Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@gmail.com, May 21, 2007.

  1. Guest

    This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    do?
    - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

    Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
    focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
    and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    assume?

    As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
    LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
    better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
    produde sharp pictures?

    Thanks for info
     
    , May 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Fischer Guest

    <> wrote:
    >This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    >camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    >$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    >shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    >do?
    >- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    >keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    >new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    >- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    >that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.


    The latter. But you may have different standards.

    Here's a test:

    Imagine that you see a beautiful picture just begging to be captured.
    You take out your camera and snap away. But when you get home you see
    that the picture lacks sharpness and contrast, has poor color, and
    is generally disappointing.

    Do you shrug and pass it off without any concern?
    Did you not even have your camera handy, having left it in a drawer?
    Did you not think to take a picture?

    If you generally answer yes to those questions then buy the cheaper
    camera. If you don't care that much then don't waste money on a
    camera that you won't make full use of.

    If you want to take really nice pictures, if you're willing to shoot
    1000 crappy pictures to geta couple of good ones, if you don't mind
    schlepping around a camera all over the place, then spend the money
    for a good camera.

    >Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    >photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    >loosing any picture quality with time and usage?


    Yep. But they're big and heavy. I carried a Canon Digital Rebel
    along with a tripod and four lenses up to the top of Mount Lassen
    (yes, and back down again). Most people aren't that ... whatever.

    dSLRs generally last longer than most compacts because they are made
    to higher standards and have fewer motors and gadgets to fail. The
    people who use them routinely shoot 10,000 pictures every year. I
    tend towards landscapes and do a more moderate 2000 to 3000 each year.

    >Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
    >focus as good as when it is new?


    Not an issue.

    > In the old days, you have the lens
    >and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    >and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    >assume?


    Yes, things wear out. The shutter is typically rated to about
    100,000 shots. Lenses have motors and moving parts. Batteries
    need replacing in time.

    Before that happens you'll either get tired of the whole photography
    business and/or decide you need some new feature.

    >As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
    >LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
    >better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
    >produde sharp pictures?


    Probably, yes.

    Now then, "sharp" is subjective. There are some people who spend $800
    just on a single lens to get the best color and sharpness. Are you
    one of those? What did it for me was a trip to the mountains. There
    I had a gorgeous shot with snow on the ground, big puffy clouds with
    sun rays coming from behind them and a snowy stream in the foreground.
    But I was using a cheap $100 lens, and the edges weren't sharp and the
    contrast was so-so. A great picture turned into a mediocre one.
    That's when I spent $700 for a good lens.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, May 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ï "Ray Fischer" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:4651405c$0$14085$...
    > <> wrote:
    > >This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    > >camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    > >$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    > >shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    > >do?
    > >- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    > >keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    > >new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    > >- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    > >that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    >
    > The latter. But you may have different standards.
    >
    > Here's a test:
    >
    > Imagine that you see a beautiful picture just begging to be captured.
    > You take out your camera and snap away. But when you get home you see
    > that the picture lacks sharpness and contrast, has poor color, and
    > is generally disappointing.
    >
    > Do you shrug and pass it off without any concern?
    > Did you not even have your camera handy, having left it in a drawer?
    > Did you not think to take a picture?
    >
    > If you generally answer yes to those questions then buy the cheaper
    > camera. If you don't care that much then don't waste money on a
    > camera that you won't make full use of.
    >
    > If you want to take really nice pictures, if you're willing to shoot
    > 1000 crappy pictures to geta couple of good ones, if you don't mind
    > schlepping around a camera all over the place, then spend the money
    > for a good camera.
    >
    > >Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    > >photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    > >loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

    >
    > Yep. But they're big and heavy. I carried a Canon Digital Rebel
    > along with a tripod and four lenses up to the top of Mount Lassen
    > (yes, and back down again). Most people aren't that ... whatever.
    >

    Maybe wanton photographers:)
    I usually carried around everywhere my Nikon FM-2, complete with 3 lenses,
    vintage soviet-made flash.Just its bag was as heavy as a pair of army's
    boots.While all really suited me, was a compact, because in family's
    meetings I usually shoot snapshots (which of course came out badly, from
    time to time).But as you say, you had to shoot a whole roll of film just for
    that pair of good slides.I also took it in an army drill, in a smaller soft
    case with just the Nikkor 50 1.4, where the 1A (skylight) filter was
    shattered , with the lens being OK.How that happened, even today I do not
    understand.Now, I got bored of all this and I really didn't have room for a
    wet darkroom, and the convenient room-temperature (20 o C) RA-4 tetenal
    chemicals were long obsolete in greece, probably the prelude to digital
    photography, and it was more and more difficult to procure the right
    chemicals and to process slides, and so now I have my digital outfit, with
    which I can conveniently print at home, up to A4 (a bit larger than 8
    X10")without the hassle of a wet darkroom (and without its frustration)and
    without the frustration of a fully manual camera, dicovering after having
    your precious film developed, that the only meant-to-be good photo of your
    cousin getting married was out of focus, or the flash wasn't powerful
    enough, not to decribe the usually terrible quality of all lab chromogenic
    "fast food" prints....(No more tetenal C-41 room temperature chemicals)I
    have a couple of good, framed B&W printed on Ilford Satin 11X14 FB( I used
    exclusively FB, not RC)but that was in my early youth...Now at 34, I use my
    camera for family events a dozen times a year...No more mountain climbing,
    no hiking, no skiing, I am discharged from the army, no more evenings spent
    in the darkroom...What should I photograph, the fellow electrician with the
    pincers and the fish tape or the trowel?Although I still strive for good
    "negatives" and good "prints" with the least possible correction....








    nism worn out and after a while it will not
    > >focus as good as when it is new?

    >
    > Not an issue.
    >
    > > In the old days, you have the lens
    > >and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    > >and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    > >assume?

    >
    > Yes, things wear out. The shutter is typically rated to about
    > 100,000 shots. Lenses have motors and moving parts. Batteries
    > need replacing in time.
    >
    > Before that happens you'll either get tired of the whole photography
    > business and/or decide you need some new feature.
    >
    > >As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
    > >LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
    > >better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
    > >produde sharp pictures?

    >
    > Probably, yes.
    >
    > Now then, "sharp" is subjective. There are some people who spend $800
    > just on a single lens to get the best color and sharpness. Are you
    > one of those? What did it for me was a trip to the mountains. There
    > I had a gorgeous shot with snow on the ground, big puffy clouds with
    > sun rays coming from behind them and a snowy stream in the foreground.
    > But I was using a cheap $100 lens, and the edges weren't sharp and the
    > contrast was so-so. A great picture turned into a mediocre one.
    > That's when I spent $700 for a good lens.
    >
    > --


    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, May 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Ï "ray" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:p...
    > On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca wrote:
    >
    > > This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    > > camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    > > $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    > > shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    > > do?
    > > - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    > > keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    > > new cameras @ $200 a piece.

    >
    > Why would you do that? You could just as easily buy the $200 camera and
    > pocket the extra $600. It ain't gonna wear out that quick.
    >
    > > - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    > > that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    >
    > Don't know why it shouldn't. I still have my Kodak DC210+ which is now
    > closing in on ten years old - still works fine - just take decent care of
    > it.

    Probably you will "outgrow" your camera before it will fail...Or it will
    become obsolete.The bargain of today is the trash of tomorrow.Although I
    really hate having working electronics appliances sitting on a shelf, so I
    gave my infamous Kodak CX 7300, complete with (now almost obsolete)ni cd
    Orbit charger discharger to a realtive, which was pleased.
    >
    > >
    > > Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    > > photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    > > loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

    >
    > Yes - and so will less expensive ones, too.
    >
    > >
    > > Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
    > > focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
    > > and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    > > and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    > > assume?
    > >
    > > As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
    > > LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
    > > better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
    > > produde sharp pictures?
    > >
    > > Thanks for info




    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    >
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, May 21, 2007
    #4
  5. ray Guest

    On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca wrote:

    > This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    > camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    > $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    > shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    > do?
    > - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    > keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    > new cameras @ $200 a piece.


    Why would you do that? You could just as easily buy the $200 camera and
    pocket the extra $600. It ain't gonna wear out that quick.

    > - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    > that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.


    Don't know why it shouldn't. I still have my Kodak DC210+ which is now
    closing in on ten years old - still works fine - just take decent care of
    it.

    >
    > Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    > photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    > loosing any picture quality with time and usage?


    Yes - and so will less expensive ones, too.

    >
    > Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
    > focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
    > and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    > and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    > assume?
    >
    > As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
    > LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
    > better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
    > produde sharp pictures?
    >
    > Thanks for info
     
    ray, May 21, 2007
    #5
  6. C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, said:

    > This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    > camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    > $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    > shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    > do?
    > - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    > keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    > new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    > - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    > that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.


    Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.


    >
    > Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    > photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    > loosing any picture quality with time and usage?


    Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
    picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
    100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.

    >
    > Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
    > focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
    > and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    > and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    > assume?


    Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
    scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
    to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
    sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
    last another 20 years.


    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, May 21, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    snip
    > and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    >shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    >do?
    >- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    >keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    >new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    >- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    >that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    snip

    Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
    rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
    greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
    a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
    neighbors.

    Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
    are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
    user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
    DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
    That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
     
    , May 21, 2007
    #7
  8. ray Guest

    On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

    > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, said:
    >
    >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    >> do?
    >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    >
    > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.


    Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
    your needs, what's the problem?

    >
    >
    >>
    >> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
    >> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
    >> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

    >
    > Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
    > picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
    > 100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.
    >
    >>
    >> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
    >> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
    >> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
    >> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
    >> assume?

    >
    > Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
    > scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
    > to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
    > sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
    > last another 20 years.
     
    ray, May 21, 2007
    #8
  9. wrote:
    > snip
    >> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    >> do?
    >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    > snip
    >
    > Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
    > rapidly.


    Not really.

    > Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
    > greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
    > a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
    > neighbors.


    A decent starter DSLR will last a very long time, take better pictures,
    and be a better teaching/learning tool for the "average" photographer,
    whatever that is. Good quality lenses one might add from time to time
    will last virtually forever, and better bodies can be put behind them
    when you're rich or famous.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, May 21, 2007
    #9
  10. Scott W Guest

    On May 21, 11:19 am, wrote:
    > snip> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    > >shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    > >do?
    > >- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    > >keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    > >new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    > >- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    > >that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    >
    > snip
    >
    > Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
    > rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
    > greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
    > a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
    > neighbors.
    >
    > Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
    > are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
    > user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
    > DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
    > That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.


    I don't believe this is true at all. About two and a half years ago
    my wife and I bought a Canon 20D, the camera is still a great camera
    and in no way obsolete. This camera was mainly for my wife, who had
    been trying to use a compact digital and getting justifiably
    frustrated.

    Not only does a DSLR take way better photos then a compact camera but
    it is also way more fun to use. And I would much rather be using a
    fairly old DSLR, like say the 10D that came out 4 years ago then any
    of the current compact cameras. Sure there are compact camera with
    10MP and the 10D only has 6, but the 10D still takes better looking
    photos. The point is that even if someone 4 years ago had decided to
    go for the DSLR I don't think they would have been at all
    disappointed, we certainly where not buying the 20D two and a half
    yours ago.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Wayne Guest

    >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
    >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
    >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
    >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
    >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.


    >I don't believe this is true at all.


    It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.

    We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
    reasons that have been stated.

    It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
    contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
    false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
    versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
    mode, then it is versatile enough for us.

    It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
    problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.

    It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
    everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
    happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
    megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
    inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
    you should buy more.

    The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
    presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
    wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
    option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
    others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
    except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
    works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
    features.

    Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
    features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
    use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
    The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
    always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.

    We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
    It is mostly about us.
     
    Wayne, May 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Wayne wrote:
    >>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
    >>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
    >>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
    >>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
    >>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

    >
    >> I don't believe this is true at all.

    >
    > It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
    >
    > We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
    > reasons that have been stated.


    On the contrary, I'm sure many of the reasons that have been stated
    drive many decisions. (I'm certainly not claiming *all* though!)

    > It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
    > contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
    > false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
    > versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
    > mode, then it is versatile enough for us.


    Contrast and color, in particular, are not the faults; the cheaper the
    camera, the more those two are likely to be pumped up in fact!

    One could stay in A mode (probably P mode actually) and still want
    faster autofocus and faster general responsiveness, though.

    > It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
    > problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.


    From listening to friends and personal experience, the P&S seem to last
    1-5 years before they die.

    > It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
    > everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
    > happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
    > megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
    > inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
    > you should buy more.


    I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
    in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
    the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.

    (But I'm not claiming *every* 2MP image will print a decent 8x10; just
    that it's surprising what you can get away with sometimes.)

    > The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
    > presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
    > wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
    > option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
    > others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
    > except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
    > works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
    > features.
    >
    > Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
    > features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
    > use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
    > The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
    > always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.


    You could call them "features", but there are performance issues as
    well. Fast lenses. Fast autofocus. Autofocus tracking of moving
    subjects. Fast repeat rate.

    > We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
    > It is mostly about us.


    Always true of any tool, of course.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 22, 2007
    #12
  13. Cats Guest

    On May 21, 10:25 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
    > > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, said:

    >
    > >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
    > >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
    > >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
    > >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
    > >> do?
    > >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
    > >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
    > >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    > >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
    > >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    >
    > > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.

    >
    > Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
    > your needs, what's the problem?

    <snip>

    Quite. I have a Canon Powershot A70, 3.2 megapixels, and I still use
    it. Apart from a low pixel count, it's a great camera - good lens
    (possibly the most important component), great viewfinder, easy to use
    and the results are good. A more up-to-date camera isn't necesarily
    better, as I found out when I brought a Fuji S5600.
     
    Cats, May 22, 2007
    #13
  14. Geoff Berrow Guest

    Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
    following:

    >It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
    >everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
    >happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
    >megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
    >inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
    >you should buy more.


    I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon D70)
    In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels are
    noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses

    --
    Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
    It's only Usenet, no one dies.
    My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
    Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
     
    Geoff Berrow, May 22, 2007
    #14
  15. harrogate3 Guest

    "Geoff Berrow" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
    > following:
    >
    > >It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still

    should do
    > >everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still

    quite
    > >happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3

    or 4
    > >megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print

    8x10
    > >inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you

    need more,
    > >you should buy more.

    >
    > I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon

    D70)
    > In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels

    are
    > noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
    >
    > --



    ....and it has to be said that the 18-70mm zoom provided as standard
    with the D70 is one of the best lenses on the market. Says an awful
    lot about digital quality.


    --
    Woody (a very satisfied D70s owner)

    harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
     
    harrogate3, May 22, 2007
    #15
  16. harrogate3 Guest

    "Cats" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On May 21, 10:25 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > > On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
    > > > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, said:

    > >
    > > >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long

    term
    > > >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say

    for
    > > >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no

    action
    > > >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what

    would you
    > > >> do?
    > > >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two)

    and then
    > > >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to

    4 brand
    > > >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
    > > >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope

    and pray
    > > >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

    > >
    > > > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.

    > >
    > > Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still

    fullfill
    > > your needs, what's the problem?

    > <snip>
    >
    > Quite. I have a Canon Powershot A70, 3.2 megapixels, and I still

    use
    > it. Apart from a low pixel count, it's a great camera - good lens
    > (possibly the most important component), great viewfinder, easy to

    use
    > and the results are good. A more up-to-date camera isn't necesarily
    > better, as I found out when I brought a Fuji S5600.
    >
    >


    3Mp on a compact at full frame is perfectly good for enlargement to A4
    (297x210mm for our friends over the pond,) 5Mp in a compact is as much
    as most people need as above that sensor noise (mainly thermal) starts
    to become an issue.

    The larger pixels and cell on a DSLR mean that a 2Mp DSLR like the
    early Nikons will usually knock spots off any picture taken on a
    compact under about 5Mp. Get a 6Mp DSLR and you're laughing.


    You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
    brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
    ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
    "640K of memory is enough for anyone."

    Says it all really....................


    --
    Woody

    harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
     
    harrogate3, May 22, 2007
    #16
  17. dennis@home Guest

    "harrogate3" <> wrote in message
    news:Xyz4i.1355$...

    > You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
    > brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
    > ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
    > "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
    >
    > Says it all really....................


    It was true at the time.
    Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.

    The same can't be said for digital cameras where there is an existing
    technology that does the job.
    However many DSLRs and a few P&S cameras will do images as good as most 35mm
    film cameras these days.

    I treat them like computers myself.. just buy last years model when they are
    selling them cheap.
    The new ones tend not to have many real improvements.
    The current fashion for IS is making all the older ones very cheap at the
    moment and we have done without IS for the last 100 years.
     
    dennis@home, May 22, 2007
    #17
  18. Scott W Guest

    On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <> wrote:
    > >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
    > >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
    > >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
    > >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
    > >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

    > >I don't believe this is true at all.

    >
    > It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
    >
    > We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
    > reasons that have been stated.
    >
    > It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
    > contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
    > false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
    > versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
    > mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
    >
    > It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
    > problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
    >
    > It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
    > everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
    > happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
    > megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
    > inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
    > you should buy more.
    >
    > The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
    > presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
    > wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
    > option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
    > others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
    > except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
    > works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
    > features.
    >
    > Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
    > features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
    > use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
    > The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
    > always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.

    I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
    not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
    faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
    etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
    are loaded with features.

    If all someone wants is a small point and shoot that is fine, but if
    someone is thinking about a DSLR they should be aware that there is
    much more to a DSLR then just more features.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 22, 2007
    #18
  19. ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:25:59 GMT, harrogate3 wrote:

    > 3Mp on a compact at full frame is perfectly good for enlargement to A4
    > (297x210mm for our friends over the pond,) 5Mp in a compact is as much
    > as most people need as above that sensor noise (mainly thermal) starts
    > to become an issue.


    Your friends across the pond (not all) may be more familiar with
    A4 than metric measurements. :) They realize that A4 is just
    slightly taller and narrower than the standard paper size used for
    eons in typewriters and printers, i.e., 8½" x 11", which is just a
    bit larger than the common 8"x10" photo paper size. As to the rest,
    I completely agree. With a bunch of cameras that have sensors
    ranging from 3mp to 8mp, all are capable of providing sufficient
    resolution for the great majority of my photos, and the one I use is
    usually determined by convenience, often the 4mp Fuji P&S. The 3mp
    Canon Powershot is just too limited in features (nothing but full
    Auto mode, and poor battery life).


    > The larger pixels and cell on a DSLR mean that a 2Mp DSLR like the
    > early Nikons will usually knock spots off any picture taken on a
    > compact under about 5Mp. Get a 6Mp DSLR and you're laughing.


    <g> (6mp D50!)
     
    ASAAR, May 22, 2007
    #19
  20. Scott W Guest

    On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <> wrote:
    > >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
    > >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
    > >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
    > >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
    > >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

    > >I don't believe this is true at all.

    >
    > It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
    >
    > We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
    > reasons that have been stated.
    >
    > It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
    > contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
    > false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
    > versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
    > mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
    >
    > It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
    > problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
    >
    > It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
    > everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
    > happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
    > megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
    > inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
    > you should buy more.
    >
    > The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
    > presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
    > wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
    > option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
    > others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
    > except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
    > works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
    > features.
    >
    > Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
    > features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
    > use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
    > The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
    > always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.

    I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
    not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
    faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
    etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
    are loaded with features.

    If all someone wants is a small point and shoot that is fine, but if
    someone is thinking about a DSLR they should be aware that there is
    much more to a DSLR then just more features.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 22, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. woobles

    Anyone know of any High end NON-SLR digital cameras?

    woobles, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    423
    John Horner
    Dec 22, 2003
  2. KL234
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    947
    Dave Hau
    Feb 26, 2004
  3. Silverstrand

    High End Digital Camera Buyer's Guide

    Silverstrand, Sep 15, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    638
    Silverstrand
    Sep 15, 2006
  4. High end P&S or Low end D-SLR

    , Mar 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,398
    J. Clarke
    Apr 6, 2006
  5. Replies:
    28
    Views:
    655
Loading...

Share This Page