posted
I always said I'd buy a digital camera once printing technology became such that you could get the same quality prints from digital as you could from film, at the same cost. That time has now come.
I want a high-quality camera, somewhere in the $250-400 range. So far, I like the Kodak EasyShare DX7590, if only for the 10X optical zoom lens and the cool dock thingy, but the Nikkon CoolPix 4800 (where do they come up with these names) is a close second. I'm open to any other suggestions.
I also have a few questions:
1. Is there really that much difference between 5 megapixels and 7 megapixels when it comes to creating prints no bigger than 8 x 10? I suspect that when you get to that high, more megapixels is something the camera companies add to give you better perceived value.
2. Does autofocus work? None of the cameras I've looked at have manual focus options, which bothers me more than a little bit.
3. Are there any cameras within my price range that allow you to interchange lenses (wide-angle, fish eye, telescope zoom, etc.)?
I'll post more questions as I think about them.
[ June 12, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a firm fan of Canon's digital cameras, they have superior optics, construction, and controls, in my experience.
There is no functional difference between 5MP and 7MP, the quality of glass will make a far greater difference.
Autofocus is fine, my canon A80 nicely shows you what its focusing on with little boxes, and its easy to focus on something and then alter your framing as desired.
No, there are no cameras with exchangable lenses in your price range, not exactly. My A80 (for example) does have a few lens attachments that go over the built in lens, and can do everything you list.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooh, the lens attachment thing seems nifty. How exactly does it work? Are the attachments expensive?
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you really want a camera with lots of zoom I have read very good reviews of the Panasonic Lumix. While the printer dock for the Kodak is pretty cool I'd look for a camera with quality anti-shake built in. The longer your zoom the more you will appreciate anti-shake technology.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The CoolPix has a low enough rating I would just avoid it. The Kodak appears well reviewed, though with some sharpness issues due to the lens and overall low resolution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got the same camera that fugu has and I've got an add-on 8x telephoto lens for it. You'll have to buy an adapter for the specific lens that you want to use. My total outlay for the adapter and the 8x lens was about 200 dollars.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I haven't actually gotten any of the lens attachments, haven't needed them, but its pretty simple. They're not terribly expensive, but not terribly cheap either. For Canon's two (the wide angle and telephoto) you buy a cheap generic mount that can fix around the lens ( http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNLADC52D ) and then either or both of the attachments, which are like $80 to $100. I believe there are several third party attachments as well.
The current successor to the A80 is the A95, and it accepts all the same lens extension accessories.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're buying a Kodak, look for the version that use Lithium-Ion batteries and have Schneider lenses. The other versions, with just a Kodak lens, are pretty worthless.
Panasonic Lumix cameras can be great, but I think they run on AA batteries, and battery life will be an issue for you. (Or not, if you don't need long battery life.)
Nikon Coolpix cameras are actually quite good, except for a couple minor problems: battery life and low-light functionality.
Canon cameras will usually be priced $50-$100 more, compared to the Nikon versions. Why? With fundamentally the same features, you get a better camera. Straight up. You will get what you pay for, more or less.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Panasonic Lumix cameras can be great, but I think they run on AA batteries, and battery life will be an issue for you. (Or not, if you don't need long battery life.)
From the dpreview of the Lumix:
quote:The FZ3 is powered by a Lithium Ion pack that sits beside the SD card slot under a sturdy spring-hinged cover. The battery pack has a retaining clip, so there is no chance of it falling out when changing cards. We found battery life to be very good for a camera with an EVF and large lens - Panasonic quotes a 260 shot/240 minute per charge figure (CIPA standard) - we'll publish our own results when we've tested battery life. The charging time is approx. two hours.
2. How does the 12X Leica lens on the Panasonic compare to the 10X Schneider lens on the Kodak?
I'd rather go with a name brand like Canon, but I can't find anything in between lower-end point-and-shoot and higher-end SLRs. Are there any sites where I can compare cameras based on specs? The compare tool on DP Review's site doesn't work.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've found some info on the image stabilization from dcresource.
Here is a snippet,
quote: The FZ5's lens is not quite as impressive as the one on the FZ3, but it's still better than virtually every other ultra zoom lens on the market. The old lens had a maximum aperture F2.8 across the board, no matter what the focal length. That's changed on the FZ4/FZ5, presumably due to the larger CCD that it uses (1/2.5" versus 1/3.2" on the old model) -- the aperture range is now F2.8 - F3.3, which is still very good. One thing that hasn't changed is the total zoom power: 12X. On the FZ5 the focal length is 6 - 72 mm, which is equivalent to 36 - 432 mm.
The FZ5 has the same optical image stabilizer as the other cameras in the series. Here are two examples of why you want this feature. Ever taken a indoor photo without flash, only to be disappointed when its blurry? Or what about when you're taking a picture near the telephoto end of the lens and the photo is blurry, despite a fast shutter speed? The OIS system can help.
Sensors in the camera detect this motion and an element in the lens is shifted to compensate for the shake. This lets you use shutter speeds 3-4 stops slower than what you can use on an unstabilized camera. For example, a 1/30 sec shutter speed will result in a blurry photos for most people (unless you have hands of stone), but with image stabilization you'll most likely get a nice, sharp photo. In actuality you can shoot even slower, as this sample illustrates:
I can't answer the lens question but I can tell you that I've been quite pleased with my Canon. I can tell you the 4 megapixels is more than enough for an 8 by 10 unless you are going to be cropping and enlarging.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a Fuji digital that I really like, especially since it has the feel and layout of a classic 35mm SLR.
When buying, always make sure that the zoom is mainly on the optical side (ours is 10x optical, 2x electronic). And look for a glass lens rather than plastic.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just bought the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 from ibuyDigital.com. I think the kicker for me was the fact that it has a manual focus option, a hot shoe for external flash, and lots more versatility and higher quality shots than any other similarly-priced camera on the market.
Total cost, including 3 day shipping (no tax), spare battery, and SD card reader was $530 bucks. Not bad, considering MSRP for the camera alone is $599. Of course, I spent more than I intended, but I figured it was worth the extra $150 bucks and get the camera I really wanted, instead of buying a cheaper model and regretting the decision later.
I'm really stoked about this camera! It should be here by Friday, and I can't wait!
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Excellent choice Brian! Don't forget to share some of your fun with us.
I agree! I've had it for 3 days and I must say my camera is absolutely awesome! Here are some of my very first pics, posted on the dpreview.com web forum.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beautiful pictures Brian. I've recently been researching digital cameras. I just showed my husband the pictures you took. I'd love to purchase a camera that takes beautiful pictures like that.
Unfortunately he told me that we don't have $600 for a camera right now. He's right. We can spend around $300.
The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is the little brother of the FZ20. It has almost the exact same features on the inside, with the difference of no hot shoe for an external flash, and no manual focus capabilities, plus a few other very minor differences. I almost bought it but really wanted the external flash.
It retails for slightly under $400. Maybe you can save up money for a few months until you can buy it? It will be well worth it, and it may drop in price by then as well so you can get an extra battery or SD card. The 12x optical zoom lens alone is worth the price of the camera. That, along with the unmatched image stabilization software, incredible pics, manual white balance (very useful,) and an endless list of other features you won't get from any other brand.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm telling you, as a camera salesman, it's hard to go wrong with a Panasonic Lumix. Especially the ones with the extra zoom and image stabilizer.
Btw, Punwit, Panasonic does make a couple Lumix cameras that use "AA" batteries. So does Nikon, Kodak, etc. Ya kinda get what ya pay for.
Good choice, Brian! I know you'll enjoy it.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is the little brother of the FZ20. It has almost the exact same features on the inside, with the difference of no hot shoe for an external flash, and no manual focus capabilities, plus a few other very minor differences. I almost bought it but really wanted the external flash.
No manual focus capabilities? Does that mean I wouldn't be able to focus in and get the detail that you're getting with your camera. I know I sound like a complete innocent here. I am.
I want the clarity and detail you're getting. Would I be able to get that with automatic focusing?
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I want the clarity and detail you're getting. Would I be able to get that with automatic focusing?
Yes. All of the pics I posted were using the autofocus, which is pretty versatile. The flowers were taken using the macro mode, which allows you to put the lens about 3 cm from the subject. Very handy.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
p.s. don't worry about feeling like "a complete innocent." I still am. I would heartily suggest dpreview.com and dcresource.com, as well as the dpreview forum. Thats where I got most of my info. I was really worried about the auto focus too, but I'm blown away by what this camera can do (so much that I've taken almost 300 pictures so far )
p.p.s. Thanks for the imput Stormy. Feel free to offer any feedback/helpful criticism about my pics. The same goes for punwit and any other photo people on Hatrack. I need all the help I can get.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian, do you have Photoshop? If you want some help, I can help, but you have to be open to criticism. Don't worry, I'm nice.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as long as you promise to be nice . . . really, I would really like the help, and am open to criticism. I don't have photoshop on my home computer, but I live about 10 minutes from campus which has photoshop on like 90% of the machines.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tammy, right now I have a canon digital rebel.
Brian, one thing is that your pics are flat. Composition is pretty good, especially for your first pics without a point and shoot disposable camera. Since you haven't done much photography and you seem to want to get into it, I'd suggest picking up a basic photography book so you can learn about film speed (ISO, which you can still control on a digital), shutter speed, aperture (depth of field), lighting, etc.
You can adjust the flatness of your pics by adjusting the levels in photoshop. It's basically digital darkroom work, doing stuff in photoshop that you'd do in the darkroom if you were working on film. What can also make images "pop" more is using light to your advantage. Light gives photos highlights, midtones, and shadows. If the light is the same across the board on the photograph, then everything is midtone, making it flat.
Overall, good start.
I made individual notes and showed you adjustments here. I can take that album down whenever you say if it's a problem. If not, I can give you the album to keep using to upload and display your photos.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mack, Thanks a million! I sent you an email with some questions. Reply whenever. I'm in no hurry.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Thanks.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
