Need advice on Really Nice Digital Camera..

[RTz]

I love airplane photos.

 

Dave,

 

Between Braap and I, we have a few of those. Here's a couple to 'feed the need'...

 

My wife and I ran accross this unbelievably restored Piper Cub on our flight to Hood River. We talked to the owner a bit... terrific guy. He actually trained, solo'd, took his check-ride in it, and then had the humble-ness to show interest in the the Cessna we flew in!

 

.

.

Braap took this one last year while we were exposing a co-worker to flight...

.

.

[veritech-z]

I got my D80 with the upgraded lens, it brought the price of the camera from 1099 to 1299 from www.ritzcamera.com. the lens was on back order for about a month, we ordered it pretty much the day it came out, otherwise it would have been the D70S. I still haven't gone through the manual to figure out changing the auto settings to manual, it's my first DSLR. Prior to that, I was shooting 35mm with an Olympus OM10 and I'd fool around with a completely manual (no battery or anything! even has a spring wind self timer!) Zenit E that I got in Paris for like 30 euro. It's a Russian camera from the 50's/60's. I like it, but it's hard to get the exposures right with no light meter. Kind of have to guess a little bit. I can't take a good picture with a digital Point and Shoot to save my life! something about not having a real viewfinder and having to stand there like a tool with the camera at arms length turns me off to the majority of them...having to use that little screen is the worst thing to happen to picture taking if you ask me. Of course, nobody asks me...

 

Mike, you finally sounded like you knew what you were talking about! Rock on man!

[Guest Mike]

veritech-z... My little feelings are hurt. You mean I've never sounded like I know what I'm talking about?? I'm shocked... and deeply hurted to the the quick. Oh... woe is me. WOE is me...

[veritech-z]

Aw come on buddy, at least 900 of your posts open up with "We all know I'm no expert or anything, but here's my opinion..." This time you sounded both competent AND confident! Just a little New York compliment, that's all!

 

All Mike ribbing aside, something to think about when looking at DSLR's vs point and shoot: DSLR's give you generally more frames per second, with faster off to ready to shoot times. My D80 will shoot 3 frames per second up to 100 frames (though the flash seems to reduce this time), and has a sub-1 second off-to-first frame time. If you already have money invested in a lower Dnumber of nikon (D70/50 etc), the D80 uses SD memory cards (2gig will give you just under 600pics AT 10.2 MEGAPIXEL, in the multi-thousands at a lesser resolution) instead of compact flash. So unless you are dying for the megapixel count, it probably isn't worth it to upgrade to a D80 body from a D70.

[RTz]

Just keep in mind that, to make a SIGNIFICANT difference in image quality, you need to AT LEAST DOUBLE the pixel count.

 

Mike, Thanks for the informative post. I agree with the pixel count sentiment. With my last purchase I even went 'backwards'... going from Olympus's top line P&S (at the time C8080) with 8 MP, to the Nikon D70 with 6MP. Image quality is SO much better that you'd swear the Nikon had the MP edge. Its more than just MP.

 

Do you want easy point-and-shoot operation?

 

Here's where I'm going to have to dissagree with 'conventional' thinking... 90% of my pictures are taken in fully automatic. The D70 is flat out the easiest P&S camera I've ever used. The only drawback is its bulk (compared to the typical P&S). I thought this was going to bother me and that is partly what delayed my interest in a DSLR for so long. To tell you the truth, its such a delight to use, I rarely notice its larger size.

[Guest Mike]

veritach-z... It's true... I do admit that I'm no expert here. However, I'm trying to change that and you guys are my conduit for said change.

 

Yes, I do know a thing or two about digital imaging. In fact, I dare say that I have a few years on most of you guys in that realm. Does PhotoShop 2.0 mean anything to you??

 

If I'm "hearing" Aguyandaredhead correctly, he'll be happier with a small, no fuss, point-and-shoot camera with EXCELLENT built-in color, contrast, and exposure control with "reasonable" resolution and at a "reasonable" price. See... I use to be in photo retail too (a LONG time ago) so I'm fairly cognizant of individual needs.

 

You, OTOH, are a considerably more hands-on guy. You want more control over your tools (camera) than many others care for. In fact, I can tell that you're a photographer at heart. So... you must be a pretty darned nice guy:biggrin:

 

That said, If "I" wanted the best digital camera (for "MY" needs) I'd opt for the highest resolution, fastest, completely adjustable (ALL MANUAL CONTROL) camera with the best interchangeable lenses available and the BEST imaging chip. I would look carefully at models with the Foveon chip. RGB registration problems affect image quality. Think for a moment, if you will, about the arrangement of RGB pixels on the typical CCD chip. They're aligned side-by-side, right? Is color side-by-side in nature? Nope... it all comes at you in one linear stream.

 

It's been years since I've kept up with the technologies and am far behind, I'm sure. However, there are some facts of physics and optics that will never change.

 

Again... just my .02.

 

EDIT: Oh... one last thing. Digital cameras that are portable/affordable enough for me do not yet exist. I'm a large format guy and there are no 200MP cameras available to compete with this kind of resolution, let alone 1-2 GigaPixel chips:biggrin:

 

 

Aw come on buddy, at least 900 of your posts open up with "We all know I'm no expert or anything, but here's my opinion..." This time you sounded both competent AND confident! Just a little New York compliment, that's all!

 

All Mike ribbing aside, something to think about when looking at DSLR's vs point and shoot: DSLR's give you generally more frames per second, with faster off to ready to shoot times. My D80 will shoot 3 frames per second up to 100 frames (though the flash seems to reduce this time), and has a sub-1 second off-to-first frame time. If you already have money invested in a lower Dnumber of nikon (D70/50 etc), the D80 uses SD memory cards (2gig will give you just under 600pics AT 10.2 MEGAPIXEL, in the multi-thousands at a lesser resolution) instead of compact flash. So unless you are dying for the megapixel count, it probably isn't worth it to upgrade to a D80 body from a D70.

[Sparky]

I'm in the market for a DSLR but have had good luck in the past with my Canon A620. large movable screen, manual control settings, AA batteries, AND the ability to add on a filter adapter or special lenses.

 

examples:

 

 

 

I love it becuase its light, its fast, it has the most available accesories of any point n shoot, it runs on AA batteries so I dont have to lug around a bunch of chargers and garbage, and it has the easiest and most intuitive menu I've ever used. A++

 

I also highly recomend Steves-digicams.com for research, thats how I've researched my last three cameras, ALL of the them Canon powershots.

[zguy95135]

Here's some more pics I took today with my camera as I drove back to Norcal with some friends.

 

and the my friend doing the pose of course

 

 

If you have the cash for a DSLR by all means go buy one, I know if I could afford it I would. If not then a good point and shoot is great.

[Guest Mike]

Jeez... there is such a disconnect between "yesterday's technology" and today's. Just because it's old doesn't make it useless (yet). Even "cheap" medium format film cameras kick the crap out of today's very "best high resolution" digital cameras available to the mass market when it comes to "image quality". It never ceases to amaze me how big business fools the public.

[veritech-z]

What's great is that if you go to a real photography store, you can get used top dollar film equipment for peanuts now because of it's percieved obsolescence! However, it's unarguable that digital is really convenient for the casual shooter in terms of immediate knowledge of picture quality (ew, that one sucks, everybody smile again!) and for a situation like this, where people want to load pictures up to the internet without having to scan them in first. I tried to scan a drawing in to email to B_sosick last night at 2400dpi, and my computer can't even load up the picture! It came out at 233MB, and I've only got 256 meg of RAM! So I convinced my wife we really needed a gig of ram, and ordered an upgrade...that was pretty off topic...what was I talking about? Oh yeah, medium format film cameras: They take awesome pictures! If you've never seen one, go check one out!

[cygnusx1]

Actually I have never even owned a film SLR. I am, however, a fan of ANY photography and frequent galleries. I know what a large format film can do. Most of us though, will never print our photos anywhere near life size or beyond. If you are going to display your photos poster size or less, 8-10 megapixels are enough so that the shots shouldn't look grainy. 99.9% of my photos are shown either through a DLP projector, a 50" monitor, or a web browser. I can satisfy all of my artistic needs with a measly 8MP DSLR. I don't sell my stuff so it's fine. The only reason I went with a DSLR is because I am naturally curious and I can't get enough of tinkering. Heck, when I was about 2, I hit the e-stop button on an escalator and sent about 30 people crashing down on eachoter.

 

Well, yes, a DSLR can be a point and shoot too. They do it very well.

 

I think we need to start a "show me your photography thread"!

[Guest Mike]

These are all good points and serve to clarify my points. Anyone who is unaware of the limitations in quality of digital vs film for usable/portable systems or those who don't care to know... are going to be much happier with something like a Nikon Coolpix (or similar) point-and-shoot camera.

 

Eastman Kodak has been making a living selling "acceptable quality" cameras to the public for 100+ years. Someday digital quality will surpass film... just not now. That said, really good digital cameras are approaching the quality of the best 35mm SLR's. But 35mm was ALWAYS meant to be a convenient portable way for the general public to record "every day life". ALSO... for those who like the portability/quality of 35mm camera systems will be extremely happy with the better digital systems available today. They're actually quite good. In this light, modern digital cameras fit the bill of the mass market very well.

 

On a side note but of similar concept... this is exactly why MP3 players are sweeping the market over compact disc audio. It's the portability vs "acceptable quality" thing. Personally I wouldn't own an MP3 player to save my life because CD's are already a compromise in quality... better than analog in some ways... worse in others. One day, I'll be deaf enough that all this over-compression will make little difference but, until then, I'll run away from MP3 like it's a killer plague!! OTOH, it does have a place such as for background music in businesses, etc.

[cygnusx1]

Yup, Mike we think alike. Not only does MP3 just get by but CD's have huge variations. Some artists take pride in their recordings and it shows. I can't beleive how many CD''s I pop into my system and they sound "dead". MP3 is barely palletable on a sound system that can show you the difference. Cymbals that sound like saran wrap! Yuk.

 

Take a look at the Phase One digital backs. It's the V8 of the digicam.

 

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/Hotnews/Ultimate%20range.aspx

[Guest Mike]

I agree with your CD audio observations. Quality has been an issue since the days of analog tape (reel-to-reel) and vinyl LP's though. A really well-recorded/mastered CD is much better than any LP ever was, IMHO. The plus points far outweigh the negatives of 16 bit digital. I just wish the major players in audio formats would quit their bickering and finally bring truly high resolution DVD and SACD and/or other formats into the mass market with lots of popular titles. The problem is that the general public prefers the convenience of MP3 players over truly high-end sound.

 

This is exactly the issue with photo gear. There is nothing wrong with wanting the convenience of point-and-shoot cameras... just as there is nothing wrong with liking MP3 players. Like I said, I have a Coolpix 4500 and am happy with it for every day stuff.

 

Aguyandaredhead... Have you made your list of features you want? Portability vs versatility, quality vs price... those sorts of things?

 

Cygnus... Yeah, the Phase One units are great (and pricey). Those types of devices are for those with lots of money or need them for their business. I wish I could afford one

[RTz]

Maybe you guy's can help me out with something.

 

First, for clarification, Agyandaredhead titled this "really nice digital camera". Also, I'm getting the impression that maybe he can afford somthing in the $1000 range.

 

Here's where I need help... I've used a number of P&S's from three different manufacters (probably totaling 12-15). Every one of them had a long turn on time, eats batteries, slow focus, slow shot to shot, and lackluster metering. These are ALL things that are important to the casual user (or should be, ESPECIALLY with kids). Admittedly, I have intimate experience with only one DSLR. However, I can say without hesitation that it does a fine job in all these areas. Most DSLR's probably do. I'm not much of a photographer, but I have captured many shots with my DSLR that I could NEVER get out of a P&S. And furthur, its EAISER to use than any P&S.

 

The ONLY advantage to a P&S is compactness and price, but thats IT. I fail to see any other reason to own one.

 

I don't think you have to be a good photographer to appreciate a DSLR. On the contrary, I think it makes you look BETTER than you are

[SteelToad]

Nikon is awesome for high end, but I'm happy with my FinePix 5100

 

digital zoom = cropping (nothing more)

optical zoom is always better.

check what type of batteries / charger (finepix goes a long time on plain AA's)

check what it's going to co$t to add on .. (lenses, etc...)

figure out how often you're going to use it and price accordingly

[RTz]

digital zoom = cropping (nothing more)

 

Well said.

 

optical zoom is always better.

 

Again, well said.

 

check what type of batteries / charger (finepix goes a long time on plain AA's)

 

I typically get 500 to 600 pictures per charge... its convenient to say the least.

 

check what it's going to co$t to add on .. (lenses, etc...)

 

If we're taliking about the casual user, one or two, carefully chosen lenses will cover it.

 

figure out how often you're going to use it and price accordingly

 

Agreed. Just consider, if you use it with any regularity at all, there are some features that are worth their weight in gold. i.e., with kids, you never get any warning of what they're going to do or when. Frequently those moments are gone within 2 or 3 seconds... Some P&S's take that long just to turn on.

[JMortensen]

Let me first say that I am not a photographer, it's not a hobby of mine and isn't likely to become one. If I take pictures of stuff it's probably going to be shots of friends and family, or more likely, car parts which I will then post here. I never use a tripod (don't even own one), but do try to brace my hands to eliminate shaking the camera as a cause for blurry pictures.

 

I had an older FinePix a few years back and replaced it with a Nikon CoolPix 3200. Granted the FinePix was the cheaper model and the Nikon is only the middle of the road model, but I really couldn't be happier with the picture quality of the new one, and the old one was pretty bad. What really used to get me was low light conditions like inside my garage. I'd take pictures and use the flash and they would always come out blurry due to a lack of light. The Nikon has a bunch of different functions on it, but the one that I use most is the flower function, works well for close ups of parts. I guess this is for taking that bee hovering over the flower shot, but it works FAN-friggin-TASTIC in the garage and makes low light photos come out crystal clear. The only complaint I have about the camera at all is that in mpeg mode it has an annoying clicking that seems to be impossible to get rid of, but I didn't buy it for movies anyway.

 

OLD CAMERA (taken in the daylight with the garage door open, autoflash):

 

NEW CAMERA (taken in garage with flourescent bulbs, door closed, autoflash):

[Mikelly]

I don't know your price range, but I just bought a Minolta DiMage Z6 Megapixle camera onsale for $279 while in Vegas. You can check some of the pics from my vegas trip, and redrocks as well to see some of the "features" although I must admit I haven't taken the time to really set the camera up yet... Really impressed with it overall. It's a $600 retail camera, and worth what I paid for sure...

 

http://photos.yahoo.com/dat74z

Mike

[phantaz]

ever since the 10.1 mp cameras starting coming out... the 6 and 8 mp camera prices starting falling.. you can pick up some really outstanding 6 mp cameras now for a great price... amazon had some great prices a few weeks ago.. now that ive said that.. i just used my Bro's new Sony Alpha and man can it shoot.nice lens, simple, lightweight, and on action mode it can take some seriously quick shoots with almost no loss of quality.. good for kid shots.

but it was around 800. my 6mp konica with adaptable lens mounts was only 349. and shoots just as fast but battery time is albout 3/4 what the sony is. just not as many options with this one. once again as mentioned several times .... it price vs function.