Thoughts on Cameras

dorourke07

I have seen a few threads recently and I have marveled at some of the pictures posted on the site so I am looking for some Polkie opinions on how to spend around $600 on a camera for the family vacation this spring. Completely new to photography, I need to find something very easy to use that can handle anything following kids through Disney has to offer. I have been looking at the Canon EOS Rebel T1i online as a starting point. Its more camera than I can understand but what I need is one that can handle everything itself to start and I will grow into using my own settings. Talking to the camera store guy was over my head and seemed pricing and the Best Buy kid was new and also knew less than I did but I can't complain about getting to go on vacation. Any opinions are appreciated.

Willow

I will be very interested in the answers as well. We are expecting our first in June and my current one may not be at par for what's to come.

shawn474

I bought a Pentax *ist Dl a couple years ago on clearance (got it for less than $300 with a lens kit and memory card). It was an older model and only like 6.1 megapixels, but it is GREAT for a novice like me and takes incredible pictures. I am planning on taking a summer class on photography at the school I work (free tuition) to brush up on my skills and really learn what these digital SLR's can do. It's another great hobby and one that you can reap the benefits of by seeing beautiful pictures every day.

maximillian

It depends on what you really want to accomplish. I love DSLR cameras, but they are bulky. My wife won't use one and prefers a point-n-shoot. Actually, she is often ready to take a photo instead of me because she keeps hers in her purse and I need a man-bag to carry mine around in. That is often the most important factor in photography hobby - taking many pictures so you can learn to take good pictures.

Point-n-shoot cameras are a bit easier to use and are way more portable. This may be an important factor for a place like Disney. If you go this route then I would buy only Canon. They seem to have the best reviews. My wife has the inexpensive A3000IS and it takes very good pictures. It's old now and better models are coming out. Having an inexpensive camera for vacations is often nice since it's easy to carry around and if it gets stolen then you are not out a lot of money. Of course they are limited in features and capabilities - the place where DSLR's really benefit. There are beginner DSLR's that are physically lighter and smaller than the more prosumer versions.

For DSLR's the body of the camera is almost "disposable". What I mean by this is that you should invest your money in lenses and get the best body that has the features you want. Later on you can always flip the camera body on Ebay, and upgrade just the body. Actually, you may want to look for a used camera package so you don't have to spend a lot of money.

For DSLR's there are two main brands... Nikon and Canon. There's others but these are the top two. People will prefer one over the other so I can't really recommend one. The pricing and features for both brands vary greatly depending on how much you want to spend vs. what features you really want. To answer this you will simply have to read up a lot. We can help if we knew more about how you want to use the camera and how serious you want to get into the hobby.

Finally, taking great pictures is not really about the camera. The camera is just a small portion. Lighting and skill are two very important aspects of photography. It takes time to develop the skill, and you may want to take classes to jump start you.

There are a bunch of sites on the net to help you get started. Here are a couple:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/
http://photo.net/

grimmace19

For the price it's hard to beat the Rebel line. I have an XS that I bought when I moved to Colorado and it does everything I need and then some for just an entry DSLR. Very happy with it's performance compared to my other canon point and shoot options.

apc

The Canon Rebel would be a nice start and has room to grow. As mentioned above, either go Canon or Nikon and invest in good glass. Almost everyone that buys a kit (body and lens) upgrades the lens soon thereafter. Look at bodies only and research forums regarding the popular walk-around lenses. I favor KEH, B&H and Amazon for purchases.

AsSiMiLaTeD

maximillian pretty much hit all the good points, not much more to add to his post.

cincycat13

Very good write up Maximillian. One point to consider DSLR vs point and shoot digital is DELAY. The DSLR are like film cameras and take instantly. The standard digitals have a delay. They make sports photos tough and its easy to miss that birthday smile moment. Just be aware if you have not used either.

dorourke07

Maximillian, and everyone, thanks for the pointers. I do not want to get something I can't operate without taking a class but these newer DSLR seem to "handle" the settings for lighting, distance and about everything if you let them. I could be over estimating their capabilites so maybe I need to stick to the point-&-shoot types for now.

AsSiMiLaTeD

The great thing about the current DSLRs is that they can still be used in point and shoot mode, aka automatic. So you get all that, plus you get all the tweaking options.

The only reason NOT to get a DSLR is size, and of course they're more expensive, but don't let all the options throw you off.

dorourke07

That's where the camera store was scaring me. I would like to grow with the camera as I better understand the entire hoppy but right now its only push the button and take a picture for me. He was all over lens, flashes and features. I am using the same approach I used with the Onkyo 706. Get the one that can grow when you are ready but can be plug and play today.

shack

maximillian wrote:

Point-n-shoot cameras are a bit easier to use and are way more portable. This may be an important factor for a place like Disney. If you go this route then I would buy only Canon.

I am a Canon shooter and have spent a few bucks (a lot actually) Canon gear including their P&S cameras...but that is just not the case. Nikon has some really good P&S cameras. I'm not a Sony fan but they are not bad from what I hear.

If I were to buy a P&S today it would be a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 as an entry level:



Lumix DMC-ZS7


Or a very nice step-up to the Lumix DMC-LX5



Lumix DMC-LX5

The Leica lenses in these are a step above most of the other P&S cameras. I really like the fact the focal range is all optical zoom vs digital zoom, which means the lens is actually doing the zooming and not just merely cropping in camera (digital zooming).

If I had to summarize the P&S strong points for the top 3 brands...Canon has the best image quality due to their excellent processor and very good focusing system. Nikon has very good ergonomics and build and is just all around good. Panasonic has the best lenses. I also like the Panasonic build quality of the case itself. They are more metal than plastic. It makes them a little heaver...but sturdier.

shack

A great place for camera reviews is:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

maximillian

I would take Shack's knowledge of P&S over mine. I really prefer DSLR's and use a Nikon D80 (thank again AsSiMiLaTeD) DSLR. I have limited research in P&S but most reviews I have read seemed to always prefer Canon. I had my dad buy the same A3000IS camera. It's no where near the best P&S out there. But at $85 you really can't go wrong and it takes great photos. Again, it's old now and there is probably something better.

My dad constantly returns to Italy for vacations. He can bring this camera anywhere he goes since it fits easily in a shirt pocket. If it gets stolen while he is on the beach, no biggy. I bought him several SD cards since he doesn't use a computer. He can use one SD card every 2-3 weeks. If he loses his camera then he won't be out all his vacation photos.

As cincycat13 pointed out, I too hate P&S camera delay and love DSLR's for their speed and flexibility. But I stress P&S simply because you may enjoy using it more on a vacation than a DSLR.

That said, DSLR's will allow you to be more creative and you will be able to "grow" into the hobby. Probably all DSLR's have an auto mode that makes them work like a P&S camera so you won't need a class to know how to operate it. The class is to teach you how to evaluate and frame good pictures. There is also some technical knowledge you will pick up in the class too. A class could also help you in selecting a good starter camera.

If you really want to get into DSLR's then choose a low end version of either a Nikon or Canon. I think the lowest end Nikon is the D3100, used maybe the D40X. Others have already chimed in on the Canon side. You may want to research which camera brand is "better" but I think you will get varying opinions on this. BTW, D40X's go on Ebay for mid $300's with a lens and accessories. Maybe that is the best option for you if you are not certain what to get.

Put your money into lenses though. For the Nikon side, I would not like to have the 18-55mm kit lens. It's actually not a bad lens but I wanted the 18-105mm for more day-to-day stuff. There are of course more expensive lenses and you could easily spend 3X your budget just on a single lens.

BTW, good photographers can take excellent photos with a P&S. The skill in knowing what makes a good photo is what ultimately will make your photos shine.

disneyjoe7

The Rebel has Auto modes to make it 5x better then a Point and Shoot camera. If you're asking, and wish to learn I would go this route. Point and Shoot can make great pictures, but in low light conditions the DSLR is going to win every time.

ben62670

If you are going to use it for vacations and such I agree the portability of a P&S is a necessity. I have both, and the DSLR is used around here, or If I plan on taking more serious photos. Another thing to consider is the ability to take good videos. Memory cards are cheap, and who wants to carry around a video camera?

doggie750

Dont settle < Canon 30D, you'll never regret it! It's consumer friendly. However if you got small hands then get the rebel series otherwise as I stated. Sorry NIKON...

cokewithvanilla

When I was looking at cameras, I found this site that compares the quality of the image sensors on cameras. To my surprise, I found that Nikon wrecks canon across the board (as far as price goes)

I don't really know how this affects actual image quality, but it sure made me wonder:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Camera-Sensor/Sensor-rankings

shack

cokewithvanilla wrote:

I don't really know how this affects actual image quality, but it sure made me wonder:

Like anything else, it is just one aspect of the final result. Often times when you start looking at the quality of a single pixel in a raw file it may only be noticeable at greater than lifesize image. In their testing, the overall score is an aggregate based on the other scores normalized against some baseline value. IMO it really serves no purpose other than bragging rights. The only important thing to know here is that this and all DXO scores are a measurement of the sensor and RAW files...so in-camera JPEG processing, and camera and lens performance are not factored in. DXO states that the Sensor Overall Score is logarithmic and a 5-point difference on the scale corresponds to a gain or loss of sensitivity of 1/3 of a stop...which in most applications is nothing. It gives you an indication if the sensor in Camera A is similar in performance to camera B. Even though they supposedly normalize the parameters to allow one to compare a P&S to a Pro DSLR, your best bet is to still compare apples vs apples. Just like in audio...numbers don't tell the whole story...just part of it.

cokewithvanilla

Makes sense. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use the internal jpeg processing though.. it'd be like recording music and putting out the original in mp3 :P

dorourke07

^^glad you clarified those crazy graphs. That was interesting but more info than I needed.

zarrdoss

When I looked endlessly for a DSLR I wound up getting a Sony Alpha A330, great camera and love the tutorial mode, really easy to operate and takes better pics than any point and shoot I have seen. I got a good telephoto lens and a bunch of other stuff but right out of the box it was awesome, highly recommended.

shack

cokewithvanilla wrote:

Makes sense. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use the internal jpeg processing though.. it'd be like recording music and putting out the original in mp3 :P

You might be surprised how many fantastic photographs you see were never anything but jpeg.

Virtually of your pro photographers who do weddings, events, photo journalism, sports, etc will all shoot in jpeg. They simply do not have the time or desire to shoot in RAW. EVERY RAW image must be processed in photoshop. The photographers who have large volumes (weddings) or fast turnaround (sports, journalist) want to/must get it right in the camera.

A wedding photographer may shoot 2,000-3,000 images including all the events (engagement, rehearsal dinner, reception etc, etc). Even if you cull down to 30% to work with, and use batch actions to process the initial image, you are still talking about hours of computer time to finalize the raw images. Not the best use of their time...especially if the 99.9% will never be printed larger than 8x10.

If you are photographing a sporting event, for a newspaper, magazine or online site, chances are you will transmit those images 10 or 15 minutes after you take the photo. No time to process.

Portrait, glamour, nature and fine art photographers will use RAW because it allows them to process the final image in the most pleasing manner. It allows them to be more creative and "fix" things (especially important in portrait and glamour). Many of them will still tell you that the better they can get it in the camera, the happier they are. Most would rather spend time shooting than processing images on the computer.

Depending on the size of the print I would challenge you to tell the difference. Up to 11 x 14 it is very difficult to see any difference. What most people don't realize is that when printing, unless you are using the best printers available, or printing very large images, RAW files must be compressed in order to print (usually 4 pixels into 1). Printers simply can't recreate the data available in the file.

fatchowmein

I'm a Canon guy. Bought the first gen Canon Rebel DSLR. I still have yet to upgrade because everytime there's additional $$$ I spend it on lenses. No regrets.

One of my favorite sites besides the ones previously mentioned in this thread.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

I love having a digital SLR for vacations but we have no kids and I'm the one lugging camera gear around and a separate backpack for other supplies (see photo). That camera bag with a water bottle strapped to it was replaced 3 years later with a larger one because I needed room for a 70-200mm lens. The gear was heavy and I definitely felt it walking all over Washington, DC all day but the ability to swap lenses and get the shot I want was invaluable to me. Wife carried a Canon P&S. With her purse in my backpack, she was unencumbered.

Don't forget, that encumberance follows you whether you're in the restroom, passing through airport security, or just trying to find a seat at a restaurant. There's also the security aspect of walking around with a "I have expensive camera equipment - rob me" painted on your back.

Some places won't let you use a DSLR especially if it has a white lens and a red ring around it (Canon Pro lens) because they think you're a pro. They're more than happy to let my wife in with her P&S.

Whatever you decide, I must tell you that speed and low light (indoor shots) will be major considerations since you have kids. They are fast!

Good luck and have fun!

dorourke07

fatchowmein wrote: »

Don't forget, that encumberance follows you whether you're in the restroom, passing through airport security, or just trying to find a seat at a restaurant. There's also the security aspect of walking around with a "I have expensive camera equipment - rob me" painted on your back.

Yeah, didn't think of those things. I could be creating more of an issue than a solution.

shack

fatchowmein wrote:

Don't forget, that encumberance follows you whether you're in the restroom, passing through airport security, or just trying to find a seat at a restaurant. There's also the security aspect of walking around with a "I have expensive camera equipment - rob me" painted on your back.

Some places won't let you use a DSLR especially if it has a white lens and a red ring around it (Canon Pro lens) because they think you're a pro. They're more than happy to let my wife in with her P&S.

Some of the new Four Thirds format cameras or EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras show some real promise. Not much bigger than a point and shoot but the sensor is the size of the "crop" cameras. Image quality may be as good or better than some of the entry level DSLRs at half the size. I have been thinking about one vs the P&S I keep with me all the time now. They are somewhat pricey though at around $600 to start.

ben62670

Both cameras are going with me to Florida. The point and shoot will go with me to attractions and on the go, but the DSLR is for the good family pics around the time share. Again consider video in your camera. No sense in taking more gear with you. Video has come a long way as of late in P&S cameras.

cokewithvanilla

shack wrote: »

You might be surprised how many fantastic photographs you see were never anything but jpeg.

Virtually of your pro photographers who do weddings, events, photo journalism, sports, etc will all shoot in jpeg. They simply do not have the time or desire to shoot in RAW. EVERY RAW image must be processed in photoshop. The photographers who have large volumes (weddings) or fast turnaround (sports, journalist) want to/must get it right in the camera.

A wedding photographer may shoot 2,000-3,000 images including all the events (engagement, rehearsal dinner, reception etc, etc). Even if you cull down to 30% to work with, and use batch actions to process the initial image, you are still talking about hours of computer time to finalize the raw images. Not the best use of their time...especially if the 99.9% will never be printed larger than 8x10.

If you are photographing a sporting event, for a newspaper, magazine or online site, chances are you will transmit those images 10 or 15 minutes after you take the photo. No time to process.

Portrait, glamour, nature and fine art photographers will use RAW because it allows them to process the final image in the most pleasing manner. It allows them to be more creative and "fix" things (especially important in portrait and glamour). Many of them will still tell you that the better they can get it in the camera, the happier they are. Most would rather spend time shooting than processing images on the computer.

Depending on the size of the print I would challenge you to tell the difference. Up to 11 x 14 it is very difficult to see any difference. What most people don't realize is that when printing, unless you are using the best printers available, or printing very large images, RAW files must be compressed in order to print (usually 4 pixels into 1). Printers simply can't recreate the data available in the file.

Good points.. but for personal use, there is no reason not to shoot Raw + Jpeg (IMO). I think raw will benefit amateurs because they are more likely to have to touch up their photos. Sure , you can touch up jpegs, but raw is easier to work with. I always shoot raw+jpg and have never regretted it.

dragon1952

After owning a couple Canon PowerShot 3.2 and 4.0 MP P&S's for a few years, I just got a Panasonic Lumix FZ40. I wanted the 24x zoom for bird watching/photograping as the P&S's are just 3x. It's got a lot of great auto modes but you can go way beyond those as you learn. Kind of a 'tweener' between a P&S and DSLR and for just $300 it gives you something easy to use now, plus lots of advanced features to grow into. Definitely bulkier than a P&S but you can get a decent P&S for practically nothing nowdays and have both for well under your price range.
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&biw=1427&bih=707&q=panasonic+lumix+fz40&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=5646194489384166652&sa=X&ei=fiJvTeugMYeesQOTmejACw&ved=0CEcQ8wIwAg#

shack

cokewithvanilla wrote:

Good points.. but for personal use, there is no reason not to shoot Raw + Jpeg (IMO). I think raw will benefit amateurs because they are more likely to have to touch up their photos. Sure , you can touch up jpegs, but raw is easier to work with. I always shoot raw+jpg and have never regretted it.

I shoot jpeg 90% of the time.

cokewithvanilla

shack wrote: »

I shoot jpeg 90% of the time.

just wondering, but... why?