In The Market For A Digital Camera

[|Zach|]

I have been taking some classes and am getting into photography. I really enjoy it.

I think I am going to look into getting a new camera for myself this fall. Any reccomendations? I don't need anything crazy but I am looking for a good camera for someone that is not a pro but is looking to get serious about thier pictures.

Any ideas?

[keg in kc]

And so begins young zach's odyssey into the wonderful world of amateur smut.

[|Zach|]

And so begins young zach's odyssey into the wonderful world of amateur smut.
Hell ya.

http://www.cgtv.com/entertainment/features/images/cheese.jpg

[Hammock Parties]

I have this camera and love it. The only thing I don't like about it is the zoom doesn't go too far but otherwise it's great. If you don't need a long zoom, check it out.

http://www.tsms.ru/pictures/casio/large/casio-qv-r51-front.jpg

[Mr. Kotter]

I've mentioned it before: Sony Mavica....if you don't mind "bigger."

[Fire Me Boy!]

Price range?

Under $1,000, I really like the Canon Digital Rebels. $1,000-$2,000, Canon 20D.

I'd REALLY suggest you go with an SLR, not matter what you do. I'm a huge fan of Canon's lenses, which is why I go Canon... I think they make better glass than Nikon, but it really boils down to what you like. FWIW, I converted a die-hard Nikon guy not too long ago by getting him to consistently use a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L Series lens for about a month... after that time he was sold. He's still a Nikon guy (that's all this own equipment), but he's not ANTI-Canon anymore.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I'll repeat... if you're serious about photography, even as a "serious" amateur, go with an SLR camera -- that's a camera with interchangeable lenses. They're more expensive, but plainly... they're better. Lots... lots... better.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Whatever you do... do NOT buy a camera that's not made by a camera maker, and don't be fooled by megapixels. It doesn't matter how many thousands of pixels are in the photo if you're using shitty glass. The bottom line is photography is all about bending light and if you're bending light through a shitty piece of glass or, GASP!, plastic you're not going to get a good picture. Basically what I'm saying is, "Hewlett Packard (or other non-camera brand) makes a damn fine printer. Stay away from their cameras."

[|Zach|]

My teacher has told me how over rate megapixel info is.

[Miles]

http://www.dpreview.com/

I was helping someone else research them this summer and these two got great reviews.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/

[|Zach|]

For the semester they gave me a Nikon Coolpix 4300 which is ok but not great. Its cool getting to use it for free. Even though its not a great camera I have liked the results so I am looking to jump in when I have to give it back.

I appreiciate the info so far.

[Fire Me Boy!]

A MAJOR issue would be what you're wanting to shoot. If you have ANY interest at all in shooting sports, stay away from the point and shoot cameras. There's a lag time that is killer.

[NewChief]

As Fire Me Boy said, go with an SLR if you're really wanting to get serious about photography. The abiliity to switch to different lenses, depending on what you're shooting, is essential.

Like he said, the Rebel is sort of the standard piece of equipment for people getting into photography. It's what most newspaper, yearbook, and photography classes use for their students because they're extremely durable and take great pictures.

[Lbedrock1]

I have been taking some classes and am getting into photography. I really enjoy it.

I think I am going to look into getting a new camera for myself this fall. Any reccomendations? I don't need anything crazy but I am looking for a good camera for someone that is not a pro but is looking to get serious about thier pictures.

Any ideas?
I have just turned into a small business doing weddings, parties, portraits and more. If you are going to be real serious with it then I would suggest a SLR. I have a canon rebel and Im looking to get the Rebel xt 8 mega pixel.

[Lbedrock1]

My teacher has told me how over rate megapixel info is.
If you will be printing a small photo like 8X10 or smaller then 3-4 megapixel will do but if you plan to print anything larger than that be safe and go with the larger format camera because it will give you room to expand.

[penguinz]

I would recommend either the Nikon D70 or the D50.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2

I know some people who have used both the Canon Rebels and the Nikon D50's and they liked the Nikon much better.

[kc-nd]

I use a Nikon D70 at work - it is awesome.

Two big advantages of a DSLR.

1. The shutter takes a photo right away when you press it. Often, there is a delay with a point-and-shoot, and that is frustrating if you are trying to capture photos with movement.

2. I understand that the sensor is larger on a DSLR than on a point-and-shoot, and so you get much better quality.

Just my two cents.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I'm guessing this won't cut it for you?
http://www.kameraschaetze.de/images/Kamera/Polaroid_1000SC.jpg

[StcChief]

I have an Olympus 3.3 MPixel. Need that size at least if you want blow up non-grainy 8 by 10 pic.

Get one with a good glass lense.

Mine is several years old now.

Big enough to hold on to as well.


I have some pictures taken with it posted at home opener. In picture thread. these were scaled down for planet requirements.

[Gaz]

Tons of reviews here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

xoxo~
Gaz
Researching fool.

[Gaz]

If you are thinking about getting serious, you want manual control of the aperture, shutter speed, focus, so forth. Make sure the manual controls are actual dials on the body of the camera, rather than imbedded in menus.

I know nothing about aperture, shutter speed, focus, so forth. However, Mrs. Gaz has been shopping for an “advanced amateur” digital camera for a while now. We have a nice Sony, but the manual controls are menu-driven and she says that is a hassle.

xoxo~
Gaz
More of a point & shoot kinda guy.

[Otter]

Gaz is correct about the manual controls, I can also add that you'll want good black & white quality for 'serious' photography.

I own a Sony DSC-717 and have absolutly nothing bad to say about the camera. However, I've heard horror stories about Sony customer service when it comes time to draw on the warranty, never had to deal with them (knocks on wood) myself.

Decent review on it: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_f717-review/

Even if it's not the same camera you want I may be able to help ya out with questions on usefull and useless features, accessories, options and stuff like that.

http://image.pcbee.co.kr/images/review/enter/t_sony717_perspview.JPG

[Fire Me Boy!]

I'd call you a PhD camera guy... that's Push here Dummy camera.

Seriously, though... Gaz is right. If you want to do ANYTHING with a camera you want complete manual control of everything and you do NOT want it in menus.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Being a camera guy myself, I'd once again suggest you stay away from a non-camera brand. Sony makes a damn fine TV, but I'd stick with the big two on cameras -- Canon or Nikon.

[the Talking Can]

you can get film-based SLRs off ebay with excellent lenses for $20-$100....no point in dropping $1000 if you're a beginner...but I still prefer film and love all the cheap lenses (but high quality)..to each his own

I use a 30 year old Mamiya SLR I bought for $25....love it....got a medium format Yashica, top down view finder etc....$70

[redbrian]

I'd call you a PhD camera guy... that's Push here Dummy camera.

Seriously, though... Gaz is right. If you want to do ANYTHING with a camera you want complete manual control of everything and you do NOT want it in menus.

Which begs the point why can't they make a digital slr without the damn lcd?

[Fire Me Boy!]

Which begs the point why can't they make a digital slr without the damn lcd?
Actually, most of the SLR digitals don't use the LCD for the viewfinder. All of the SLRs mentioned thus far (the Canon Rebel, the Nikon D70, etc.) all use a traditional viewfinder to take the picture, then use the LCD for the picture preview.

[NewChief]

you can get film-based SLRs off ebay with excellent lenses for $20-$100....no point in dropping $1000 if you're a beginner...but I still prefer film and love all the cheap lenses (but high quality)..to each his own

I use a 30 year old Mamiya SLR I bought for $25....love it....got a medium format Yashica, top down view finder etc....$70


Very true. And if you're wanting to work with the images digitally, Wal-Mart (or anywhere, I imagine) can dispense with making prints for you and just develop your film and digitize it onto a CD for you for much cheaper than getting prints done.

[Fire Me Boy!]

you can get film-based SLRs off ebay with excellent lenses for $20-$100....no point in dropping $1000 if you're a beginner...but I still prefer film and love all the cheap lenses (but high quality)..to each his own.
While you're right that there a lot of damn fine cameras available for under $1,000... I'd argue that you can get an "excellent" lens for $20-$100. $100 would be cheap for an excellent lens. I got an "excellent" 70-200 L series for more than the camera cost, right around $1,300. "Excellent" lenses are NOT cheap. You can get an adequate lens for that $20-$100 range, but not excellent.

[the Talking Can]

While you're right that there a lot of damn fine cameras available for under $1,000... I'd argue that you can get an "excellent" lens for $20-$100. $100 would be cheap for an excellent lens. I got an "excellent" 70-200 L series for more than the camera cost, right around $1,300. "Excellent" lenses are NOT cheap. You can get an adequate lens for that $20-$100 range, but not excellent.

sure...you can spend a shit load...i guess i assumed that went without saying...unless you shooting for your own income, or are just a photo snob, you don't need a Hasslebad and $1000 lenses....like I said, to each his own....you can sure as hell take good photos without "excellent" lenses....

[Fire Me Boy!]

sure...you can spend a shit load...i guess i assumed that went without saying...unless you shooting for your own income, or are just a photo snob, you don't need a Hasslebad and $1000 lenses....like I said, to each his own....you can sure as hell take good photos without "excellent" lenses....
You're 100% correct that you can take good photos without "excellenet" lenses... I was just arguing that you could get "excellent lenses" for $20-$100.

You're cool, no worries! :thumb:

[COchief]

Well I will give some input here, even though you needed to be way more specific in what you are looking for.

DSLR's 650-1000:
Canon Rebel: plastic fisher price toy, cheaply made but being bought up by people who get suckered by marketing and big names.
Nikon D50/70: good camera but has been locking up. Nikon will repair it for free, but I still wouldn't buy anything expecting it to malfunction.
Olympus: complete garbage, any honest photo retailer will tell you to never ever purchase anything they make.
Kodak: complete garbage and will be lucky to survive the next few years.
Konica Minolta: I know they are struggling don't know much about their products though.
Sony: TV maker, not a camera company. Terrible service.
My recommendation if you are looking to get into Dslrs for very cheap is a Pentax ist DS, you can get one new with a kit lens 18-55 for about 650.00. It will fit any Pentax lens ever made...which means you get get great used glass for cheap. It is often overlooked because it is a smaller company but is worth looking into.

If you post your price range and what you are looking for you will get much better advice.
Cheers and have fun.

[Rain Man]

I love my Olympus. It's reliable, easy to use, and the batteries last forever.

[ChiefsOne]

Canon Rebel: plastic fisher price toy, cheaply made but being bought up by people who get suckered by marketing and big names.

BS, The Rebel (official camera of the NFL) is the best for the camera for the price for $799.00 - 6MP. It is what we use at work quite a bit and works great never had any problems and not cheaply made by any means.

The Canon XT is the the new version for $999.00 - 8MP.

[Fire Me Boy!]

BS, The Rebel (official camera of the NFL) is the best for the camera for the price for $799.00 - 6MP. It is what we use at work quite a bit and works great never had any problems and not cheaply made by any means.

The Canon XT is the the new version for $999.00 - 8MP.
I totally agree. The news department uses two of them and has had no problems and gets great quality. For sports, I use the 20D with a couple of the L-series lenses, but I've used the Rebels quite a lot. It's definitely a solid choice.

[gblowfish]

For the semester they gave me a Nikon Coolpix 4300 which is ok but not great. Its cool getting to use it for free. Even though its not a great camera I have liked the results so I am looking to jump in when I have to give it back.

I appreiciate the info so far.I own an Nikon Coolpix 4300. For basic stuff it's great. But for a true photographer you need something with interchanging lenses. Canon Digital Rebel + Ebay???

[NewChief]

I totally agree. The news department uses two of them and has had no problems and gets great quality. For sports, I use the 20D with a couple of the L-series lenses, but I've used the Rebels quite a lot. It's definitely a solid choice.

Yup, I just got back from a school Newspaper/Yearbook advisor's conference. The camera question came up during the conference. Not surprisingly, almost every staff there uses Rebels because of the durability. When you're loaning your equipment out to high school students, it has to be able to take a beating. The Rebel has proven, through the years, to be tough.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Canons generally are built to take a beating... bullet-proof mother****ers, if you ask me. The Nikon Coolpix 990 (I think) we had here at the office was total crap. Hated the thing, and definitely NOT tough.

In case you can't tell... I'm pimping Canon... I love my Canons.

[Rain Man]

One other note: I originally bought an HP, which busted within a week. I replaced it on warrantee with another HP, which was apparently busted when I bought it. When I took it back, the clerk said, "Just get another brand. Everyone's returning these."

[Skip Towne]

One other note: I originally bought an HP, which busted within a week. I replaced it on warrantee with another HP, which was apparently busted when I bought it. When I took it back, the clerk said, "Just get another brand. Everyone's returning these."
The camera I bought is guaranteed not to rust, bust, chip, crack, peel, rip, rattle or tear.

[svuba]

I'm guessing this won't cut it for you?
http://www.kameraschaetze.de/images/Kamera/Polaroid_1000SC.jpg


F'ing CLASSIC!

http://www.livingpictures.org/imagesequipment/rolleiflex2.jpg

[redbrian]

Actually, most of the SLR digitals don't use the LCD for the viewfinder. All of the SLRs mentioned thus far (the Canon Rebel, the Nikon D70, etc.) all use a traditional viewfinder to take the picture, then use the LCD for the picture preview.

That is my point, you don't need the lcd and could knock off a couple hundred bucks or more if it was left off.

I've been taking 35mm SLR photo's for over 20 years and do not need the lcd.

Give me a digital slr with manual control and no lcd and I'll buy, untill then I'll stick with my 35mm.

[|Zach|]

Again, thanks for the all the great info folks! Very useful.

[COchief]

BS, The Rebel (official camera of the NFL) is the best for the camera for the price for $799.00 - 6MP. It is what we use at work quite a bit and works great never had any problems and not cheaply made by any means.

The Canon XT is the the new version for $999.00 - 8MP.

It might be the best camera for the 799.00, but you can get the same thing for 650.00 from Pentax. BTW I love how you mention that is the "official camera of the NFL", does that mean coors light is the best beer since its the "official beer". But hey if you want to shell out an extra 150.00 to pay for that "official" advertising, more power to you.

[ChiefsOne]

does that mean coors light is the best beer since its the "official beer".

Just throwing the NFL thing in, and yes Coors Light beats the hell out of Bud or Bush. Not the best beer, but better than those!