Who's got which photo camera and why

[Von Hinten]

Okay. So I've been shooting the entire 2009 Subsim meet with my Sony K850i phone, from which the camera is the only part that still works nicely, but I've since then decided that I'm kind of ready to move on to the next level of photography.

There's only one problem: where to start and how on earth do I choose the right camera for my needs.

So I figured I'd ask the lot of you to share with me, and whomever else might be in the same position I'm in, what camera you use, the pros and cons about it and, if you want to answer that, what it roughly costs so that I can take all that info and project it onto my needs and at least end up with a place to start looking.

Obviously I have done some looking around already and will be taking a digital reflex camera I borrowed from work with me for the weekend just to see if that works for me but the possibilities are endless and choosing one is just a harsh task.

Searching on these forums have resulted in a lot of 'external camera' and 'photo recon' threads but not a real life photo camera thread as such so I figured I'd start one. You know, just for the experience. :smug:

[Jimbuna]

I attended the SS Meet in Texas last year and took my Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5.

It's a nice pocket size compact and packs a lot of quality for a reasonable price.

Here is the TZ7, its successor:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_TZ7_ZS3/

[Rhodes]

I got a few cameras, mainly film ones and one digital! Part collection, part because I like to take pictures and develop (B&W)! One starts with one camera and lens, then one wants to try out a better body because of this or that. Lens is more complicated, faster ones, telephotos ones, zoom, branch, better optics, famous branches etc!

Use a Leica:O:!

The new panasonics are quite good and versatile. The new GF-1 or the G1 (with adapter, one can use several lens). Pentax has the new Kx, with K lens mount thread, one can use the all the old lenses!

[TarJak]

For mine Canon Ixus is one of the best pocket sized compact cameras on the market. I took one to Houston and got some great shots. For more serious work get an SLR any of Nikon, Canon or Sony are good, but it is the lenses that make them so don't skimp on getting cheap ones if you can afford the better quality ones.

[Von Hinten]

Thank you guys, this is a start.

[XabbaRus]

WEll I have a Fuji Finepix S5600, it is about 2 years old now but takes great pictures and I still use it.

You can get the successor cameras at a good price. They are in between compact digital cameras and full DSLR cameras, all the convenience of a compact but you have all the control of a DSLR, ie exposure, aperture etc...you just can't change the lenses. The later versions of the Finepix the zoom is actually a zoom ring like a zoom lense so you can zoom in very quickly. Also you can select manual focus but on mine it is cumbersome.

The other camera is Nikon P90 which again is a step down from a full DSLR 12 MP all the functionality of a DSLR, just can't change the lenses.

Next is a Nikon D90 that my dad has. That is a DSLR and not cheap but a very good. It's about £800 so probably $800 US.

If you want to get into photography a DSLR is the way to do.

Personally thought I'd go for A Nikon P90 ro Finepix S5XXX series as they are just below an SLR in what you can do but superior to most compact, in your pocket cameras.

[Skybird]

SLR is big, so I decided for a compact.

My advise is to go cheap, find a model from last year which is about to leave the market, but has scored well in tests and customer feedback, and has been massively reduced in initial market prices already. There is no point in spending some hundred bucks on a camera if you cannot know about how long it will last, and they are not made as solid as an expensive analogue SLR, for example. So if after 18 months the camera gives up and you spent less than 100 for a camera originally costing 250 or more, you shrug your shoulders and simply buy another. If the camera fails you after 18 months and it costed you 399,- - then that is something very different, at least imo.

I am totally happy with my current one, a Canon Powershot A590. Before, I had a Canon Powershot A75 - which became too cold one early autumn morning, and the sensor took it queer and never recovered. I had it for - 18 months. I bought both while they already were withdrawn from the market. Both costed me less than 100 bucks, and both made/make excellent pictures.

Buy a cheap compact - or an expensive professional SLR. that's my general advise. My old Canon EOS 600 from 1987 - still works, although having seen quite some rugged terrain and extreme climate.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/

And remember: megapixels are not everything. They even can be counterproductive if the picture sensor does not increase in size with more pixels put on it.

[TarJak]

And remember: megapixels are not everything. They even can be counterproductive if the picture sensor does not increase in size with more pixels put on it.Good point. More megapixels is ONLY good if you are planning to blow up your shot to large sizes. If not then for most standard 4x8 shots 2.5 megapixels is plenty and 3 is more than enough to give fantastic results.

The main elements that make a good digital camera are the lens and sensor. If you get one with image stabiliser like the Canon range, then you'll take less dud blurry shots as well.

[McBeck]

Okay. So I've been shooting the entire 2009 Subsim meet with my Sony K850i phone, from which the camera is the only part that still works nicely, but I've since then decided that I'm kind of ready to move on to the next level of photography.

There's only one problem: where to start and how on earth do I choose the right camera for my needs.

So I figured I'd ask the lot of you to share with me, and whomever else might be in the same position I'm in, what camera you use, the pros and cons about it and, if you want to answer that, what it roughly costs so that I can take all that info and project it onto my needs and at least end up with a place to start looking.

Obviously I have done some looking around already and will be taking a digital reflex camera I borrowed from work with me for the weekend just to see if that works for me but the possibilities are endless and choosing one is just a harsh task.

Searching on these forums have resulted in a lot of 'external camera' and 'photo recon' threads but not a real life photo camera thread as such so I figured I'd start one. You know, just for the experience. :smug:
Hi Von

I have been taking pictures since I was 11 years old and have been using P&S as well as SLRs & DSLRs.

A few points:
1) Using a DSLR instead of a P&S does not automaticly give you better pictures - It takes months of use before you can understand how to take advantage of the greater range of posibillities a DSLR gives you.

2) Make it clear what you want to use it for. Do you really need a DSLR? Sure the DSLR will give you more options, possibilities and image quality, but they cost more and are much bigger to carry around.
Canon has 2 smaller series of non-DSLRs: Ixus and Powershow. Ixus is small and easy. Powershot gives you more control.

3) If you buy a DSRL, you also commit to a system of lenses. Lenses last much longer that the camera body itself, so choose the manufactor based primarily on the lenses. Rule of thumb: use 1/2 - 2/3 of your budget on the lens.

Checkout my portfolio:
http://jonathanjorgensen.daportfolio.com/

[XabbaRus]

I'd got for a Sub DSLR like the Nikon P90 or one of teh Fujie Finepix Zoom ranges.

They are bulkier than most point and shoot as they look more like a DSLR.

That is just my choice though as I like the better control I have over the camera than most point and shoots. Also they have better zoom ranges x10 or even x 24 with the P90.

[Von Hinten]

Thanks for the hints and tips guys, I'm absorbing all this info and try and get clear what it is that I want. I don't really mind about the size of the camera itself, that's not a big, or even non-issue for me. I've decided that I want to come home with better pictures now so when I'm out to take them I'll just pack accordingly. Easy.

What I do care about is being able to shoot fast moving targets like racing cars blasting by for example. The biggest issue I've had with the smaller cams is that there usually was a significant amount of time between the moment where I take the shot, pull the trigger so to speak, and the actual recording of the picture. Not to mention the time it then takes to safe that picture so I can move on to the next.

This past weekend, for example, I was at the 6 hours of Spa Francorchamps where, among other absolutely gorgeous cars, the classic prototypes from the late 60's and 70's were doing their thing and it proved hard enough a task to catch them on my default camera. But I had also borrowed an standard Canon EOS 400D from work and using that camera I was so much abler to actually getting the moving cars on film.

Like John said I probably have a long way to go to get from the 'shooting snapshots level' to the taking photographs one, but the ease of how I could use the speed at which I could take the shots alone would have been well worth the bigger investment.

Obviously I don't know (yet, as it's clear I have lots of reading to do) how photo saving time compares to the compact camera of course but that would be a big factor to consider for me.

[McBeck]

Thanks for the hints and tips guys, I'm absorbing all this info and try and get clear what it is that I want. I don't really mind about the size of the camera itself, that's not a big, or even non-issue for me. I've decided that I want to come home with better pictures now so when I'm out to take them I'll just pack accordingly. Easy.

What I do care about is being able to shoot fast moving targets like racing cars blasting by for example. The biggest issue I've had with the smaller cams is that there usually was a significant amount of time between the moment where I take the shot, pull the trigger so to speak, and the actual recording of the picture. Not to mention the time it then takes to safe that picture so I can move on to the next.

This past weekend, for example, I was at the 6 hours of Spa Francorchamps where, among other absolutely gorgeous cars, the classic prototypes from the late 60's and 70's were doing their thing and it proved hard enough a task to catch them on my default camera. But I had also borrowed an standard Canon EOS 400D from work and using that camera I was so much abler to actually getting the moving cars on film.

Like John said I probably have a long way to go to get from the 'shooting snapshots level' to the taking photographs one, but the ease of how I could use the speed at which I could take the shots alone would have been well worth the bigger investment.

Obviously I don't know (yet, as it's clear I have lots of reading to do) how photo saving time compares to the compact camera of course but that would be a big factor to consider for me.
For fast moving objects you will need a DSLR. I have a Canon 450D and am very happy with it.
Do you need fast continues shooting? If you need to take 10 shots continuesly in a row in RAW format, I dont think the XXXD series is fast enough. You may want to look into the 50D
Added to this you need a fast lens. Look at the Sigma lenses with F2.8

[Von Hinten]

The 450D has popped up more than once now since I've started looking around more seriously. Seems that basically does everything I think I'll be needing and most likely a little bit more. I do need to look into this whole lenses business though, that's new territory for me.

[Jimbuna]

Start at the level of your understanding and move progressively forward from there.

Photography can be a very rewarding hobby/experience.

[McBeck]

The 450D has popped up more than once now since I've started looking around more seriously. Seems that basically does everything I think I'll be needing and most likely a little bit more. I do need to look into this whole lenses business though, that's new territory for me.
Ask me enything you like - I went through this 8 months ago.
Please note again: The FPS in RAW with the 450D is at more than 3, BUT after some shots the buffer will run full and the FPS will drop.
Please keep that in mind.

A breakdown of the areas of lenses:
1) Budget lenses (f.ex. Canon kit lens)
2) 3rd party quality lenses. (f.ex. Sigma 18-50 F2.8)
3) Canon L series

ad1) They are very cheap and you get alot for your money.
The quality can be hit-miss
They are NOT light sensitive...low F is 3.5 quickly moves to 5.6
They are NOT fast.

ad2) Prices between 1) and 3)
Quality very close to Canon L
Light sensitive with F2.8 through the entire zoom
Fast

ad3) Very expensive, but top of the line.
Great quality
Light sensitive with low F through the entire zoom
Fast

Remember that the sensor in the 450D body is so good that it can deal with even the L series, so a kit lens should only be used to start with.

[Von Hinten]

Thanks a bunch John, that's great info.

I'll start shooting questions then: that buffer running full, does it empty itself after not taking shots for a few minutes/seconds? Or how else do you get the camera back up to speed again?

And what does 'low F is 3.5 quickly moves to 5.6' and 'Light 'sensitive with F2.8' mean? I guess I just need to know what the 'F' stands for.

With regard to the lenses I think I read that you suggest sticking with the default lens until I grow out of it. Oh, and not get a Canon L series until I know for 110% sure that the reason the picture wasn't what I needed it to was not my own fault. Check.

[Prof]

I'm going to disagree slightly with McBeck's explanation of Canon's lens range.
Canon has a very wide range of lenses, with plenty in-between the budget lenses and the L-series lenses. In my experience, there are usually three choices with Canon lenses; budget, medium, and L-series.

The budget lenses are very cheap, but still produce good quality images if you understand the limitations of the lens. Usually they will have small maximum apertures (f/4 to f/5.6) and slower focusing (the old arc-form drive or micro-motor focusing). Examples: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

The next step-up usually gives faster focusing (using either of Canon's USM focus motors), but keeps the small apertures. Historically it also added things like IS to the lens, but that is now found on budget lenses too. Examples: EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

The top of the range are the L-series, which give optimum optical quality, large apertures (f/1.2 for primes, constant f/2.8 for zooms) and very rugged build quality. You also get the full ring-USM focusing in most (all?) cases. Examples: EF 50mm f/1.4L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

The kit-lens which comes with the 450D is fine, as long as you accept that it's slow to focus and won't be very good for low-light photography. If you primarily shoot landscapes, it's fine. It's only when you need to do something your current lens doesn't do that you should upgrade.

I've had a 400D for a couple of years now, and I'm reasonably happy with it. The new 7D would be ideal for me, but I can't justify the cost yet.

The buffer will fill up if the camera is capturing data faster than it can be written to the memory card. At that point, the camera will stop taking photos until enough of the buffer has been dumped to the card that it can fit in one more photo. On my 400D in RAW with a Sandisk Extreme III CF card, I can shoot 9 images in a burst before the buffer fills up. At that point, it starts taking shots about once every 2 seconds. It's a good 20 seconds or so before the buffer is completely empty again.

The f/# number you see on lens descriptions is the maximum aperture of the lens. It's the size of the hole through which the light travels to the sensor. A larger hole means more light, and a shallower depth of field. Smaller f/ numbers are larger apertures. If you see a lens specified like EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, that means that it's f/3.5 at 18mm which changes to f/5.6 at 55mm. If you zoom to, say, 30mm, you'll probably get f/4. You can always choose a smaller aperture (f/8, f/11, etc...) if you want, but those will be the largest you can get with that lens.

Hopefully that explains some of it :)

[McBeck]

Thanks a bunch John, that's great info.

I'll start shooting questions then: that buffer running full, does it empty itself after not taking shots for a few minutes/seconds? Or how else do you get the camera back up to speed again?

And what does 'low F is 3.5 quickly moves to 5.6' and 'Light 'sensitive with F2.8' mean? I guess I just need to know what the 'F' stands for.

With regard to the lenses I think I read that you suggest sticking with the default lens until I grow out of it. Oh, and not get a Canon L series until I know for 110% sure that the reason the picture wasn't what I needed it to was not my own fault. Check.
OK.

F number refers to the apeture. Its the size of the whole the lens makes to the senor in the camerabody.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

A small hole will let in little light, but give you great depth of field(DOF).
Thats a high F number. See pic below:
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs47/o/2009/205/7/5/75dc6b24565b77ca1e08e54e41d110fa.jpg

A big hole will let in alot of light, but give you a short DOF.
Thats a low F number. See pic below:
http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs49/o/2009/205/a/b/ab3d062d3b1afef5eb2cf215057501ba.jpg

So if you apply that to what I wrote it means that a lens which has 5.6 as the lowest F number, it means that its not light sensitive.

So why is it important how much light is let in?
In order for the sensor to capture a photo it needs a certain amount of light. How much light it gets depends on 3 things:
1) Aperture
2) Shutterspeed (How long the sensor receives light from the lens. If the speed is too slow you will get camera shake and thus blurry picures)
3) ISO (How sensitive the sensor is. The more sensitive it needs to be, the more noise it will generate - Low is better)

This pic was taken with a shutterspeed of 30 seconds (on a tripod):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3391983334_d4cb1903a2_b.jpg

This pic was taken with a shutterspeed of 1/200 of a second:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3458/3401145867_c0b3992586_b.jpg

The lens I use can go from 2.8-22 through the entire zoom range. It does not matter if im at 18mm or 50mm.
The kit lens starts at 3.5 at 18mm, but you only need to zoom a little bit and it will go to 4.5 as the lowest F.

In regards to the buffer. Its inside the camera and its a fast memory thats used to store data untill its transfered to the mem card. The buffer will continue to be emptied into the mem card, but in the XXXD series the mem interface cant keep up with the buffer. The slowdown will only be for some seconds untill the buffer data is moved to the mem card.

As far as lenses I would suggest you think hard about what you need. Some people can live with the kit lens for some time.
I went straight for the Sigma lens, because I knew I would be limited too much by the kit lens.

What will you use the camera for? What scenarios?

Have you looked at my portfolio?

[McBeck]

I'm going to disagree slightly with McBeck's explanation of Canon's lens range.
Canon has a very wide range of lenses, with plenty in-between the budget lenses and the L-series lenses. In my experience, there are usually three choices with Canon lenses; budget, medium, and L-series.

The budget lenses are very cheap, but still produce good quality images if you understand the limitations of the lens. Usually they will have small maximum apertures (f/4 to f/5.6) and slower focusing (the old arc-form drive or micro-motor focusing). Examples: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

The next step-up usually gives faster focusing (using either of Canon's USM focus motors), but keeps the small apertures. Historically it also added things like IS to the lens, but that is now found on budget lenses too. Examples: EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

The top of the range are the L-series, which give optimum optical quality, large apertures (f/1.2 for primes, constant f/2.8 for zooms) and very rugged build quality. You also get the full ring-USM focusing in most (all?) cases. Examples: EF 50mm f/1.4L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

The kit-lens which comes with the 450D is fine, as long as you accept that it's slow to focus and won't be very good for low-light photography. If you primarily shoot landscapes, it's fine. It's only when you need to do something your current lens doesn't do that you should upgrade.

I've had a 400D for a couple of years now, and I'm reasonably happy with it. The new 7D would be ideal for me, but I can't justify the cost yet.

The buffer will fill up if the camera is capturing data faster than it can be written to the memory card. At that point, the camera will stop taking photos until enough of the buffer has been dumped to the card that it can fit in one more photo. On my 400D in RAW with a Sandisk Extreme III CF card, I can shoot 9 images in a burst before the buffer fills up. At that point, it starts taking shots about once every 2 seconds. It's a good 20 seconds or so before the buffer is completely empty again.

The f/# number you see on lens descriptions is the maximum aperture of the lens. It's the size of the hole through which the light travels to the sensor. A larger hole means more light, and a shallower depth of field. Smaller f/ numbers are larger apertures. If you see a lens specified like EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, that means that it's f/3.5 at 18mm which changes to f/5.6 at 55mm. If you zoom to, say, 30mm, you'll probably get f/4. You can always choose a smaller aperture (f/8, f/11, etc...) if you want, but those will be the largest you can get with that lens.

Hopefully that explains some of it :)
Good comments too. I have though not found any canon lenses (yet) in the mid range that can match the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 or 70-200 F2.8.
Have you? I can only find canon lenses thats either 3.5-5.6 or highend(L)

[Fish]

Nikon Coolpix P90.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/coolpix/p90/index.htm

[Carotio]

Okay, I'm going to give a slightly less technical answer here... and a bit provocative. :D

The real camera resides inbetween your ears, meaning that if what you see with your eyes cannot produce a good photo with just about any equipment, you may have in your hands, you're lost.

I remember I once saw a documentary about a fashion photographer, and when the model saw that he was using a small compact camera, she thought he was teasing her, but THAT was his work camera. And he did make some good shots of her.

So the most expensive camera is not necessarily what will make you happy. Decide how much money you're willing or capable to pay, and then research which options you have.
I'm happy with my Sony DSLR camera, but sometimes it's too big to bring for example going to a party, so I just use my phone camera, which is good enough for that purpose.

Now you said fast moving objects, and like others allready pointed out: a digital SLR where you have the option of exchanging the lenses.
IMHO the manufacturer name ain't the most important. If you have the option then try a photo store and ask for permission to try out some different cameras with different lenses. Ultimately, you will have to make the decision, which camera it's going to be anyhow...

Most great manufacturs have a variety of extra lenses to purchase afterwards. Check those options first. The kit lenses which you can buy together with the camera house may not be the prime lenses, but they do work as a start, and you can then slowly expand the equipment with extra lenses over time. A good lens provides a big aperture (low number like 1.8), kit lenses are often at 3.5 to 5.6 for a 24-70mm zoom. If the focal length is fixed to something like 100mm, it works better with the light available, and the lens is as such then faster working.

[XabbaRus]

Nikon Coolpix P90.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/coolpix/p90/index.htm

Ditto, a good camera lots of functions and not too bad on the pocket,

[Von Hinten]

Yeah, I've already kind of, as good as, decided that a DSLR will be the way to go for me and am currently trying to determine on how much it can cost me. With what I've read here and elsewhere on the net it's very likely that I'll end up with the 450 but who knows. I can be a bit indecisive with things like these.

[McBeck]

Yeah, I've already kind of, as good as, decided that a DSLR will be the way to go for me and am currently trying to determine on how much it can cost me. With what I've read here and elsewhere on the net it's very likely that I'll end up with the 450 but who knows. I can be a bit indecisive with things like these.
I hope you figure out what is the best solution. And Lars has a point. You can take great pictures with a P&S. Just remember that they have some shortcommings.

[McBeck]

Check out www.dpreview.com

Its has tons of reviews and a forum where the questions have been discussed several times :)

[Von Hinten]

Thanks!

Note to self: do more reading! :salute: