Digital Camera

Micahb · 10-23-2005, 09:22 PM

Okay, I want to buy a digital camera, but I don't know anything about them.
What would be a good to get?

My requirements:
Digital Screen
Shutter priority
And I would like it to be good quality, so I am not bored with it.

Thats about it.
So advice please?

I am liking:
Canon PowerShot A620
and the
Sony CyberShot DSC-T7

any thoughts on thoes?

WARangel · 10-25-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micahbell

Okay, I want to buy a digital camera, but I don't know anything about them.
What would be a good to get?

My requirements:
Digital Screen
Shutter priority
And I would like it to be good quality, so I am not bored with it.

Thats about it.
So advice please?

I am liking:
Canon PowerShot A620
and the
Sony CyberShot DSC-T7

any thoughts on thoes?

IT also depends on your uses. Indoor, no flash shooting [concerts, speakers, weddings] vs. outdoor shots [street, landscape, buidings] vs. etc.

ApparentlyNothing · 10-25-2005, 06:53 PM

Also depends on how much money you want to spend. Whatever you get, I suggest something with the ability to set it on manual. Then start learning how to use them.

Micahb · 10-25-2005, 07:09 PM

I don't know what I will use it for most...probably outdoor, but probably a bit of both.

I am looking to spend no more then $600, unless there is something that is amazing that I just have to get for $700.

Cadence · 11-04-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micahbell

I don't know what I will use it for most...probably outdoor, but probably a bit of both.

I am looking to spend no more then $600, unless there is something that is amazing that I just have to get for $700.

If you are looking to spend that much don't bother with point and shoots. Get a DSLR - I'd recommend the Nikon D50

Review

Price for the body only

With a DSLR you can get all sorts of different lenses. You will want that. That and it gives you more control and creativy. One being little to no shutter lag.

Micahb · 11-04-2005, 10:17 PM

Looks like a sweet camera.
Any other opinions?

WARangel · 11-05-2005, 01:01 PM

[QUOTE=Cadence]If you are looking to spend that much don't bother with point and shoots. QUOTE]

Agreed, but you need to allow for up to $800 for either a Nikon D50 or Canon XT.

Nikon D50 [look for body only] + Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens + $100 Nikon raw capture software [it's my understanding that Adobe PS's raw capture won't work with Nkon raw files nor is there any free option unlike with the Canon].

or Canon XT[body only]Canon XT + Canon 50mm 1.8 lensand free raw capture software - can be downloaded free from Pixmantec or from Adobe if you own Photoshop or Elements.

The shots below are all taken with the Canon XT with an 85mm 1.8 or 135mm 2.0 lens. The 50mm 1.8mm should be able to get you similar results.

Ken Rockwell is a noted Canon basher - my results and feedback from not just friends, but strangers and professionals [concert promoters, managers, radio station event sponsors, etc.] beg to differ.

Nonetheless, all the reviews I've read indicate that the Nikon D50 is easily an equal and even produces better "out of the box" pics than the XT.

At the time I bought the Canon [August], the Nikon D50 was not out yet and my research indicated that Canon was clearly the way to go for non-flash people, concert, etc. shooting.

Actually, if you want just "out of the box" quality [which is very good from all I read] than don't worry about the Nikon Capture cost. Go with the camera and the 50mm, but you will still be over $700. You need to also add in the cost of a card.

If you want to get more serious about photography - at least develop intermediate skills. Then you need to learn to work with RAW files. I am extremely happy with the results I get from the CAnon and the ease of the learning curve. Before I bought the XT, I had ZERO experience with SLRs - film or digital.

If paying up to $800 is over your budget [and by the time you add cleaning cloth and/or bag, you will be over it for either camera], then wait and save, as for two hundred dollar difference, it is worth waiting and saving.

Otherwise, look for something around $400 because if you pay over $500 plus, you will likely end up kicking yourself for not saving an extra two hundred bucks or so for a full fledged Digital SLR.

WARangel · 11-05-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micahbell

I don't know what I will use it for most...probably outdoor, but probably a bit of both.

I am looking to spend no more then $600, unless there is something that is amazing that I just have to get for $700.

Micah, we all say that but I've observed that one of two things happen:

1. Camera stays in the bag [the classic conundrum of "if everything is of equal importance, then nothing is important" to shoot] or

2. You end up being pulled in a particular direction, usually by lifestyle / opportunity. In my case, my contacts / friends are involved in putting on shows in my area, so it was a natural direction for me to ask or be asked to come shoot their concerts.

You should really reflect on what types of photography you have a passion for or already fit within your lifestyle. IE. if your friends regularly hang out at the skatepark then skate/action shots will be an immediate opportunity.

BTW, in my list of recommendations, for most sports action shooting - football, auto racing, etc. and for nature / wild animal or bird photography - the 50mm 1.8 won't do. You will need to go for lens 85mm plus [70 to 200mm zooms are widely regarded as the "standard" sports/nature range to start with].

But those lenses, even the most mediocre, will run your budget up to $900 to a grand plus.

ApparentlyNothing · 11-05-2005, 02:49 PM

This brings up a good question I've kinda had. I have experience with the Canon Rebel and Rebel XT, but how do these compare to some other cameras out there? These are the cameras my college art department has for our digital photography class, and I've found them to be great, but I've found that we constantly have problems with them. We originally had a Rebel and two XT's, and now we only have one working XT. Of course, this could be from negligence on the part of some people who don't know how to take care of a camera and the fact that it gets used quite a bit by several different people, but it raises the question in my mind of if these cameras just aren't made that durable and if there are better made cameras out there? I remember talking to a professional photographer a while ago who disliked the Rebels because they "felt like plastic" in his hands, but I forgot what kinda camera he preferred over it. Anyone's opinion on this matter? I'm eventually planning on buying an SLR at some point.

WARangel · 11-05-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

This brings up a good question I've kinda had. I have experience with the Canon Rebel and Rebel XT, but how do these compare to some other cameras out there? These are the cameras my college art department has for our digital photography class, and I've found them to be great, but I've found that we constantly have problems with them. We originally had a Rebel and two XT's, and now we only have one working XT. Of course, this could be from negligence on the part of some people who don't know how to take care of a camera and the fact that it gets used quite a bit by several different people, but it raises the question in my mind of if these cameras just aren't made that durable and if there are better made cameras out there? I remember talking to a professional photographer a while ago who disliked the Rebels because they "felt like plastic" in his hands, but I forgot what kinda camera he preferred over it. Anyone's opinion on this matter? I'm eventually planning on buying an SLR at some point.

In three months, I easily have over 6 thousand snaps on my camera, including one music festival weekend where I took over two thousand five hundred snaps in two days.

Only had one problem - the camera started freezing during focusing in the middle of a concert, again low light conditions. I rebooted the firmware [the Canon XT has a menu option to reset the firmware] and that solved it.

Never have dropped or banged the camera though. Without knowing more about what happened to the cameras or how many snaps are on them, it's hard to say whether it's the camera or normal or "abnormal" wear and tear.

The XT definitely feels more sturdy than the original Rebel and every review I've read agrees with that. I'm not sure how the other cameras around its price range - Nikon, PEntax, Minolta or Olympus compare.

It's hard to believe that the other companies could be using significantly more sturdy or advanced materials and parts yet still be priced at roughly the same or even lower levels than the Canons.