megapixels.

 

[357WheelGun]

Very honestly, if you have good lighting and aren't shooting in instances where you need quick focus, almost any point-and-shoot from a respected company (Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, etc) will perform acceptably.

Where one gets into problems are low-light (indoors), fast motion, or flexibility.

For those situations, a DSLR is the only way to go. They have physically larger sensors that capture more light and have less noise, which allows them to fare better in low-light conditions. They have vastly more sophisticated auto-focus systems that can lock-on far faster than point-and-shoot cameras will. And they have the flexibility of an overall system behind them (external flashes, wireless triggers for studio lights, any number of special-purpose lenses, etc).

My advice to you is to ignore megapixels. Quite frankly, 2.0 megapixels is sufficient for better than 90% of what most people will ever want to do. Think back to film, how often did you enlarge a photo past 8x10? A 2.0 MP camera will produce fine prints at that size and 99% of people will never notice that they aren't from film. 8.0 MP is enough for a 16x20 print, which is getting well beyond the size at which most people will ever enlarge a photograph. I know plenty of professionals who used 6.0 and 8.0 megapixel DSLRs to produce absolutely stunning poster-size prints.

The real benefit of more megapixels is the ability to crop an image more freely. With my 12.2 MP DSLR, I have a lot of leeway in what I can cut from a photo in post and still have an acceptable image for printing. In terms of displaying snapshot photos on the web, my old (sadly it was stolen out of my car ) 2.0 MP Fuji point-and-shoot did just fine, in fact, I can't really tell a difference in quality when comparing pictures from the two cameras at web sizes (1024x768 and below).

If you get a point-and-shoot, I would not recommend anything over 8.0 MP because of noise concerns. If you can find a 6.0 MP point-and-shoot, get it. The lower noise will be more of a payoff than you lose from a small reduction in resolution.

If you can manage it, a used DSLR can be a great buy, and can enable you to buy a higher-end camera for less. For example, a Canon 20D is now quite an old camera, but it was built sturdily and will still take great photographs. It will also accept any Canon EOS lens, which gives you a huge market of used lenses. Nikon has similar cameras as well. Alternatively, there is Sony. Sony bought out Minolta a few years ago and kept all the old Minolta photography staff and manufacturing facilities. Sony's new DSLR cameras benefit from Minolta's expertise and will mount all Minolta auto-focus lenses, which also gives you a large used market.

As others have said, try before you buy. In all honesty, there is not a "dud" out there in the DSLR market. Olympus, Sony, Pentax (also badged as Samsung in some markets), Canon, Panasonic, and Nikon all make excellent photographic tools in the DSLR arena. If you choose a DSLR, try them all and just buy the one that works best for you and feels the best in your hand.

 

[JohnL2]

I'll vouch for the "quality of the image sensor" or CCD. Do some homework and look for cameras that have superb CCD technology.
To give you an idea of the difference, I had a friend who had a simple plain camcorder. We thought the image was pretty good. But then I bought a "prosumer" Canon XL-1 camcorder. The image difference with like night and day. My friends' camcorder images were dull, drab, and the edges bled; like you would see in poor quality CRT televisions without digital comb-filters.
The XL-1's images were razor sharp; the colors were lively and seemed true to life.
I haven't entirely abandoned film either. Here's a link to a shot that I took a LONG time ago. I submitted it just for the heck of it. The caption should read "compose" not "compare", they messed it up. Oh well.
Believe it or not this picture was taken with a disposable camera. my pic

It's all about light. I worked in a wholesale photolab and have seen tons of lousy photography because people just do not understand lighting. If I may, I suggest you read up on lighting techniques. It makes a dramatic difference in how good an image can be.

Light has a certain way of bouncing off and through the skin and film captures that in a distinct way. I think CCD technology hasn't been able to really duplicate this effect - yet.

 

[RNB65]

2 MP is all you need for a computer display. You only need more than that if you plan to print the pics on color print paper.

IMHO, Canon makes the best digital cameras available. I have a Canon 40D and it's an awesome camera. After lagging behind in digital technology for years, Nikon has finally caught up with Canon on the digital front. Flip a coin. But I still prefer Canon because of their superior SLR lens mount.

Of course, there are other companies that make great digital cameras (Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Fuji). But I'm old school, so it's either Canon or Nikon for me.

In your price range, you may want to take a look at one of the high end point-and-shoot models rather than an SLR. The Canon Powershot G9 and Powershot S5 IS are both excellent cameras.

In the end, the person behind the camera is far more important than the equipment. Spending big bucks isn't going to help if you don't understand the basics of lighting and composition.

p.s. Digital cameras appear to be terribly expensive, but don't be fooled. The savings are on the backside since you'll never again have to buy a role of film or pay photo processing costs. The more pics you take, the more $$$ you save. Digital cameras are a bargain so buy the best you can afford.


-

 

[equitytrader]

Nikon for the win.

 

[armedandsafe]

Here is a clip from an article by a pro who has tested the subject. Get the full article here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

INTRODUCTION

Forget the silly debate over pixel counts among digital cameras. There is little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18!" I know because I've done this. Have you? NY Times tech writer David Pogue did this here and here and saw the same thing - nothing!

Joe Holmes' limited-edition 13 x 19" prints of his American Museum of Natural History series sell at Manhattan's Jen Bekman Gallery for $650 each. They're made on a D70.

There are plenty of shows selling shots from fuzzy Holgas for a lot more money, just that those folks don't tell me about it. Holgas sell for $14.95, brand new, here. You can see an award-winning shot made with a Holga hanging in Washington, D.C.'s Hemicycle Gallery of the Corcoran Museum of Art in their 2006 Eyes of History competition of the White House News Photographers Association here.

Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made better images than some higher resolution ones.

Skill trumps megapixels, past 4 Mp.

Pops

 

[cowboyL1FE]

Nothing really to add. I use a Canon digital SLR and Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses.

 

[Frandy]

1. Get a decent digital camera that has at least 3 megapixels and excellent macro capability. That isn't hard to do today.

2. Make or buy a "light tent" ( http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents/HowTo_page.htm ) and appropriate lights.

3. Look at others' photos.

4. Practice.

With a Canon G9

With a Nikon D300

 

[kwelz]

The SLR debate is as heated as the 1911 vs. Glock or 9mm vs. .45

Cannon and Nikon tend to get the biggest zealots.
Of course this is just because Cannon owners have not come to realize the greatness that is Nikon.

 

[Kind of Blued]

All I've shot in the last couple of years is 6x6cm, 6x9cm, and 4x5. I still haven't bought a digital camera!

The 4x5 is in inches, and that is the size of the negative. I haven't printed very large in a long time, but the last time I did, I made some 4'x5' (that's feet), the biggest prints I've ever made.

Walking that out of the darkroom, unrolling it, still wet from the wash, and taking slow steps back away from it is one of the most stimulating experiences I've ever felt. Depending on the photograph, it can create that deafening silence feeling you get when you're out in nature, miles from anything man-made.

 

[rust collector]

Sorry, brand doesn't matter. Brand loyalty is great stuff from a marketing standpoint, but the proof is in the image, not what your grandpa's F1 or M3 did.

With digital cameras, you can see what works immediately. If the camera you're looking at makes framing difficult, has a lot of noise, or won't focus clearly at the range you need, move on. You will be using light to make the image you desire. If the camera designers are on the same page, you can make magic. Try a bunch, and you'll see that one or two makes will be easier to use and less likely to get in the way.

 

[wolf_from_wv]

Are digital cameras basically for only still or slow-moving subjects?

I've gone through a couple of cheapos, a small sony that was decent, and just recently bought a Fujifilm "FinePix" S700 7.1megapixel from Target. It's easily the nicest digital I've ever owned (10x optical zoom) and it's shaped like a standard 35mm professional camera.

But I took it to the circus, and just like every digital camera I've ever owned, even when I set it on the fastest shutter speed, it still can't take good pics of moving objects. They come out all blurry and fuzzy. Will only 35mm cameras work for moving objects? Or is there a trick I don't know? Or is it possible with a much more expensive digital?

DSLR cameras are better for moving objects. If you follow the object as you take the picture, you may be able to get the object clear, and everything else blurry.

I just recently bought a Fujifilm S700, also. $134 on sale. I bought it because it will accept filters and lenses. (See those threads around the lens in the front? http://cgi.ebay.com/HD-LENS-FILTER-...yZ116191QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ) Though, I think my little point and shoot takes sharper pictures.

 

[kimsonvu]

@ Frandy :

How much for Nikon D300 and G9 in USA? I am thinking about change my digital camera too. My Nikon 3700 look like too old to capture more image ...it was take about 11000 pcs image .

 

[Odd Job]

CowboyL1FE, those are great pictures!

 

[passintime]

If any of you want Fuji products, pick out the model you like and PM me. It would be worth it, I believe.

 

[redneckrepairs]

Welcome to the dark side of gun ownership ( cameras ) . I currently have two " bridge cameras " which are neither a dnor a point and shoot . Both are between 7 and 8.5 mega pixels however megapixel is only veguely usefull if at all , its simply the file size that i had to buy to get the lenses i wanted affordable. I would venture to bet that Oleg and most Dusers shoot at a lot lower mpx . My cameras wont do what a dslr will , however they have a broader lense that does nothing great , but will take about any shot you could want . from guns and flowers to wildlife they work and do it without the cost of lenses that a dslr entales . Oleg and his ilk will take less equipment and better pics , for this old redneck i like the " smart camera " option , and dont mind the push butten manual set too bad .

 

[Vaarok]

I like to shoot, either or. One with the other, even, though when the camera dies it's cause for much wailing.

While they're discontinued now, I absolutely love my Konica Minolta DiMage A-200. It's a fancy camera with a cheap camera price, mostly because it's not DSLR.

I feel that the most important feature of a camera is capacious memory, not lenses or other fiddly things. A fast cycle time also.

It's a lot like handgunning, you have to find what fits you.

My mathematical formula for good pictures is to take craploads of pictures on the grounds that about eight of every ten will suck, and of the keepers, maybe one in five will be good. So click away until you have a bunch to pick through, it's not like you're paying for film anymore!

 

[Trisha]

This has been a remarkable and reasonable performer for us. From an amateur's perspective, doing everything from macro's of native flora and fauna to delighting in the stabilized zoom capabilities, we've never felt it inadequate.

 

[Ala Dan]

My "digi cam" is a Nikon model 8400 "Cool Pix" that cost me $499.95; if I
remember correctly~? Its loaded with on board features, and I do have
a tripod to mount it on that I bought at the same time I bought the
camera. I wasn't until just recently that I read a thread here at THR,
that said all pic's too be put on the 'puter needed to be taken with a
tripod mounted camera and the use of a light box. I'm still working on
the latter, and hopefully will soon be back in the picture business~!

FWIW: Its an 8.0 mega pixel Nikon 8400 "Cool Pix".

 

[S4Lee]

If you want the flexibility to shoot good macros (extreme close-up) as well as distace, you should think DSLR. A good starter kit these days can be had for <$750, and from there you can upgrade your lenses, flash, bodies, and accessories as needed (warning - it is addictive and can get expensive).

Personally, I'm very happy with my Olympus e510, and the 2-lens kit gives you some decent starter glass with a good range at a good price (they just announced the e520, a minor upgrade, so the e510 will likely drop in price quickly):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/488309-REG/Olympus_262072_Evolt_E_510_SLR_Digital.html

With the Oly system, you must multiply the focal length by 2 to get the 35mm film equivalent, so this kit covers 28mm to 300mm. 50mm in 35mm film is considered a 'normal' lens. The higher you go over 50, the more 'reach' (100mm = 2x 'normal', 300mm = 6x 'normal', 25mm = 1/2 'normal', and is wide-angle).

The nice thing about a DSLR is that once you commit to a camera 'system' (like the Oly 4/3rd system, also used by Panasonic and a couple of other companies), many components are interchangeable. So, with the Oly, you may want to buy the 35mm Macro Lens (~$200) if you get into that more, along with an external flash (~$400), and later other lenses that can get you in closer on distant objects or allow better shots with less light. In a few years, you may want to upgrade the body fo the camera to the new e5000 with 50 megapixels, and will most likely be able to use all the lenses you've invested in.

However, a DSLR is not something you'll just throw in your pocket to snap occasional pictures, and most cameras with fixed lenses are meant for the 'average' picture-taker, meaning that extremes (extreme macro, long range, very low light) won't be its forte. You really need to think about what you want the camera to do before deciding on one, with the realization that the more you want out of it, the more expensive it will be.

Here's a site that may help get you started:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

 

[kentucky_Dave]

Canon S5is is a pretty good all around digi camera.

The S2is is a cheaper version, but quite capable.
Both can do video too.

No matter what you get, most on the market are involved in a feature war.
Macro capability, custom settings, etc are the norm on your big name models.
Sony, Canon, Nikon are top dogs
Olympus and Panasonic are pretty good, but usually in a class by themselves. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Look for the battery types used too.
I HATE proprietary battery systems. I favor the rechargeable AA setups.
Spare batteries are cheaper and readily replaceable if you forget to bring your backups.

Consider the memory type, size limits, price, speed and availability for your shooting needs.
If you are going on vacation, a 1 gig sd card is not going to cut it.
You can gat many 1 gig cards, or a camera that can accept 4 to 8 gig cards and pretty much eliminate the potential of losing the cards.

Consider your shooting environment too.
Indoor shots love high iso settings (that's a "whole 'nother can of worms" to discuss)
External flash hot shoe is a great feature, if you will use it.
Remote connections help eliminate camera shake
Lens options / adapters: Panorama or super macro add ons that can open up all kinds of possibilities.
Diopter clarity / screen size and quality can make or break your shots.
A crappy LCD can render an afternoon shoot a complete waste (camera wise)

All that said, no matter what you get, take LOTS of pics...I mean LOTS!
You can always delete them later.
Tinker with the settings and repeat shots to determine what suits your intent.
After a short while you can hit your settings and grab shots rather quickly, once you know your rig.
A DSLR rig is great if you like to play with the focus and advanced settings.
If you want to point and shoot, go with a standard digital camera.

The attached is a crap example of a macro shot.
This is a .45 acp bbl from a Kimber SIS after a range visit.
Also attached is the after shot, with the remaining crap that continues to fight me.
A DSLR would have allowed cleaner focus, but I may have needed a separate lense, depending on the camera manufacturer.

 

[Odd Job]

timeforchange, I like those images of the rifling. It is very difficult to photograph that.

By the way what gun is that, with left twist rifling?

 

[Draven32]

Okay, if you're going to use a direct flash, put diffusion paper on it, as much as you can

If you have a DSLR-type with a flash, aim the flash away and bounce it back onto the firearm to be photographed with a 'bounce card'. The cheapest 'bounce card' is a sheet of foamcore from an art store.