Need help deciding on new camera

[dizneegirls]

I am thinking about getting a dslr camera, can anyone tell me if the dslr is really better than a regular digital? If so, what would be the best for under $1000? Also thought about getting a new camcorder since they make them now that you can take pictures with too. Do the photos actually turn out clear when taken with a camcorder? Thanks in advance for all advice

 

[captaincrash]

May I suggest you take a glance below at the other threads? Several of them talk about various aspects of your question. In fact - one just a couple dozen lines below this one had asked "D50, D70s or Canon 350" and I posted a lengthy "inital response. I copied my response ere for your convenience... but you should take a glance to see what folks are saying and rebutting with...

Well...

.... needless to say, but you're on a journey where you'll probably ask (eventually) every question in the "the book". So - with that in mind I'll not attempt to go much beyond the initial scope of your queries...

.... on equipment... the first consideration is that Canon currently has 60%+ of the DSLR market share. That translates into Canon having sold more DSLRs annually then all other manufacturers COMBINED. Further explanation may NOT need recanting - that said. But I will go ahead and offer that Canon seems to have been 1st to market with the image sensors producing the CLEANEST images combined with the most powerful sensitivity levels. IE, highest ISO levels WITH super clean images. BUT, that alone is not enough. Canon evolved effective image processing ICs. These components seem to be exclusive to Canon - as opposed to other companies who have purchased their components from one another to achieve competitive economies of scale in a timely fasshion. Technology advances quickly in the market-place. AND - since Canon has the edge in volume and technology - that gave them the edge in price... IMHO.

Now - on the price thing - some would argue ... so WHERE is the price advantage for us consumers? Well... Canon has a huge R&D committment. I can't quote numbers - but I read recently of what they're doing and it seems to me they are geared to compete against the entire industry to maintain their edges.

Another arguable area of strength - their lense arsenal. The adage that all the lense barrels at professionally shot public events are shot with the white barreled lenses of canon - seems true. Professionals choose Canon because Canon lenses seem to exhibit more advanced designs and lense compositions. Also, their designs have a reputation for delivering "the goods" in sometimes difficult conditions. Of course... I am not a true professional... nor does anyone have to be one to offer a qualified opinion.

From where I sit - Canon OR NIkon would give excellent images with all the creative pleasure conceivable... up to 11x14 or slightly larger prints. Of course, I used to print larger sizes with less than half the pixels (3.1MP) and I was happy. Just goes to show ignorance is bliss!

So - I think the Nikon will FEEL and HANDLE better initially. But after slight consideration you might notice the Nikons have slightly slower and less sophisticated focusing systems. Plaso, Nikon does not make a fulll frame sensor DSLR... Canon sells 2! Plus - they make and sell a mid sized sensor DSLR specialized for rapid bursts for professionals or advanced amaturs.

As for the glass... I used to be a NIKON SNOB - but now I'm a quiet Canon enthusiast. I would be pleased if Nikon were more competitive - but it is off a fraction of a notch... and will stay that way until something dramatic happens.

I think the 350 is undersized for my hands. It may be very conmfortable for you though. It is a ton of DSLR for the money though. AND, I don't like the cheap mode dial on it.... it drives me nuts and I could not buy it.

Another final comment than I have to go... my daughter has her 1st swim meet today and I am the volunteer team photographer! And that is... the 350XT may be on the cusp of being replaced by a new model. Canon seems to replace their models every 18-20 months like clock work. SO - it this occurs you might want to wait for the next model to get the "improvements" or get a bigger discount on a recently discontinued model that used to be the "best in it's class". I use an old 10D that uised to be the best in its' class too... and I am supremely happy with it.

Hope this helps... if you could volunteer more about your skill level and ambitions/needs than perhaps you'll get useful and focused answers (unlike my general dribble here).

 

[WillCAD]

I can't address any of your camcorder questions, but I can take a whack at the SLR vs P&S question.

*DSLRs mostly use sensors called APS-C, which means they are the same physical size as a frame of APS film. Most P&S digitals use sensors that are physically smaller; even when they have the same megapixels, the DSLR sensors tend to capture the image better.

*DSLRs have interchangable lenses. You can start with a kit lens and later buy an additional lens (or 2, or 50) that give you wider wides, longer zooms, better glass, wider apertures, or fancy features like image stabilization.

*DSLRs have virtually no shutter lag - pre-focus, press the button, and POOF! Your picture is snapped, instantly.

*Low to mid-range DSLRs come with hot shoes for attaching external flash units (high-end DSLRs have cable ports for pro external flashes). Most P&S digitals don't have hot shoes. External flashes give you more flash power, run off their own batteries instead of the cameras, and often have infrared focus-assist lights that help the camera focus in much darker situations than the built-in focus-assist lights. They also place the flash higher off the lens, reducing red-eye.

*DSLRs are mostly built heavier, stronger, and more durable than P&S digitals (not always, it depends on the camera makes and models, but mostly).

*DSLRs usually have modes, features, controls, and capabilities that most P&S digitals don't, including higher ISO, less noise at high ISO, faster shutter speeds for action shots, slower shutter speeds for long exposures, RAW shooting capability, and a few more things.

*DSLR viewfinders look through the actual lens; P&S digitals often don't.

*You can often get remote shutter releases for DSLRs, but not for P&S digitals. These are good for tripod shots, when pressing the shutter button would shake the camera and blur the image.

*DSLRs are bigger and heaver than P&S digitals. This helps you to steady the camera for a better shot, but also means you have more weight to carry.

*DSLRs have a steeper learning curve than most P&S digitals. However, that's because they have more options, more flexibility, and more capabilities.

In short, for $1000 you can get an excellent consumer-grade DSLR like a Canon Digital Rebel XT, with either the kit lens or an upgrade like the popular Sigma 18-125. This setup would grow with you, expand as you learn more about photography, and help you to learn the basics of composition and exposure - and could last you 5-10 years.

Or for $1000 you could buy 2 or 3 P&S digitals that won't do half of what the DLSR would do, and can't grow or expand, making it very possible that you could out grow them in a year or two and want to buy a new camera once again.

 

[YEKCIM]

Since you asked, here are a couple of shots made with my Canon Optura 30 camcorder, which also takes 2 MP stills:

~YEKCIM

 

[Kelly Grannell]

for camcorder information, please refer to my sticky. It may help you to jumpstart your search. For tips, tricks, pointers related to dSLR and photography in general, please visit my my photography blog (address can be found on my sig).

 

[Charade]

Since you asked, here are a couple of shots made with my Canon Optura 30 camcorder, which also takes 2 MP stills:



~YEKCIM

Those are pretty good. A friend of mine (a couple of years ago) bought a Canon camcorder because it also took stills. He was very disappointed. Glad to see they've made improvements.

 

[captaincrash]

Keep in mind that for any viewing on the internet or a computer screen (without cropping or magnification) - at SVGA resolution you only output 0.75 MP ... (am I right folks?)... so a 2 MP camera will look pretty good. Now - can you print this beyond 8x10? Hmmm....

So it depends on your needs and production standards.

 

[YEKCIM]

Now - can you print this beyond 8x10? Hmmm....

Cap'n:

Have not tried printing anything larger than 8X10, but 8X10's look pretty good to me. In any case, I won't be using the still imager on the 'corder much in the future, as I now have a 5MP still camera. REALLY drooling and REALLY fighting temptation concerning the Pentax DL. Can get body, kit lens, and 50-200 for around $540 after rebates...

~YEKCIM

 

[spoon2003]

Cap'n:

Have not tried printing anything larger than 8X10, but 8X10's look pretty good to me. In any case, I won't be using the still imager on the 'corder much in the future, as I now have a 5MP still camera. REALLY drooling and REALLY fighting temptation concerning the Pentax DL. Can get body, kit lens, and 50-200 for around $540 after rebates...

~YEKCIM

Sell your Fuji S5200 and use $$ towards the Pentax!! I sold my Fuji S7000, 2 smaller CF cards, 2 Hoya filters and a wide filter for about $100 less than what I paid in 2004.

As for the Mrs. Tell her pictures of her from Pentax will look much better, younger, less lines, etc...

Sue

 

[Charade]

As for the Mrs. Tell her pictures of her from Pentax will look much better, younger, less lines, etc...

Sue

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I'll throw in Kodak GEM Brush to help the cause! (it's great to get rid of skin imperfection without affecting the overall sharpness of the picture)

 

[captaincrash]

Cap'n:

Have not tried printing anything larger than 8X10, but 8X10's look pretty good to me. In any case, I won't be using the still imager on the 'corder much in the future, as I now have a 5MP still camera. REALLY drooling and REALLY fighting temptation concerning the Pentax DL. Can get body, kit lens, and 50-200 for around $540 after rebates...

~YEKCIM

Yeah... I know....

I still have a 3MP digicam that makes (what I think) are grea 12x18 prints fro Costco for $2.99! I imagine some accomplished, possibly experienced (and justified?) digiphotographers would sneer at my use of a 6 year old pocket 3MP digicam for 12x18s at 3 bucks a pop.

I would like to learn what to look for in an image - and by thunder I do see a lot of what is better in a 6MP versus a 3MP versus 1.25MP. The 3 s8izes of digicam I've used to any extent. BUT what I never figured out entirely was this LPI resolution thing versus the dpi of a sensor. I used to think tyhe bayer matrix (blue/red/double green sensor point configuration) meant a cluster of 4 pixels meant 4MP of a sensor outputted a 1MP full color image. SO.... a 12MP sensor would yield a 3MP color image on paper. SO - if that is the case why do my 3.3MP enlargements look so good at 12x18???

Ah-HA! It is because my previous assumptions were.... TOTALLY WRONG and SHEER FANTASY (or dopy delusion... ). I said it myself. SAve your keystroking folks. I get to wack myself this time.

I admit to being mildly uncertain about the sensor point to continuious tone resolution of a print traslation ratio. AND more simply... what do we need in a sensor to achieve a matching maximum resolution on a print - and don't just say it's 6MP for a certain size. Explain a little bit so a chimpanzee with a point and shoot (like me - sometimes - yeah - I use a 10D as a point and shoot) can understand it - and limit yourself to 2 paragraphs and 1 image if at all possible.

Thank You!