Thread: Digital Cameras

Originally Posted by Bush65

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.

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).



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.

Originally Posted by noddy

...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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by dm_td5

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

Originally Posted by scrambler

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.

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