View Full Version : Digital Camera advice from some of you photogoonies
DreadLord
17-06-2006, 05:31 PM
I've been meaning to invest in a nice camera for some time now. I don't really take a lot of pictures, but I find myself wishing I had a camera for special things from time to time, and I think it's about time I just buy one. My phone takes really nice pictures, however it's a bit of an annoyance to use as a primary camera. I have a Nokia 7610 btw.
What I want is a solid camera, doesn't have to be the absolute best quality, but I'd like it to be a rather nice one, and the smaller the better, I really like those tiny ones. Price isn't really a problem, keep it below a grand I guess.
Let me know what you guys think. I have no experience with photography, so I figured I'd ask some people who do.
Qonfused
17-06-2006, 07:41 PM
The Canon SD line is for you. Uber small and as high as 8MP I believe. Takes great pictures.
DreadLord
17-06-2006, 08:24 PM
Linkeh?
Canon Cameras:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndex1Act&fcategoryid=101
Qonfused
17-06-2006, 08:32 PM
It's the one I got for Christmas. Its movie mode is very impressive as well.
I have the SD300, a sort of middle ranged camera but it goes to SD600.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=10599
It's about the size of a thick iPod mini.
Gray Fox
17-06-2006, 09:04 PM
The Canon powershot series have always been average joe's high quality cams
But check the following sites for all the info you will even need, in a clear and objective package:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.dcresource.com/
http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/
Edit:
from the first link, steve's digicam's, in the section "best camera's"
Ultra Compact - Pocketable
Canon Powershot SD600
Sony Cybershot T5
Casio Exilim EX-S600
Nikon Coolpix S5
Canon Powershot SD400
Sony Cybershot W50
If you don't need zoom and only want a small camera that you can take with you everywhere, I recommend the Panasonic DMC-FX7.
If you want a fancier and bigger camera, I'd take something from Canon.
sinkoman
17-06-2006, 11:11 PM
NOOOOOOOOOESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
Smaller = not as good. Harder to change ISO speed (if you can), can't change shutter speed, no manual focus (wtf I don't want to focus on the bird I want to focus on my girlfriend), and you can't keep them steady for shit. Why would you spend a grand on a girly camera?
Get an old Film SLR. Analogue beats Digital hands down in terms of quality.
Not to mention, with a film camera, you're going to have a HUGE selection of lenses that will fit your camera, while with a DSLR, you're going to be stuck with a few telephotos, a fisheye, a pancake, and maybe a couple macros that will fit your camera.
If you ask me, get either a Nikon F3, FM2 (love these), or F6.
I don't know much about the digitals though. I know in the analogue/film world, Nikon is your best bet quality and time-tested wise, while with digital, Canon has the hands down advantage (feature wise).
DON'T GET A REBEL! They are t3h devil.
EDIT: This seems like a nice camera for about a grand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D200
DreadLord
18-06-2006, 08:08 AM
So it's currently between:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/t5.html
Or:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/sd630.html
I like the look of the SD ones.. I may look into the SD700 IS as well.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/sd700.html
NOOOOOOOOOESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
Smaller = not as good. Harder to change ISO speed (if you can), can't change shutter speed, no manual focus (wtf I don't want to focus on the bird I want to focus on my girlfriend), and you can't keep them steady for shit. Why would you spend a grand on a girly camera?
Get an old Film SLR. Analogue beats Digital hands down in terms of quality.
Not to mention, with a film camera, you're going to have a HUGE selection of lenses that will fit your camera, while with a DSLR, you're going to be stuck with a few telephotos, a fisheye, a pancake, and maybe a couple macros that will fit your camera.
If you ask me, get either a Nikon F3, FM2 (love these), or F6.
I don't know much about the digitals though. I know in the analogue/film world, Nikon is your best bet quality and time-tested wise, while with digital, Canon has the hands down advantage (feature wise).
DON'T GET A REBEL! They are t3h devil.
EDIT: This seems like a nice camera for about a grand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D200
While I appreciate the advice, I would really like digital because I can't be arsed to actually buy and develop film, not to mention I'd actually like to have my photos on my PC. I'd also like a camera that I can fit in my pocket, as the only pictures I'll be taking are probably at parties and such anyways, I'm no photographer.
sinkoman
18-06-2006, 08:19 AM
While I appreciate the advice, I would really like digital because I can't be arsed to actually buy and develop film, not to mention I'd actually like to have my photos on my PC. I'd also like a camera that I can fit in my pocket, as the only pictures I'll be taking are probably at parties and such anyways, I'm no photographer.
But why spend a grand on a teeny tiny thingamabober you could swallow???
Well, don't know much about those little tiny rangefinder cameras. Can't help you there :/
DreadLord
18-06-2006, 08:21 AM
But why spend a grand on a teeny tiny thingamabober you could swallow???
Well, don't know much about those little tiny rangefinder cameras. Can't help you there :/
Well the one I'm looking at is only $500. Money really isn't an issue. But I need something that can just fit in my pocket at all times really. I'm usually too piss drunk to operate a nice camera when I need one anyways.
6Three
18-06-2006, 08:46 AM
Just remember that EVERYBODY needs 8 megapixels. Marketers told me so.
sinkoman
18-06-2006, 08:51 AM
Just remember that EVERYBODY needs 8 megapixels. Marketers told me so.
Who needs megapixels when you've got millimetres???
HAHAHAH! I can just see you trying to crank a film SLR in a nightclub.
I'm going to go now...
DreadLord
18-06-2006, 06:33 PM
HAHAHAH! I can just see you trying to crank a film SLR in a nightclub.
Exactly.
Gray Fox
18-06-2006, 07:12 PM
Exactly.
But the thing is, pretty much all camera's and especially small ones work very badly at night. The only way you can get one to take a proper picture is to set the shutter to like 10 or 15 seconds and thst doesn't work very well in a club where everybody is moving fast. And they are right about the megapixels, the only thing avrage users would need more then 3 for, is for digital zoom. Other factors are much much more important.
jondy
18-06-2006, 08:09 PM
But the thing is, pretty much all camera's and especially small ones work very badly at night.
A compact camera with a decent AF light and a flash solves all clubbing picture woes.
Gray Fox
18-06-2006, 08:46 PM
A compact camera with a decent AF light and a flash solves all clubbing picture woes.
A75 powershot has decent AF light and Flash, but to be honest flash usually overbrights or underbrights the picture by to much. Plus it can't reach more then a few meters, and can even make bad picture in rooms that aren't nearly as badly lit as clubs. You need one of those camera's with big lenses and big chips that can capture a lot of light in a fraction of a second.
BTW A75 does kick ass:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a75-review/index.shtml
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a75.html
A compact camera with a decent AF light and a flash solves all clubbing picture woes.
And produces ugly flash lit photos with black backgrounds and red eyes.
DreadLord
18-06-2006, 10:08 PM
Well I appreciate all the help. It's not like nightclubs are the only place I'll be taking pictures lol, just a decent example. I usually use my phone at parties and such, but as I said, I'm usually too drunk to fumble around with anything too complicated anyways.
jondy
18-06-2006, 11:56 PM
And produces ugly flash lit photos with black backgrounds and red eyes.
I'll disregard the redeye as that's all but solved with preflashing and decentralised flashes, but it doesn't matter - AFAIK this guy isn't studying an art course, he wants a quick, small, reliable camera that he can take out with him. You don't need to carry around a D70 for on-the-spot groupshots, and you don't want to make people to stand dead still for ten seconds while your 10-second exposure is cooking, regardless of what ridiculous ISO level fancy DSLR's put out :P
DreadLord
18-06-2006, 11:58 PM
I'll disregard the redeye as that's all but solved with preflashing and decentralised flashes, but it doesn't matter - AFAIK this guy isn't studying an art course, he wants a quick, small, reliable camera that he can take out with him. You don't need to carry around a D70 for on-the-spot groupshots, and you don't want to make people to stand dead still for ten seconds while your 10-second exposure is cooking, regardless of what ridiculous ISO level fancy DSLR's put out :P
Exactly.
jondy
19-06-2006, 12:00 AM
Exactly.
You missed my pretentious editing :(
DreadLord
19-06-2006, 12:06 AM
You missed my pretentious editing :(
Fixed, lol.
Crushenator 500
19-06-2006, 09:27 PM
Stick to a phone camera tbh
DreadLord
20-06-2006, 12:51 AM
Well my phone has a really nice camera, but it has problems with movement, everything blurs badly.
My phone: http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/7610
secret friend
20-06-2006, 02:49 AM
Well my phone has a really nice camera, but it has problems with movement, everything blurs badly.
My phone: http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/7610
use the flash (I am guessing it comes with a flash)
Qonfused
20-06-2006, 03:39 AM
I can understand that that type of phone may take better pictures than others, but it cannot compete with any dedicated camera.
DreadLord
20-06-2006, 06:03 AM
use the flash (I am guessing it comes with a flash)
#1. You're a retard.
#2. No it doesn't, it comes with a Night Vision mode that works excellent.
#3. I don't like you KngHenry, piss off please.
I can understand that that type of phone may take better pictures than others, but it cannot compete with any dedicated camera.
That's why I'm buying a camera. :D
Steel.Inferno
20-06-2006, 07:56 AM
My recommendation is to buy a film camera. They take better pictures, are less likely to get stolen or break, and the prints, if you don't wimp out and have a shop develop them for you, can look outstanding and are much more rewarding. The dark room is by far the most fun part of photography for me.
But if you go digital, Canons are always a good choice. (The brand my traditional camera is, as well as my dad's digital)
sinkoman
20-06-2006, 08:01 AM
My recommendation is to buy a film camera. They take better pictures, are less likely to get stolen or break, and the prints, if you don't wimp out and have a shop develop them for you, can look outstanding and are much more rewarding. The dark room is by far the most fun part of photography for me.
But if you go digital, Canons are always a good choice. (The brand my traditional camera is, as well as my dad's digital)
Exactly.
Wait, I said i'd leave already D:
SLR FTW!
*zips pants and runs off*
DreadLord
20-06-2006, 04:48 PM
My recommendation is to buy a film camera. They take better pictures, are less likely to get stolen or break, and the prints, if you don't wimp out and have a shop develop them for you, can look outstanding and are much more rewarding. The dark room is by far the most fun part of photography for me.
But if you go digital, Canons are always a good choice. (The brand my traditional camera is, as well as my dad's digital)
Lol @ "wimp out and have the shop develop them for me". Dude, I wouldn't even have the shop develop them for me, nevermind develop them myself haha.
If you are looking for something to throw in a pocket, the Canon SD400 or SD500 would be my pick. I don't think the Sony T series does a very good job with pictures at all. My friend had a T1 (5mp) and it had pretty blury pictures even outside compared with the SD500 he later picked up. The W50 is a good alternative for Sony though. Still pretty small.
It's the same way with digital, the smaller you make a camera (the lens etc) the picture will suffer.
secret friend
21-06-2006, 12:19 AM
I've been meaning to invest in a nice camera for some time now. I don't really take a lot of pictures, but I find myself wishing I had a camera for special things from time to time, and I think it's about time I just buy one. My phone takes really nice pictures, however it's a bit of an annoyance to use as a primary camera. I have a Nokia 7610 btw.
What I want is a solid camera, doesn't have to be the absolute best quality, but I'd like it to be a rather nice one, and the smaller the better, I really like those tiny ones. Price isn't really a problem, keep it below a grand I guess.
Let me know what you guys think. I have no experience with photography, so I figured I'd ask some people who do.
If you want to keep it below a grand then I suggest you buy a Nikon D70s. Those are about $700 now. Maybe a bit less than a grand with the retail lens, but if you already have Nikon SLR lenses, those will still work.
Add another $100 for the memory card.
If you desire a pocket digital camera then I am sure you can get a decent one for less than $400. I bought a Canon with 4MP for less than $150 on newegg.
DreadLord
21-06-2006, 01:29 AM
I purchased the SD700 IS today from Circuit City for $499.99. I appreciate all the help people. :)
secret friend
21-06-2006, 02:27 AM
I purchased the SD700 IS today from Circuit City for $499.99. I appreciate all the help people. :)
Nice camera, but
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/PowerShot_2006/PS_SD700IS/sd700is_586x225.jpg
you wasted $299.99
DreadLord
21-06-2006, 03:01 AM
you wasted $299.99
$448 + tax + s&h: http://www.buyersedge.com/Product/framedMerchant.asp_X_feedID_Y_16338981_Z_productID_Y_3803470_Z_iFM_Y_True
$444 to $539: http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Canon_PowerShot_SD700_IS_Digital_Camera,__17657240/search=sd700/skd=1
Etc etc.. Everyone has the same prices.. Show me where you find it for $200..
secret friend
21-06-2006, 03:41 AM
$448 + tax + s&h: http://www.buyersedge.com/Product/framedMerchant.asp_X_feedID_Y_16338981_Z_productID_Y_3803470_Z_iFM_Y_True
$444 to $539: http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Canon_PowerShot_SD700_IS_Digital_Camera,__17657240/search=sd700/skd=1
Etc etc.. Everyone has the same prices.. Show me where you find it for $200..
No, what I meant to say is that you could have settled for a $200 Canon 4 MP camera.
It depends on your needs I guess.
Since I won't be printing pictures larger than 4x6, and very rarely 8x10, 4 MP is more than enough for me.
But if you need 6 MP, then you made a good choice.
DreadLord
21-06-2006, 03:55 AM
Money really isn't an object, and I like the higher quality.
Qonfused
22-06-2006, 12:19 AM
Grats! You're going to love this camera.
Crushenator 500
22-06-2006, 08:10 PM
Well my phone has a really nice camera, but it has problems with movement, everything blurs badly.
You're still going to get motion blur with a compact, as it will no doubt have quite a bit of shutter lag.
To get around this you'de need to buy an slr or a dslr that can take very high speed pictures that freeze the shot.
I'm guessing this would be important in a nightclub where you're going to be drunk and there will be lots of movement anyway.
when ever u go for a didgital camera, don't ever run behind the mega pixel saga. i made a big mistake buying the 'Sony Cybershot T5' 7.1 mega pixel camera. but the truth is that there is hardly any quality difference between the 7.1 mega pixel and the 5.1 mega pixel. i could have save some buck by going for the 5.1 mega pixel. higher mega pixel count dont necessarily improve the quality of image taken.
Crushenator 500
22-06-2006, 08:32 PM
when ever u go for a didgital camera, don't ever run behind the mega pixel saga. i made a big mistake buying the 'Sony Cybershot T5' 7.1 mega pixel camera. but the truth is that there is hardly any quality difference between the 7.1 mega pixel and the 5.1 mega pixel. i could have save some buck by going for the 5.1 mega pixel. higher mega pixel count dont necessarily improve the quality of image taken.
It does improve the size it can be printed at though
You're still going to get motion blur with a compact, as it will no doubt have quite a bit of shutter lag.
To get around this you'de need to buy an slr or a dslr that can take very high speed pictures that freeze the shot.
I'm guessing this would be important in a nightclub where you're going to be drunk and there will be lots of movement anyway.
No camera can handle a nightclub. There simply is no light there. You alyways need a flash.
jondy
23-06-2006, 12:12 AM
It does improve the size it can be printed at though
Yeah, but anything above the 3MP range is fine for A4 shots unless you really need the fidelity, and anyone printing posters regularly is going to be using a DSLR. The current '8MP' standard is ridiculous; what compact digicam manufacturers should be doing is improving AF and prefocus lag times to make sure the correct picture is taken in the first place. Digital models costing 300+ sterling still aren't as responsive as point-and-click analogs costing a tenth of the price.
sinkoman
23-06-2006, 03:40 AM
No camera can handle a nightclub. There simply is no light there. You alyways need a flash.
Not true.
You could use the bulb setting on any SLR, and, using a cable release, duct tape the shutter button in the open position.
Walk away and come back what, a minute later, and voila!
Although I doubt you'd be able to see anybody in the picture (well, they'd all be blurry).
jondy
24-06-2006, 07:09 PM
Not true.
Yes, it is true... to capture anything meaningful you would need a flash, there's too much movement and not enough light, as you pointed out yourself. And of course you can bulb it, you can take a picture of most anything with a long enough exposure as long as there are photons flying around....
sinkoman
25-06-2006, 12:19 AM
Yes, it is true... to capture anything meaningful you would need a flash, there's too much movement and not enough light, as you pointed out yourself. And of course you can bulb it, you can take a picture of most anything with a long enough exposure as long as there are photons flying around....
Which is exactly what I said...
Way to quote mine.
jondy
25-06-2006, 12:46 AM
Which is exactly what I said...
Way to quote mine.
You said that you didn't need a flash to take pictures in a nightclub - what you said wasn't correct. Nope, no quote mining, I addressed the whole of your post.
My other point of contention was - why would you want an exposure minutes long in an enviroment full of moving lights and bodies? It's a silly idea. But it doesn't matter, the man has his new purchase, so there we are.
Actually, you couldn't really bulb it either, because the lights never really light anything up(well ok, depending on the lighting of the venue). You'd have underexposed faces and overexposed highlights, which sounds awfully much like a photo taken midday
sinkoman
25-06-2006, 01:07 AM
Actually, you couldn't really bulb it either, because the lights never really light anything up(well ok, depending on the lighting of the venue). You'd have underexposed faces and overexposed highlights, which sounds awfully much like a photo taken midday
Aaand...
It might look incorrect, but you can still see everybody in the photo.
I've taken pictures at like, 12 midnight, where I just set my camera on a trashcan on something, aimed it down the street, and I set the exposure to like, 8 seconds.
Pictures turned out perfectly fine.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.