Camera Suggestions, Please!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gluecifer

Member (SA)
I'm currently looking for a decent camera, and to be honest the main thing it's going to be used for is taking photos of my radios.The main thing is it needs to be very automatic, with good results in medium light and really pack the detail into a shot taken from a few feet away.

I've seen some gorgeous shots on here and would love for those proud of their shots to post them here with their camera model if possible. I've got a few hundred all ready to go on getting one that'll do the job and have a big back log of radios and tapes I'd love to share photos of with you guys.

As a gauge, my current camera is an Olympus 3.2megapixel job, that's at least 5 years old, which does very nice close ups, but is seriously rubbish at a good shot of radio from a few feet away.

Let's go brothers!!



Rock On.
 

TRC-911

Member (SA)
I bought my kodak easyshare M1063 10.3 megapixel at bestbuy for $100 dollar bill new in box, 4 months ago. I love the simplicity and it charges via USB and wall mount usb charger, NO BATTERIES TO CARRY AROUND IS GREAT AND I HAVEN'T CHARGED IN WEEKS BUT HAVE TAKEN HUNDREDS OF PHOTOS :w00t:

some samples


Picture465.jpg

93688572_o.jpg

Picture455-1.jpg

000_0002.jpg

000_0001.jpg

000_0004.jpg

111_0394.jpg
 

jaetee

Member (SA)
There are some extremely capable Point & Shoot cameras out there now... I suggest a trip to a store that has a display with working models. Maybe even take your own memory card with you and play around in the display.

Just know that P&S cameras have small imaging sensors, which means the pixels are smaller and more dense... this contributes to noise and lack of detail. That is why images from Digital SLRs are much cleaner at high ISO. Larger photocells on the larger imaging sensor.

You need to determine what your "real" financial limit is and what results will work for you.

And, have you ever considered taking up photography as a hobby?

You mentioned that you want the camera to be "very automatic" but have you given any thought to whether or not you'd like to have a simple "camera" or a photographic tool? Getting into photography is not the same now as it was back in the 80's. Do you mind looking through the viewfinder instead of the back of the camera? Even with a budget of only "a few hundred" it is now possible to buy a very, very capable DSLR and take publish grade images. (Geez, I sound like a salesman)

There is a tremendous amount of great, cheap gear floating around for sale right now due to the explosive manufacture of new models in the DSLR segment. The groundbreaking camera models from just three or four years ago (like the Canon Rebel) are now available at greatly reduced prices. In some cases, a third or a quarter of their original cost. Each generation of new gear that is released drops that value further...

Here's an example of an 8MP Canon Rebel, It has the same sensor in it as my Canon 20D (from which I've made clean 20"x30" prints). It is the second generation of the Canon rebel and sold new with a 18-55mm lens for around $900. This one appears to be in great shape and has the more desireable Image Stabilized version of the lens (worth over $100 by itself) for a $345 Buy It Now, and it even includes free US shipping. [ebay]110432964197[/ebay]

If a DSLR is too big for your tastes, then check out this small frame Panasonic Lumix 12MP that a good friend of mine is selling:[ebay]260474058721[/ebay] This is a much newer style camera, and won Popular Photography's CAMERA OF THE YEAR last year because it is much smaller than a standard DSLR, but offers much of the same performance. This one does not have an optical viewfinder, instead it has a digital view finder or the articulating screen on the back. He paid $800 for it about nine months ago, now he's selling it with some extras for $550. That might be more than the few hundred you mentioned, but I bring it up because I know the seller and he is good people. With that said, he is selling it because he started taking photography seriously and has moved to a Nikon D90 system.

But, even the DSLR's from several years ago take cleaner high ISO images (which you will need in low & medium light) than any current P&S camera will. Larger sensor=larger photocells=Lower noise=more resolution. It's not just about megapixels. I'll put my 8MP Canon 20D up against any 12MP P&S at 800 ISO.

So..... I say step up to a used, older DSLR and you'll be making an investement into a photographic tool rather than just buying a camera.

Models worth checking, which may be available in that ballpark:

Canon Rebel XS
Canon Rebel XSi
Canon 20D (small 1.8" screen, but fantastic value. magnesium frame)
Canon 30D (basically the same as 20D, but larger screen and thus a bit more $$)
Nikon D40
Nikon D60

A great resource for camera comparisons: http://www.dpreview.com

Good luck!
 

vladi123456

Member (SA)
Jaetee, nice post! But your Panasonic link is linked to your Canon auction.

Overall though - I agree with Jaetee - don't get another P & S camera - from what I understand, the image quality only got worse as they added more and more megapixels. So if you're looking for a good camera - I would highly recommend an entry level DSLR. Jaetee's Rebel sounds like a great starter camera - get body only - no kit lens, and get a 50mm 1.8 lens for it - it's less than $100 for the lens. You will be amazed at the picture quality. As far as kit lens - my friend has this same lens that came with his Rebel, and on a scale from one to ten he rates it three for the picture quality, and two for the build quality - in other words, he hates it and never uses it anymore.
I personally use Nikons - D200 and D700. I also have Panasonic super zoom camera with Leica-designed lens, but after using Nikons for a while - I can't even describe in words how much better the photos from Nikons are (than Panasonic's). And I used to think that nothing could be better than my Panasonic.
And dpreview.com site is great - definitely take a look at it!
 

turbomustang84

Member (SA)
if you want bang for the buck you can not go wrong with a Samsung SL202 my wife just got one and the full auto mode is incredible ,if you look around they can be had for about $130
 

MasterBlaster84

Boomus Fidelis
You could ask 100 people and get 100 different but good recommendations, with the current level of cameras it's hard to go wrong with any of the common and respected name brands. There are a plethora of good cameras and some bad ones so a little research will point you to a good camera for you, the key is really to do your own research. Virtually all current cameras are going to beat your old 3.2 megapixel in image quality, technology has advanced tremendously in 5 years.
 

2steppa

Member (SA)
Personally I've had good experiences with Fujifilm (A350) and my (3 years old) Canon Ixus.

The Fujifilm definitely fared better outdoors whereas the Canon was a great little all-rounder capable of really impressive results (check my 9696 on the hood pics for low res examples) and the rechargeable batt pack went on for aaaages.
I say WAS, as it recently died (CCD failed) but regardless I think I'd get another Canon.

Currently scraping by on an old Minolta 'thing' so I too am looking to get a new camera in the near future.
 

jaetee

Member (SA)
vladi123456 said:
Jaetee, nice post! But your Panasonic link is linked to your Canon auction.

Overall though - I agree with Jaetee - don't get another P & S camera - from what I understand, the image quality only got worse as they added more and more megapixels. So if you're looking for a good camera - I would highly recommend an entry level DSLR. Jaetee's Rebel sounds like a great starter camera - get body only - no kit lens, and get a 50mm 1.8 lens for it - it's less than $100 for the lens. You will be amazed at the picture quality. As far as kit lens - my friend has this same lens that came with his Rebel, and on a scale from one to ten he rates it three for the picture quality, and two for the build quality - in other words, he hates it and never uses it anymore.
I personally use Nikons - D200 and D700. I also have Panasonic super zoom camera with Leica-designed lens, but after using Nikons for a while - I can't even describe in words how much better the photos from Nikons are (than Panasonic's). And I used to think that nothing could be better than my Panasonic.
And dpreview.com site is great - definitely take a look at it!


Thanks for the heads-up, Vladi... I corrected that link.

Nice gear, by the way... The last I remember you were asking about Canon full frame cameras and L-glass.

Well, I sold my Canon 5D, the L lenses, and the EF-S ultra-wide that I used to shoot with. I used that money to buy a full blown Nikon D90 kit with a whole bunch of lenses. I got the Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, tokina 12-24 f4, 18-105 VR & 70-300 VR. 50mm f1.8D is on backorder at Dell, too. Seriously, I bought all the Nikon gear with the money from selling the Canons that I had enough money left over to paint my car, too. I wasn't using full frame nearly as much as thought I would and still my Canon 20D to use for events. The D90 sensor (and ability to do the occasional spontaneous video) has been awesome! Having been a Canon shooter for many years, I must say I am quite pleased with the Nikon overall. They are both good systems.
 

vladi123456

Member (SA)
I looked at Canons, but didn't see anything I liked. So I also bought D90, but then D200 went on firesale at Best Buy a few days later, so I sent D90 back and got me a brand new D200 for $600. I also bought Nikkor 18-105, but my copy sucked badly - it would back-focus half the time, so I sold it and got 17-55 2.8 instead - that lens is much better than anything I've ever had - I never take it off.
And 50 1.8 is simply awesome - I use it on D700, so it's the same focal length as your 35 1.8 on D90. Overall, I'm extremely pleased with Nikons. When I look at my Panasonic pictures that I used to think were perfect - now they look all soft, fuzzy and out of focus compared to Nikons - pretty amazing stuff :-)
 

Superduper

Moderator
Staff member
FORGET ALL THE CONFUSING RECOMMENDATIONS. Just get something priced $129 +/- or more from any of the major manufacturers and the camera will be 100% automatic and light years away from the 3.2mp camera that you used to have. Basically, they are almost ALL good.

I would say when you go and look at the cameras, find the one with the largest lens opening. Some are no bigger than your pinkie nail. Some are double/triple/more larger. The megapixel may be the same but the lens with the larger opening is going to be "brighter" and permit much better indoor photography, especially in low light situations. That's it! Don't make it too complicated. Offerings are changing all the time. Just remember, you basically get what you pay for.
 

vladi123456

Member (SA)
Superduper, I would not recommend considering a camera based on the lens size only. If the sensor in that camera is too small, or the in-camera processor (which converts raw data into jpg files) is outdated, then no matter how big that lens is - the pictures will not be good. In-camera conversion is more important than the lens. For example, a good modern processor would compensate for vignetting, noise, purple fringing and so on, while the older processors can make a mess if a picture was taken under less than perfect conditions.
 

Ghettoboom767

Member (SA)
I used to have a fully automatic Nikon Smiletaker I won back in about 1992'-1993' at my work.
It took fantastic 35MM photos but I left it at Couer D' Alene,Idaho on the 4th. of July-Luckilly I just put a new roll of film so there wa only like 2-3 photos left on it,.
I have a Canon Cheaper fully automatic 35MM now but I've been using my Blackberry Storm with the 3.54 MP camera.
It takes great photos but inside photos aren't the best.(The Blackberry)
I neeed to invest in a nice camera this winter.
I like this thread-it gives me some ideas.
Have a great week-GB. :-) :yes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.