Buying my first camera

PhishPhan · « **on:** 15 Jul 2008, 03:42 pm »

I'm looking at buying my first camera, but I've no idea what to get as I'm a total newb when it comes to cameras; I've just always used my parent's camera when I needed to take some pics. I'm looking to spend around 300-600 on a decent digital setup. It doesn't have to be super compact and slim, but I don't want some huge bulky camera either as I'd like to be able to carry it with me when I do some casual bike rides. Picture quality is my top priority and I don't need a huge zoom. So, what'dya think I should look at? I'm open to any and all suggestions.

WGH · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 03:52 pm »

Canon has a very nice lineup of cameras.
They make good stuff.

You will have to decide if all you need is something to take snaps, or a prosumer model that has more setting options and will also save your photos in a RAW format.

Digital Photography Review is a great place to research your possible choices
http://www.dpreview.com/

Wayne

BradJudy · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 05:31 pm »

In the Canon range, take a look at the A series (A590 and A650 in particular) and the G9. The G9 and the A650 share some parts, but the G9 allows for RAW format and has flash shoe (basically intended for photo hobbyists who don't want a full SLR). If you look at some of the threads I have posted in, the photos are usually from a Canon A630 (model before the A650). IMO, it does great outdoors but is only okay indoors - in short, it does much better with more light.

Since you don't want a large camera, then an SLR-like (or true SLR) camera is probably out and you'll probably only have to spend money towards the bottom of your range.

Another great digital camera review site is http://www.steves-digicams.com/ While I like the DP Reivew linked above, it doesn't have reviews for the A series Canons I mentioned and Steve's does.

Thebiker · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 05:50 pm »

The Lumix line (Panasonic) also have some nice choices. They all seem to have image stabilization and it works very well on my wife's. They also use Leica lens, which is good glass.

The only downside I have seen to them is they are grainy in low light or at the outside limit of the flash range. Flash pics are fine as long as you are within @10-12 feet. Daylight shots are extremely good. Pre-sunrise and post sunset gets a little grainy.

A friend of mine is a long time pro photog and he carries a small Nikon Coolpix that he likes when he's not using his full rigs.

Walt

ecramer · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 06:12 pm »

check out camerlabs they have a bunch of info that may be helpfull

http://www.cameralabs.com/

Ed

goldlizsts · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 09:00 pm »

Quote from: Thebiker on 15 Jul 2008, 05:50 pm

The Lumix line (Panasonic) also have some nice choices. They all seem to have image stabilization and it works very well on my wife's. They also use Leica lens, which is good glass.............................

I have a Lumix, oldie, 4 MP only (but it has a long zoom couple of years ago), from a couple of years back. But I find the IS function works exceptionally well. Reason I'm saying it is that I've recently used Canon (G7) and a Kodak 812IS (I think that's the model name). The IS on those 2 are less effective.

PhishPhan · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 12:18 pm »

So, I think I'm leaning towards the Nikon D40, a DSLR, or the Canon Powershot G9, a nice point and shoot. I like the G9 because of its portability, but I'm not sure if I'll be satisfied with its image quality as compared to the Nikon. How much difference is there between these two as far as image quality goes? I think I'm actually leaning towards the D40 because I can find one with a kit for less than the G9.

Thoughts?

JohnR · « **Reply #7 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 12:54 pm »

I personally would heartily recommend anyone to purchase an entry-level DSLR rather than a compact, for three main reasons:

Image quality. A DSLR has a much larger sensor than (with very few exceptions, or possibly only one) a compact. The limitations of physics mean that, as a general rule, a larger sensor will deliver better image quality and noise performance.
Speed. A DSLR will respond faster than a compact. Look at the timing figures on dpreview.com for some objective measures on by how much (it's a lot). For me, it was totally a night-and-day difference in the digital experience when I went to a DSLR.
Lens interchangeability. If you do decide to get a little more serious and improve image quality or other capabilities (macro, low light, etc), then with a DSLR you at least have the option.

The cons to a DSLR boil down to size, weight, and cost. Sounds like the last one is taken care of for you. For the others, personally, I don't find a 600g shoulder bag to be a hindrance - in summer I don't have any pockets to put a pocket camera into anyway....

Now, as for specific brand recommendations... this seems to be a slightly sensitive topic, but I've had a D40 for 18 months and got a lot of learning and mileage out of it. I honestly have no idea how it compares to current offerings from Canon, Olympus, Pentax, or Sony, but I can say definitely that I'm glad I bought it - it's been 100% reliable, and a great experience and learning tool.

JohnR

nathanm · « **Reply #8 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 03:13 pm »

SLRs seem to be a money pit because of their modular nature. They're just tempting you to buy new lenses, Because You Can. That's why I got a fixed-lens SLR-like camera. (well, no sensor dust is pretty nice too) But to me the weakest link in digital sensors is noise and the high ISO performance of the pricier SLRs makes me jealous. For instance the 3200 ISO of the Canos EOS 5D looks like my Fuji S9100's 200 or 400 ISO. That means you can get hand-holdable shutter speeds under indoor ambient light without a grotesque noise penality. With great light any modern camera looks great, but under crappy light you get more for your dough with an SLR. As for size; in our screen-dominated world 90% of the data these cameras give you is thrown away anyway. If you print, megapixels matter, but if you don't you're just pushing around enormous files for no reason.

Bottom line is to get something that's easy to use for the shooting you want to do. Image quality seems to be more and more of a moot point these days.

woodsyi · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 03:37 pm »

Just remember that even a cell phone camera is better than a pro DSLR if it's not with you. If you do go with a DSLR, I would go with one you can swap the body later and save the lens -- good lens lasts a lot longer than a body in this age of relatively quick obsoletion of digital imaging technology.

Doublej · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 03:49 pm »

Quote from: Marbles on 17 Jul 2008, 03:27 pm

Nathan, John et al.

If I want to take nature shots primarily, close ups to mid range, how do you feel about the Nikon D60 (new replacement to the D40), and as a follow up, what cameras are the main competitors of the D60?

My local camera shop sells the D60 for $699 including the 18 to 55mm lens.

They sell another 55 to 200mm for $250.

Thanks

Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, and Pentax (and others) have models that compete with the D60. Check out ww.dpreview.com for details.

Doublej · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 03:50 pm »

duplicate post removed

brj · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 04:08 pm »

Quote from: Marbles

If I want to take nature shots primarily, close ups to mid range, how do you feel about the Nikon D60 (new replacement to the D40), and as a follow up, what cameras are the main competitors of the D60?

My local camera shop sells the D60 for $699 including the 18 to 55mm lens.

They sell another 55 to 200mm for $250.

Personally, I'd lean toward the cheaper D40 and put the savings into a better lens. The Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 DX VR lens is one of the best "walking around" lenses I've seen. (I have one.) At f3.5-5.6, it isn't as fast as I'd like, but that is a function of the price point, and the VR ("vibration reduction", ala Canon's IS or "image stabilization") does help in that regard. (Faster lenses, such as the impressive Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 FX lens, get expensive and heavy in a hurry.)

Yes, the D60 has more megapixals than the D40, but unless you're planning on blowing your pictures up to very large sizes, this just means that you need more storage space. I admit that the "adaptive dynamic range" on the D60 (also on the D300/D700/D3) looks interesting, but not enough that I'd choose it over a better lens that will last much longer than any digital body.

nathanm · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 04:39 pm »

If you like shooting macros, a cheaper, smaller sensored camera will do better than an SLR. We shoot tiny things all the time where I work and when we got our big badass new SLRs the big gains in image quality was tempered with a hearty dose of reduced depth of field. Maybe it was a bad choice of lens, but all I know is that now I've gotta stitch together multi-focus expsoures and it freaggin' blows. SLRs give you that nice lensy bokeh, but the cheapie cameras are everything-in-focus-all-the-time little monsters. If you want creamy flowers go SLR, but if you want nice sharp insects and animal fur you might want a smaller rig. I can't remember the offical reason why this is, I think it's because the center of the image circle is always sharper and your focal length is comparatively shorter to accomodate the tiny sensors or something like that. A real expert can correct me here, but I think that's the gist of it.

Andrikos · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 07:46 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 17 Jul 2008, 04:39 pm

If you like shooting macros, a cheaper, smaller sensored camera will do better than an SLR. We shoot tiny things all the time where I work and when we got our big badass new SLRs the big gains in image quality was tempered with a hearty dose of reduced depth of field. Maybe it was a bad choice of lens, but all I know is that now I've gotta stitch together multi-focus expsoures and it freaggin' blows. SLRs give you that nice lensy bokeh, but the cheapie cameras are everything-in-focus-all-the-time little monsters. If you want creamy flowers go SLR, but if you want nice sharp insects and animal fur you might want a smaller rig. I can't remember the offical reason why this is, I think it's because the center of the image circle is always sharper and your focal length is comparatively shorter to accomodate the tiny sensors or something like that. A real expert can correct me here, but I think that's the gist of it.

Hi Nathan,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not expert by any means, but I'm not sure I agree with your Macro explanation...
BTW, I LOVED your flickr portfolio. You're very talented, much more than I for sure...

Anyway, it all has to do with aperture and depth of field.
You said correctly that the tiny sensor/ tiny glass supercompacts do have a high aperture number (tiny opening) that lets a tiny amount of light go to the lens (slower).
That also means that the depth of field is huge and everything appears sharp. But the same can -easily- be accomplished with an SLR and a macro lens (i.e. my Canon XTi and MP-E 65mm f/2.

if you close down the aperture to f/8 or f/11 and get ULTRAsharp macro pictures with a ton of depth.
But, unlike the SLRs, a supercompact cannot give you any pictures with shallow depth of field.

In my macro pictures, I rarely want everything to be in focus.
I love it when I open the aperture wide open and can capture the stems of a flower while the rest of the flower is nicely out of focus...

low.pfile · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 09:37 pm »

Quote from: PhishPhan on 17 Jul 2008, 12:18 pm

So, I think I'm leaning towards the Nikon D40, a DSLR, or the Canon Powershot G9, a nice point and shoot. I like the G9 because of its portability, but I'm not sure if I'll be satisfied with its image quality as compared to the Nikon. How much difference is there between these two as far as image quality goes? I think I'm actually leaning towards the D40 because I can find one with a kit for less than the G9.

Thoughts?

phishphan,
You can judge the image quaility yourself by looking at a bunch of sample photos.

Canon G9 pics : http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/powershot_g9/
Nikon D40 pics : http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/
Be careful when looking at the D40 pics to see which lens was used, as it could be a $1000 nikon lens.<< doubtful but possible.

note that you can see more images when you use the pull down "Now showing" at mid-page.

brj · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Jul 2008, 11:06 pm »

I'd be a little cautious judging a camera by what pictures get posted online. Aside from (generally) reduced resolution, you never know what menu options someone had set in the camera, or what processing may have been done after the fact. And, as low.pfile points out, the lens often makes a big difference as well.

JohnR · « **Reply #17 on:** 18 Jul 2008, 11:32 am »

Quote from: nathanm on 17 Jul 2008, 03:13 pm

SLRs seem to be a money pit because of their modular nature.

Well..... there's certainly truth in that! I guess it's akin to the decision in audio of whether to buy an all-in-one system vs components.

JohnR · « **Reply #18 on:** 18 Jul 2008, 11:55 am »

Quote from: Marbles on 17 Jul 2008, 03:27 pm

If I want to take nature shots primarily, close ups to mid range, how do you feel about the Nikon D60 (new replacement to the D40), and as a follow up, what cameras are the main competitors of the D60?

I have no personal experience with the D60, but my understanding is that the D60 is not a replacement but the next model in the line from the D40 (more Megapixels, dust removal).

The kit lens for the D60 focuses to a magnification of 1:3.2. This means that you can take an image of an object that is just over 3" across and it will fill the frame. A modern macro lens (unaided) will get you down to 1:1 (a 1-inch-across object) but this is really not all that easy to use in practice. Personally, I love the challenge but I expect it's not everybody's cup of tea.

The +250 seems on the high side - I believe Nikon have a "twin lens" kit that should have a lower price differential.

If it's a local store to you, buy an SD card, shoot a bunch of pics on the camera in-store, and then view them at home and/or print them to see how you like them.

If you do decide on a Nikon D40 or D60, please make sure that you buy from someone reputable - both of the kit lenses are on their 2nd or 3rd version and unreputable dealers will bundle these cameras with older versions of the lenses.

For other makers, my understanding is that Canon have the 450D and 1000D in this range, Sony the alpha-200 and 300, and I have no idea about Pentax. Whatever you do be sure to read reviews on the performance of the body with the kit lenses. Kit lenses are traditionally considered to be junk; the current Nikon ones are actually very good considering the price, here are some objective measures (the 18-55 is the second version, not the third/current):

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/234-nikkor-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-ed-dx-ii-review--test-report
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report

You can always spend more on lenses, but as nathanm notes, it starts to become a bit of a money pit.

JohnR

goldlizsts · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Jul 2008, 12:31 pm »

Quote from: PhishPhan on 15 Jul 2008, 03:42 pm

I'm looking at buying my first camera, but I've no idea what to get as I'm a total newb when it comes to cameras; I've just always used my parent's camera when I needed to take some pics. I'm looking to spend around 300-600 on a decent digital setup. It doesn't have to be super compact and slim, but I don't want some huge bulky camera either as I'd like to be able to carry it with me when I do some casual bike rides. Picture quality is my top priority and I don't need a huge zoom. So, what'dya think I should look at? I'm open to any and all suggestions.

The current issue of Pop Photo ranked 5 mid-priced DSLRs, Canon Rebel Xsi is #1, Nikon #2 I think..... The others in there are the Olympus E-520, Sony a350, and Pentax. Check it out. Just another source of info.