++user/dig camera folks++

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

i'm trying to research online SLR features, learn about lens, kinda a how-to for dummies/noobs to dSLRs.... i've been wanting a camera for like ever and just haven't committed to anything. i'm constantly torn between worrying if i'm not advanced enough to know how to properly use a SLR to wondering if an "advanced" point-n-shoot would just do me well. i'd like to think i have a good eye for photography and know what i want to see, just not how to get it. do you have any recommended review websites, comparison or online guides, etc? cnet doesn't distinguish as much as i'd like. the company sites (nikon.com, canon)... my budget is on the lower end, but i'm willing to save up a bit more if it means getting the right camera for me (although knowing me, that probably wouldn't be on the higher end anyway).thanks, again, for any help!

kimmys81 · November 2009

my advice is to get out there and hold them and see how they feel in your hand. For me, when I bought mine about 2 years ago, I was stuck between a Canon and a Nikon which were both versions were comparable at that time. I liked the way the Canon felt in my hand better then the Nikon.

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

i totally agree... i'll go feel them out for sure, but i haven't even narrowed it down yet bc im not quite sure what i'm even looking for. i am afraid i will get a great SLR and not be able to use it. OR get a "advanced p&s" whatever that is or just a nicer P&S and really miss out on the things i want and currently hate about having just a p&s...

mscutieri · November 2009

What does SLR mean? I would like to get a nicer digi camera before the honeymoon, since I doubt we'll ever get back to italy again. I'm gonna have to grab one of you and take you shopping with me, since I'm clueless.

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

Single Lens Reflex -- uses a auto mirror system to get the picture exactly as you see it, vs. through a viewfinder.

mscutieri · November 2009

Oh (still confused). Is one better than the other?

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

user, so you know my budget, looking at nikon 3000 or canon xsi for SLRs and all over the place for those non-slr advanced ones. can be kit, or just camera and a recommendation for all-purpose lens.

kle0113 · November 2009

We just bought the Canon T1i - I love that camera. We also bought a new lens with it the 70 - 300 which is unreal. This was all based on a camera shop we went into on a lim and the guy gave us some great pointers. I really think like Kimmy said you have to feel it in your hands. To me the canon felt a lot better in my hands then the Nikon D40 and higher. I also found that going in and talking to someone in an actual camera shop as opposed to say pc richard is so much better because these people really know the cameras and the questions to ask you as to what you are really looking for. GL! The picture from St. Thomas I took with the canon.

USER876 · November 2009

The canon xt1 is the best bang for the buck out there. SLRs are all about the lens systems. Camera bodies go obsolete in 3 years but lenses hold their value for yrs. I would spend less on the body and pick up a few good lenses if I was on a budget. Going SLR is a big leap. First, you have to be willing to learn how to use it. A lot of folks spend big bucks on the camera and then are disappointed with the pictures. With a dslr, it's more about the photographer and settings than the equipment. It is also aboutthe post processing. You will have to invest in lightroom or Photoshop and learn how to use them, and also learn to shoot in raw format. Equipment is expensive, ESP flash systems and lenses that go into the thousands. Then you need filters, bags, it never ends......and the camera should be prof. cleaned every yr or so. It is also a hassle to carry the large equipment around so in my opinion it is not worth it unless you gt to the point where you can get really great pictures. I wouldn't spend a ton on a point and shoot, the $$$ ones offer little advantage.

USER876 · November 2009

Ps..... I don't like the entry level nikons. They don't have the auto focus motor in the camera body (to help with size and cost). Because of this, you are limited to only certain lenses that nikon makes that have the auto focus motor in the lens. The prosumer models are not affected by this bit cost more. Alternatively, the canon rebels can use all of canons lenses. As for what lenses would be best for you, what do you photograph? Portraits? Indoors/partys/low light? Outdoor landscapes? Sports? No one lens does it all, bit there are a few multipurpose ones out there that make good "walk around" lenses. For tech research, dpreview is good. A great forum and knowledge base is photography on the net.

USER876 · November 2009

Sorry for the typos, I am on my iPhone

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

i photograph people, places, things.. indoor and out. anything i can. i know quite a few ppl who shoot jpeg over raw still; so not sure about that. i am good with photoshop, but mostly interested in being able to print straight from card. my friends with slr's do not have lightroom access or do much editing, they just print. that is what i want to do. minimal editing, advanced settings, fast shutter, low light, entry-level cost, a camera that will last. do you recommend not going slr then?

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

also $900 is a bit over my budget, which is what the xti kit runs for i believe.

USER876 · November 2009

If you want to print right from the card, I wouldn't rec going dslr. Usually the pics need at least sharpening and white balance correction. But again not everyone notices this. In toime though these things will bother you, ( just like crooked horizons nevered bothered me till recently, now I fix.....) and you will spend more time on the pictures before displaying and printing. I would stick with a p+s

Mye · November 2009

i have the nikon D90 kit, and so far so good, but i admit i need to take a class or read up on it to take better pics

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

good food for thought, thank you. how do i get better shutter speed and low light options then without going SLR? do you have any recs for advanced point and shoots?

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

ok.. after a bit of soul-searching (i am talking to myself mostly in this post i realize

i have decided i am not looking to take classes in photography at this time, nor spend too much time editing (although i can, and do) and do not have the money i really would like to spend on these things when and if in fact i ever do get serious. so... let's say i am ruling out SLRs. i am most interested in these so-called "advaced point and shoots"... i am throwing these in quotes bc i am not exactly sure what is so advanced about them yet... without the SLR mirrors, can i get a better shutter speed, options for better lighting, etc. with one of these? reviewing the powershot line from canon for example... not the little ones. i have a elph that i carry aroud to like the bars, lol, but this isn't cutting it.

kewltif · November 2009

Allie- I like your reasoning! We bought a $550 camera right before the wedding (I couldn't even tell you the brand) that DH "had to have." I think he tooled around with the thing a few times on our honeymoon and at one wedding. Now he's talking about buying a "real camera." I'm like, how about you actually use the one we have first before deciding to upgrade?! I feel like you're atleast realistic with yourself.

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

yah im trying! its hard bc typically i want the best and biggest and newest of everything... esp. electronics! but this is one area i've gotta stop pretending i know more than i do, or am willing to learn!

USER876 · November 2009

The "advanced" point and shoots are a gimmick in my opinion and not worth the money.Let's start with megapixels (MP). Anything over 6MP is decent, if you are going to do super large prints (11"x14"+) then you may want to get something around 10MP. Anything more than that, in my opinion is overkill, but you do get the advantage of having good resolution left after cropping a tiny portion of the picture out, but that's about it. In fact, more MP usually equals more "noise" or grain in the pictures. For a given sensor size, the more MP there are, the higher the pixel density is, and the less light each one can let in. There are a lot of articles written about this. Basically, the MP game is just that, a marketing ploy to see who has the most.Next, sensor size. This DOES have an effect on image quality. The larger the sensor, the more light it can take in, the larger the "pixels",etc. It will be able to take pictures with lower noise in low light conditions at higher ISO's. A larger sensor will also result in a shallower depth of a field when pictures are taken at wide apertures. On a dslr, taking a picture at F2.0 will result in a blurry out of focus background. On a point and shoot, F2.0 won't look much different than F8.0 with everthing in focus. A full frame 35mm dSLR has a sensor size in mm of 36x24. The semi-pro DSLR's, canon 40d, 50d, 7d, rebel,etc, have a 1.6 crop factor or a sensor size of 22x15. As a comparison, a camera phone typically has a sensor that is 3.6mmx2.7mmA $100 dollar canon A590IS has a sensor size of 5.7x4.3. A $300 Canon SX20IS has a sensor size of 6.6x4.6. A 600+ dollar Canon G11 has a sensor size of 7.6x5.7, not much difference....so what are you getting for the extra money??Manual Settings....Most of canons Point and shoots have the ability to select manual settings...shutter speed, aperture, iso,etc. The $$ ones don't really have much advantage. The more $$$ ones have better image stabilization, something that may not be important to you if you have steady hands.Zoom.... Some of the more expensive ones will give you more optical zoom range. If you need this, it can be worth it. I typically look at the 35mm equivilant and compare. I look for a lens that goes wider than the competition on a point and shoot. This comes in handy when taking pictures of buildings up close, landscapes, or a lot of people at a party in a small room. I rarely need more zoom (telephoto end) than I have available. The 10x zoom cameras are nice, but how often are you going to shoot or need to get up that close? Perhaps sports shooting would require that, but a P&S won't give you the speed you need to catch the action.Speed....the $$$ point and shoots may have a bit more speed in frames per second when shooting in burst mode, but the time it takes to aquire the picture in the viewfinder, focus, and take the picture are about the same as the cheaper ones.Flash, the flashes are typically better on the higher end P&S's. Typically the bigger the camera and flash, the more power it has. Recharge time is slow though compared to DSLRS and greatly varies in different P&S models. All suffer from red eye, you need a high mounted flash (like on a DSLR) to increase the firing angle to get rid of this.P&S, no matter what the cost have limitations, if you can't live with them, then it's time to step up to a DSLR. The price of admission is steep though.......a lot of money, never ending add on gadgets that you will want, large bulky equipment to lug around, post processing / editing that is time consuming, and a never ending learning curve. The question is, are these trade off's worth it to you?[img]http://shrinkurl.com/884d7[/img]

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

thanks, user, your explaination esp. of sensor really made sense. i'm still torn.. i'm not really sure how my friends with SLRs now who simply have 1 nice lens, and don't really bother with any real post-editing can capture absolutly beautiful pictures? what am i missing here? i'm sure there is much more you CAN do when you know a ton about SLRs. i am not that person. i will have one nice lens, and use it everywhere i go.

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

(where do i find the sensor size, for example, on this camera? i must be missing it in the specs... http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/coolpix/p90/index.htm) ps thank you for taking the time to explain, i really appreciate learning

USER876 · November 2009

I don't know, I am not a fan of shooting in JPEG. It kind of defeats the purpose of having an slr in my opinion as it's a compressed format.What cameras do your friends have? They don't do ANY post processing? Typically at least sharpening is required. The cameras anti alias filter tends to soften the image a bit. Perhaps they are using software to import the pictures that apply a setting? Are these RIGHT from the card?I agree, even with no processing the images will be clearer, with less noise (in low light). I suppose if you are taking the pictures right out of the camera on your P+S, using an SLR would result in better pictures apples to apples under most conditions. It's just so easy to take another step and really make them pop, I don't know why people wouldn't do that. Also, the more photography you view, the more things will bother you and make you spend more time on the pictures, like straight horizons,etc. When I think of what you are talking about though, I think more of snapshot photography, taking candid's of someones kids,etc.Here is a good example I found, where I was glad I shot in raw. I liked this picture, but it came out like total crap. Conditions were horrid.....it was hazy, sun shining right into the lens, and it was windy as ever. My wife was also rushing me because we were late for dinner. I shook the camera and the image came out very blah. I had some fun with it, and because I shot in raw and the data was all there in the file uncompressed, I was able to salvage the picture, bring out detail, and add an artistic look to it. Here is the before (straight from camera) / afterhttp://shrinkurl.com/38ca8

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

that is awesome. that stuff makes me want to re-learn photoshop... when i said i didn't want to do editing, it wasn't the simple stuff.. i always check every single picture for red-eye and contrast and sharpness, but just with a very simple editor before i print. i figured you meant more advanced stuff. if you shoot in raw, what format must you eventually save in to make prints, either online or from store/home computer? what do you think of the nikon d3000?

USER876 · November 2009

That camera is a lot of money for what it is. It's decent, but still has a small sensor ~6x4mmIt has a crazy zoom though 600mm+ Holy cow.15FPS is pretty amazing too, but if you read the fine print it only does it at around 2 megapixel resolution.If you want fast focusing / shutter, low noise in low light, and no recharge time for flashes, DSLR is the only way.I would look on POTN for a slightly used rebel XSI in the classifieds. Most likely it will come with the kit lens which is decent 18-55. In time you will want to add something with longer reach. Probably can find something for $400-500.

USER876 · November 2009

I convert all of my RAW files into JPEGS....but AFTER they are completed. This is ok, as the compressed format is ok for viewing and printing, but limits the amount of editing that can be done (like brightening up dark spots) because data is lost in the compression. Canon makes a simple raw converter that can resize and process batches at a time. It can also do basic stuff like contrast, saturation, sharpening, white balance, etc, but does a very good job of it. Probably right up your alley as it's easy and fast to use. It's called DPP an comes with all canon DSLRS. I used it for a few months before I bit the bullet and bought light room.

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

no one needs to zoom that much

where do you find the sensor specs?

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

(thank you again, i'll check out the canon rebel; they seem to be in my budget, at least the starter kit ones)

alliecarrie41 · November 2009

(nikon3000 i saw Image sensor CCD sensor, 23.6 x 15.8 mm; total pixels: 10.75 million; Nikon DX-format and figured that was what you were describing... but you said much less i think)

USER876 · November 2009

I don't like the D3000 because of what I said above.......lack of the autofocus motor in the body. You can only use the nikon lenses that have autofocus motors built into them, so can't use half the lenses. Also, remember camera body's go obsolete and are worthless in 3-5 yrs, lenses that are 10-20 yrs old are still made and still worth 90% of their prices when new. Invest in lenses, not the body. It's all about the lenses.....You won't get a nikon with the built in autofocus (to take advantage of ALL the nikon lenses) until you get up to the D90. This is one reason why I feel the canon systems are better in the entry level and pro-sumer DSLR's. They can use any of canon's lenses. Once you go to the full frame professional models, you typically see wedding / model photographers using nikon because they have superior flash systems, but sports photographers using canons because they are faster and offer more affordable and diverse superzoom lenses.

USER876 · November 2009

This is a canon 800mm superzoom. You seem news reporters using these on the sidelines of every major professional sports game. I hope you never want one, because they cost $10,000+ hahaha[img]http://shrinkurl.com/abea4[/img]

++user/dig camera folks++

Re: ++user/dig camera folks++

Choose Another Board

Search Boards