dig. camera suggestions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by michell.co77@gmail.com, Jan 10, 2007.

  1. Guest

    I am looking to buy a digital camera. Any suggestions for a high
    resolution camera in the $300-$500 range? My main concern is that the
    camera can take high resolution photos and can handle all different
    lighting situations.My current Canon digital camera (4 megapixels) is
    horrible for night photos. I love the details in the photos I take with
    my 35mm manual, but like the conveniance of a digital camera. Any
    suggestions for a camera a little beyond basic for an aspiring
    photographer? I would be willing to pay more for a camera if it was
    really going to make a difference in detail, that is my main concern.
    Thanks for your help!
     
    , Jan 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. J. Clarke Guest

    On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:50:02 -0800, michell.co77 wrote:

    > I am looking to buy a digital camera. Any suggestions for a high
    > resolution camera in the $300-$500 range? My main concern is that the
    > camera can take high resolution photos and can handle all different
    > lighting situations.My current Canon digital camera (4 megapixels) is
    > horrible for night photos. I love the details in the photos I take with
    > my 35mm manual, but like the conveniance of a digital camera. Any
    > suggestions for a camera a little beyond basic for an aspiring
    > photographer? I would be willing to pay more for a camera if it was
    > really going to make a difference in detail, that is my main concern.
    > Thanks for your help!


    If night photos are a priority, then save a little more and go for an
    entry level SLR with an f/1.8 or faster lens. You should be able to get
    one of the basic kits from Nikon or Canon and add the f/1.8 for about
    $650.00 or so.

    None of the point-and-shoots are _real_ good at low light, its more a
    matter of some being less bad than others.



    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kinon O'Cann Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am looking to buy a digital camera. Any suggestions for a high
    > resolution camera in the $300-$500 range? My main concern is that the
    > camera can take high resolution photos and can handle all different
    > lighting situations.My current Canon digital camera (4 megapixels) is
    > horrible for night photos. I love the details in the photos I take with
    > my 35mm manual, but like the conveniance of a digital camera. Any
    > suggestions for a camera a little beyond basic for an aspiring
    > photographer? I would be willing to pay more for a camera if it was
    > really going to make a difference in detail, that is my main concern.
    > Thanks for your help!


    Take a look at the Fuji F31fd. Not perfect, by any means, but the best P&S
    for low light situations.

    However, if you're used to an SLR, take a look at the Canon XTi or the Nikon
    D40, both real nice units, but out of yoru price range.

    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Jan 10, 2007
    #3
  4. tomm42 Guest

    On Jan 10, 12:50 am, wrote:
    > I am looking to buy a digital camera. Any suggestions for a high
    > resolution camera in the $300-$500 range? My main concern is that the
    > camera can take high resolution photos and can handle all different
    > lighting situations.My current Canon digital camera (4 megapixels) is
    > horrible for night photos. I love the details in the photos I take with
    > my 35mm manual, but like the conveniance of a digital camera. Any
    > suggestions for a camera a little beyond basic for an aspiring
    > photographer? I would be willing to pay more for a camera if it was
    > really going to make a difference in detail, that is my main concern.
    > Thanks for your help!


    Pentax K100 is selling at several places for right around $500. Also
    the Nikon D50 or D40, with either Nikon you want the 18-70mm kit lens
    rather than the 18-55, and that will raise the price a bit. Pentax kit
    lens is OK for a kit lens. The person I share my office with just
    bought a K100 for $450 with lens (after rebate), he says the price has
    gone up a bit.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jan 10, 2007
    #4
  5. ray Guest

    On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:50:02 -0800, michell.co77 wrote:

    > I am looking to buy a digital camera. Any suggestions for a high
    > resolution camera in the $300-$500 range? My main concern is that the
    > camera can take high resolution photos and can handle all different
    > lighting situations.My current Canon digital camera (4 megapixels) is
    > horrible for night photos. I love the details in the photos I take with
    > my 35mm manual, but like the conveniance of a digital camera. Any
    > suggestions for a camera a little beyond basic for an aspiring
    > photographer? I would be willing to pay more for a camera if it was
    > really going to make a difference in detail, that is my main concern.
    > Thanks for your help!


    You might want to look at some EVF cameras (Electronic View Finder). These
    typically come with a long (10x-12x) lens and are basically a 'poor man's
    dslr' - what you see through the EVF is what the sensor sees. One thing
    I've observed with EVFs is that most of them have relatively low
    resolution EVFs - usually about 110k pixels - the Kodak models are 237k
    and are a whole lot nicer to look at (on the Kodak models the resolution
    of the EVF is better than twice the resolution of the back LCD). I
    recently got a P850 refurb at the kodak online store - I've not yet had an
    opportunity to check low light performance, but it has IS, saves as raw,
    jpeg or tiff and has several programs for low light conditions.
     
    ray, Jan 10, 2007
    #5
  6. "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:50:02 -0800, michell.co77 wrote:
    >
    > You might want to look at some EVF cameras (Electronic View Finder). These
    > typically come with a long (10x-12x) lens and are basically a 'poor man's
    > dslr' - what you see through the EVF is what the sensor sees. One thing
    > I've observed with EVFs is that most of them have relatively low
    > resolution EVFs - usually about 110k pixels - the Kodak models are 237k
    > and are a whole lot nicer to look at (on the Kodak models the resolution
    > of the EVF is better than twice the resolution of the back LCD). I
    > recently got a P850 refurb at the kodak online store - I've not yet had an
    > opportunity to check low light performance, but it has IS, saves as raw,
    > jpeg or tiff and has several programs for low light conditions.


    An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I mean,
    they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera sensor
    wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Jan 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Ståle Sannerud wrote:
    []
    > An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I
    > mean, they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera
    > sensor wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.


    An EVF can help a lot in low-light conditions, as they can provide a gain
    not possible with the optical viewfinders in DSLRs and other cameras. You
    can almost see things in the EVF which are difficult to see with the naked
    eye! But not all cameras offer the "gain-up" viewfinder mode required for
    this.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 11, 2007
    #7
  8. ray Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:42:26 +0100, Ståle Sannerud wrote:

    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:50:02 -0800, michell.co77 wrote:
    >>
    >> You might want to look at some EVF cameras (Electronic View Finder). These
    >> typically come with a long (10x-12x) lens and are basically a 'poor man's
    >> dslr' - what you see through the EVF is what the sensor sees. One thing
    >> I've observed with EVFs is that most of them have relatively low
    >> resolution EVFs - usually about 110k pixels - the Kodak models are 237k
    >> and are a whole lot nicer to look at (on the Kodak models the resolution
    >> of the EVF is better than twice the resolution of the back LCD). I
    >> recently got a P850 refurb at the kodak online store - I've not yet had an
    >> opportunity to check low light performance, but it has IS, saves as raw,
    >> jpeg or tiff and has several programs for low light conditions.

    >
    > An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I mean,
    > they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera sensor
    > wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.


    I don't know. I've not yet taken the opportunity to try any low-light
    shooting. You will at least get the same sort of dynamic range with and
    EVF that does raw - how much that would help, I can't say.
     
    ray, Jan 11, 2007
    #8
  9. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:pOpph.29189$...
    > Ståle Sannerud wrote:
    > []
    >> An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I
    >> mean, they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera
    >> sensor wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.

    >
    > An EVF can help a lot in low-light conditions, as they can provide a gain
    > not possible with the optical viewfinders in DSLRs and other cameras. You
    > can almost see things in the EVF which are difficult to see with the naked
    > eye! But not all cameras offer the "gain-up" viewfinder mode required for
    > this.
    >
    > David
    >

    The EVF will pump the light-gain like crazy, so I agree that the view
    through the viewfinder will be bright and nice. Very true.

    But the images captured by the sensor and stored on the memory card will
    still suck, with massive point-and-shoot-sensor ISO noise (alternatively
    over-processed buttery-soft images due to equally massive noise reduction
    done to mask the ISO noise). And that's what matters in photography, yes?
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Jan 11, 2007
    #9
  10. >> An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I
    >> mean,
    >> they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera sensor
    >> wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.

    >
    > I don't know. I've not yet taken the opportunity to try any low-light
    > shooting. You will at least get the same sort of dynamic range with and
    > EVF that does raw - how much that would help, I can't say.
    >

    It depends, really. RAW is a godsend in that it keeps the camera from
    mucking around with your image (I can over-sharpen and generally mess up my
    photos better than the camera can, any day of the week :), lets you freely
    set white balance in post-processing and prevents the limitations of the JPG
    format from clipping the ends off your histogram. But the last point only
    matters if the dynamic range of the sensor is bigger than the dynamic range
    of JPG to begin with, which is a bit doubtful in the case of the
    fingernail-sized umpteen-megapixel sensors they keep putting in
    point-and-shoots and EVF cameras. Bigger pixels give more dynamic range than
    smaller pixels, if the technology is otherwise similar and the
    analogue-digital converter in the camera can keep up, and even on something
    like the Canon 5D with a full 35mm sensor and nice fat sensor pixels the RAW
    advantage over JPG isn't all that huge, objectively speaking. More than a
    stop at either end of the histogram certainly, but not quite two stops -
    something around that anyway. And if there is a consumer camera
    significantly better than the 5D at dynamic range, I haven't heard of it.
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Jan 11, 2007
    #10
  11. John Turco Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > Ståle Sannerud wrote:
    > []
    > > An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I
    > > mean, they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera
    > > sensor wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.

    >
    > An EVF can help a lot in low-light conditions, as they can provide a gain
    > not possible with the optical viewfinders in DSLRs and other cameras. You
    > can almost see things in the EVF which are difficult to see with the naked
    > eye! But not all cameras offer the "gain-up" viewfinder mode required for
    > this.
    >
    > David



    Hello, David:

    The Kodak EVF's do exactly that, actually.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jan 13, 2007
    #11
  12. ray Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:15:20 +0100, Ståle Sannerud wrote:

    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    > wrote in message news:pOpph.29189$...
    >> Ståle Sannerud wrote:
    >> []
    >>> An EVF camera won't do much for low-light shooting though, will it? I
    >>> mean, they are basically just a typically tiny point-and-shoot camera
    >>> sensor wrapped in a DSLR-styled body after all.

    >>
    >> An EVF can help a lot in low-light conditions, as they can provide a gain
    >> not possible with the optical viewfinders in DSLRs and other cameras. You
    >> can almost see things in the EVF which are difficult to see with the naked
    >> eye! But not all cameras offer the "gain-up" viewfinder mode required for
    >> this.
    >>
    >> David
    >>

    > The EVF will pump the light-gain like crazy, so I agree that the view
    > through the viewfinder will be bright and nice. Very true.
    >
    > But the images captured by the sensor and stored on the memory card will
    > still suck, with massive point-and-shoot-sensor ISO noise (alternatively
    > over-processed buttery-soft images due to equally massive noise reduction
    > done to mask the ISO noise). And that's what matters in photography, yes?


    To some extent, that's what matters - to some of us price matters too.
     
    ray, Jan 13, 2007
    #12
  13. Ståle Sannerud wrote:
    []
    > The EVF will pump the light-gain like crazy, so I agree that the view
    > through the viewfinder will be bright and nice. Very true.
    >
    > But the images captured by the sensor and stored on the memory card
    > will still suck, with massive point-and-shoot-sensor ISO noise
    > (alternatively over-processed buttery-soft images due to equally
    > massive noise reduction done to mask the ISO noise). And that's what
    > matters in photography, yes?


    The images are only noisy if you increase the ISO - that's your choice.
    You may be able to use a longer exposure in low-light conditions instead.

    And who says that noise, as such, detracts from all images? It's not in
    fashion right now, but look at the many grainy B&W shots from some years
    back - the grain adds to, rather than detracts from, the atmosphere of the
    shot. Try it for yourself.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 13, 2007
    #13
  14. Bill Funk Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:15:20 +0100, "Ståle Sannerud"
    <> wrote:

    >But the images captured by the sensor and stored on the memory card will
    >still suck, with massive point-and-shoot-sensor ISO noise (alternatively
    >over-processed buttery-soft images due to equally massive noise reduction
    >done to mask the ISO noise). And that's what matters in photography, yes?


    Maybe.
    To some, the object is, as you say above, to make the image the be-all
    and end-all.
    To many, photography is a hobby - read: adults playing with toys.
    The object is to enjoy it, not to chase perfection.
    To each his own; but let's not mistake what each individual among us
    wants for what everyone else wants.

    What *I* want from photography may not match what *you* want from
    photography, but there's room for all of us.
    :)

    --
    Senate Democrats proposed ethics
    reform legislation on Tuesday.
    It calls for lawmakers to pay the
    real cost of corporate jet flights
    and the full cost of skybox tickets
    for sporting events. If you want
    to know ahead of time what's going
    to happen to this bill, you simply
    need to watch the last five minutes
    of Old Yeller.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 14, 2007
    #14
  15. Guest

    Thanks everybody!! I am looking into all your suggestions! The
    guidance is much appreciated.


    On Jan 13, 11:01 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
    > Ståle Sannerud wrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    > > The EVF will pump the light-gain like crazy, so I agree that the view
    > > through the viewfinder will be bright and nice. Very true.

    >
    > > But the images captured by the sensor and stored on the memory card
    > > will still suck, with massive point-and-shoot-sensor ISO noise
    > > (alternatively over-processed buttery-soft images due to equally
    > > massive noise reduction done to mask the ISO noise). And that's what
    > > matters in photography, yes?

    >
    > The images are only noisy if you increase the ISO - that's your choice.
    > You may be able to use a longer exposure in low-light conditions instead.
    >
    > And who says that noise, as such, detracts from all images? It's not in
    > fashion right now, but look at the many grainy B&W shots from some years
    > back - the grain adds to, rather than detracts from, the atmosphere of the
    > shot. Try it for yourself.
    >
    > David
     
    , Feb 4, 2007
    #15
    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. lindsayw

    help with dc50 kodak dig camera

    lindsayw, Oct 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    459
    Ron Baird
    Oct 16, 2003
  2. Willy Kreim
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    336
    Willy Kreim
    Oct 19, 2003
  3. hobart

    copying negs to dig using a camera...possible??

    hobart, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    326
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 23, 2003
  4. Judi SnowFlake
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    515
    Ken Weitzel
    Dec 11, 2003
  5. Roger Fuherdenhaden

    Dig. Camera Opinions

    Roger Fuherdenhaden, Feb 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    333
    Roger Fuherdenhaden
    Feb 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page