Ready to take the plunge............
Any good sites for comparison? Any first hand experience with any of these?
I'm planning on about 4 megapixels.
I have a Nikon D100 simply because it shares lenses with my 2 Nikon film bodies. I could not afford the Pro version, but find this "Pro-sumer" version to be quite satisfactory. It also shares an SB80DX flash with film bodies. I saved money not having to get separate lenses. It is 6 mega-pixels which may be a little more camera than you're looking for. With a motor drive and flash bracket, it weighs as much as one of the kids. I think prices have dropped dramatically in recent months. I got mine a B&H. I hope this is helpful.
Doug -- I will never go back to film! I owned Minolta and Canon EOS SLRs for years and years before buying an Olympus C4040Z 4Mp camera a year ago. I really like it, and the C5050Z 5Mp owners are very happy with theirs from what I read on the Olympus discussion group.
Frankly though sjm, it really depends on what you want from a camera. Do you want point n shoot simplicity, or SLR capabilities with changeable lenses? Do you want lots of manual control over your pictures? Are you prepared for printing your own prints, burning them to CDR for storage, not being able to easily flip through paper photos from your local Walmart?
Are you ready to stop paying $3 for 36-exp film, and $12 to develop and print each roll? I really like that aspect!
There are so many personal factors involved in your decision. Check out these sites:
ask lots of questions, and then go to your local store to see what the cameras feel like in your hands. Try to play with the menus and see what seems more logical to you.
Feel free to send me emails offlist if you like -- I'd love to help.
Here are some pics I took with my Oly Sunday
-- cropped and Photoshopped, but you get an idea what the camera is capable of. I don't want to push you towards Oly necessarily -- I don't think you will find a bad camera these days if it's name brand -- Sony, Fuji, Canon, Oly, Nikon.
One more suggestion -- check out
where you can select photos by camera type. Narrow your choices to a few cameras, then go to this site to see what others are able to to with that particular camera.
PS -- I'm making plans to go digital SLR in about a year!
Update May 12 -- after saying "I will never go back to film again" I have decided to pull my EOS out of the closet -- just for experimentation. Digital has taught me so much about photography in the past year...
Last edited by sdubose99; 05-12-2003 at 03:55 PM.
I'm in the same situation as sjm, though I'm looking at 5MP cameras. Current contenders are (from least to most expensive):
Nikon Coolpix 5700
I've seen people here mention "almost" buying the Olympus, but for one reason or another not. I think I remember that BigAl has the Sony 707 and seems happy with it. I think a few people have the Nikon.
I'm planning to use the camera for everyday snapshots, but probably not as a travel camera (battery life is a major issue in the places I travel). I also want to use it for copying textured photos that need to be restored, but don't scan well. Thus, I envision that noise will be an issue and would like a camera that captures small details well (i.e., without too many demosaic artifacts) and with as little noise as possible. (There's enough noise/damage in old photos - I don't want to add to it!)
Does anyone have any direct experience with these cameras that they could share? Specifically, is there anything that you do not like about them that you wish were different? I've already read tons of reviews and spent hours combing the web for info on these cameras. Just hoping to get some comments about your experience with any of these cameras - esp. if you have used them as a copy camera on old/textured photos.
We'll I don't have much first hand experience with the models you listed Jeanie, but I just picked up a Canon Powershot G3 a few weeks ago and I'm in love with it!
Dpreview.com is a great site to look at especially because they give you "head-to-head" comparisons of different models and their reviews are quite thorough.
Canon will be coming out with a 5 megapixel version of the G3 very soon (G5 should be the name) and it's bound to get great reviews.
To me, image quality is the most important, that's why I went with the G3, but you have to look at all aspects of the camera... lens speed, does it have a hot-shoe, how long do the batteries last, CAN YOU TAKE A PICTURE USING ONLY ONE HAND (for parents... this is a must with any camera), etc.
If you guys have any direct questions regarding the G3, I'll be glad to answer them.
Jeanie, I belong to this Yahoo group on the 5050 (I have the 4040) -- I'd suggest posting there and see if anyone has specific feedback for you.
But before you do, you should read this page that one of the groups moderators created for the 5050:
and his section specifically on image noise:
I've researched a lot and I'm 99% sold on the SONY DSC-V1.
it supposedly does everyting the 717 will do but in a much smaller package.
It should be released later this month.
the carl zeiss lens, low light focusing, long battery life and less shutter lag seem to be very positive features.
it also has a hot shoe for an external flash .
A couple of miscellaneous comments.
Earlier, Doug said that he went film after considering digital, and there were several pro-digital counter arguments made - all of which were true.
There still is one significant advantage to film - exposure latitude. I have not yet seen a digital camera that matches a good low speed film for color depth and exposure latitude. Ideally, a good film camera and a top quality film scanner would give you the "best" results.
On the other hand, that is a lot of messing around with large file sizes and multi step pipelines if your primary medium for displaying your stuff is on-line.
As for choice of digital cameras: I like Canon digital cameras because I agree with their philosophy on sharpening - that less is more. Some say Canon's photos have a soft focus, but Canon also lacks the nasty sharpening artifacts that plague many digital cameras. I can always sharpen afterwards if I feel an image needs it, but it is a lot harder to get rid of unwanted artifacts.
RAW mode is also a good thing - even though I don't use it (complicates my workflow too much).
Definitely agree with your comment on film's latitude. Inability to handle high contrast is one of my chief gripes about digital. However, there are techniques to combine two digital images to maximize dynamic range -- one exposed for highlight, one exposed for shadows. Here, for example:
Another gripe is chromatic aberration in high contrast situations.
Having said that, the convenience and immediacy of digital is very interesting to me.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Creative interpretations: Flowers - Purple & Ready for Spring (JanetP)||Janet Petty||Photo-Based Art||38||03-07-2006 04:35 PM|
|The security patch is ready!||Ed_L||Salon||4||01-06-2006 04:45 AM|
|Web Ready||nebgranny||Photoshop Help||5||08-12-2005 06:14 AM|
|I Finally Took the Plunge||Pope37||Work/Jobs||10||02-13-2005 10:29 AM|
|Am I ready to print out?||sjm||Image Help||10||04-02-2004 04:07 PM|