+Harriet the Spy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 In the hike of the month thread Totem Lake stated that he had the same exact problem I have. Shaky hands when snapping pictures, and quite honestly when I am with my 4 kids I don't usually have time to slow down, stop and take proper ones. But I love snapping them. Dwoodford replied: Several companies make cameras that compensate for camera motion, such as Canon's Image Stabilization. Their A570 IS is one. Yes, it isn't just for SLR's anymore, and some SLR's have it built in. Sony's A700 and A100, Pentax's K100D and K10D and the Olympus E-510 all have sensors that shift to compenstate for camera movement I didn't even know image stabilization was a feature! Any advice or recommendations for a new camera for me? Quote Link to comment
CacheNCarryMA Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 based on this review. You can get it from Amazon sellers for about $215 shipped. I'm happy with it so far. It's got a pretty good zoom and lots of easy to use pre-sets for different light conditions and subjects. It has image stabilization. What's your price range? Edited October 31, 2007 by CacheNCarryMA Quote Link to comment
+Blue Power Ranger Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 For just day to day caching, I just slip a Samsung Digimax D53 in my pocket. I bought this camera just for caching. It is small, seems to have been fairly rugged, has pretty good battery life, and takes good pics all for under $100. As a former camera snob, I have been pretty happy with what I have gotten out of this camera. Best of all, I'm not stressed out that I am going to damage or lose it since it didn't cost me a fortune. I don't believe it has image stabilization per se but the pics have seemed pretty sharp to me. Maybe I just have steady hands. Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I love my camera, but unfortunately they aren't selling them anymore. It's a Konica Minolta DiMage Z6. It has an anti-shake that has made a big difference, especially in low light conditions and when shooting macros. My criteria for a good basic camera (which my camera meets): Good in low light without a flash, so that I can take pics in the evening or in a building when I'm too far away for a flash. A good macro. A good zoom. A good size screen to see what I've shot. Manual setting. I'm still drooling over getting a high end camera some day when we can afford it, though, just to use for special purposes. I would like to be able to do night shots and have it take multiple minute exposures with a tripod. I'd also like a remote for taking a picture. And filters, etc. Edited October 31, 2007 by Ambrosia Quote Link to comment
+Harriet the Spy Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 I am in the 200-250 range for a camera. I am hoping to narrow down what I really need in a camera and hopefully be able to find something in the day after Thanksgiving sales. I am currently using a Kodak Easy Share c875. 8 mega pixel. But then those dang BabyBackPackers got a new camera yestereday that was 12 megapixel and skinny. My camera seems so big now... and the pictures so fuzzy. Also I have recently started Waymarking, and I am taking a lot more pictures to post and visit them. So a camera that takes better pictures would greatly increase the fun of that hobby for me. And I just discovered that there is a flickr group for geocaching in Washington state. That I would like to start contributing to, And of course I would want the pictures to be pretty for it! http://www.flickr.com/groups/nomuggles/ Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I am in the 200-250 range for a camera. I am hoping to narrow down what I really need in a camera and hopefully be able to find something in the day after Thanksgiving sales. I am currently using a Kodak Easy Share c875. 8 mega pixel. But then those dang BabyBackPackers got a new camera yestereday that was 12 megapixel and skinny. My camera seems so big now... and the pictures so fuzzy. Also I have recently started Waymarking, and I am taking a lot more pictures to post and visit them. So a camera that takes better pictures would greatly increase the fun of that hobby for me. And I just discovered that there is a flickr group for geocaching in Washington state. That I would like to start contributing to, And of course I would want the pictures to be pretty for it! http://www.flickr.com/groups/nomuggles/ Lol, when you click that flickr link, the first 5 pictures on the page are mine. Edited October 31, 2007 by Ambrosia Quote Link to comment
+LandRover Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Am I the only one that finds it odd that she is in what appears to be a public restroom with her camera?? Quote Link to comment
+Harriet the Spy Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Lol, when you click that flickr link, the first 5 pictures on the page are mine. LOL I have topped you with Ape cache photos! Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Am I the only one that finds it odd that she is in what appears to be a public restroom with her camera?? Yes, I'm odd. I'm attached to my camera, it goes with me most places. That picture was taken on Mother's Day, in the bathroom of our Royal Fork (an all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant). I've been participating off and on in a flickr group where you're supposed to take a picture of yourself and post it to the group every day for 365 days. Here's the one I actually posted for that day: Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Lol, when you click that flickr link, the first 5 pictures on the page are mine. LOL I have topped you with Ape cache photos! I saw that...you replaced me! Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I use a D70, but that's beyond your budget and needs. The A570 that I suggested for Totemlake is 200$. I wouldn't buy a camera that goes beyond 8 megapixels because noise at higher ISO ranges get worse, because of how many pixels that are placed on tiny sensors. Be aware that some cameras claim stabilization, but just raise the ISO, which results in high noise. A 3X zoom is the min I would consider and I wouldn't buy any less than 6mp these days. Dpreview is a good site to check out. If you have questions about cameras, I would highly recommend the Popular Photography Fourms, which I am a member of, along with a number of other geocachers. Edited October 31, 2007 by Dwoodford Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Lol, when you click that flickr link, the first 5 pictures on the page are mine. LOL I have topped you with Ape cache photos! I saw that...you replaced me! I just replaced you both with pictures of Cougar Mountain and Franklin! Quote Link to comment
+Harriet the Spy Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 I trump your Cougar Mountain with Lifeboat #3! Type slowly for me what does "noise" mean for photography? Is that what makes a picture fuzzy? Also how do I know if a camera really has real stabilization or raise the iso? Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Noise is random pixels that are of a different color than the nearby pixels. Think of film grain with color. Look closely at some of my Volleyball shots. You should be able to see noise in the images. You didn't wipe mine completly out! Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Look at the skin tones. Areas of consistent color such as skin will show noise better than areas like the net. Quote Link to comment
CacheNCarryMA Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Why would a novice photographer need a 12 megapixel camera? Planning to enlarge the photos to poster size? Quote Link to comment
+Harriet the Spy Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I guess I don't NEED 12, but I do like gadgets, and I prefer my family pictures that are taken when we are out on the trail rather than a studio. Some of those do get blown up to 8X10. Oh and I fully pushed you out with Kelcema Lake Edited October 31, 2007 by Harriet the Spy Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 There's just too much competition in them thar geocaching flickr groups. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 You can do 8x10 easy with 6mp. 12mp is over kill for point and shoots unless you are a pro although I would doubt that they would use 12mp because of the noise issue. DPreview also has a digital photography dictionary. I'm striking back with Tiger Mountain's Logging Legacy! Quote Link to comment
+The Jester Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I have an old Olympus OMPC SLR with a couple of nice lenses. What digital body would be good to replace this with, using the same lenses? I have a small pocket digital camera that is fine for a lot of things, but sometimes I miss the 'power' of the SLR. Quote Link to comment
+CurmudgeonlyGal Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I am, and have always been a Canon fan. Back in the day, they were the best at quick focus/shooting, which was always the biggest decision making factor to me. (The kids don't stop for long, you know?) The best pocketable size/feature packed thing they've got going is the PowerShot Elph series. I've made my way through a few of them (my fave was destroyed by a particularly great, albeit windy, weekend at the dunes), and always have the same love/hate issues with every one. Size is fabulous. Quick focus/shoot/recovery time. Menus are always where I expect them to be and all sorts of other yadda. It fits in my waist pocket of my pack, and I can put it in my pants pocket without too much trouble (as in, it's light enough it doesn't pull the pants down... hey, it's an issue for me!) My biggest hate is the indoor red-eye issues. Outside it's fabulous, no complaints, but for some reason, once subjects are removed from that location, the devil appears. The form factor seems to breed a lot of that type of thing, regardless of the manufacturer - small camera - close flash... A bump up from that is the PowerShot A-series. My point-and-shoot collection has had a few of these interspersed in it... the best one I had in that line was back when they were only two-digit numbers A80 or something very similar... it worked marvelously until one of the kids tried to 'close the lens' for me. It doesn't retract manually... or rather, it does, but doesn't work so well afterwards. I was seriously considering the A640 (low 200's) due to it's fabulous reviews, some options available with the camera and the knowledge that it's better than the Elph series phot wise, isn't as big as the G series and, obviously, isn't a digiSLR (not my cuppa for packing around). Instead, I was gifted with a PowerShot A650 IS and love it. It is a bit larger than the Elph, but the trade off in picture quality is worth it for me at this point. It has image stabilization (combined with a larger zoom range), it has some neat focusing tricks up it's sleeve (face recognition is a fun one), and, well, I've really never been disappointed with this line. One of the things I like the MOST about the A series... is that they all use AA batteries. <Groan>, you say. I know that's a big detractor for a lot of people - rechargeable batteries are quite the thing... however, having had a large number of proprietary rechargeable batteries, being able to toss AA's in this one (rechargeable, or not) is VERY nice when it comes right down to it. I'm never in a bind because my primary proprietary battery starts flashing low... only to switch and have the next one partially discharged as well. I've ALWAYS got AA's around - the GPS needs them too - so I'm never in a bind in that regard. Good luck finding a camera! There are so many fab choices that it's pretty hard to go wrong. michelle Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Why would a novice photographer need a 12 megapixel camera? Planning to enlarge the photos to poster size? Yes. Some pictures I have taken are spectacular and worthy of being framed for a wall in the house. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) I have an old Olympus OMPC SLR with a couple of nice lenses. What digital body would be good to replace this with, using the same lenses? I have a small pocket digital camera that is fine for a lot of things, but sometimes I miss the 'power' of the SLR. Olympus went with a new mount, so you will need an adaptor to mount your lenses on their 4/3 Digital SLR's. You may be better off looking at another brand, as it may not meter. "My biggest hate is the indoor red-eye issues. Outside it's fabulous, no complaints, but for some reason, once subjects are removed from that location, the devil appears. The form factor seems to breed a lot of that type of thing, regardless of the manufacturer - small camera - close flash..." The cure for redeye is to get the flash as far away from the lens as possible. Also, stay away from the telephoto end of the zoom. You will need a bracket and a flash with an optical slave. If your camera uses preflash, you will need a flash that ignores the preflash. Also, if you can, turn up the light level. The eye's pupil will close, reducing the possibility of red eye. This article might be helpful for those looking at a new P&S. Edited October 31, 2007 by Dwoodford Quote Link to comment
+CurmudgeonlyGal Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) "My biggest hate is the indoor red-eye issues. Outside it's fabulous, no complaints, but for some reason, once subjects are removed from that location, the devil appears. The form factor seems to breed a lot of that type of thing, regardless of the manufacturer - small camera - close flash..." The cure for redeye is to get the flash as far away from the lens as possible. Also, stay away from the telephoto end of the zoom. You will need a bracket and a flash with an optical slave. If your camera uses preflash, you will need a flash that ignores the preflash. Also, if you can, turn up the light level. The eye's pupil will close, reducing the possibility of red eye. While I know and understand why smaller cameras produce excessive red-eye, that doesn't make it any less of a frustration. 9 times out of 10, I'm completely uninterested in taking an SLR and all the assorted accoutrements. No extra flash, thanks. No bigger camera, thanks. My pack is heavy enough. To deal with the issue, I will either grumble out of frustration, up the light when I can (or think about it), and/or opt for a higher ISO and suffer the noise when I need that option. And stick to the outdoors for the most part. It's more fun out there, anyway. michelle Edited October 31, 2007 by CurmudgeonlyGal Quote Link to comment
+Harriet the Spy Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 I see you guys are in cahoots with my hubby telling me that I don't need twelve that my current camera is good enough.... I guess I will have to upgrade my GPS then Quote Link to comment
+shunra Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I have an old Olympus OMPC SLR with a couple of nice lenses. What digital body would be good to replace this with, using the same lenses? I have a small pocket digital camera that is fine for a lot of things, but sometimes I miss the 'power' of the SLR. None. I had an Olympus OM1, and am now using an Olympus E500. The lenses for Olympus DSLRs are all designed specifically for digital cameras (which makes them overall better than their Nikon and Canon counterparts), but the downside is that you cannot take your pre-digital Oly lenses and use them on an Oly DSLR. Many people who use Nikon and Canon DSLRs do so because they already have matching lens collections. If I were to buy a new DSLR today, it would be the Olympus E3 as a professional DSLR, or the E510 if I needed something cheaper. Quote Link to comment
+shunra Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I have an old Olympus OMPC SLR with a couple of nice lenses. What digital body would be good to replace this with, using the same lenses? I have a small pocket digital camera that is fine for a lot of things, but sometimes I miss the 'power' of the SLR. Olympus went with a new mount, Correct so you will need an adaptor to mount your lenses on their 4/3 Digital SLR's. Nope - non-digital lenses won't work. This decision was obviously not popular among traditional Oly users, but in the long run, it was probably the right decision, as it has allowed Olympus to engineer something entirely new. You may be better off looking at another brand, as it may not meter. You got a logical flaw there. The Jester *has no choice* but to look for a new system, but precisely because he cannot have any compatibility concerns, he does not need to limit himself to the two backward-compatible market leaders. I was in the same situation two years ago, and a comparison of the DSLRs below $1000 of ALL brands available at that time was hands-down in favor of the Oly E500 (over the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel XTi, and some others). I don't know how today's entry-level DSLRs compare, but I'd suggest just to go with the best. On the level of professional cameras, Olympus is still leading in quality (though not in market share), but I doubt you're looking for a professional camera. Enjoy! Quote Link to comment
+CurmudgeonlyGal Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I see you guys are in cahoots with my hubby telling me that I don't need twelve that my current camera is good enough.... I guess I will have to upgrade my GPS then Go for 12. I think if you do the research, tests have proven that some of the new tech IS good at that size. michelle Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) On the level of professional cameras, Olympus is still leading in quality (though not in market share), but I doubt you're looking for a professional camera. I don't recommend quoting the camera manufacture about their camera's image quality, because they have a reason to claim that they have the best image quality. Instead, I trust fair and impartial sources, such as DPreview and Popular Photography. Also, Olympus does make an adaptor to mount OM lenses on 4/3 cameras. But, as with similar adaptors for Canon and Minolta, it does have important limitations. Edited November 1, 2007 by Dwoodford Quote Link to comment
+Forty-n-Eight Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use a Canon PowerShot SD700IS and am happy with it. It's a 6MP camera with image stabilization, nice big screen on the back, and a nice form factor. Plus, it's been hiking with me on many outings and held up in sun, rain, and snow. I, like some of the others, wouldn't suggest a camera with more than 8MP unless you're going for poster-sized prints. You'll just spend more money on the camera and end up with larger picture files that will use up all your hard drive space...my $0.02. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Poster sized prints will also make the noise more visible. For a more complete explanation of noise, look at this page from the DPreview glossary. Quote Link to comment
+WeightMan Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. That's also a good suggestion! However, many P&S cameras do not come with optical viewfinders. The A570 IS does, though. The optical viewfinder also saves batteries, since you aren't relying on the LCD. LCDs can be hard to read in bright light, as well. Quote Link to comment
+MtnGoat50 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. That's also a good suggestion! However, many P&S cameras do not come with optical viewfinders. The A570 IS does, though. The optical viewfinder also saves batteries, since you aren't relying on the LCD. LCDs can be hard to read in bright light, as well. I would agree with the above. Whatever camera you get, make sure it has an optical view finder and use it. It won't take any longer and it really helps holding the camera steady. I would also suggest getting a small "pocket" style camera over an SLR. I have no experience with digital SLRs but back when we used film, I had both. I always got the best shots with the pocket camera, because that was the one I had with me. The SLR and all the lenses spent most of the time in the camera bag, in the closet. To answer your original question. I have a Canon SD600, that I'm very happy with. Based on my experience I would probably buy another Canon. Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. That's also a good suggestion! However, many P&S cameras do not come with optical viewfinders. The A570 IS does, though. The optical viewfinder also saves batteries, since you aren't relying on the LCD. LCDs can be hard to read in bright light, as well. I would agree with the above. Whatever camera you get, make sure it has an optical view finder and use it. It won't take any longer and it really helps holding the camera steady. I would also suggest getting a small "pocket" style camera over an SLR. I have no experience with digital SLRs but back when we used film, I had both. I always got the best shots with the pocket camera, because that was the one I had with me. The SLR and all the lenses spent most of the time in the camera bag, in the closet. To answer your original question. I have a Canon SD600, that I'm very happy with. Based on my experience I would probably buy another Canon. Yup. We have two right now, a small slim one that we can slip into our pocket for things like home shows and stuff, and my medium one. If we get a bigger higher end one someday, it will be for special occasions. Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use a Canon PowerShot SD700IS and am happy with it. It's a 6MP camera with image stabilization, nice big screen on the back, and a nice form factor. Plus, it's been hiking with me on many outings and held up in sun, rain, and snow. I, like some of the others, wouldn't suggest a camera with more than 8MP unless you're going for poster-sized prints. You'll just spend more money on the camera and end up with larger picture files that will use up all your hard drive space...my $0.02. Ten years ago I would have agreed with your sentiment with disk space. Today, disk space is cheap and has no bearing anymore for storage concerns. Plus, with CD and DVD recordables, the question of storage becomes even more academic. Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. I use both. Particularly the optical view finder when I notice my hands are shakey. That doesn't completely stop the problem when you're muscles are already under the affects of a good workout. Edited November 1, 2007 by TotemLake Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. I use both. Particularly the optical view finder when I notice my hands are shakey. That doesn't completely stop the problem when you're muscles are already under the affects of a good workout. I use both as well, depending on the circumstances. I use the view finder especially when it's bright out, so I can see better. But I tend to take different shots at different angles that would be hard to do with the view finder so I usually don't like to be tied down to it. I've never had a particular problem with shaky hands until recently. I was very disapointed to find this past month or so, that my hands are getting shaky enough that it's been impossible (and too tiring) to take some pictures that used to be no problem. So I'm not taking very many pictures anymore. I'll have to keep in mind using the view finder and leaning it on my head. Quote Link to comment
+WeightMan Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I use an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It is a 3.3 mp and is about four years old. I like it because of the 10x optical zoom. One thought comes to mind on this discussion. Do those of you with the shaky hands problem use the screen on the back of the camera or do you use the viewfinder? I tend to use the viewfinder (which is an lcd screen on this camera) partly because I can rest the camera against my head providing a more stable position. When I use the monitor screen I have to be very careful with holding my hands steady. I use both. Particularly the optical view finder when I notice my hands are shakey. That doesn't completely stop the problem when you're muscles are already under the affects of a good workout. You make a good point. Quote Link to comment
+shunra Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 On the level of professional cameras, Olympus is still leading in quality (though not in market share), but I doubt you're looking for a professional camera. I don't recommend quoting the camera manufacture about their camera's image quality, because they have a reason to claim that they have the best image quality. Instead, I trust fair and impartial sources, such as DPreview and Popular Photography. Also, Olympus does make an adaptor to mount OM lenses on 4/3 cameras. But, as with similar adaptors for Canon and Minolta, it does have important limitations. Yes, I agree on both counts. When I made my own decisions for the E500, I counted on dpreview and other hopefully impartial review. The E3 is so new that I have not yet found an impartial comparative review. But I think you are misunderstanding my point. When I bought a new GPS last week, I looked only at the Garmin models, because I already have compatible mapping software. When I bought my first map-compatible GPS, I had decided on a Garmin because at that time one particular Garmin model was the one most like what I wanted. Since then, I have built up a collection of compatible software, and therefore, last week, I did not want to consider another brand, because it would involve starting a new map collection. For the same reason, most people with lens collections stick with their camera brand: you change a camera body every few years or so, but a lens is forever. However, with the switch from film to digital, camera makers faced a challenge about how not to loose their market share. Nikon and Canon preferred to stick with the 35mm sensor dimensions and higher risks of vignetting in order to keep their old lenses suitable to digital cameras, and that way they retained most of their old customers. I think that was a good decision: Now that Image Stabilization has come along, people will buy new lenses anyway to fit their new DSLRs. Olympus made a different decision: it made a clean break and switched to all-digital technology right away, the created the four thirds system, and backward-compatibility was only possible with "important limitations", as you say. Oly lost market share due to its decision to go all-digital at once. This does not say anything about the quality of their cameras, especially after their introduction of some new technologies with respect to dust removal and in-camera image stabilization (instead of separately in any lens), but these are just some considerations, there are equally good considerations for choosing Canon or Nikon. Or Sony-Konica-Minolta, for that matter. Or Leica. My point was, however, that unlike former Nikon or Canon users, people like myself or The Jester are starting from scratch, like first-time DSLR users. We *can* consider all brands on their own merits, without being constricted by a consideration of a very limited backward-compatibility. Quote Link to comment
+shunra Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) Reading the rest of this thread, I realize that I am responding specifically to The Jester, even though he is not the OP. What I said is only relevant for people who want to use an SLR. It is entirely irrelevant to considerations relating to consumer point-and-shoot cameras, which is what this thread was originally about... I apologize for getting off on a tangent... Edited November 1, 2007 by shunra Quote Link to comment
+The Jester Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Thanks for the replies/info. I guess I'll stick to film for the slr and use my small digital for other times. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I would recommend reading this web cartoon about the megapixel race: www.whattheduck.net Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I would recommend reading this web cartoon about the megapixel race: www.whattheduck.net I'm going to point out that's what was said about disk space when they were getting over 200MB big. That's not a typo. Color TVs when they first came out were thought to be a big waste of money. Today, people are buying into 500GB drives and High Definition surround sound systems with DVRs. So rather than poo poo the "megapixel race", educate on what to look for when seeking higher pixels. Cartoons are satirical from narrow minded perceptions and do not represent the final word. My take on the higher levels of megapixels is the RAW pictures will take advantage of this size more than the JPG or TIFF will. I'm not sure about the TIFF or the RAW formats, but JPGs are degenerative. That is, each time you open and close the same JPG, it loses quality (pixels) and noise will be introduced anyway. To maintain the quality of the JPG you would need to burn it to CD/DVD. If you're looking to buy a higher megapixel camera it probably should handle the RAW format and that means you'll need to have the appropriate software to manage the same format. Quote Link to comment
+Recdiver Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I am in the 200-250 range for a camera. I am hoping to narrow down what I really need in a camera and hopefully be able to find something in the day after Thanksgiving sales. I am currently using a Kodak Easy Share c875. 8 mega pixel. But then those dang BabyBackPackers got a new camera yestereday that was 12 megapixel and skinny. My camera seems so big now... and the pictures so fuzzy. Also I have recently started Waymarking, and I am taking a lot more pictures to post and visit them. So a camera that takes better pictures would greatly increase the fun of that hobby for me. And I just discovered that there is a flickr group for geocaching in Washington state. That I would like to start contributing to, And of course I would want the pictures to be pretty for it! http://www.flickr.com/groups/nomuggles/ I have a Kodak Easyshare whatever that I bought for myself last christmas or maybe the one before that. I really like it unfortunately I keeps fergittin to bring it with me. It would be nice to have a smaller pocket sized camera however I'd probably lose it anyway. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 (edited) The thing is that it is possible to get very large prints from just 6 mp by using the proper techniques. I only posted that because I thought it was funny. As far as this topic goes, high megapixel cameras are pointless because of the noise issue and the limited range of print sizes that most people will print at. Also, many cameras try to reduce noise by blurring out the noise, which reduces the effective resolution. Edited November 2, 2007 by Dwoodford Quote Link to comment
+shunra Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Comparing an SLR with a point&shoot camera is pointless. Yes, a 12 MP p&s will probably do better than a 6MP p&s, but the results of either are way inferior to those of a 6 MP DSLR. The number of available pixels (which will continue to go up as technology progresses) is meaningless if a camera doesn't have the technology and/or the optics to use them. MP comparisons make sense only between cameras of the same quality class. To TotemLake: JPEG is indeed degenerative, but not every time you open and close the file, but every time you save it. If you shoot JPGs in your camera, that's the first save, which involves the first loss (hence the smaller size in comparison to RAW files). Every time you save the picture after every edit, or after merely rotating it from portrait to landscape, you loose more.Burning it to a disk is not necessary, though: as long as you keep an original unaltered copy on your hard disk, and you can watch it as often as you like. I still shoot most of my photos in JPG, but I keep the originals of everything worth keeping. When I want to change something, I convert the file to .psd in photoshop, and then use that format file editing the file, to avoid further loss. If I'd need a JPG file of the results (if I want to e-mail a file or publish it on the web), I'll create that JPG from the PSD file. Quote Link to comment
+mousekakat Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 We have an Olympus FE115 5.0mp, 11xzoom that we love. It doesn't have a viewfinder, but it does have image stabilization. It takes great pictured and has a really, really nice macro and double macro. I've gotten some gorgeous pics with the macro and I actually really enjoy getting those shots almost more than others. It has good battery life, especially if I use rechargables, and I can opt to use rechargables OR AA's. I've had a Kodak easyshare and my mother has a newer one, and I found that both of them are battery hogs to the max! Not sure why, either! With the Kodaks the only thing I found that worked remotely well for batteries was the Lithium ones. Anyway, here are some of the macro pics I've taken: These little mushrooms were maybe 1/4" across! Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Comparing an SLR with a point&shoot camera is pointless. Yes, a 12 MP p&s will probably do better than a 6MP p&s, but the results of either are way inferior to those of a 6 MP DSLR. The number of available pixels (which will continue to go up as technology progresses) is meaningless if a camera doesn't have the technology and/or the optics to use them. MP comparisons make sense only between cameras of the same quality class. I never said that I was comparing the two. I am well aware of the merits of both, as well as the weaknesses. DSLR's are better in low light, fast action, and they are far more flexible.Their major weekness is that they are heavy, particularly the pro models, and adding lenses adds weight as well. Their other weekness is the potental for dust on the sensor. Point and Shoots are lightweight, and because the lens is fixed, have no such concerns about dust on the sensor. Also, they are set up to produce good photos straight out of the camera, where DSLR's generally require post prcessing, such as sharpening, unless the camera is set to do that in camera, which is how I use mine. Their major weaknesses are lack of flexibility, and low light, due to the high ISO noise issue and slow noninterchangable lenses, as well as the flash being close to the lens, resulting in the infamous redeye. They are also weak at fast action, due to poor autofocus systems, inadquate lenses, both in speed and in focal length, a lack of fast frame advance, poor viewfinders, and shutter lag, although that is improving all the time. Put simply, DSLR's are optimised to serious photographers, like me, while point and shoots are optimised for casual use by most people. Quote Link to comment
+shunra Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Good summary, and I agree on almost all points. I only brought this up because The Jester asked about a camera he could use with his existing lenses. I use a DSLR for my serious photography (gallery work, posters), whereas when I'm hiking and just need to get some quick shots for web or e-mail purposes only, my cheapo Canon point&shoot is good enough. My only disagreement with your summary is about the need for post-processing for DSLR pictures. I'd argue the opposite: A DSLR allows you to use settings that make post-processing almost unnecessary, while at the same time, providing such quality that post-processing has a great deal of potential for perfection, which does not imply, however, that post-processing is necessary. On the other hand, if you post-processing a p&s picture, chances are that you'll make things worse, which does not imply that the picture would need it :-) Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.