Author Topic: Digital camera advice (DSLR) (Read 4953 times)

TOK · « **on:** October 29, 2007, 10:13:50 pm »

The wife wants a new camera for Christmas. The 4 megapixel Canon S40 has been durable and still takes nice pictures if there is good lighting, but its just time to get something better. Since going digital, the wife has become a total photo nut, I'm thinking of getting her a DSLR this time. It needs to have point and shoot capability if she doesn't want to fiddle with the lens, but it'd also be nice to have the external flash capability and other flexibility the higher end camera's offer.

Price cap is right around a grand (a bit over is fine if there is a standout camera for a few hundred more). The array of choices in this price range is overwhelming. Been looking at CNet and some other tech sites, but I'd appreciate some suggestions from the camera guys here.

bfauska · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2007, 01:44:09 am »

I haven't used any of the others so my statement is only that the Canon DSLRs seem great to me. I picked up the first digital rebel the EOS300d about 3 years ago and have been happy with it ever since. My wife is also greatly enjoying photography lately and we actually have 4 of her photo's framed in our house, the prints are 12"x18" and look like they came from a film camera. The 300d is only 6.7mp and the new 450d is something like 10 so the ability to crop and or enlarge an image is amazing. The camera's automatic modes offer great reliability and the manual modes are plenty versatile for work up to the entry level professional professional. I really think that Canon does a good job of leaving most of the quality and versatility in their consumer cameras and making the jump from consumer to pro more about durability and a few high end upgrades rather than selling the consumer some watered down several year old technology in a DSLR case.

I have also found that www.dpreview.com is a great source of reviews and sample images for nearly every digital camera worth looking at.

mpm32 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2007, 08:42:36 am »

We just got a Canon XTi. Awesome camera even in point and shoot mode. We had a digital elf before that and the great thing about the slr is shutter lag is non-existant. The kit lens is ok but I'm reading the camera really shines with better glass and I'm looking at getting the 70-300 is lens next.

cdbrown · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2007, 12:07:28 pm »

I got one of these recently and have been blown away with the quality of shots. I don't really even know what I'm doing but I'm glad I spent a little more and got this over the canon 350. The lense kit is good quality and the camera functions are mind blowing.

crashwg · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2007, 01:20:22 pm »

I've been looking at getting a DSLR in the very near future also.

THIS WEBSITE HERE has given me MORE than enough information to make my decision.

That link is directly to a comparison between a few different models. Do browse the rest of his site though as it has a wealth of information.

By the way, reading everything I have on that site has led me to the decision of getting a Nikon D300. It's got a few more features than the D200 for a couple hundred dollars more. My next choice after that would be the D80 which has yet a few less features than the D200 (most of which the average user wouldn't notice) but is significantly less expensive.

To sum up a lot of what is on the site, the top cameras for DSLRs are Nikon and Cannon. Cannons have a marginally better picture quality which isn't noticeable unless you're blowing stuff up to like 20"+ and Nikons are more user friendly with features more commonly used accessible without navigating menues.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2007, 01:34:23 pm »

This is a good place to compare digital cameras.

Steve's Digicams

I have a Cannon, not sure of the model. I like it but when I'm ready to buy another camera I'm going to make sure it remembers the last settings. Every time I turned it on I have to fix all the settings on it.

patrickl · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2007, 03:27:06 pm »

With that budget I guess the Canon EOS 400D (Rebel Xti) would be a good option or the Nikon D80. See the comparison on DPReview: comparison of Canon EOS 400D with Nikon D80 and Sony DSLR-A100

BTW note that any perceived difference in image quality is mostly caused by Canon slightly oversharpening their images (except maybe at higher ISo levels). With cameras of this level you should learn to use RAW images though and then the in camera sharpening is not used. RAW offers you much more options with the image and a wider dynamic range.

If you go for a DSLR, make sure you get a good lens with it. Be prepared to pay a few hundred for the lens since otherwise you might as well go for a high end fixed lens camera and save yourself $500. For instance the Canon PowerShot G9 or the Nikon P5100 (or the P5000) or one of the Sony H series cameras.

mpm32 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:47:40 am »

Patrick,

I've been wanting to shoot RAW images but I don't know what the advantage is. The only thing I know is that people in the know shoot RAW and that they will take up much more space on the flash card.

Can you explain in simple terms what the advantages are?

Thanks.

patrickl · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:42:23 am »

RAW is the raw information coming from the sensor. The camera turns this raw data into a photo (usually in the form of a jpeg file). The RAW file is basically a digital negative.

Jpegs have only 8 bit depth per color, but the sensors in the DSLRs tend to have 12 or more bits available. In making the jpeg the camera effectively loses all that information.That extra image information leads to several advantages.

The extra bits available in the RAW image give you more leeway in changing the exposure of the picture. Often you will see bright white areas in a jpeg (overexposed). A RAW file will (if it's not too badly overexposed) contain the information to repair that. A program like Adobe RAW is even that clever that it will still recover the brightness if one channel is overexposed.

Another advantage is the ability to finely repair the white balance of an image. I gues you know the principle, but in short, your eyes automatically adjust to bluish light (at dusk or in shadows), yellow light (evening sun) or even the greenish light of fluorescent tubes. Cameras try to do this too, but they often will get it wrong. In fact they rarely get it exactly right. In jpeg you can correct these errors too, but with a RAW images it's easier and looks better. A program like Adobe RAW easily lets you adjust a set of pictures to a single white balance (so they all look the same)

I think that is the biggest advantage actually. If you do a series of photo's and the colors don't match it just looks bad. Set them all to the same white balance in Adobe RAW and your done.

In essence RAW gives you more control over the image, but it can take a lot of time processing the images. In the distant past when people were still using film, a lab would develop your film and they would make the choice of how bright they thought the photo should be. RAW is basically a digital negative and now you have to set the exposure for every RAW image yourself. Of course auto settings can help, but I find I need to tweak them a lot to get the pictures the way I like them.

In some cases the camera software itself is bad. A PC is a lot more powerful than the processor in a camera and the camera has to be fast in developing the images so sometimes the camera just doesn't do a good job of developing the RAW image. I think the Pentax K10 was an example of this. That's rare though and certainly not the case with the leading brands. But still the camera does a lot of developing work for you that you personally might want to do different.

So in short, RAW contains a more detailed image and gives you more control over developing the picture. Obvious disadvantages are is that it costs time to develop the pictures and indeed that you need a bigger memory card (and slower continous shooting).

BTW people don't always agree on the advantages and disadvantages of RAW. Some will always shoot RAW and some always Jpeg and of course everything in between.

I bought a book about how to use RAW in Photoshop and I was hooked. Also read up on it through Google.

Ken Rockwell: JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time He seems a bit biased against RAW, but I guess it's good to read both sides. His artcile does feel a bit dated though. He actually claims RAW does not contain more light info, but I'd say he's quite obviously proven wrong by a few simple tests. Also I think he misses the point that especially Canon oversharpens their images and a raw processor would by default not do that. A Canon Jpeg direct from the camera looks sharper, but does not contain more detail. Set the raw software to sharpen a bit more and you get the same picture.

PopPhoto: RAW vs. JPEG

ChadTower · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:45:22 am »

Quote from: patrickl on October 31, 2007, 09:42:23 am

In some cases the camera software itself is bad. A PC is a lot more powerful than the processor in a camera and the camera has to be fast in developing the images so sometimes the camera just doesn't do a good job of developing the RAW image. I think the Pentax K10 was an example of this. That's rare though and certainly not the case with the leading brands. But still the camera does a lot of developing work for you that you personally might want to do different.

Kodak digital cameras are examples of this. I know. I worked on some of that software. I couldn't save it.

mpm32 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2007, 01:18:02 pm »

Wow, thanks Patrick.

Often what we do is take our pictures, DL them to the PC and take them to get printed. Then if we find a picture we like, we'll play with that and enlarge or crop etc. and print that out on our canon 5000 something photo printer.

If I shoot RAW will I be adding extra steps in there? I like the fact that I'll have more information to tweek the picture in the box (PC).

mpm32 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2007, 01:23:28 pm »

In reading the popphoto article, it seems like the best bet would be to shoot in RAW + JPEG. I'll get the instant gratification of having the JPEGs to bring and be printed and I'll have the RAW file if I capture a special picture.

I'll have to play around with the camera. I'm still mostly using it in full auto.

ChadTower · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2007, 01:25:18 pm »

It's definitely time soon to replace our digital camera... 1.3mp Olympus... we've had it since 1999. Great images, but only 1.3mp, and slow shutter speed is an issue. It's hard to replace something still working that you paid $700 for.

mpm32 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2007, 01:32:34 pm »

Our digital Elph developed the fatal memory card error. We had made the decision to get the XTi already anway. I found a site that explained how to take it apart and reset it. It involved removing the cover and taking out the internal button battery. It works great now. It's nice to have the point and shoot and the DSLR. It's also good that they're both canon and can share the canon zoombrowser and upload software.

Now I want the 70-300 is lens,

ChadTower · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2007, 01:36:57 pm »

I definitely dont' want another camera in that price range... I was always aware of how much I paid for the damn thing and how easily broken/stolen it would be, and that's a pain when you have something with you a lot. I'll be perfectly happy with a really well working high megapixel point and shoot. I'm way out of the loop on what the current best models are, though.

crashwg · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2007, 03:53:07 pm »

Quote from: mpm32 on October 31, 2007, 01:23:28 pm

In reading the popphoto article, it seems like the best bet would be to shoot in RAW + JPEG. I'll get the instant gratification of having the JPEGs to bring and be printed and I'll have the RAW file if I capture a special picture.

I'll have to play around with the camera. I'm still mostly using it in full auto.

Yes you'd be getting the "instant gratification" of JPEG and also the adjustability of RAW, but at a cost. The cost of longer time between shots and you'll be eating up space on both your camera's memory card and wherever it is you store the photos when you take them off at a exponential rate.

patrickl · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:22:38 pm »

Quote from: mpm32 on October 31, 2007, 01:23:28 pm

In reading the popphoto article, it seems like the best bet would be to shoot in RAW + JPEG. I'll get the instant gratification of having the JPEGs to bring and be printed and I'll have the RAW file if I capture a special picture.

I'll have to play around with the camera. I'm still mostly using it in full auto.

To be honest you won't see any magical improvement from going to RAW, but if you buy an expensive DSLR and go through the effort of carrying this heavy thing around, I personally like to squeeze every possible bit of advantage out of it.

Indeed you will probably see more of an improvement by using the possibilities of the camera. Pickt the right aperture for a photo, think about the choice of focal length (don't just zoom in and out at random). You should try that first before going to RAW. I usually shoot in aperture mode. That way I pick the depth of field (if I want the whole image sharp, or just the subject) and let the camera pick the shutter speed.

I shoot in RAW+JPEG too. I have two 2GB cards. (better than one 4GB card since if one fails I still have some pictures left)

I actually never use the JPEG files, but the camera won't let me zoom in on the images when I only shoot RAW.

When I need a lot of pictures or when I need fast continous shooting I switch to JPEG only. I think that happened only twice though. I'm not a big fan of continous mode shooting. I tried it a few times, but I just ended up with hundrds of images which looked almost identical. Most of them were pretty crappy since I cannot see what I'm shooting when the pictures are being taken.

You really need to start using some sort of workflow when dealing with RAW. With raw you cannot just copy the pictures and be done with it. you need to "develop" them first. I download the pictures, convert them to DNG, go through them in a slideshow and mark the ones I like. The nice ones I fix and the rest I just leave as is (or delete them if they are really bad)

patrickl · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:31:43 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on October 31, 2007, 01:36:57 pm

I definitely dont' want another camera in that price range... I was always aware of how much I paid for the damn thing and how easily broken/stolen it would be, and that's a pain when you have something with you a lot. I'll be perfectly happy with a really well working high megapixel point and shoot. I'm way out of the loop on what the current best models are, though.

many of the $300 point and shoots have great image quality these days. Much better than standard size prints need.

I just bought my GF a Canon SD870. Mostly based on looks I must admit, but reviews showed it was also a pretty good camera. it turned out to be much better than the Canon Ixus she had before (which developed the dreaed E18 error). I like the face focus (camera detects faces and focuses on that rather than the fence behind the face).

billf · « **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:55:07 pm »

We just got the Canon PowerShot SD1000. We were in sorta the same predicament that Chad is in - old digital camera that still works and that we spent a fair amount of money on initially. Ours was a 2.1 megapixel Sony CyberShot. After the prices of cameras started coming down, I was comparing the photos taken with our crappy Sony to those photos that relatives and friends were taking with their newer, larger megapixel cameras, and I wasn't happy with our current camera. But it still took probably three years before I broke down and got the SD1000. Still haven't used it very much yet, but so far I'm happy. Got it through NewEgg.com with a bundled package that included the camera, extra backup battery, a 1GB memory card, mini carrying case, tripod, protector film for the LCD screen, USB card reader and lens cleaner.

TOK · « **Reply #19 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:45:08 pm »

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I at least have some kind of short list of cameras now. Lots of great info in this thread.

boykster · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:11:08 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on October 31, 2007, 01:36:57 pm

I definitely dont' want another camera in that price range... I was always aware of how much I paid for the damn thing and how easily broken/stolen it would be, and that's a pain when you have something with you a lot. I'll be perfectly happy with a really well working high megapixel point and shoot. I'm way out of the loop on what the current best models are, though.

I dunno what's "best" but this seems like a pretty kickass camera for well under $200 and they throw in a free memory card

ridiculously long newegg.com link

I have a Panasonic Lumix 5.1mp camera that's 2 years old and I'm tempted by this....

ChadTower · « **Reply #21 on:** November 01, 2007, 08:54:36 am »

Hrm... haven't come up with an xmas gift for the wife yet...

ChadTower · « **Reply #22 on:** November 01, 2007, 10:32:27 am »

Quote from: boykster on November 01, 2007, 02:11:08 am

ridiculously long newegg.com link

I have a Panasonic Lumix 5.1mp camera that's 2 years old and I'm tempted by this....

For reference, here is CNET's price page on that camera... looks like this newegg price is decent but not a screaming steal.

billf · « **Reply #23 on:** November 01, 2007, 10:41:37 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 01, 2007, 10:32:27 am

Quote from: boykster on November 01, 2007, 02:11:08 am
ridiculously long newegg.com link

I have a Panasonic Lumix 5.1mp camera that's 2 years old and I'm tempted by this....

For reference, here is CNET's price page on that camera... looks like this newegg price is decent but not a screaming steal.

The NewEgg price also includes free shipping and a 1GB memory card for about the same price as the first 7 or 8 stores listed on the CNET page. Plus NewEgg has a very large bundled price if you want or need the additional accessories.

ChadTower · « **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2007, 10:47:57 am »

Yep, a $7 case and a $12 memory card. It does add value but not "buy me now or forever regret it" value, especially with the Xmas season coming up.

That said, I bought the damn thing.

billf · « **Reply #25 on:** November 01, 2007, 10:57:22 am »

Did you buy the Canon SD1000 from NewEgg? Did you go with just the camera and free memory card or did you go with the bundled option?

ChadTower · « **Reply #26 on:** November 01, 2007, 11:01:53 am »

Just the deal as presented, nothing added. Now I'm thinking I may have wanted to add the card reader but that's something I can toss into some other order. It's an Xmas gift.

billf · « **Reply #27 on:** November 01, 2007, 11:06:28 am »

When I got my SD1000 (we have the "silver" version), I went with the bundled package because I wanted an extra battery and needed a memory card anyway. The card reader was included with the bundle and isn't anything great but it works just fine. You could easily add it to another order, its only like $8.

ChadTower · « **Reply #28 on:** November 01, 2007, 11:10:18 am »

If it was just the extra battery and card reader I'd have done it. I don't have much use for a monopod, I have two tripods already, don't need the screen cleaner, it came with a card and case (though I don't need the case)... so definitely, good deal in some situations, not so much this time.

How do you like your SD1000? The reviews were strong. I care about image quality and shutter speed, mostly.

billf · « **Reply #29 on:** November 01, 2007, 11:13:31 am »

I like it so far. Still learning/playing with it at this point. The images are excellent. Shutter speed seems fast enough. I haven't shot a lot of pics with it yet, so take that for what is worth.

boykster · « **Reply #30 on:** November 01, 2007, 12:56:14 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 01, 2007, 10:47:57 am

Yep, a $7 case and a $12 memory card. It does add value but not "buy me now or forever regret it" value, especially with the Xmas season coming up.

That said, I bought the damn thing.

Yeah, i agree, a nice add-in, but not a barn burning deal maker. I posted it because it was timely to this thread and newegg tends to have pretty competitive prices and their email promo's tend to be even a bit better.

Glad it was helpful and hope the wife likes the camera

ChadTower · « **Reply #31 on:** November 01, 2007, 12:59:30 pm »

She should, she's not a technical person like we are, so if it's easy to use she'll be fine. Thanks for posting, the reviews all peg that as best in its price range.

patrickl · « **Reply #32 on:** November 01, 2007, 01:30:40 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 01, 2007, 12:59:30 pm

She should, she's not a technical person like we are, so if it's easy to use she'll be fine. Thanks for posting, the reviews all peg that as best in its price range.

I don't think those cheap Ixus models offer good picture quality though. You actually pay a lot of money for the size factor.

If the size (or styling) is not an issue then the Canon Powershot A560 offers better pictures at a lower price. Unfortunately not a full review with picture comparisons, but the galleries offer some pictures to compare.

for instance a studio shot at 80 ISO for both:
- SD1000 sample
- A560 sample

ChadTower · « **Reply #33 on:** November 01, 2007, 01:39:31 pm »

The second sample is definitely a bit better under those conditions. Not tons, but a little bit.

boykster · « **Reply #34 on:** November 01, 2007, 01:54:05 pm »

With small point and shoot cameras, its always a tradeoff of size vs picture quality. I'd much rather have pictures from a "lesser" camera because I brought along the camera because it fit in my pocket, vs not getting any pictures because I didnt' want to carry around a bigger camera that didn't fit in my pocket.

Don't get me wrong, I have 2 film SLR cameras, and am in the market for a DSLR at some point; but the camera I use most is my Panasonic DMC-FX9 little point and shoot camera. Why? Because it fits in my pocket and I can take it anywhere.

ChadTower · « **Reply #35 on:** November 01, 2007, 01:57:26 pm »

The size difference really doesn't appear to be that much between the two cameras. Then again, neither is the price, being roughly $30-40 apart between the two models, from what I see.

patrickl · « **Reply #36 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:25:14 pm »

Quote from: boykster on November 01, 2007, 01:54:05 pm

With small point and shoot cameras, its always a tradeoff of size vs picture quality. I'd much rather have pictures from a "lesser" camera because I brought along the camera because it fit in my pocket, vs not getting any pictures because I didnt' want to carry around a bigger camera that didn't fit in my pocket.

The A560 weighs only 40g more than the SD1000 though. I guess I'm just biased since I always hated my GF's old Ixus.

BTW he A650 is just an example. There might be better compacts available.

boykster · « **Reply #37 on:** November 01, 2007, 03:55:50 pm »

I'm not endorsing the SD1000 any more than just posting the link. Like I said, I dig my Lumix because its small, I can take it literally anywhere and it fits easily in any pants pocket. the SD1000 is significantly smaller than the A560 in one important dimension -> thickness. 1.70 in vs 0.76 in; thats a big difference IMHO.

That's all I'm sayin.

ChadTower · « **Reply #38 on:** November 01, 2007, 04:04:20 pm »

Eh... sure, it's a substantial difference in size, but if 1.7" wouldn't bother you, 0.76" isn't much different. That's my boat.

I went mostly on the Cnet reviews of the SD1000a. They rated it very high in that price range. I also went on my past experience doing work on the early Kodak Easyshare line - all of the hours I spent with several brands trying to get comparable photos out of the Kodaks as the other brands in the same price range. I could never do it - the Kodaks just weren't as good at the hardware level. Back then (2001 or so) the consumer digital cameras I was consistently getting best results from were always the same - Canon and Olympus. Kodak was more focused on retail shelf location, the client side software package (Easyshare and the matching printers), and online storage/integration with their online print services to make a camera as good as those other two.

JMB · « **Reply #39 on:** November 01, 2007, 04:14:47 pm »

The Olympus E-500 series are great entry level DSLR's that are often overlooked. We have had an E-500 for over a year now and are very happy with it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830111169

For $620 with the body and 2 lenses you can't go wrong.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news