[CameronS]

Hi

Im currently looking to buy a digital camera for both artistic and practical purposes. I have no prior experience in photography and im looking into starting.

What's a good, practical digicam?

[Impaler]

Digital cameras are one of those great consumer products that do pretty much everything you expect them to, no matter what brand you buy.

If you're just beginning:

1) Ignore megapixels. Even a 2 megapixel camera will produce an acceptable 4 x 3" print, and is more than suitable for web display.

2) Get something with AA batteries. They're cheap, and rechargeable ones will save you a fortune. A camera with a lithium-ion (or something similar) battery will cost you 50 bucks for an extra one, as opposed to 25 bucks for a NiMh (AA battery) recharger with 8 batteries.

3) Get a camera that reads Compact Flash storage cards. Compact Flash is cheap, reliable, and has about a dozen different manufacturers. Add 100 bucks to the price of whatever camera you choose, because you're going to need a much bigger card than the one that comes with the camera.

4) Remember: Great photos have been taken with every digital camera ever made. Don't spend more than you need to for features you won't use.

Expect to spend around 400 wingwangs altogether for the entire setup. This includes:

$250 - Entry-level digital camera
$100 - Larger storage card
$50 - Accessories (batteries, camera bag, flash card reader)

5) www.dpreview.com is, of course, a great site for objective analysis of digital cameras. I would suggest reading the entire glossary there. You'll be better informed if you go to buy a camera in person and some pushy salesman starts talking about awesome (expensive) features. A word of caution: Don't get bogged down in the technical analysis. After Photoshop treatment and downsizing for web display, most (not ALL) digital cameras produce exactly the same quality picture.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[B0b]

256 or 512MB card will do for most things

study DPReview's feedback for a camera in ur price range

[CameronS]

i was actually on that website last night and had a look at the top 20 cameras

the SD500 seemed good...its about 700 aud via ebay..

would this be a good puchase?

[Yarik]

CameronS, it is very imperitive you buy the new 21 mega pixel camera. You never know, might come in handy.

[Impaler]

Haha, holy crap. When I went shopping for flash cards a year ago, a 512mb card WOULD cost you 100 bucks. You can get a 1gb card for 75 bucks now.

CameronS, the SD500 is exactly the same camera as the S500, except with 200 dollars more megapixels that you probably won't notice. If you're willing to put down that much money for a camera, then you should at least look at the Powershot G6.

Personally, I would skip all three and just buy the Powershot A85 or A95. They have more features and cost around $250 less.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Godwin]

yeah heard that the powershot A series are good. Good photos come from the photographer and not so much the camera, just don't restrict yourself to a point-and-shoot fashionable mini piece of crap, because that's what they are.
_________________
Derelict Studios|Godwin's Space

[CameronS]

im also looking at the sd300, its much cheaper.

i was thinking the G6 but that costs too much.

and there's no need to be a faggot, yarik.

[Lunatique]

If you intend to get serious about photography, I highly suggest you get a DSLR instead of a point & shoot. P&S cameras are typically not geared towards serious photography, as the ergonomics and features are designed for the general public to shoot vacation/party photos with. Yes, you can take great photos with P&S cameras, but you really won't be getting the full "photography" experience unless you use a DSLR. A DSLR allows you to change lenses for different purposes, and DSLR's are laid out to allow maximum manual control, not to mention a real viewfinder instead of looking at a LCD--which is a very poor representation of what you're actually looking at. An entry level DSLR like Canon's 300D/Digital Rebel is a good choice. Nikon's D70 is also a great choice. There's also the E300 from Olumpus, the *ist DS from Pentax..etc. Go to dpreview.com for detailed information.

I know a DSLR is out of your price range, but if you intend to get serious with photography, it's worth saving up for.

[Spooky]

I bought my Nikon Coolpix 990 in 2000 for $1500 Canadian. At that time I also paid $500 for my 128 MB Compact Flash card. The prices on storage have dropped faster than hard drives.

Nikon still produces the finest images in my opinion, with Canon coming close behind. Minolta and Fuji are also winners, with Olympus getting high marks in both quality and pricing.

Lots prefer Sony's digicams as well, but I've stuck with Nikon.
_________________
http://www.digitaldreammachine.com/

[CameronS]

if i puchase the Nikon D70, which is a good lens?

18-70

28-200

higher the better? i guess.

[CameronS]

and btw, do DSLR cameras have basic P&S functions?

[Lunatique]

[Gort]

DSLRs do have standard automatic features, and that's good for the party or group shot, but the automatic features can be disabled in favor of manual settings (which allow for more artistic control).

The "Lens Kit" you see often bundled with the D70 is average; it will do for now, since you don't have a great deal of experience; however, as you move along and garnish more experience, you'll want to consider upgrading your lenses.
_________________
- Tom Carter

"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield

[Impaler]

$1000 for a first camera? No way. Three reasons:

1) The majority of the "learning" experience will be devoted to how shutter speed, aperture, exposure and focus work towards making an aesthetic picture. There are cheaper cameras with which you can learn this, like the Canon A or G Series, or most of the Nikon prosumers. You could even just shoot some 35mm with a $150 Minolta SLR and get the same image quality as a $2000 digital.

2) DSLRS are RAPIDLY improving per dollar, meaning that $1000 now won't buy nearly as good a camera it will get you in 1-2 years. Professionals and serious amateurs who NEED the latest features are well-justified in spending the money, but a beginner? He's better off cutting his teeth on a cheaper model and biding his time until prices drop.

3) You may end up using your camera a lot less than you anticipated. Would you rather have a $250 paperweight or a $1000 one?
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Lunatique]

Impaler - while I agree with what you said (particularly that I don't know him, so I don't know how dedicated he will be), I think P&S cameras don't really teach the basics that well. I learned photography on an Olympus C3030Z--and although it was no slouch among other P&S cameras, it was sorely lacking in many things that I consider essential to learning the basics. It wasn't until I upgraded to a DSLR did I realize just how little I actually understood of the basics of photography, due to the limitations of P&S digicams. For one, you don't learn much about aperature from P&S cameras because they all have a vast DOF no matter how big the fstop you set it to. A f/2.8 fstop on a P&S digicam absolutely looks nothing like how it should on a SLR. Another thing is, the low ISO capability of P&S digicams prevents you to shoot a lot of situations, whereas with a DSLR, you can crank the ISO up and still be able to shoot in low-light situations with a cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens, and still get beautiful results that no P&S digicam could ever touch in the same situation, unless you pop up the on-camera flash, and we all know how much those suck (and using flash is never the answer for capturing a beautiful, atmospheric photo with gorgeous ambient light).

Another point is, if he does advance his photography with the P&S camera, he'll be tempted to buy accesories for it, like telephoto attachment, ultra-wide attachment, macro-attachment, seperate flash..etc, and I did that with my C3030Z, and if I could do it all over again, I would've just gotten a DSLR in the first place and gotten accesories that could be used down the line if I upgrade the DSLR to a higher model (assuming you stick to the same camera system, which most people do).

Buying a film SLR would be a bad idea for the beginner, because he'd be wasting a lot of film doing experiments, and he'd be less likely to try new things for the fear of wasting film. Digital is the best thing to learn on--no competition at all. The only good thing about film SLR is that it's cheap compared to DSLR--but dealing with film down the line is a lot more of a headache, not to mention the inferior ISO capability--not being able to change it on the fly because you have a certain speed of film loaded alrady. Lack of instant feedback is the worst drawback of all.

[Impaler]

You raise great points, Lunatique. I'm even willing to concede your point about aperture; 2.8-8.0 is a poor representative range of even the most basic SLR lenses. It's hard (foolish?) to argue that you'd learn the true intricacies of DOF with a 4-stop range, though you CAN pick up on the basics.

It's a tough call on my part. I learned basic photography on a film SLR, so I feel almost like a hypocrite coming here and saying that this guy should go with a less able camera. Photo 101 students across the entire nation STILL make their first academic pictures with an SLR. What's the difference here, then? Price, mostly, but also the capabilities of p&s cameras these days. Image review, histograms, shutter, aperture AND white balance control, relatively good-quality lenses, they all come together to make a pretty powerful package for a relatively palatable price.

I don't know if I agree with you, however, that film is a bad medium to learn on. It's true that in the long run, digital IS cheaper-- by my estimations, I've saved close to $5000 in film, processing and printing by just using digital. Looking back through some of my folders now, I'm wondering just how much money I've actually saved. I've found that I'm much more willing to make a bad digital photo than a bad film photo, precisely because a digital picture is free and a roll of IS0 25 film costs $10. I've occasionally adopted, it seems, the bad habit of taking several snapshot-quality pictures of a subject and just hoping for the best. With film, I tend to be much more cautious and meditative, metering everything twice, focusing as carefully as I can, basically making sure that every photo I make is at least worth the film it's exposed on. Once again, though, I find myself in conflict with myself; while film has its merits, digital is a great way to experiment and learn and make mistakes without going broke.

But, really, that's what being a beginner is all about: making mistakes and experimenting and learning the basics without going broke when you don't NEED to.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[B0b]

over the past year and a half i've taken a little over 20K worth of pics or �3,196.72 in film alone, let alone processing of pictures

[Ragnarok]

I'm with Impaler on this one.
I own a digital camera (canon s30) that has some slr capabilities (shutter speed, etc) and a SLR camera (Canon EOS 500N). I love both of them.
With the digital I take lots of photos, and half of them are just experiments or not comment worthy. With the SLR I take photos carefully, I think twice about exposition values and the composition.
I will eventually upgrade to a DSLR, but I like the feel of taking photos thinking twice about them. If I use a DSLR I know I'll have to force myself to think twice, because I could just point&shoot and see if the result is good just because it doesn't cost me money.
Also, shooting slides and watching them afterwards with a projector is a nice experience.
I think for starters the best option is a modern digital camera with all its posibilities. If you know what you're loosing choosing that option, it's alright. Whenever you feel the camera isn't doing what you want, buy a DSLR (instead of accesories for a P&S camera).
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu