Digital camera

Create a Post
S

Sherry Lee

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Posts
2,228
Loc
Phoenix, Az.
For those of you camera gurus, if you were to purcahse a new digital camera today, which one would you get? Which one would you recommend for the purpose of taking on vacations, nonprofessional, easy to carry, good quality photos. This would not be used for Integrated Framer proects.

THANKS!
 
For what you are looking for, what Jay and Paul and Surferbill said. We might get one of those for our daughter for a graduation present if we don't give her Gary's old Nikon D100 instead. He just got a Fuji S5 and I'm hoping he will retire the D100. I don't like the quality of the images it takes for professional photos. It's ok for snapshots but too much noise for my liking on portraits, etc.
 
What everyone else said. With the 18-135.

(The 18-200 is nice, but may be a bit bulky/heavy for "easy to carry". Of course, depending on what your definition of "easy to carry" is, the D40 with no lens might be too big).
 
Thanks, but by 'easy to carry', I meant pocket size; can fit in the palm of my little hand size.

I know they make great digital cameras in that size now, I just don't know the quality of each. I'll search it out, but thought some of our great 'techies' in Gumbleland would share their experiences.
 
A pocket size digital camera is likely to have digital zoom (pretend zoom) - not optical (boo, hiss) and no optical viewfinder (double boo hiss.)
 
I just stopped by the camera shop on my way home from work this evening. I currently shot with a canon S2IS which I think may be more of what your looking for. The latest version is the S5IS. This is still a point & shoot type of camera but on steroids. It has a 12x optical zoom. My wife also shoots with this camera. She is 4'9 and 100lbs so she too has little hands and this fits just fine.

The cameras that I was looking at were the Nikon D40 which is about 10% larger then my S2IS and the Nikon D80 which is about 30% bigger. This size feels good in my hands but would completely overwhelm my wifes.

The best thing to do is to go to a good camera store and put them in your hands and see what feels the best. If the camera is awkward for you, you won't get the best shoots because you will always be fighting it.
 
Try this website to help narrow the field.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/

A couple years back, I got the Nikon Cool Pix 4300. It takes very nice pictures, but it's just a tad too big to fit in my pocket. Sometimes I hook it to a belt loop and try not to bang into anything.

I agree with Ron. The optical zoom is alot better than the digital zoom, and if you plan on taking any pictures in sunlight, the optical view finder is a must have. I didn't think i would use the viewfinder as much as I do, but it's really hard to see the LCD screen when your in the sun.
 
As the others have mentioned, just be careful with cameras without optical view finder.

Many smaller Nikon cameras came out without those (what were those engineers thinking!) and they're cheaper and small but useless in sunlight.
 
I like Steve's Digicams for reviews and forums. If you don't want to wade through a million different pages, they have a Best Camera's page broken down by type, including Ultra Compact - Pocketable.
 
Everyone is gonna have their own strong brand loyalties. Mine is Nikon. I have a D-70; my wife has a Nikon 4800 point and shoot. Both are perfect for what we do.

But, there are some very good brands out there which are not Nikon … like Canon, for example.

I would suggest you go to a Best Buy kind of store so you can play hands on and see what feels good for you and what best suits your needs.

The clerks probably won’t know their belly button for a hole in the ground, but, at least, its a start. From there you can go on-line and fine tune your selection.
 
I do most of my work with professional DSLR, but also have a dirt-cheap Fujifilm F31 for parties, travel, etc. It has a host of deficiencies (dim viewfinder in sunlight being the worst), but for a pocketcam it has exceptionally good low noise, low light performance which makes it good for poorly lighted indoor situations at social events and such where flash would be obtrusive.

The fall-down for most point&shoot cameras is the level of noise in the image which limits your ability to post process the images in any significant way...post processing almost always exaggerates the noise. Noise is, as my wife puts it, "specklies" in the image, possibly "electronic snow" is another way of putting it. Post processing is manipulating the image in software like Photoshop.

But if you're willing to take the pocketcam image more or less as the camera gives it you, you'll be OK and most of them give it you pretty well! I've taken photos with a pocketcam which in prints can not told from those taken with it's $$$ cousin. In a few cases I have stitched together multiple side by side images from the pocketman to get the equivalent of a 50+ megapixel images that make fabulously sharp big prints.
 
I'm probably the only person who ever bought a Nikon 8800. I think it was discontinued the month after I bought it. It's an 8 megapixel camera with 10 x zoom and a fixed lens...except that there are/were a couple of others that would fit. It has the most durable camera body I've ever seen -- titanium I think.

This thing has some nice features. One of my favorites is that the viewing screen tilts and turns, so when the camera is 8 feet off the floor on a tripod on a table, I can still see the image.

I want more megapixels, and I've heard good things about Canon. Where is Canon in this thread?
 
After much searching both online and instore and with a lot of help from Grumblers I recently purchased a Canon A630 with 8mp, optical viewfinder and large tilt LCD screen and, I think 4x optical zoom. One of the reasons I bought it was that it takes 4 AAA batteries which last forever and while small enough to fit in most pockets it has a bit of heft to it so I am not afraid I will toss it though the air.

My only complaint - only a wrist strap - not a neck strap. I keep looking at the left side of the top of the thing and thinking, "hmmm, if I just drilled a couple of little holes......."
 
Oops, clicked the wrong button.

To continue...be sure to read the Conclusions page on this review. The large sensors on the latest batches of pocketcams are more marketing ploys than something useful. Some of the older 8 megapixel cameras like the Canon A640 may be just as good, and probably a really good deal now.

On that site you can download full sized images shot with the various cameras. Be sure to look closely at the corners on some of these, you'll see that optical aberrations like color fringing are way out of proportion to the megapixel counts. Because of the effects of light diffraction on the very small sensor chips in pocketcams, 8 megapixels is about the max resolution that makes any sense on a pocketcam. The biggest reason to buy a DSLR is that the sensor sizes are much larger which is the main reason you get generally better images from DSLRs than pocketcams.

But don't get me wrong...a good pocketcam can be a joy in everyday life, they're still worth having.
 
I have been promising myself a Lumix compact digital for a couple of years.

They have 6mp of resolution and 10x real zoom in a compact body plus a Leica lens which can't be too shabby. O.K., it could use a few more mp's of resolution but how many photos will I be enlarging anyway??

I recently had a holiday in Sydney and, because I planned on doing a lot of walking tours, took my wife's compact (film) camera rather than my own SLR. It was magic having that little gizmo hung on my belt instead of having a kilo of SLR hanging off one shoulder and another kilo of lenses etc on the other.

Definitely, I am a compact convert.
 
Jim Miller said:
I'm probably the only person who ever bought a Nikon 8800...
Click to expand...

You & me Jim, I got one too - very good camera - best lens I've ever tested anywhere near the price range - better than many twice as much - hardly any lens distortion!

I'd highly recomend another Nikon - but take your own mem card to a good camera store - take a bunch of pics with different cameras - take them home & compare quality - you will be shocked at the differences! I was.
 
HB said:
...take your own mem card to a good camera store - take a bunch of pics with different cameras - take them home & compare quality - you will be shocked at the differences! I was.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that brilliant suggestion, HB. I will do that when it's time. I have to save a few more dollars first, though. I figure this next camera outfit will cost me well over $1000, and I'm just not ready yet.
 
HB said:
… but take your own mem card to a good camera store - take a bunch of pics with different cameras - take them home & compare quality - you will be shocked at the differences! I was.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are a lot of different formats for memory cards. Nowadays the most popular, I think, is the SD which my wife’s Nikon 4800 uses, but my Nikon D70 uses the Compact Flash which is incompatible with my wife’s camera. Go figure. Plus, there are Memory Sticks and SmartMedia and MultiMedia Cards each of which won’t work in a camera not designed for them.
 
When I finally "bit the bullet" and got a digital - which I am so glad I did - 2 years ago!!! I went to the camera shop (independent locally owned!!) I looked at all the cameras in my price range with the features I wanted... and the cameras ranged in size within that criteria. My husband swayed the "vote" to a Canon SD450 Elph (there are newer comparable models now) because he pointed out that it was the smallest of the 5 cameras I was looking at - had all the features I was considering AND because it was the smallest - it would travel well!! And it does - it fits in my pocket, his pocket, my small carry all purse... it is great. The only problem... is because it is so small I do worry that it was slip out and I won't even miss it... so I have a wrist strag with a clasp and I hook it on to my purse, my belt loop or something - so I won't lose it without even knowing!! The thought of a neck strap would be good for certain travels... so Mar if you figure that one out... pass it along!!

Roz
 
I've thought about the Nikon D40X, too, which is also 10.2 megapixels. Anybody know what the practical differences are?
 
Don't believe a word off any website, reality needs to kick in here! Get the cameras in your price range into your hand, the most comfortable wins. For goodness sakes, all sorts of reviews can drive you batty, if you genuinly believe that your customers are nuts for asking advice of you to see an actuall design and garnering ideas for design then get them to buy off a website and forget your services.

I have a customer who has spent the best part of 3 years argueing with himself about the differences between certain models - currently he is considering the Nikon D3 & Canon 1Ds MkIII. Guess what? The photos he will take with either are far and away better than is required for the output.

I reckon I could find great reviews about hessian pillow cases on the web.

sorry, am getting off soapbox..
 
surferbill said:
Great goggley muggley, that's a big camera!!...
I still vote for the Nikon D80 for a great personal camera..
Click to expand...

Buy a D80 and shoot 10 side-by-side images, then stitch them together with PTGui. That will be you 60 megapixels. And you will still have $32,000 in your pocket over buying the goggley. Only difference will be that your shots will be sharper, since every part of your image will be the optical center, whereas the goggley will suffer from terrible optical aberrations at the edge from its wide angle lens. And you will not develop back problems early in life as will the goggley owner.
 
Thanks for the link, Dave. Obviously, Ken Rockwell is not impressed by the higher resolution of the 10.2 mp D40X, but for me, it might be worth that extra $200 over the 6.1 mp D40. Speed is not so much an issue for me. I see where he's coming from, about resolution numbers being misleading. For full-frame photos, I'd probably agree with Mr. Rockwell.

Mostly, I photograph for articles and PowerPoint lectures -- that is, framed pictures and hands working on framing processes, with the camera on a tripod, and lighting arranged on-the-spot from readily available light sources and shielding/reflecting materials. I hardly ever use a flash, and you would not believe some of the things I do to get decent light. I usually take about a dozen photos of every interesting project I have the pleasure to frame, especially if there's something unique about its construction.

It is useful for me to be able to photograph a 20"x30" frame from 6 or 8 feet away, and crop in on a 4" square segment of it. In that scenario, more megapixels makes a better cropped image, does it not? My 8 mp Nikon 8800 does a pretty good job for my purposes -- much better than my 5 mp Canon, even though I like the user-friendliness of the Canon.
 
Jim Miller said:
... more megapixels makes a better cropped image, does it not?
Click to expand...

To an extent yes, but for cropping purposes most cameras are more limited by their lenses that their megapixels. Right now for instance most of the 12mp pocket cams are limited in resolution not by their megapixel count but by their lenses...all those extra megapixels are doing nothing but revealing details of optical aberrations rather than scene details.

As a photographer I of course shudder at the thought of locking off a camera, then cropping out details. But I understand you need to have an unobtrusive way to record the sequence of your work. I would recommend something like a D40x or D80, if one of them lacked an infrared remote shoot switch I'd pick the one that had it. But most of all I'd recommend a good prime lens that covered your work area as tightly as possible, set to about f8 or f11 which are the sharpest apertures. The 50mm f1.8 Nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, it's slightly telephoto on a D40 or D80, might let you put the camera on a wall bracket or something like that at an out-of-the-way distance.
 
Thanks for your suggestions, Bill T. As an uneducated photographic consumer of limited experience, I try really hard to know almost nothing of lenses and f-stops. I'm an unabashed point-and-shoot amateur. I suppose that attitude is scary to a real photographer, isn't it?

Yes, the shutter clicker is a necessity when the camera is on a tripod six feet above the table top I'm working on. I set the timer, click, and then commence action before it takes the photo.

One great feature of my Nikon 8800 that does not exist on any of the cameras I'm considering is the tilting viewfinder screen. My guess is that is a costly and fragile feature to provide, and I will miss it if I get a new camera.

So far, the Nikon D40X in a kit with the 18-55mm lens looks like my dream camera. One of the best real camera shops we have locally is Midwest Photographic Exchange, and they have it for $649 right now, just $50 more than the D40.
 
Jim Miller said:
So far, the Nikon D40X in a kit with the 18-55mm lens looks like my dream camera. One of the best real camera shops we have locally is Midwest Photographic Exchange, and they have it for $649 right now, just $50 more than the D40.
Click to expand...

That would make a nice stocking stuffer !!
 
Jim, the 15-55 is not considered to be a great lens. For your needs I would suggest a 50mm prime lens. But for fun, I know many Nikon guys that love their 18-200VR lens. Cord Camera has them for $699. Yes I know that is more then the cost of the camera :)
When you get into DSLRs you buy into a system not just a camera. As you add lenses to your collection you will want to stay with what ever brand you started with as many cameras will still use 50 year old glass.

Dave
 
FrameMakers said:
Jim, the 15-55 is not considered to be a great lens....
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell likes that Nikkor 18-55 mm lens quite a lot. What better endorsement could there be??:D

Seriously, I appreciate your recommendation. I probably don't need a great lens, but I'll insist on a good one. Nikon offers those 18-55 lenses in kits with the D40, D50, D70, D80, D100, D200, D1x, D2X, etc. How bad is it?

If the kit lens falls short of my needs, then I'll look for something better -- but it probably won't be the one for $699. I have only one store, y'know.:faintthud:
 
Jim Miller said:
If the kit lens falls short of my needs, then I'll look for something better -- but it probably won't be the one for $699. I have only one store, y'know.:faintthud:
Click to expand...

At f8 almost any lens is a good lens. The differences are most apparent at the wider apertures like f2.8 where money does indeed buy quality. But I have noticed that in the mid aperture range there's not much difference, except for maybe geometric barrel distortion which isn't much an issue for most things. If you're going to use a camera in a dedicated "studio" situation, just buy a passable lens, put it at f8, and worry about more important things.

On dpreview.com I've looked at a lot of full-sized images from these lower end Nikon DSLRs, they all look good enough that differences in user skill level and technique count for more than equipment quality.

For Jim's application I'd probably be happy with the 18-55mm. If it's not good enough, sell it on ebay and get a nice prime lens. But I bet you'd probably have to do some really careful testing to tell the difference.
 
Don't forget the new VR 18 - 55 mm lens.

VR Rocks....!

framer
 
Update...

I just bought a Canon Rebel XTi outfit with 18-55mm lens. I was going to get the Nikon D40X, but that would require me to buy new SD (as I recall) memory cards. All of my existing memory cards are CF, which fit the Canon.

My impression is that the Canon Rebel XTi and the Nikon D40X are very similar in terms of quality, features, and performance, as well as price. Am I in for any surprises, good or bad?

My plan was to wait at least until after the holidays for this buy, but last Wednesday, as I was taking pictures for an article, I bumped the tripod. It fell 6 feet directly to the tiled concrete floor, breaking the tilting LCD screen off my Nikon 8800 :cry:

I needed a replacement camera RIGHT NOW. The first few panic-stricken phone calls to local dealers led me to believe my 2-1/2 year-old, obsolete camera could not be repaired, so I commenced shopping. Fortunately, the publisher has extended my deadline until January 2 to get the photos in. I'l get to know this new Canon quickly, I guess.

Today I found out Nikon can repair my Coolpix 8800, and that's good news. :thumbsup: Thanks to the titanium body, it looks like there is no other damage. The 8800 is a really good camera for my purposes. The tilting LCD screen is an excellent feature, and it was among the first Nikons to have the now-popular VR type lens. So, I will gladly pay the repair cost if it is $200 to $250, as speculated by the Nikon service tech who answered their phone in Melville, NY.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top