Digital Cameras

[dr nick]

ok, i'm looking for a pretty decent digital camera and was wondering if there are any budding photographers amongst here that could guide me onto the best brands / essential features etc (i just dont trust the opinions of the harvey norman sales staff)

i am offloading my Kodak DX4900, which was great for learning about photography and was very easy to use, but as i learned a bit more realised how limited in features it was and i couldn't push it very far. the twighlight shots in particular are very blurred if you dont use a tripod and turn out rather dark if the flash is used, but about right with no flash (but blur).

i'm after one that basically has a lot of manual control over the shot. sometimes the automatic apertures, shutter speeds, metering, exposure and focus means you dont get the shot right. i've been told that SLR cameras are excellent (but not quite sure why that is) they are also pretty expensive.

 

[gerling]

Got a Canon Powershot S30. Couldn't be happier. Use it daily for commercial use.

 

[raticus]

check out the fuji finepix s602 - I sell digital cameras and i find the fujis give the best results for the $$$ -



try
www.pcworld.com

for camera reviews - i use that site

 

[gerling]

Originally posted by nicko18
what sorts of shots do you take with it?

Product shots. Background shots. Texture shots. And occasionally Money shots.

I've produced all sorts of print/digital media from it. It's a piece of p1ss to use and manage your data as well.

 

[Desredandwhite]

Nicko - dpreview should answer a lot of your questions, undoubtedly the best digicam review site on the planet.

The reason why the flash shots were coming out dark is because the camera has adjusted the exposure based on the assumption that the flash would illuminate the subject - if the subject is too far away (ie: football player more than 10 feet away) then it'll be too dark. Same thing in reverse for the no flash photos (to compensate for the darkness, the camera slows down the shutter speed, which will cause the blurriness)

SLR cameras ARE excellent (single lens reflex).. Basically what you see through the viewfinder is EXACTLY what the lens sees. Digital SLRs are stupidly expensive though - they have to be very precisely engineered to minimise dust and other rubbish mucking around with the CCD. Essentially anything past the $1000 mark should have sufficient manual features to play with - that's the best part about digicams really, I've learnt a lot more in a couple of years of owning mine than in a decade of stuffing around with an automatic film camera and occasionally a film SLR.

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

I own a Nikon CP4500. It has full manual features, but not the price of an SLR.

I use it for happy snaps but also for astrophotography (attaching it to the back of my telescope)....hence the need for manual settings.

The Nikon costs USD700.

I also own the Kodak DX4900.

Both give very similar happy snaps (both being 4MP) but I agree re the limitations of the Kodak. I also hate the software and that I cannot find a simple driver which I can install anywhere just to download a picor 2....you have to indtall the whole box and dice.

anyway Nikon CP4500 is great. In an SLR some of the newer Canon models are also excellent D60 and D10....but pricey.

Only problem with the Nikon is the 28mm threaded lens which is a bit of an odd size. They do this of course to force you to buy Nikon accesories....a simple step ring ($10) gets around it though.

clear skies

VM

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by nicko18
vindallomat, i assume you need long exposure times for astronomical photos. my camera has 15 secs max (good from brightening up city lights and emphasising stars) but i've seen pictures that have the stars path moving across the sky (i guess noise would begin to factor for much longer than 30 secs)

not always but certainly for some objects you can expose for hours with the right equipment. Solar system objects are all < 1 second generally.

I did buy the Nikon for this purpose though. It has a bulb setting which exposes for 5 minutes (generally the maximum on retail digital cams). Because they are digital snaps you can then stack them in photoshop or something similar (ie you take 20 * 5 second shots and stack them to get 1*100 second exposure).

The star trails you see will begin to be noticable at about 30 seconds - 1 minute, unless you "polar" align in which case your scope will track the object and no trails appear......

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Desredandwhite
SLR cameras ARE excellent (single lens reflex).. Basically what you see through the viewfinder is EXACTLY what the lens sees.

something that can be done using the digital viewfinder too i spose

 

[Vindaloo Mat]

Originally posted by nicko18
by the way, do all digital cameras have threaded lenses?? i go to look at cash converters for zoom and wide angle lenses and they seem to be very brand specific, though im not sure if that is only an issue with film cameras.

not all do...the "really small" one's tend not to....but anything from a Nikon CP4300 onwards does...most of the Fuji's do (I don't like the plastic used on most Fuji's)....if your camera is sophisticated enough to have maual focus it would normally have a threaded lens.