camera recommendations?

i'm not too thrilled with the quality of photos taken with my little point and shoot digital camera anymore and i'm looking for a step up. what do guys think of this one that i've been looking at:

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/5...bh14lsruge1gzx45&GSID=4387101&GSCID=1#reviews

 

diesel's definitely the authority here, but i know the rebel is a great mid-level camera. i'm probably going to get a new camera soon too, but i'll probably stick with a small-sized point and shoot for convenience's sake. i'm just not liable to carry a bigger camera around and it probably wouldn't get used.

 

Thanks mj.

The Digital Rebel XS is a nice body, but is already an older model, and I wouldn't categorize it as a mid-level camera, unless you're including point-and-shoots. As SLRs go, it's an entry-level body. It's also not that great a price (Amazon and Cameta have it for a lot cheaper right now, and you should always check B&H).

I'll preface this by saying that anything from the major camera manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc.) will give you good quality. Image quality is all about the optics (the lenses) and the capture medium (film or digital sensor). The dSLR sensors are all going to be pretty close to each other in terms of quality, and the major manufacturers all make good quality optics.
The issue with point-and-shoots is usually lower quality optics or tiny sensors that produce a lot of noise. It's usually either that, or a lack of control over critical things like exposure. A DSLR will overcome all of these.

My first recommendation is ALWAYS to go to a store and hold the camera (and competitors' equivalents) in your hands. Get a feel for the ergonomics and build-quality. It it going to be a comfortable size in your hands? Does it feel like it's solidly built, or cheap and plasticy?
I always recommend this first because if the camera isn't comfortable, you're not going to want to shoot with it. And if the build quality isn't up to par, you'll end up with problems like dust and moisture causing problems with your photos down the road.

Keep in mind that when you do decide to purchase, you're not just buying a camera... you're buying into a system. If you go with a Canon camera, you're locking yourself into Canon's system of lenses, flashes, and other accessories. It's difficult and costly, but not impossible, to switch systems once you commit to one.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the kit lenses that come with the entry-level bodies (Canon XT and XS series, Nikon D40 and D60) are typically okay for getting started, but you'll soon want to upgrade or extend your lens setup. An 18-55mm lens won't give you a ton of flexibility, as it only goes from wide-angle to a short telephoto range.

One last thing to keep in mind... there's a learning curve involved. It's not steep, but you'll want to get your new camera off of the Auto mode as soon as possible, which involves learning what the other modes do. If you plan on using a dSLR in full auto mode, you might as well just buy an expensive point and shoot, because the shots will end up looking about the same, and you won't be happy with the results.

If you have any questions or want recommendations after you test the ergonomics, I'm always here.

 

I have the Kodak easy share, and it's a great camera. It's very easy to figure out, and there are so many (quick and easy to set!) settings on the camera to get the best pictures you can. Settings for dark areas, night scenery, beach sunlight, take pictures of text, in snow, and many more. There is also a feature where you can log people's email addresses into your camera via the Kodak easy share computer program, and send it to them by your camera.
The picture quality is great as well. I would definitely recommend this camera.

 

I have an Olympus Camedia C-720 that I bought once on a whim. It's an older model, and doesn't offer many add-on lenses and stuff, but it's just right for me. It has 3 megapixels (which is a lot to me, the images come out very high-res, much higher than I need), a built-in flash (pre-flash even), and 8x optical zoom. It has various automatic and manual modes, and can take pictures as well as short video clips (haven't tried the videoclips yet). It has some extra functions like b&w and sepia modes. It operates on four AA / LR-6 batteries (specialized charger and rechargable batteries are available only as an add-on; 4 x 2100 mAh Ni-mH AA cells), and has a USB port, video port, and AC jack (external power supply is an add-on too). It takes SmartMedia memory cards (up to 64 MB, I think). I have a 64 MB card, and it can store up to 100 photos, I think, which is far more than I need. I'm a cheapskate, the camera wasn't very expensive!

 

I hate to say it, but if spidey's not satisfied with her point-and-shoot, other point-and-shoot cameras aren't really going to offer her any improvement. By and large, there's not a whole lot of difference in image quality from one to the next. The main differences are in the other features.

Her only real option for an improvement is to go to a dSLR.

 

There's also a number of tricks you can do with image processing software (like The GIMP, for instance, which is free).

For instance, noise can be reduced in software by either a noise filter or simply by resizing the image to a lower size (with an algorithm like Cubic b-spline or Sinc/Lanczos3), this averages out the pixel colors of pixel groups. This can also reduce compression artefacts introduced by JPEG compression, for instance. After processing the image, it should be saved in PNG format (instead of JPEG), to avoid further loss of information.

Some cameras offer to store images in RAW format, but this might require specialized processing software from the camera manufacturer. Also, they take up much more space. Anyway, the better the quality of the original image, the better are the resulting photos.

CCD chips have higher noise, the higher the resolution. 5-6 megapixels are said to be practical upper limits (for cameras with regular images sensor sizes). But it really depends on how you deal with the pictures after you've taken them. For instance, my 3 megapixel camera shoots images of the size 1984 x 1488 pixels which is more than enough for viewing on-screen, and for printing with regular sizes (@300 DPI original size is: 6.61 x 4.96 in). Although the images have noticeable noise (and some of it might've come from compression) when viewed at original size, scaling them down make them look normal (no perceived noise). For printing also, subtle changes in color (as produced by noise) don't have much effect, unless the printer is capable of very fine shades of color.

As Diesel said, size of the image sensor matters. It not only reduces noise, but also increases camera resolution. Whether you need that, depends entirely on what you want to do with the pictures.

 

Monster> A big part of the problem is that despite all of the post-processing options out there, you can't reclaim resolution or detail that wasn't captured in the first place.
No amount of post-processing is going to overcome poor optics or the drawbacks of a tiny image sensor at the time of capture.

Frankly, I fail to see the benefit of downsizing an image just to get usable results. It's one thing to take a good image and downsize it for the intended output. It's another entirely to downsize it just to make it acceptable to view. The original capture should be usable out of the camera, and post-processing should ONLY be used to enhance the image.

Further, if you're starting out in JPG, you've already lost data at the time of capture. Any additional processing you apply will continue to be lossy as long as the final output is JPG.

 

hey guys! thanks for all this information. yous are the best! and i really appreciate it. well, so far i've purchased a couple of magazines on the subject and i'm going to start researching soon!

i'll let you know that i come up with

 

Spidey> Better than some of the mags you might check, be sure to check out these sites for quality reviews:
www.dpreview.com
www.steves-digicams.com
Good sites with a slight Canon bias:
www.photo.net
www.fredmiranda.com

Regardless of what you read there, I refer you back to my original point... check the camera in your hands before buying.

And despite the fact that it comes up near the top of any search for Nikon information, avoid Ken Rockwell's site like the plague. It's a good site for technical specs, but all but useless for practical useful information. It's a lot of opinion presented authoritatively, tons of conjecture, and a lot of misleading information.

 

I'm a Nikon fan myself. I love my DSLR. it's a D80, but the D60 is also supposed to be really good. You definitely have to get used to a new "system" as Diesel put it. I was used to a point-n-click but I wanted to get in to photography more seriously and figures a DSLR was the best way to go. Now with the kiddies, I have no choice to to use my camera. i was slacking a bit on my new hobby. I also got a video for xmas about how to use my camera. I hope to get really good at it and really go out there and take some nice pictures to show off!

 

dan> these are some great websites. i've bookmarked them all and have been reviewing them. there is a ton of information out there.

alyth, did you research a lot before you purchased or did you just pick one out of the lineup. they all seem to get good reviews.

i take a lot of indoor shots with low light, so i'm going to have to figure out which camera is best for that. but of course, i take a lot of outdoor scenery pictures too ... oh, the decisions ...

 

For indoor shots in low light, all of the dSLRs will be about the same. The kit lenses will stink for that purpose, but you have options. What will really allow you to get those shots is a very fast (aka wide-aperture) lens or a shoe-mounted flash.

If you do get a dSLR, I HIGHLY recommend that you get a 50mm f/1.8 lens. They're great for low-light, they're a very flexible focal length, they're amazingly sharp, small, and lightweight, and they typically cost under $100, so they're an excellent value. This is about as general a statement as I'll make regarding photography... everyone should get a 50 f/1.8. They're just so flexible that you'll find uses for it, even if you have a bunch of other lenses.

You'd also be a amazed at how much a good flash will improve your photography overall. The low-end flashes for both Nikon and Canon cost around $170, so it's a little bit more of an investment, but definitely something to think about down the road. And it's a night-and-day difference over the on-camera flash.

 

I researched. I even asked Dan for advice thanks Dan! Though, he's a canon man, I chose the Nikon. Both are really good cameras. The Nikon's body just felt better in my hands and I liked how the flashes, when I eventually get one, can work apart from the body. With the Canons, the flash has to be connected in order to work. The lenses are slightly different in make, but both make really good pictures and work fairly similar. You probably can't go wrong with either DSLR, but it is a good idea to get a feel for either. Go to a camera store and ask to play around with both brands....if you like either brand that is. Hold them, get a feel for where the buttons and windows are. The menuing systems, as well as ask the sales person about the specs and what's the difference between the lenses. Hopefully, you won't have a sales person that is only trying to sell you the more expensive one if the less expensive deal is the better quality one for you.

 

*gasp* How dare you madam!
I'm a Nikon guy. Started with a D70 (on the digital side, at least), then went to a D200, and now with a D700.

I'll also agree with you that Nikon's flash system kicks major butt. I was shooting a self-portrait the other day. Used up to 4 remote flashes, all firing wirelessly and controlled from the camera body.

In terms of lens offerings and such, I would say that Canon has the advantage on the telephoto end, while Nikon is better at wide-angle. For most stuff in between, the offerings are almost identical.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'm so sorry! :nworthy: I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy! You are a man who has been down the Nikon pathways and has seen the light.

I think you mentioned that to me and I totally forgot. I sowry! ;D