Camera recommendations sought

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JoeM, Apr 24, 2008.

  1. JoeM

    JoeM Guest

    Hello,

    I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    most point-and-shoots do not have:

    1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    portraits, for example).
    2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.

    Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform substantially
    better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider a
    DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.

    Thanks,
    Joe
     
    JoeM, Apr 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JoeM

    Jeff R. Guest

    "JoeM" <> wrote in message
    news:IjVPj.6865$Y81.756@trndny09...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    > point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    > most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >
    > 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    > portraits, for example).


    This is always going to be a problem with the slow, short focal length
    lenses in P&S's.

    > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.


    I presume you mean "noise", not "distortion"...

    >
    > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    > substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I
    > would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.


    You could look at a Canon G9
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/
    I'm very happy with mine. You still won't get the lovely creamy OOF
    backgrounds you want, even though the Canon has aperture-priority mode.
    Even at max telephoto, its only at 44mm f.l. Wide open its f/4.8 (at that
    f.l.) This ain't gunna compete with a basic SLR.

    Its better than most P&S's, though.

    Noise at high ISO is good.

    Mind you, a D40 probably costs about the same...

    If a short DOF is important, get a cheap DSLR and a fixed-focal length fast
    telephoto. That can be a cheap option, if you are prepared to sacrifice
    auto-focus.

    Anyways... roll on the contrary opinions...

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JoeM <> wrote:
    > Hello,


    > I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    > point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    > most point-and-shoots do not have:


    > 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    > portraits, for example).
    > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.


    > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform substantially
    > better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider a
    > DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.


    Sensor size strongly influences camera size. So if you want something
    smaller than a typical DSLR but with better noise performance than a
    compact, you either want a DSLR with a smaller than typical sensor
    such as Olympus, or a not-so-compact with a bigger one than the typical
    compact such as the larger Ricohs or Panasonics.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 24, 2008
    #3
  4. JoeM

    Marvin Guest

    JoeM wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    > point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    > most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >
    > 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    > portraits, for example).
    > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.


    Actually, both requirements go together, A camera with a
    small sensor has a greater DOF than one with a large sensor
    at the same f-number. But the trade-off is cost. When I
    want to blur the background, I do it is Paint Shop Pro.

    >
    > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    > substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I
    > would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Joe
     
    Marvin, Apr 24, 2008
    #4
  5. JoeM

    canon.user Guest

    On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:11:57 +1000 'Jeff R.'
    wrote this on rec.photo.digital:

    >You could look at a Canon G9
    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/
    >I'm very happy with mine.



    Jeff, I'm also looking at the G9 but the other one in the frame
    (pun) is the SX100-IS. Did you also consider that at the time?

    I can't really understand why there is so much difference in price
    between them.
     
    canon.user, Apr 24, 2008
    #5
  6. JoeM

    measekite Guest

    JoeM wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    > point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features
    > which most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >
    > 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background
    > of portraits, for example).
    > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.

    How high is high ISO.
    >
    > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    > substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas?
    > I would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Joe
     
    measekite, Apr 24, 2008
    #6
  7. JoeM

    JoeM Guest

    Thanks Jeff. You're right - I meant noise, not distortion. Still learning
    the terminology. Thanks for the suggestion of G9 and D40. I will check out
    those models.


    "Jeff R." <> wrote in message
    news:481024d2$0$13944$...
    >
    > "JoeM" <> wrote in message
    > news:IjVPj.6865$Y81.756@trndny09...
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    >> point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    >> most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >>
    >> 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    >> portraits, for example).

    >
    > This is always going to be a problem with the slow, short focal length
    > lenses in P&S's.
    >
    >> 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.

    >
    > I presume you mean "noise", not "distortion"...
    >
    >>
    >> Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    >> substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I
    >> would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.

    >
    > You could look at a Canon G9
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/
    > I'm very happy with mine. You still won't get the lovely creamy OOF
    > backgrounds you want, even though the Canon has aperture-priority mode.
    > Even at max telephoto, its only at 44mm f.l. Wide open its f/4.8 (at
    > that f.l.) This ain't gunna compete with a basic SLR.
    >
    > Its better than most P&S's, though.
    >
    > Noise at high ISO is good.
    >
    > Mind you, a D40 probably costs about the same...
    >
    > If a short DOF is important, get a cheap DSLR and a fixed-focal length
    > fast telephoto. That can be a cheap option, if you are prepared to
    > sacrifice auto-focus.
    >
    > Anyways... roll on the contrary opinions...
    >
    > --
    > Jeff R.
     
    JoeM, Apr 25, 2008
    #7
  8. JoeM

    JoeM Guest

    Thanks Chris. Were there any particular models of Ricoh and Panasonic that
    you had in mind?


    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JoeM <> wrote:
    >> Hello,

    >
    >> I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    >> point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    >> most point-and-shoots do not have:

    >
    >> 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    >> portraits, for example).
    >> 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.

    >
    >> Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    >> substantially
    >> better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider
    >> a
    >> DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.

    >
    > Sensor size strongly influences camera size. So if you want something
    > smaller than a typical DSLR but with better noise performance than a
    > compact, you either want a DSLR with a smaller than typical sensor
    > such as Olympus, or a not-so-compact with a bigger one than the typical
    > compact such as the larger Ricohs or Panasonics.
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    >
    >
     
    JoeM, Apr 25, 2008
    #8
  9. JoeM

    JoeM Guest

    Thanks Floyd. I don't think I can afford a top of the line model, so I may
    have to do some compromising.


    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "JoeM" <> wrote:
    >>Hello,
    >>
    >>I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    >>point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    >>most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >>
    >>1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    >>portraits, for example).
    >>2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.
    >>
    >>Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    >>substantially
    >>better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider
    >>a
    >>DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.

    >
    > Even with a DSLR those issues are significant points of
    > difference between cameras, with only the top of the
    > line DSLR's from Nikon and Canon matching your
    > requirements.
    >
    > Item 1, short DOF, is significantly different between
    > APC sized sensors on DSLRs and the few that have "full
    > frame" sensors the size of a 35mm film frame.
    >
    > Item 2, assuming you meant low noise at high ISO values,
    > is also something that gets progressively better with
    > newer and more expensive DSLRs. Nikon and Canon top of
    > the line DSLR bodies are significantly better than
    > others, including their top models of just a few years
    > ago.
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    JoeM, Apr 25, 2008
    #9
  10. JoeM

    JoeM Guest

    Thanks Marvin. I'll have to look into PSP. That's an interesting idea.


    "Marvin" <> wrote in message
    news:WP0Qj.6006$WU.2426@trndny08...
    > JoeM wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    >> point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    >> most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >>
    >> 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    >> portraits, for example).
    >> 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.

    >
    > Actually, both requirements go together, A camera with a small sensor has
    > a greater DOF than one with a large sensor at the same f-number. But the
    > trade-off is cost. When I want to blur the background, I do it is Paint
    > Shop Pro.
    >
    >>
    >> Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    >> substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I
    >> would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Joe
     
    JoeM, Apr 25, 2008
    #10
  11. JoeM

    JoeM Guest

    Let's say 1600.

    "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:pw1Qj.10706$...
    >
    >
    > JoeM wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a
    >> point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which
    >> most point-and-shoots do not have:
    >>
    >> 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of
    >> portraits, for example).
    >> 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO.

    > How high is high ISO.
    >>
    >> Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform
    >> substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I
    >> would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Joe

    >
     
    JoeM, Apr 25, 2008
    #11
  12. JoeM

    Jeff R. Guest

    "canon.user" <canon.user@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:40ab3483a8155d3b04a9496acc4523aa@localhost.127.0.0.1...
    >
    > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:11:57 +1000 'Jeff R.'
    > wrote this on rec.photo.digital:
    >
    >>You could look at a Canon G9
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/
    >>I'm very happy with mine.

    >
    >
    > Jeff, I'm also looking at the G9 but the other one in the frame
    > (pun) is the SX100-IS. Did you also consider that at the time?
    >
    > I can't really understand why there is so much difference in price
    > between them.


    Can't speak for the bean-counters, but I bought the G9 because it has:

    * top-mounted dial for ISO setting
    * program, Aperture and Shutter settings
    * 3" LCD (luxury!)

    plus rave reviews from critics I tend to trust.
    Didn't look at the SX100.

    Apart from dodgey auto-focus in low light (it shouldn't damn-well
    acknowledge focus lock if it hasn't got it!) I'm very happy with it.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 25, 2008
    #12
  13. JoeM wrote:
    > Let's say 1600.


    I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results quite
    acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed). A little noise
    reduction in software /may/ be required, and I would try not to use it for
    portraits of young ladies!

    By contrast, anything above ISO 100 or 200 is essentially unusable except
    for emergencies on the small-sensor cameras I have used.

    If you need ISO 1600 with anything like acceptable quality, a DSLR is
    mandatory. The newest (and more expensive) Nikon DSLRs will allow 3200
    and even 6400 to produce good results.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 25, 2008
    #13
  14. JoeM

    canon.user Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:15:58 +1000 'Jeff R.'
    wrote this on rec.photo.digital:

    >"canon.user" <canon.user@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    >news:40ab3483a8155d3b04a9496acc4523aa@localhost.127.0.0.1...


    >> Jeff, I'm also looking at the G9 but the other one in the frame
    >> (pun) is the SX100-IS. Did you also consider that at the time?
    >>
    >> I can't really understand why there is so much difference in price
    >> between them.



    >Can't speak for the bean-counters, but I bought the G9 because it has:
    >
    >* top-mounted dial for ISO setting
    >* program, Aperture and Shutter settings
    >* 3" LCD (luxury!)
    >
    >plus rave reviews from critics I tend to trust.
    >Didn't look at the SX100.
    >
    >Apart from dodgey auto-focus in low light (it shouldn't damn-well
    >acknowledge focus lock if it hasn't got it!) I'm very happy with it.


    Thanks for that info. A big issue for me is the difference between
    the two models on zoom length.
    I like the look and feel of the G9 more but its zoom is only 210mm,
    whereas the X100 has 360mm. 210mm is on the very bottom end of
    my requirements. That makes it a difficult decision.

    I wonder if a new G10 will have a longer zoom?

    I'm not overly concerned by the G9's on-top ISO setting as I have my
    current camera (S70) set to 100 and it can be changed quite quickly
    when necessary. The 3" LCD would be nice.
     
    canon.user, Apr 25, 2008
    #14
  15. JoeM

    Jeff R. Guest

    "canon.user" <canon.user@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:0d8258a115e86be60c504e006769a518@localhost.127.0.0.1...

    > Thanks for that info. A big issue for me is the difference between
    > the two models on zoom length.
    > I like the look and feel of the G9 more but its zoom is only 210mm,
    > whereas the X100 has 360mm. 210mm is on the very bottom end of
    > my requirements. That makes it a difficult decision.


    I've had nothing but grief from the long end of the long-tele P&S's I've
    bought. (The Panasonic FZ30 comes to mind first). CA in abundance and really
    soft.

    The G9 does support an accessory tele lens, but I can't comment as I've
    never used it.

    > I wonder if a new G10 will have a longer zoom?


    Don't hold your breath.

    > I'm not overly concerned by the G9's on-top ISO setting as I have my
    > current camera (S70) set to 100 and it can be changed quite quickly
    > when necessary. The 3" LCD would be nice.


    Fair enough.
    I really like the ergonomics. No menus to wade through.
    ....and the 3" LCD *is* nice.

    Good luck with the decision.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Apr 25, 2008
    #15
  16. Mr. Strat wrote:
    > In article <PxfQj.14856$>, David J
    > Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results
    >> quite acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed).

    >
    > Mmmm...bet that's pretty.


    When viewing on a 1600 x 1200 display, the noise from the unprocessed JPEG
    images is hardly discernable. A little noise reduction in software could
    remove that if required. The images are very much better than those from
    compact cameras working at ISO 400. As I said, I use that only when
    needed, and the camera was chosen because it has fewer, but large, sensor
    pixels, which helps lower-light-level performance.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 25, 2008
    #16
  17. JoeM

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:14:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    >JoeM wrote:
    >> Let's say 1600.

    >
    >I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results quite
    >acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed). A little noise
    >reduction in software /may/ be required, and I would try not to use it for
    >portraits of young ladies!


    What conditions do require ISO 1600?

    What, by the way, is "HI 1"? I've tried that setting on my Nikon D40,
    and it blows out everything.

    I've never shot anything higher than ISO 800 with my D40, and can't
    imagine what I'd want to shoot higher than that.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 25, 2008
    #17
  18. On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, "JoeM" <> wrote:

    > I am shopping for my first digital camera.  


    Sigma DP-1
    Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1

    They both have large (APS-C sized) sensors. And they both are point-
    and-shoot cameras (i.e., non-dSLR). And they both have large good
    optics.
     
    Beladi Nasrallah, Apr 25, 2008
    #18
  19. tony cooper wrote:
    []
    > What conditions do require ISO 1600?


    Lower light levels, indoors, when using the lighter f/4 - f/5.6 lenses.
    Moving subjects.

    > What, by the way, is "HI 1"? I've tried that setting on my Nikon D40,
    > and it blows out everything.


    Never tried it, sorry.

    > I've never shot anything higher than ISO 800 with my D40, and can't
    > imagine what I'd want to shoot higher than that.


    I tend to use auto-ISO and sometimes it does creep up to 1600 (as that's
    the top limit I've allowed). I'm happy with the results, as they are fine
    for my viewing conditions. I would prefer a hint of grain to a blurred
    subject.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 25, 2008
    #19
  20. JoeM

    Archibald Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:29:35 -0400, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:14:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    ><-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>JoeM wrote:
    >>> Let's say 1600.

    >>
    >>I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results quite
    >>acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed). A little noise
    >>reduction in software /may/ be required, and I would try not to use it for
    >>portraits of young ladies!

    >
    >What conditions do require ISO 1600?


    I was quite amazed recently on a trip to China that I could take
    pretty good handheld night shots of the exciting new downtown shopping
    areas using the new Canon XSi with the 18-55mm IS lens. The ISO I used
    was mostly 1600.

    Back in my film days that would have required a tripod. While tripod
    shooting can add discipline to your shooting, it is for me mostly a
    supreme annoyance, and it takes away from spontaneity. Besides, this
    was a business trip and no room in luggage for a tripod or fast
    lenses.

    Archibald
     
    Archibald, Apr 25, 2008
    #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. anthonyberet

    webspace provider recommendations sought

    anthonyberet, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    414
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com
    Sep 2, 2003
  2. Les & Claire

    Digital Camera advice sought.

    Les & Claire, Aug 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    354
    Les & Claire
    Aug 18, 2003
  3. Summer Wind

    PhotoShop Training/Books -- Recommendations Sought

    Summer Wind, Dec 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    274
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Dec 6, 2006
  4. Bill Gillespie

    Recommendations Sought - 2nd Nikon Body

    Bill Gillespie, Dec 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    292
    bmoag
    Dec 28, 2006
  5. Martin
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    822
    VanguardLH
    Mar 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page