Camera Suggestions, Please!

[Superduper]

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 If the sensor in that camera is too small, or the in-camera processor (which converts raw data into jpg files) is outdated, then no matter how big that lens is - the pictures will not be good.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.

Ahh, the only thing is that the lens is actually the most expensive part of the camera so you'll also notice that the cameras with the best lens is NOT going to have inferior electronics. In other words, the cheap cameras are not going to have the big lens. Why some 10.1mp cameras cost more than 12.1mp cameras is due in part to superior lens and I don't care how large the sensor is, the picture is only going to be as good as the image delivered to the sensor (though the lens). You'll notice that the better cameras (point and shoot variety) is going to have Carl Ziess (leica) lens. Ask any phography hobbyist and they'll tell you that leica is a top name in photography. I'm talking, of course, cameras of same vintage. Comparing a new camera against one 5 years old would be unfair.

 

[Gluecifer]

Thank you for all the responses and help! Every post has given me something I'll genuinely think about.

JT, I'm still in two minds about 'moving up' to Digital SLR, as I think I'm a pretty rubbish photographer and don't have the impetus to get into photography enough to change that. I really don't think I can justify spending that kind of money on something, essentially, used for taking photos of portable audio and tapes. I don't have family/kids/pets etc to take photos of and I don't even go anywhere I'd take photos (last vacation I had anywhere was 10 years ago) so a lot of the usual things to get that photographic-spark going don't work for me.

I'll be going through EVERY recommendation on here and seeing what I can work out, thanks again everyone!

And I'll make sure I report my decision when I work it out.. with a whole mess of new photos too!



Rock On.

 

[vladi123456]

Ahh, the only thing is that the lens is actually the most expensive part of the camera so you'll also notice that the cameras with the best lens is NOT going to have inferior electronics. In other words, the cheap cameras are not going to have the big lens. Why some 10.1mp cameras cost more than 12.1mp cameras is due in part to superior lens and I don't care how large the sensor is, the picture is only going to be as good as the image delivered to the sensor (though the lens). You'll notice that the better cameras (point and shoot variety) is going to have Carl Ziess (leica) lens. Ask any phography hobbyist and they'll tell you that leica is a top name in photography. I'm talking, of course, cameras of same vintage. Comparing a new camera against one 5 years old would be unfair.

I respectfully disagree. You're right that the lens is the most expensive part, but I never said it wasn't.
Let me give you an example. I own Panasonic FZ50 and Panasonic FZ28, which both have Leica-designed lens. FZ50 's lens is bigger, brighter, and is far more expensive than the lens on FZ28. But the pictures from FZ28 look better - contrast, sharpness, saturation, noise - everything. The only way to explain that is that the software inside the FZ28 does a much better job converting images into jpegs. They are both 10 megapixel cameras, and while the lens on FZ50 is capable of capturing much better image, Venus III is not the best processor, so it ruins the fine details. Here are two pictures I took - one with FZ50, and one with FZ28 - you can see the difference. All I'm saying is that the lens isn't everything.

 

[vladi123456]

Thank you for all the responses and help! Every post has given me something I'll genuinely think about.

JT, I'm still in two minds about 'moving up' to Digital SLR, as I think I'm a pretty rubbish photographer and don't have the impetus to get into photography enough to change that. I really don't think I can justify spending that kind of money on something, essentially, used for taking photos of portable audio and tapes. I don't have family/kids/pets etc to take photos of and I don't even go anywhere I'd take photos (last vacation I had anywhere was 10 years ago) so a lot of the usual things to get that photographic-spark going don't work for me.

I'll be going through EVERY recommendation on here and seeing what I can work out, thanks again everyone!

And I'll make sure I report my decision when I work it out.. with a whole mess of new photos too!



Rock On.

If you're looking to get a P & S camera - think again. When I take my Nikon DSLR to a bar - girls trip all over themselves - first asking me to take their pictures, and then trying to give me their phone numbers - so that I could send them those pictures

 

[MasterBlaster84]

Here's a sample pic from my Canon SD770is.
I agree with Vladi that the DSLR is where it's at, point and shoots will usually leave you wanting for a little more. I have both the Canon and a DSLR which gives me a cool choice based on the need.

 

[bill]

find a good used canon rebel digital slr camera. often found now for pretty decent prices.
forget about mega pixel count to be honest with you a good slr digital camera will blow any of the small lensed cameras out of the water imho.
just make sure to check the shutter count.
i would stay aways from anything over a few thousand.
i got mine for next to nothing and it was a pro photographers back up camera.

it takes fantastic photos and i have had no problem with it .

 

[jaetee]

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

Bummer to hear about your experience with the 18-105mm VR. Mine is downright stellar!!! Just some distortion effects here and there, but easily fixed by PTLens software. I'm very happy with that lens and my copy of the 70-300mm as well. And with the new-born child in the house, the video feature has been a major bonus.

Sorry to kind of hijack this thread and go off the deep end. But here are some pics I took with the DSLR this past couple of weeks:

Vladi... This was at Saddlebrook golf resort, with Nikon D90, 18-105mm lens at 42mm, f5.6, 1/250th sec, and ISO 1000,

and here is a 100% actual pixel crop extracted from that original image.

As you can see, I'm quite happy with my copy of the 18-105mm. Bummer you were not so lucky.

Here are a few more shots taken with that same 18-105mm at the recent Depeche Mode concert: I can't believe they let me in with my Nikon D90! These are all downsized. http://www.pbase.com/jaetee/dm

 

[vladi123456]

Very cool - I went to see this concert in Dallas a couple of weeks ago - it was pretty amazing!
I can't believe you were able to use a DSLR at the concert though - did nobody care at all?
Great pictures too - Nikon makes really good cameras