-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
