Digital Cameras

[Relay]

Hi all,

I'm looking at buying myself a digital camera and was wondering if anyone had some recommendations? I currently run a Nikon N60 SLR which I absolutely adore, except I cant delete photographs that I dont like, and I feel like I'm changing film every ten seconds. I'm interested in things above 5x optical zoom, I dont want to have to stand in whatever I'm stuck in to take a good piccy. I am querying what you folks use and how you're feeling about them, brand or make, I'm not that much phased. And please, if you quote me things that're over a 500 budget I'll cry, that's a lot on my wages:(!

<Notes: This message has been typo repaired.>

[dobbo]

For you two get an elcheapo that way when the Rocky gets sunk, flooded bounced, etc.. you won't worry too much. The one I have cost me $150.00 off ebay no name brand no optical zoom, but a 6x digital zoom and 8.0mp

When it breaks I'll take out the card and batteries and get a decent 35mm SLR

Or get a camcorder, you can take digital images from tape, and they cost hardly anything for a basic model nowadays

[Relay]

Hah, I was going to mount it on the roof inside. That way I have to drown before it gets ruined!

[p38arover]

I've got two. A Nikon Coolpix 2500 - great little camera which, because of the tilting lens, doesn't have a viewfinder. This is a real problem in bright light. You cannot see what you are photographing.

It has excellent macro capability, e.g., this pic of a the guts of a P38A belnd motor:

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1349/blendmotor4jr5.th.jpg (http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blendmotor4jr5.jpg)

I also have a Fuji FinePix S5500 with both view finder and and a screen. Not a bad camera with x10 optical zoom but the close-up capability is nothing to write home about.

I wish I'd spent the equivalent amount on a digital SLR.

Ron

[numpty]

I also have a Fuji FinePix S5500 with both view finder and and a screen. Not a bad camera with x10 optical zoom but the close-up capability is nothing to write home about.

Ron

I also have a Fuji Finepix...I think its a fantastic camera and everyone always comments on the quality of the pics taken with it. I like the eye piece as opposed to the screen when taking pics. I don't find the close up so bad...are you using the correct macro setting? I like to take pics of flowers and don't find it a problem at all...at least as good as my old SLR with extension rings was.

Numpty's Missus

[dmdigital]

If you're already a Nikon person then I'd stick with them. I must say though it seems using a Nikon SLR is like driving a Landy. Do Canon owner's drive Cruisers or something they have the same attitude? Anyway I digress...

One thing that Nikon has in the Coolpix and DSLR range is cominality of use menu's are all the same style, buttons tend to be in like places etc.

You're better off getting a camera with a viewfinder as well as the LCD (as mentioned sunlight is an issue on LCD's). Best review sites are dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com) and steves digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/). Remember to allow extra for a good size card, range you are talking about is almost all SD nowdays but shooting 6MB + photos will use space on a trip so budget for a 512MB or better card - It is always best to shoot at high resolution so you can print enlargements, edit etc. SD cards are by far the most afordable, you'll find Fuji and Olympus use XD which are slightly more expensive and then there's Sony with their proprietry Memory Stick. For editing software get a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 - Shop around and get the academic version and save money.

[101RRS]

Why not get a Nikon Digital SLR and be able to use your current lenses - prices start about $900.

Gazzz

[p38arover]

Why not get a Nikon Digital SLR and be able to use your current lenses - prices start about $900.


That's why I'm looking at a Pentax DSLR.

One problem I find with my Fuji is that I'm left-eye dominant so I put the view finder uo to my left eye. "So what?", you ask. Well, the camera controls for most smaller cameras are set up for right-eye dominant users. The viewfinders aren't central like they are on SLRs, they're offset to one side.

I can't reach the controls on the back of the camera becasue my face is in the way. Put the camera up to each eye in turn and you'll see what I mean.

One thing I do like about the Fuji is that the eyepiece can be adjusted so the image is focussed when not wearing glasses (I have one long-sighted eye, one short-sighted eye). I don't need a correction lens like I do with my Pentax SLRs.

Ron

[p38arover]

I don't find the close up so bad...are you using the correct macro setting? I like to take pics of flowers and don't find it a problem at all...at least as good as my old SLR with extension rings was.

Yes, I use macro mode but it's not in the same class as the Nikon - and that's why I didn't sell the Nikon when I bought the Fuji.

Ron

[DiscoDave]

Something to consider at the budget end of the market is batteries and battery life. Lots of the cheaper digitals run on AA batteries that would have a very limited life. You could get a charger and a set of rechargeable AA's but that's a pain imo. I'd suggest you look at cameras that have a L-ion battery that's good for days (weeks?) of use.
I've just got an Olympus micro(mu)digital 600 and am still coming to terms with it, but overall I'm impressed. It's case is "weatherproof" which provides some protection and it removes its own lenscap, which is great. I also like it when it says I have room for another 903 photos at 1600x1200.
I agree with the comments about memory cards - although they all seem reasonably priced.
Also agree about an LCD in bright light - most of the time on Stockton beach I couldn't see what I was pointing at. A viewfinder would have been handy.
Depending on what your going to use the camera for I wouldn't obsess about the megapixels - if you are going to email a lot of them or post them to a forum you'll spend a lot of time reducing the image size anyway.
Optical zoom is useful - digital zoom is irrelevant.

[scrambler]

If I was on a tight, tight budget - the sort of tight where I couldn't afford to run a Series IIa diesel for example - I'd be getting pretty much what I have - consumer simple 3-4MP from a reputable brand that takes AA batts.

A consumer 8MP CCD will have a lot of noise. There's no real need to go over 2MP except to allow a digital zoom. But digital zooms are IMHO a waste of time - just crop the image later. Keep the SLR for when you want to take art photos, use the digi as a snapshot machine.

Steve

[scrambler]

I would disagree entirely on AA vs proprietry batt packs! I use Ni-MH rechargables in mine, but AA size. They don't cost an arm and a leg and when they eventually die you can replace them with off-the-shelf items. I get hundreds of photos per change of batts and always carry charged spares, which you should do regardless.

Steve

[dmdigital]

Actually the most important thing to consider with batteries is recharge time, life, number of shots per charge and availability.

AA's are great this is why I used Nikon SLR's you could always get spare batteries (though I usually ran Varta's those days)

With the Digial compact camers avoid anything with a non removeable battery pack as the whole camer is out of action whilst charging. Some of the camers take AA's, so you can use rechargeables and have a couple of disposables as an emergency. Others take more propritory rechargable batteries, but in somecases will also take a non-rechargable battery as well. These are often not readily available (Nikon 8700 is an example camera here) but you can always carry one as a spare.

Recharge time of batteries and nmber of shots per charge are important as this can mean you need to carry 2 or more extra batteries for a days shooting and be able to charge them somewere too.

And yes you can use your existing Nikon lenses on any Nikon DSLR, the D50 is a nice entry level unit but the 35mm lenses will not work with many of the camera's features and so you will shoot a lot in manual.

[JDNSW]

I posted a reply on this yesterday - at least I thought i did, but seems I may have had finger trouble as I can't see it.

I spent a lot of effort on deciding what to get about a year ago. (I lost the URL when my computer died early this year, but if you do a google search there are a couple of sites that allow you to compare digital cameras). I ended up deciding on a Canon A-95 - and found when I went to buy one that it had just been discontinued, which at least allowed me to get a substantial discount when I found a dealer with one left. This points out a major point - these cameras are still in a state of rapid change, and the next model will be better and cheaper, so don't spend too much at present.

Don't get mesmerised by numbers such as number of megapixels or zoom numbers. There are a lot of other important factors. Lens quality becomes important over about four megapixels for example, and if you want good colour rendition you have to consider the colour quality. Another feature that you have to think about is shutter delay - almost all digital cameras have a delay between when you push the button and when the picture is taken that is long, sometimes very long, compared to what you are used to with a film camera. And it varies a lot with different cameras, as does the minimum interval between shots.
Battery life varies enormously as well, although seems to be getting better - my camera does hundreds of pictures on four disposable AAs, and I would not consider rechargeables as it is not worth it. On the other hand my son's slightly older Fuji justifies rechargeables, and our Landcare Group's upmarket but older Canon only does about a dozen pictures on four rechargeable AAs.

John

[p38arover]

John raises a good point about shooting delay.

I don't know how many pics I've missed owing to the very long delay after pressing the shutter. It ain't like a film camera.

I've had no experience with digital SLRs so I don't know if they are better.

Ron

[JDNSW]

Try for example http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

John

[dmdigital]

Ron & John's point is good. My first foray into digital annoyed the hell out of me because of shutter lag and cycle time. Every generation of digital consumer camera suffers from this. It is also the biggest problem with the low end priced cameras (and general build and lens quality). Take out size and functionality and this is the primary difference between a Nikon DSLR a Coolpix. Even the bottom end DSLR shoots faster and writes the shot to the card quicker but the gap decreases with each new consumer model.

The other contributing factor nowdays is the card speed. A high speed card will improve most (but not all) cameras cycle time between shots. All cards are not equal and it is best to use a recognized brand, SanDisk, Lexmar, Panasonic, etc. The speed refers (like a CD) to how fast they write data compared to a base standard.

As for megapixels I noticed someone mention 2MP is good and 8MP is noisey. I don't know where their from but general more is better. Digital camers are still way behind good old 64ASA slide film when it comes to image and a 2MP isn't as good as shooting on 1000ASA film when it comes to pixelation. Anything above 6MP gives the best quality and it is well worth it if you want to do any editing or cropping of photos or even 8x10 enlargments.

I mentioned dpreview in a previous post and also Steve's Digicam. The first has the best over-all info on every camera. The second has some very good articles on most cameras but also will have full size images of every side of the camera (not just front and back).

If you know anyone going to Singapore or HongKong you can get a very good price on the $800+ cameras over their. You will find you save between 25% and 50%. But warrenty is country specific on still cameras. On the general consumer cameras the saving is not worth considering as any repair would cost as much as the camera without a warrenty and also the saving, if any can be about the same as the ex-GST price.

One very important thing we've all failed to mention is backing up images. This can become an issue (I presently have nearly 100GB of images) and you need to consider hard drive space on your PC and also have a CD or DVD burner at the very least.

[Relay]

Whoa, that's a lot of info to process for me. I'd take the time to thank you all individually, but time's a little bit of a drama for me currently. Tomorrow I'll have more to sit and think 'bout it. Still, in my terms, Big Thankyou to everyone who's put in their say! I appreciate it. And if you think of anything else, jump in and post it. The more info I get before I buy the better! Mmmm, and I have a CD burner, so backup isn't a drama; though I -should- just get a DVD burner while I'm at it and be done with it.

[Brisruss]

I have a Nikon D70 and I love it. My wife has a Coolpix 4200 and it is good to.
A couple of differences I have noticed between the two are:
1. Size. The Coolpix is tiny and takes SD Cards. The D70 is large and takes Compact Flash Cards.
2. Batteries. The D70 outlasts the Coolpix by a long way. We went on a hike through Tiger Leaping Gorge in China over three days and I did not even get onto my second battery while she used her 3 up and ran out.
3. The D70 can take other lenses if you have them. Not quite so with the Coolpix.
4. Price. The D70 cost me about $1700 the Coolpix about $500.
In the end it depends on what suits you but we both managed to get some great shots.

Cheers,
Russ

[noddy]

Interesting thread.

Given you already have an investment in Nikon lenses, I would be saving that bit harder and going for a D50 (body only ~$900). They are a great camera, you can use you existing Nikon lenses and you will have a much better camera than the Coolpix range.

Anything over 6MB is heaps of pixels unless you are blowing them up to cover walls.

[Bush65]

I have a Nikon D70 and I love it. My wife has a Coolpix 4200 and it is good to.
A couple of differences I have noticed between the two are:
1. Size. The Coolpix is tiny and takes SD Cards. The D70 is large and takes Compact Flash Cards.
2. Batteries. The D70 outlasts the Coolpix by a long way. We went on a hike through Tiger Leaping Gorge in China over three days and I did not even get onto my second battery while she used her 3 up and ran out.
3. The D70 can take other lenses if you have them. Not quite so with the Coolpix.
4. Price. The D70 cost me about $1700 the Coolpix about $500.
In the end it depends on what suits you but we both managed to get some great shots.

Cheers,
Russ
The D80 (10.2M pixels), which uses SD cards has just been released. I am waiting for stocks to arrive.

[dmdigital]

The D80 (10.2M pixels), which uses SD cards has just been released. I am waiting for stocks to arrive.

D80 does look nice, down side is a plastic body and SD card (primarily because I have several 2GB highspeed CF cards already). D200 is probablywhat I will go with once I convince the handbrake.


But neither are what Relay is looking for.

[noddy]

D200 is probablywhat I will go with once I convince the handbrake.



I recently bought a D200 so that I could semi retire my over-used D70 (which I still think is one of the best cameras Nikon has made for some time).

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2006/09/169.jpg

I really don't think you can wrong at the moment with any of the DSLRs on the market. They are changing so quickly that an investment in good lenses will be the best move.

The question is whether you punt on DX format lenses or believe Nikon will go Full Frame in the near future.;)

[dmdigital]

...I really don't think you can wrong at the moment with any of the DSLRs on the market. They are changing so quickly that an investment in good lenses will be the best move.

The question is whether you punt on DX format lenses or believe Nikon will go Full Frame in the near future.;)

I already have several older AF Nikkor lenses from my 35mm days, including very nice 50mm f1.2. It will be interesting to see what Nikon does towards full frame although I think it is someway off yet. Unlike Canon, who seem to release at least 2 new DSLR's a year, Nikon is much slower on new model's. The D100 I think took about 5 years to be replaced.

[numpty]

Camera Batteries. The FinePix runs 4xAA size. I got a set with the camera ( part of the deal when we bought it was batteries and recharger), I bought a second set to cover when the first set went flat. Before this recent trip we did we bought a 12v recharger ( 1hr recharge) which came with a set, so 3 sets of 4xAA rechargeables. 6 weeks away, 1500+ photsos taken and only had to do 2 recharges...at all times had 3 sets of fully charged bateries. No problems.

Numpties Missus

[mr_sav]

Hi Relay,

I have an Olympus E500 Used once to take a couple of pictures. I bought it because I wanted to kit it out for diving, however, I bought on a whim, without doing my homework, and only a couple of specialised housings are available, outside of what I am willing to pay.

So if you are interested let me know. I will let it go for $800. Full warranty with it etc. Brand New, other than I used it for a couple of birthday pics.

Two Lenses with it as well. 17.45 -45 and 40-150.

Regards,

Steve.

[scrambler]

As for megapixels I noticed someone mention 2MP is good and 8MP is noisey. I don't know where their from but general more is better. Digital camers are still way behind good old 64ASA slide film when it comes to image and a 2MP isn't as good as shooting on 1000ASA film when it comes to pixelation. Anything above 6MP gives the best quality and it is well worth it if you want to do any editing or cropping of photos or even 8x10 enlargments.

Yes, that would have been me. But the reference wasn't to pixels per se - it was to what you NEED to have and to consumer (as opposed to the "prosumer" products everyone else here is pushing) CCDs. The key issue is the size of each pixel on the CCD - a larger format CCD can have more pixels - think Hasselblad's new body (24MP from memory). Consumer 8MP CCDs are too small and suffer noise - read any digital photography website or magazine. If photos are going to be posted to the web then 2MP is more than adequate, and it's acceptable quality when printed. Would 6MP be better? Absolutely! And would a DSLR body be the ideal way to go - again, absolutely! Can these be had for a couple of hundred dollars? No!

I used to use a Canon SLR for film, now use a Kodak CX7430. When I made the change to digital I thought about the photos it take - pretty much all snapshots. I don't need the SLR quality and I save a lot of money buying just what I need and not the "best" camera available. I got mine cheap because the 5MP were the current model and I was happy with 4MP - still am. Cycle time is good IMO , shutter lag minimal if there's no flash (better than my mother's film camera), even a child can run it and photo quality (for what I want) is acceptable. I wouldn't even dream of it for art photography - which reminds me that no-one has mentioned the capability to save as RAW data or another lossless format. Which my Kodak doesn't have - but what do I care - I'm not really editing my snaps.

So for "bragging" photos I'd recommend a name brand low-end digital snapshot camera, and for art photos I'd suggest hold onto the film body - unless you're doing a LOT of photography it would have to be cheaper to use film than the apx $1000 changeover. Buy a DSLR with your first month's "real" pay.

IMHO!

Steve

[dmdigital]

Yes, that would have been me. But the reference wasn't to pixels per se - it was to what you NEED to have and to consumer (as opposed to the "prosumer" products everyone else here is pushing) CCDs. The key issue is the size of each pixel on the CCD - a larger format CCD can have more pixels - think Hasselblad's new body (24MP from memory). Consumer 8MP CCDs are too small and suffer noise - read any digital photography website or magazine. If photos are going to be posted to the web then 2MP is more than adequate, and it's acceptable quality when printed. Would 6MP be better? Absolutely! And would a DSLR body be the ideal way to go - again, absolutely! Can these be had for a couple of hundred dollars? No!

I used to use a Canon SLR for film, now use a Kodak CX7430. When I made the change to digital I thought about the photos it take - pretty much all snapshots. I don't need the SLR quality and I save a lot of money buying just what I need and not the "best" camera available. I got mine cheap because the 5MP were the current model and I was happy with 4MP - still am. Cycle time is good IMO , shutter lag minimal if there's no flash (better than my mother's film camera), even a child can run it and photo quality (for what I want) is acceptable. I wouldn't even dream of it for art photography - which reminds me that no-one has mentioned the capability to save as RAW data or another lossless format. Which my Kodak doesn't have - but what do I care - I'm not really editing my snaps.

So for "bragging" photos I'd recommend a name brand low-end digital snapshot camera, and for art photos I'd suggest hold onto the film body - unless you're doing a LOT of photography it would have to be cheaper to use film than the apx $1000 changeover. Buy a DSLR with your first month's "real" pay.

IMHO!

Steve

Steve,
There is a lot of debate about RAW vs JPEG. RAW offers much more functionality with a digital darkroom setup over JPEG if you have the right software. In general even pro-sumer cameras have too long a write time for RAW to be acceptible and so JPEG is the way to go. You will find if you read around everyone recommends using the maximum resolution to take digital photos. Also, whilst there have been issues with 8MP cameras and noise in general these are not excess and are more model dependant eg Nikon 8700 vs 8800.

I started digital photography with a 3.2MP and have moved to an 8MP prosumer, next step is a DSLR to get back to what I did with film. What was wrong with the 3.2MP - slow cycle time and inability to do much with the pictures - croping, editing etc. What is wrong with the 8MP, cycle time on RAW is to slow even with a highspeed card and now I have worked my way through learning digital photo editing etc I prefer to shoot RAW so that I can manipulate the image off-camera.

There are a lot of issues that differentiate consumer, prosumer and DSLR cameras and even within each bracket. e.g. the standard lenses with a D50 are no better than some of the prosumer range. For convenience you can't beat a pocket sized consumer camera either. At the end of it all it is the photographer who really takes the picture, not the camera which just captures it.

As for your statement about doing a lot of photography and using film, last vacation I took over 3,000 photos in 6 weeks. Something I would never have done with a film camera (84 rolls of 36exp film!) of this I ended the trip with about 2,000 great holiday snaps and at least 200 that are absolutely fantastic, the ones to really remember the trip by. But with digital if you stuff the shot, who cares you know immediately and can retake it, delete it etc. As for printing well I've printed 6 to date and I'm working on what to do with a few others, all this saves money.

Oh and a word of warning about Kodak camera's their base models are rubbish I know too many people who have bought a basic Kodak digital only to have it die in 6-18 mths. Also their support (like a lot of companies) is not good. Their higher end consumer and prosumer models do seem to be a much better camera though.

[HangOver]

hmmm this is turning quite technical eh

for my 2 cents worth, I bought a boxed nikon coolpix 5000 from ebay for about $250, not a mark on it.

metal body
can take some lenses with optional adapter rings, (i just bought a fisheye:))
batteries last forever
flash hotshoe
excellent macro
fold out flipable lcd also viewfinder for bright days
has more functions than I'll ever use

best of all if I drop it and it dies I would be bugged but it wouldn't be the end of the world

stick to Nikon, last digi I bought was a kodak, NEVER again
steve

[Captain_Rightfoot]

People who have been around here for a while will note my ludite views.

I weakened and bought the missus a small digital for her birthday with the mind that it will take photos that would not get taken with the 35mm slr. We bought a Cannon ixus 60.

Well, I'll admit I'm fussy, but the photos are simply crap. I took it back to the shop (teds) and showed them why I was unhappy and he just said welcome to digital mate. He also said I bought one of the best.:rolleyes:

So, my advice if you're fussy about your images to get one is to get one of the good ones. I looked the other day, and the equivalent to the one I have now is the d200 (pictured above) which is 3400. There is a cheaper 10mp nikon which is plastic build which is over 1k cheaper which would be worth a look.

Anyway, we thought for 3400 I can buy and process 100 rolls of film. By which time whatever camera I look at now will be out of date .. LOL

Also, they are just starting to move to full size CCD (there is a inexpensive cannon which has just been released). This technology will give higher quality, and allow the use of your standard lenses. We've decided we'll wait for that :) That way I can continue to use my beautiful old lenses :)