Digital Camera Recommendations

[dasunst3r]

I'm going to be in the market for a new digital camera soon (i.e. 1-3 months), and I would like your help in finding a good digital camera. Here are my requirements:

Price should be around $200 - $500, new. In the case of an SLR, the price must include the lens.
Accepts SD cards
Price must include taxes and shipping
Sony cameras are not allowed (in case they made it past the 2nd requirement :lolflag: )

Finally, since I love taking pics, I would like to get as close to an SLR as possible. If you could make a recommendation about what camera to buy or where to buy a camera from (online or B&M), please let me know. Thanks!

[codesplice]

I've been shooting with a Canon Powershot for a little while now - not SLR, but it's got a handful of manual features on it to make it a very versatile camera. And it's also pretty small, so I can easily take it with me for quick snapshots.

I'll probably also be in the market for a new digicam sometime this summer - I was thinking of going with a D40 as kind of an introduction to the digital SLRs - I understand that there is a new camera in that same class that makes the D40 obsolete, so it can be had for a much more reasonable price.

[maniacmusician]

I'm going to be in the market for a new digital camera soon (i.e. 1-3 months), and I would like your help in finding a good digital camera. Here are my requirements:

Price should be around $200 - $500, new. In the case of an SLR, the price must include the lens.
Accepts SD cards
Price must include taxes and shipping
Sony cameras are not allowed (in case they made it past the 2nd requirement :lolflag: )

Finally, since I love taking pics, I would like to get as close to an SLR as possible. If you could make a recommendation about what camera to buy or where to buy a camera from (online or B&M), please let me know. Thanks!
Read this thread, and then just happened to come across this review when I was catching up on my Engadget articles. It got a high rating, costs $300, and will probably be out around the time that you'll be buying. It does support SD cards, among a couple of other formats.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_tz3.php

[use a name]

If you can let the SD requirement go, then the Fuji S9600 (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s9600/index.html) would be perfect (xD or CF). Otherwise I second the TZ3. ;)

[rejser]

I agree with the previous speaker, have an s7000 and a d70s. And I bring the s7000 more often then the D70s because of size, and it is more or less an slr. Not just changeable lens.
(That's why I don't always carry around the d70s, because if I don't bring all the lenses I just get mad if I would need one of them).

[beefcurry]

Thats not alot of cash to spend, If it was me I would definately spend more Cash on a Sigma DP1. But for a cheaper good camera with decent look and performance, try the Powershot G7

[fuscia]

i like my nikon coolpix 5600. the lens is great. the only thing i don't like about it is that i wish there were more notches of optical zoom and no digital zoom (digital zoom is worthless). some people say that pixel density is overrated, but if you cut and blow up pics a lot, it's not overrated at all. it is pointless, though, to have great pixel density with a lousy lens.

[beefcurry]

Pixel Density/Count is only really important to people that Know what they truely want, Different Sensors performed different;y. Some are High Megapixel figures but really bad sensors which produce loads of Noise and degrades the image quality by alot. Lens is just as important, but most problems with lens can be fixed with post processing. Dont buy a camera based on its Megapixel count, head over to www.dpreview.com and read a few of their reviews. I would recommend a 350D <- awsome camera that is if you dont mind DSLR's. I wouldnt recommend Nikon that much as their lenses arnt the words best and amature DSLR's arnt as compact. Before you buy a compact, do spend time researching, look at a few photos taken with it, look closely at the amount of grain and different light sensitivities and how much Chormatic abbration there is. Panasonic Lumix's used to have horrible noise despite an awsome Leica Lens. Sony cameras are Mainly Eye Candy. If you don't mind the size then either get a Canon (have some really nice performing ones) or a budget sony since they perform quite well for the money you pay.

[Raval]

I'm going to be in the market for a new digital camera soon (i.e. 1-3 months), and I would like your help in finding a good digital camera. Here are my requirements:

Price should be around $200 - $500, new. In the case of an SLR, the price must include the lens.
Accepts SD cards
Price must include taxes and shipping
Sony cameras are not allowed (in case they made it past the 2nd requirement :lolflag: )

Finally, since I love taking pics, I would like to get as close to an SLR as possible. If you could make a recommendation about what camera to buy or where to buy a camera from (online or B&M), please let me know. Thanks!

I use a Panasonic LZ2 with Ubuntu 5 Mega Pixel, 6X optical zoom, 2" LCD, 1BG SD, 2 levels of image stabilization and works on 2 AA batteries takes 407 high quality photos (2560 x 1920) and gets about 250 shots on on pair of rechargeable AA batteries and near 100 on Alkaline. cost is about $160 + tax and shipping. I could get more photos on a pair of batteries but I work my camera hard, I normally take about 30 to 40 photos an hour, and as much as 300 in a 5 hour block of time. if you don't use it that much you can get more picture per pair of batteries.

The LZ5 is out with 6 mega pixel. 6 X optical zoom and a 2.5" LCD, a few other new features plus a the LZ5 takes better shots at night. it cost about $210 + tax and shipping

Oh and both have a mic, so you can take photos and video with audio.

Another great Panasonic (the one I want) is the FZ8: 7.2 Mega pixel, 12 X optical zoom, SD (2GB) it has a host of features and cost about $370 + tax and shipping

Ubuntu and Panasonic cameras play nice.

visit the gallery in my signature to see what the LZ2 can do.

I'd also like to mention that last year I broke my camera when I opened it, the camera came apart in my hand and when reassembled the LCD's back light was not working and the gears for the lens went out of sync. I shipped it to Panasonic for repair and with in two weeks they sent it back in fine working order with no charge for shipping or repairs.

Panasonic also has SLRs a popular one if the FZ50 and I think a newer model is out. the cost is under $700 it's a 10 mega pixel with 12 optical zoom.

Let us know what you decide to take.

[Sunflower1970]

I use the Canon Powershot Pro 3 IS. Love it:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Image-Stabilized-Zoom/dp/B000EMWBV0/ref=sr_1_1/104-1362861-4830358?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1175007910&sr=8-1

It's not SLR, but that wasn't something I really need. We needed something with a better zoom than our old camera (which was also a Canon Powershot--an A series--but very old)

I'm very happy with it. The only complaint I've seen on the Powershot Pro is the viewscreen is not big enough. But, going from what I originally had to this one I find it big enough.

[Billy McCann]

Hey everyone.

I had the same sort of question, so I thought I'd just post here instead of making a new thread. If you think I should make a new thread for myself, just say so. :KS


I'm looking to buy my wife a digital camera for her birthday, about three weeks from now. All that I ask is that it play nice with Ubuntu and that I'm able to blow up the pictures to a fairly decent size, say 8x10, or perhaps a hair larger, fairly compact, with a big display screen and simple to operate.

I really don't know much about digital cameras. It doesn't have to have gobs of features. Nothing professional. Just something to take nice pictures with, not too complicated to work with, big display, yet compact. $400 max, please.

Thanks in advance, everyone.


PS. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 really looks sweet. May be what I go with! ;)


Billy

[Raval]

Hey everyone.

I had the same sort of question, so I thought I'd just post here instead of making a new thread. If you think I should make a new thread for myself, just say so. :KS


I'm looking to buy my wife a digital camera for her birthday, about three weeks from now. All that I ask is that it play nice with Ubuntu and that I'm able to blow up the pictures to a fairly decent size, say 8x10, or perhaps a hair larger, fairly compact, with a big display screen and simple to operate.

I really don't know much about digital cameras. It doesn't have to have gobs of features. Nothing professional. Just something to take nice pictures with, not too complicated to work with, big display, yet compact. $400 max, please.

Thanks in advance, everyone.


PS. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 really looks sweet. May be what I go with! ;)


Billy

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2361041&postcount=9

I'm the 9th post in this thread, I think It might help. You can get 8x10s from a 5 mega pixel camera or higher.

[Billy McCann]

Thanks!

[milehigh]

I've been happy with the Canon A-540 Powershot that I bought a couple of months ago. I'm still learning my way around the menus - there are a lot of features, but you can skip all that and set it to automatic. The batteries are standard AA, and you can use SD cards. It is possible to attach a zoom or wide angle lens with an adapter (must purchase separately).

[dasunst3r]

Thank you all for your suggestions! I will definitely take a look at all the options mentioned in this thread. Again, it will be one to three months before I actually go out and make the purchase. My budget will hinge on how well I do in this class. If I get a B, my budget will change to $500. If not, then my budget will remain the same (i.e. $300).

[Brunellus]

I'm going to be in the market for a new digital camera soon (i.e. 1-3 months), and I would like your help in finding a good digital camera. Here are my requirements:

Price should be around $200 - $500, new. In the case of an SLR, the price must include the lens.
Accepts SD cards
Price must include taxes and shipping
Sony cameras are not allowed (in case they made it past the 2nd requirement :lolflag: )

Finally, since I love taking pics, I would like to get as close to an SLR as possible. If you could make a recommendation about what camera to buy or where to buy a camera from (online or B&M), please let me know. Thanks!
Pentax K110D. It will be a bit over budget, but otherwise satisfy your conditions.

[mips]

Pentax K110D. It will be a bit over budget, but otherwise satisfy your conditions.

Good recommendation.

It will actually make his budget easily, the K100D with IS will also come in just under his budget with the mail-in rebate.

K110D:
http://www.adorama.com/IPXK110DK.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=438216&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

K100D:
http://www.adorama.com/IPXK100DK.html?searchinfo=K100D&item_no=4
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=productlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=K100D&image.x=10&image.y=10

And those are not fly by night camera stores either. Buydig.com also sells them and another place to look is Cametas ebay shop where you might even get a better deal if you get a good bid and dont go for an outright purchase.

[Brunellus]

Good recommendation.

It will actually make his budget easily, the K100D with IS will also come in just under his budget with the mail-in rebate.

K110D:
http://www.adorama.com/IPXK110DK.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=438216&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

K100D:
http://www.adorama.com/IPXK100DK.html?searchinfo=K100D&item_no=4
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=productlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=K100D&image.x=10&image.y=10

And those are not fly by night camera stores either. Buydig.com also sells them and another place to look is Cametas ebay shop where you might even get a better deal if you get a good bid and dont go for an outright purchase.
adorama and b&h are legit operations, forsure. they were the bees' knees in online commerce before there even was a newegg.

My only concern with the KxxD series is the viewfinder--my *ist DS still uses an all-glass pentaprism, which is fantastic for me, since I use manual focus lenses almost all the time. Subsequent Pentax DSLRs have caved in to competitive pressure and now use pentamirror setups, which aren't as nice for MF work.

[mips]

My only concern with the KxxD series is the viewfinder--my *ist DS still uses an all-glass pentaprism, which is fantastic for me, since I use manual focus lenses almost all the time. Subsequent Pentax DSLRs have caved in to competitive pressure and now use pentamirror setups, which aren't as nice for MF work.

Your concerns are valid but do you think it will affect the OP that much seeing he would have picked one of those ´Prosumer´ slr look alike cameras ? It´s not perfect but it sure as hell beats the electronic viewfinder on the prosumer level cameras by leaps and bounds. Still a very good buy and more capable than the other options.

[gus sett]

I second this wavelength. In the market today, Panasonic and Samsung
tend to offer top price/performance. All other things being equal, consider
opting for strongest zoom capability. It goes naturally with the higher
resolutions provided. :-k

I use a Panasonic LZ2 with Ubuntu 5 Mega Pixel, 6X optical zoom, 2" LCD, 1BG SD, 2 levels of image stabilization and works on 2 AA batteries takes 407 high quality photos (2560 x 1920) and gets about 250 shots on on pair of rechargeable AA batteries and near 100 on Alkaline. cost is about $160 + tax and shipping. I could get more photos on a pair of batteries but I work my camera hard, I normally take about 30 to 40 photos an hour, and as much as 300 in a 5 hour block of time. if you don't use it that much you can get more picture per pair of batteries.

The LZ5 is out with 6 mega pixel. 6 X optical zoom and a 2.5" LCD, a few other new features plus a the LZ5 takes better shots at night. it cost about $210 + tax and shipping

Oh and both have a mic, so you can take photos and video with audio.

Another great Panasonic (the one I want) is the FZ8: 7.2 Mega pixel, 12 X optical zoom, SD (2GB) it has a host of features and cost about $370 + tax and shipping

Ubuntu and Panasonic cameras play nice.

visit the gallery in my signature to see what the LZ2 can do.

I'd also like to mention that last year I broke my camera when I opened it, the camera came apart in my hand and when reassembled the LCD's back light was not working and the gears for the lens went out of sync. I shipped it to Panasonic for repair and with in two weeks they sent it back in fine working order with no charge for shipping or repairs.

Panasonic also has SLRs a popular one if the FZ50 and I think a newer model is out. the cost is under $700 it's a 10 mega pixel with 12 optical zoom.

Let us know what you decide to take.

[Brunellus]

I second this wavelength. In the market today, Panasonic and Samsung
tend to offer top price/performance. All other things being equal, consider
opting for strongest zoom capability. It goes naturally with the higher
resolutions provided. :-k
zoom is not the be-all and end-all of lens selection. Optical design means compromises. Those compromises affect your output.

long-range 'superzooms tend to be (pick three):

1) very large and heavy. This is less of an issue with the small image circles/sensor areas on consumer digicams.

2) Of limited light-gathering ability. Smaller maximum aperture (large f/ number) is a BAD thing if you're trying to take available-light photos without using flash.

3) Of marginal optical quality: corner sharpness will not be great, effective resolution will not be great, and you may be dealing with barrel/pincushion distortion at the wide/narrow ends--to say nothing of the flare problem (lots of internal reflection on all those air/glass interfaces). You could argue that digicam resolutions won't show this up, though.

4) Expensive.

As a practical matter, I've found that a long zoom end is less important than a good eye. A long zoom on a camera you can't hold stead will *always* produce disappointing results because of camera shake.

[mips]

zoom is not the be-all and end-all of lens selection. Optical design means compromises. Those compromises affect your output.

long-range 'superzooms tend to be (pick three):

1) very large and heavy. This is less of an issue with the small image circles/sensor areas on consumer digicams.

2) Of limited light-gathering ability. Smaller maximum aperture (large f/ number) is a BAD thing if you're trying to take available-light photos without using flash.

3) Of marginal optical quality: corner sharpness will not be great, effective resolution will not be great, and you may be dealing with barrel/pincushion distortion at the wide/narrow ends--to say nothing of the flare problem (lots of internal reflection on all those air/glass interfaces). You could argue that digicam resolutions won't show this up, though.

4) Expensive.

As a practical matter, I've found that a long zoom end is less important than a good eye. A long zoom on a camera you can't hold stead will *always* produce disappointing results because of camera shake.

+1

[pupeeler]

zoom is not the be-all and end-all of lens selection. Optical design means compromises. Those compromises affect your output.

long-range 'superzooms tend to be (pick three):

1) very large and heavy. This is less of an issue with the small image circles/sensor areas on consumer digicams.

2) Of limited light-gathering ability. Smaller maximum aperture (large f/ number) is a BAD thing if you're trying to take available-light photos without using flash.

3) Of marginal optical quality: corner sharpness will not be great, effective resolution will not be great, and you may be dealing with barrel/pincushion distortion at the wide/narrow ends--to say nothing of the flare problem (lots of internal reflection on all those air/glass interfaces). You could argue that digicam resolutions won't show this up, though.

4) Expensive.

As a practical matter, I've found that a long zoom end is less important than a good eye. A long zoom on a camera you can't hold stead will *always* produce disappointing results because of camera shake.

Yes. It turns out that cameras in this budget range still manage anti-shake features and both digital and optical zoom to reduce side effects. But some models have super-high resolution and anemic zoom compared to the better balanced ones.

[Brunellus]

Yes. It turns out that cameras in this budget range still manage anti-shake features and both digital and optical zoom to reduce side effects. But some models have super-high resolution and anemic zoom compared to the better balanced ones.
Optical Zoom is NOT a zoom; it's a crop-and-enlarge. You are throwing away data when you go with a "digital" zoom. Worse, you're doing it irreversibly. If you're an optical zoom junkie, step back and think: wouldn't you be better off just taking the shot and cropping and recomposing in the GIMP, at home? Then you can "digital zoom" to your heart's content. I don't know what marketing droid first came up with the "digital zoom," but he should be punished severely, if possible.

"Anti-shake" is a poor substitute for actually holding the camera steady. It only compensates for the movement of the camera/sensor, NOT the movement of the subject, which just as much a consideration in situations where you want to freeze action.

Digital camera design, frankly, horrifies me. Cameras are designed to be used at arms' length, half a meter away from the eye, in marginal light. Any old-school photographer worth his Rodinal will tell you that there is no better way, short of mounting the camera on a pneumatic jackhammer, to ensure camera movement and thus motion blur.

[%hMa@?b<C]

get a one time use CVS digital camera. I helped develping the linux tools to reuse them. They are really good cameras for the 20 bucks

[pupeeler]

...and you promise you're not just saying that to make him shudder further?

[%hMa@?b<C]

...and you promise you're not just say that to make him shudder further?
me? no. It is just that I have like 5 stills and 3 video ones. www.camerahacking.com
I am enigma- there, and am currently working on improving the still suport. If you do go with an upscale one, you may just want to buy one just for the fun (not a m510 though!)

[Brunellus]

...and you promise you're not just say that to make him shudder further?
nah, that'd spoil this picture.

All I'm saying is that a lot of the way that digicams are sold (and bought) ignores over a hundred years of progress in the science and art of taking decent photographs. I'm also annoyed by a lot of the outright lies ("digital zoom") being passed off as "features" to an ignorant public.

[dasunst3r]

As far as I know, optical zoom is adjusting the lens so that you get a closer shot without compromising quality, whereas digital zoom will try to guess the data between the pixels you manage to capture and will compromise your picture quality. Am I missing something here?

[Dale61]

I've been using an Olympus C-730 Ultra Zoom for almost 5 years now, and as I use it mostly to take fast action shots (motor sport, Australian Football, etc,), with the occasional family group shot, and I haven't been able to fault it.

It connects and downloads to my Ubuntu box via usb cable, but the card reader in incompatible (or at least, not recognised).

The camera uses xD and Smart Media cards (one or the other, not both at once), and can take 1100+ pics using a 128mb card on default settings. I have it set to take photos at 1024 x 768 in jpg format, and with that, I can get 200+ high quality photos.

I used to use rechargeable AA batteries (x4), but now stick with regular Energiser alkalines.

At the time of purchase, it was just released and cost A$1300, but I have seen newer generations of the same camera now available for less than A$300. (Prices quoted are in Australian dollars.)

[use a name]

As far as I know, optical zoom is adjusting the lens so that you get a closer shot without compromising quality, whereas digital zoom will try to guess the data between the pixels you manage to capture and will compromise your picture quality. Am I missing something here?

Correct. I guess it was a matter of mixing words in the heat of flaming digital zoom.

[Raval]

nah, that'd spoil this picture.

All I'm saying is that a lot of the way that digicams are sold (and bought) ignores over a hundred years of progress in the science and art of taking decent photographs. I'm also annoyed by a lot of the outright lies ("digital zoom") being passed off as "features" to an ignorant public.

I understand what you are saying. I almost never use digital zoom on my camera. My camera has a 6X optical zoom and in the two cases I tried digital zoom it didn't make much sense beyond 8X.

Digital cameras are young and they are a compromise. Thats said, I prefer the instant gratification of a digital camera to one that uses film. I don't have time to go to the store for film, carrying several rolls can be a burden, changing film every 36 shots, then taking them to be washed and waiting to collect them.

Cameras that use film may be superior but I don't really give a ....well, you know? I'm just a guy who loves to take photos and am happy with the results of digital cameras.

The image stability on my camera has allowed me to take more still shots than are possible sometimes. Like when taking photos my friends in a Heavy Metal after I had too much to drink. It doesn't make all your shots crisp, but it reduces the amount of blurred photos you take.

[Raval]

A quick note to anyone who intends to buy their first digital camera.

My advise would be not to run out and get the very expensive camera with the latest features. Instead, I would advise that you see what you can get for $120.00. A camera with 4 or 5 mega pixel and a 3x optical zoom is fine for any new user.

The point is, I think it is best to use a camera with just the basics and learn from there what your needs are. You find yourself wanting more zoom?, you need a camera that takes better shots at night? you need a camera that is liter? you prefer a camera that fits in you pants pocket that doesn't bulge?

Sometimes instead of researching what is the best camera for the money, you should buy a inexpensive (maybe even used one on eBay) and learn what YOUR NEEDS ARE.

When you get your more suited camera you should hang on to that inexpensive one. It may be less bulky than the new one and you find that you take it on everyday journeys and you use the new baby for special occasions.

just a thought.

[use a name]

A quick note to anyone who intends to buy their first digital camera.

My advise would be not to run out and get the very expensive camera with the latest features. Instead, I would advise that you see what you can get for $120.00. A camera with 4 or 5 mega pixel and a 3x optical zoom is fine for any new user.

I think that with that price range, you're getting real close to the camera's that dissapoint in any case. Make it $150 and you are fine. Camera's below that price generally sport very very poor lenses and ccds. It's a fine line, but even with such a small price difference, the results differ a lot.
Make sure you buy a camera from a manufacturer with a history in this branche, or one from an electronics concern, but with a lens from a good lens manufacturer.

[Brunellus]

I understand what you are saying. I almost never use digital zoom on my camera. My camera has a 6X optical zoom and in the two cases I tried digital zoom it didn't make much sense beyond 8X.

Digital cameras are young and they are a compromise. Thats said, I prefer the instant gratification of a digital camera to one that uses film. I don't have time to go to the store for film, carrying several rolls can be a burden, changing film every 36 shots, then taking them to be washed and waiting to collect them.

Cameras that use film may be superior but I don't really give a ....well, you know? I'm just a guy who loves to take photos and am happy with the results of digital cameras.

The image stability on my camera has allowed me to take more still shots than are possible sometimes. Like when taking photos my friends in a Heavy Metal after I had too much to drink. It doesn't make all your shots crisp, but it reduces the amount of blurred photos you take.
Digital zoom is a pointless 'feature.' The same is accomplished more easily at home, on the GIMP, with judicious cropping.

Instant gratification on the digicam is always a plus. It's not that I'm totally against digital photography-- quite the contrary, I rather enjoy it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/sets/72157594271859290/).

My main gripe is that, mostly, people have come to rely on their camera to make images for them. The photographic process isn't about algorithms and features you can stick on a box. It's about being able to take photographs. The bells and whistles are making people think too much "in camera" and not enough about what's in the frame.

[Raval]

Digital zoom is a pointless 'feature.' The same is accomplished more easily at home, on the GIMP, with judicious cropping.

Instant gratification on the digicam is always a plus. It's not that I'm totally against digital photography-- quite the contrary, I rather enjoy it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/sets/72157594271859290/).

My main gripe is that, mostly, people have come to rely on their camera to make images for them. The photographic process isn't about algorithms and features you can stick on a box. It's about being able to take photographs. The bells and whistles are making people think too much "in camera" and not enough about what's in the frame.

It's a good point, but you can't blame joe schmo for that. It's hard to avoid all the BS that every company is trying to shove down your throat so you will buy their product.

Thats why I say buy an inexpensive camera and then learn what your needs are. FYI for those not in the know, no camera does it all.

[gustojr]

Digital zoom is a pointless 'feature.' The same is accomplished more easily at home, on the GIMP, with judicious cropping.

Gosh, brace yourselves cuz this is going to sound like going to McDonald's for salads--my $60 camera contains a crude photo editor and zoom of, what else--8X. I can print stuff at the store before getting home from school. I saw an expensive Nikon with an editor that calculates color composition--it was the size of two bricks. You know, [][].

[gus sett]

I would venture to say that you are my kind of moderator. Clarifications w/ellipsis here
were in order here like introductions, wouldn't you say, and they weren't lost on jr. He
goes from 8X digital to 10X optical z in a weekend. So,

:!: U.S. football--------touchdown/field goal
:!: figure skating------don't fall/triple axle
:?: digital camera-----resolution/optical zoom

Optical zoom I suppose being the lesser of vices. by insisting on certain "features" the
referee/judge/buyer sets performance hurdles if you will. just as football teams deserve
good kickers, camera manufacturers are reminded to include quality optics that can
support detail capture for close up and distance photography as well as a breadth of
lighting conditions including low light performance. a year or so ago, I could have
sworn that ATT & Kodak were words drifting out of my vocabulary, but jr is showing
me otherwise...

Hats off to OfficeMax in our town. the last day of their sale, they matched the
additional 10% off that one of their rivals is offering the coming week on jr's new
camera and they still included the 512 MB SD card unique to their special. it's under
200 total including tax. :arrow:

Hint/editorial: The lens on that thing is larger than a dollar coin. to spend much
more would be to pass on a digicamcorder. digital editing "atrocities" were also noted
on the evening news a few years back, when the sale of these cameras overtook
those of tradition film ones. Manual lens covers and shrouded viewfinders are
available again to a new generation of shutterbugs.


zoom is not the be-all and end-all of lens selection. Optical design means compromises. Those compromises affect your output.

...
As a practical matter, I've found that a long zoom end is less important than a good eye. A long zoom on a camera you can't hold stead will *always* produce disappointing results because of camera shake.

[dasunst3r]

As I approach the time to make my decision, I would like to bring this thread up again. So far, my top contenders are:
Fujifilm F40fd
Panasonic DMC-TZ3
Canon TX-1 (HD capabilities, but I hear image quality isn't very good)
Panasonic FZ??


Just a reminder of requirements. They may have changed:
Budget: $300 - $500 (price must include taxes and shipping, but exclude rebates)
Takes SD cards
I would prefer that the camera can fit in my pocket. DSLRs are not out of the question provided that they have a place to attach a shoulder strap.
Sony is completely out of the question


Thank you all for your suggestions!

[mips]

I would prefer that the camera can fit in my pocket. DSLRs are not out of the question provided that they have a place to attach a shoulder strap.

All dslrs have eyelets for shoulder straps & the straps usually come with the camera. If there is a modern dslr out the without eyelets i will eat my shorts.

[Raval]

All dslrs have eyelets for shoulder straps & the straps usually come with the camera. If there is a modern dslr out the without eyelets i will eat my shorts.

Dear god let me find one as I search google.

[Brunellus]

Dear god let me find one as I search google.
a highly unlikely thing to find.

Soviet Leica-likes--notably several iterations of the Zorki 4K--had no strap lugs, and were intended to be carried in an accompanying never-ready case.

[dasunst3r]

And when you do eat your shorts, you have to post your video on YouTube. :evil:

[mips]

And when you do eat your shorts, you have to post your video on YouTube. :evil:

Somehow I doubt he will find one. One small problem, my camcorder is with JVC for repairs due to factory defect sensor failure.

[zacinator]

I highly recommend the Panasonic TZ-1. It is 5 MP 10x Optical Zoom. I've taken nearly 6000 pics with mine and have been very satisfied with the results. The only weakness is in low light situations you could get noise. However there are ways to clean that up. Try one out!

[Syke]

After wasting too much money time and time again on low end cameras, I finally gave in and spent too much on a camera. Now I couldn't be happier. I never imagined a digital camera could be so good. Pro photographers will probably laugh at that, but as a casual shooter, my Digital Rebel XTi (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14256) is head and shoulders better than any point-and-shooter I've ever tried. It's a little out of your price range and uses CF instead of SD, but I think it's definitely worth it.

[rhardie]

I like the Nikon cameras. I have the D70, which is somewhat above the price point you described, but they have some Cool Pix cameras that are nice. The Fuji cameras were the first digitals that caught my eye.

The new Nikon D40 is a nice camera and maybe worth stretching the budget. I have this thing about investing a little more for quality and performance up front. If I buy quality and performance, then I only have to buy it once; otherwise, I'm buying a product twice as a replacement for either features/functionality or durability. It's cheaper in the long run.

I took close to 30,000 images last year and I have a lot of fun photographing people and sharing my images on www.shutterfly.com. I just printed my first photo book through their web-based book software and it is due to arrive this week.

I shoot RAW format so I have maximum latitude in image processing and then I convert to JPG and burn to disc for friends and family.

www.bibble.com is a raw image editing application that runs on Linux. It cost $$, but . . . it does an excellent job with the photo images too.

RHardie
Austin, TX

[bran]

adorama and b&h are legit operations, forsure. they were the bees' knees in online commerce before there even was a newegg.

My only concern with the KxxD series is the viewfinder--my *ist DS still uses an all-glass pentaprism, which is fantastic for me, since I use manual focus lenses almost all the time. Subsequent Pentax DSLRs have caved in to competitive pressure and now use pentamirror setups, which aren't as nice for MF work.

excluding the new flagship model the k10d. Given a fixed lens slr or a point and shoot are less usable as photo tools I do not think the pentamirror is that horrid for most shooters.

[apfsdsdu]

excluding the new flagship model the k10d. Given a fixed lens slr or a point and shoot are less usable as photo tools I do not think the pentamirror is that horrid for most shooters.

The K100D viewfinder is still better than that of my Canon 350D. Canon has probably the worst viewfinders, even the Nikon D40(x) has a better one.

I wouldn't recommend the D40 because it doesn't have a focusing motor. Which means that almost all third party lenses and many Nikon lenses lose autofocus.

[slimdog360]

Dear god let me find one as I search google.

lol, hears hoping

[Brunellus]

excluding the new flagship model the k10d. Given a fixed lens slr or a point and shoot are less usable as photo tools I do not think the pentamirror is that horrid for most shooters.
The pentamirror is a pain in the asterisks when manual-focusing and/or using old manual-focus lenses, which is my preferred option. I'm a big fan of Pentax's viewfinders. I've used Nikons and (very briefly) Canons, and have always preferred my Pentax in the end.

[gus sett]

Good company. Consumer Reports recently evaluated
major brand models, and the top finishers were :

1. Panasonic
2. Kodak
3. Fujifilm

The models were within your price range, and the top 2
differed by 2 points in total scoring. I think you'll be very
happy with your choice. :D

P.S. Check HP Laptop Thread to see what else you
can get for less than 500.

As I approach the time to make my decision, I would like to bring this thread up again. So far, my top contenders are:
Fujifilm F40fd
Panasonic DMC-TZ3
Canon TX-1 (HD capabilities, but I hear image quality isn't very good)
Panasonic FZ??


Just a reminder of requirements. They may have changed:
Budget: $300 - $500 (price must include taxes and shipping, but exclude rebates)
Takes SD cards
I would prefer that the camera can fit in my pocket. DSLRs are not out of the question provided that they have a place to attach a shoulder strap.
Sony is completely out of the question


Thank you all for your suggestions!

[pupeeler]

Hey guys. Guess what I found in the weekly paper. Fujifilm has a 6 MP camera with 5X optical zoom and 3 inch viewfinder for 44% off at Best Buy. Their F650 is 100 dollars.

[dasunst3r]

Thank you all for your suggestions. I have come to my (pretty much) final decision: The Canon PowerShot S3 IS. It was a very difficult decision for me. I ruled out DSLRs because I do not think I possess enough skills to use and care for one. Indeed, going from a point-and-shoot to a DSLR seems a bit too big of a jump, so a SLR-like camera would be a smaller step up. Additionally, much to my dismay, it turns out that DSLRs do not have video capabilities. I don't want to carry two pieces of imaging equipment everywhere I go, and I cannot afford two pieces of imaging equipment plus lenses.

There was a close match-up between the Panasonic TZ3, Panasonic FZ8, and the Canon PowerShot S3 IS. The PowerShot S3 IS won because it seems to have better still image taking capabilities and takes AA batteries (proprietary batteries are quite annoying).

I will be ordering my camera on Friday this week, and will receive it sometime the week after. Thanks again for your recommendations -- I took every one of them seriously, and I'll let you all know how happy I am with the camera. The debate now goes to: NiMH or lithium batteries?

[mips]

The debate now goes to: NiMH or lithium batteries?

As far as I know you don't get Lithium Ion batteries in standard AA, AAA, C etc sizes. There are various reasons for this though.

It will have to be Nickel Metal Hydrite.

[gustojr]

For rechargeable AA sticks I found that Duracell gives 150 mah more than the next closest brand, and they're just 2 bucks a piece in the Wal-Mart 8 pack.

[zeller]

So, any update on how much you love your new camera?

[dasunst3r]

So, any update on how much you love your new camera?Since you asked, I'll talk. ;)

It's been about 10 months since I acquired my Canon PowerShot S3 IS, and its successor, the Canon PowerShot S5 IS, has been on the market for a while now. Even though I have SLR envy, I love my camera. I get compliments on how much camera I got for the money. I also got a couple accessories and fun stuff:

Sandisk Extreme III SD card - the one I had was too slow to take video continuously
KimWipes for cleaning the camera's optical stuff. They are also good for wiping computer screens with.
Sanyo Eneloop AAs - self-discharge is very, very slow and one charge is good for about 250 shots, all with flash
CHDK alternative firmware - adds a lot of features! Check it out at http://chdk.wikia.com

[zeller]

With flash? Nice. That's a pretty good charge then for those batteries.

Not gonna go with the S5 then sometime in the future? Have you seen any other cameras you'd like to have that fit your original criteria?

[RAV TUX]

I'm going to be in the market for a new digital camera soon (i.e. 1-3 months), and I would like your help in finding a good digital camera. Here are my requirements:
Price should be around $200 - $500, new. In the case of an SLR, the price must include the lens.
Accepts SD cards
Price must include taxes and shipping
Sony cameras are not allowed (in case they made it past the 2nd requirement :lolflag: )Finally, since I love taking pics, I would like to get as close to an SLR as possible. If you could make a recommendation about what camera to buy or where to buy a camera from (online or B&M), please let me know. Thanks!

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 (http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Cameras/model.DMC-LX2K_11002_7000000000000005702) (10.2 Megapixel Digital Camera with 4x Optical Zoom, MEGA Optical Image Stabilization and 16:9 Image Recording with Leica lenses)

This is the exact same camera as a LEICA D-LUX 3 (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_3/) camera without the Leica name and about $200 less expensive, also the Panasonic version includes a handy grip on the front that the Leica version does not have. If the Leica name isn't important to you then this is the camera to go with.


http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=63222&d=1206027035http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/0089_panasonic_lumix_dmclx2.jpg

______________________________

EDIT: I didn't read the whole thread before posting, it appears you have already purchased a camera.
I'll leave this post for a good reference for others.

Further Edit: I should mention I actually own this camera(Actually bought it for wife for her birthday but we both use and love it), after doing extensive research and owning and using this camera for over a year I found it to be one of the best digital cameras (that is not an SLR). I actually gave away my Canon Powershot to my sister-in-law after acquiring this one.

I must emphasize that lenses do make a difference, and there is no lens out there that can can match the quality of a Leica lens. So whatever camera you purchase make sure it comes with Leice lenses.

[zeller]

I'm not impugning your judgement, at all, but out of curiosity and general interest in photography, what makes the Leica better specifically?

[Brunellus]

I'm not impugning your judgement, at all, but out of curiosity and general interest in photography, what makes the Leica better specifically?
The short answer is: hype.

Historically, the Leica was the first still camera to use 35mm cinema film and daylight-loading cassettes. The original Leicas were extremely small, and technically "miniature" cameras. (You have to understand that in the 1920s, a "full-format" camera used 4x5 INCH sheets of film; a "medium-format" camera used rollfilm and took images about 2 x 3 inches across. 35mm film was tiny by comparison).

The format was a HUGE hit with photojournalists on assignment--and that's what drove the rest of the market.

To go with the camera, Leica produced a number of pretty decent lenses. Their original 50mm f/3.5 Elmar was a derivative of the Carl Zeiss Tessar design; but Leica really came into its own with the 50/2 Summicron (an excellent, compact, sharp, and COLLAPSIBLE lens). Leica lenses are still the bees' knees in 35mm: their 35/1.4 Summilux is great; if you need a 50mm f/1.0 lens, then the Noctilux is really your only choice.

The lenses are extremely sharp, very well-built, and often rather compact compared to comparable offerings.

The sharpness, however, is not particularly a big deal when you consider a few other things. To get maximum sharpness, you've got to be shooting at a subject with relatively high contrast in good light; both the camera and the subject must be standing perfectly still; the film or imaging media must also be able to display all the information captured.

Leicaphiles love shooting images of bark on trees to show of the phenomenal resolving power of their lenses. Thats great--but we don't really take too many tripod-mounted photos of tree bark in real life. Most amateurs will be taking pictures in indifferent light, hand-held. There went most of your theoretical sharpness. Digital camera sensors do not (or did not until very recently) have enough resolution to do any of the higher-end optics justice. And, perhaps most tellingly, the small-resolution details are best seen at ENORMOUS magnification.

That last bit--Magnification--is the key to Leica's enduring appeal to 35mm film photographers. A 35mm negative must be enlarged to a tremendous degree before it's ready for display. I don't care who you are, but a 16"x20" enlargement of your 35mm frame will mercilessly show off the shortcomings of your equipment and your technique. In that context, it pays to have very good glass--but only if you also have very good technique.

For amateur digital photographers who are NOT using interchangable lens camera systems, the considerations are different. You will be let down, ultimately, by the limited resolution of your recording media. Your biggest problems will be distortion (barrel and pincushion) and uncorrected chromatic aberration (purple fringing on high-contrast backlit subjects).

[RAV TUX]

I'm not impugning your judgement, at all, but out of curiosity and general interest in photography, what makes the Leica better specifically?

Simple answer, the images from the Panasonic camera with Leica lenses are considerably better then the ones taken with the Canon Powershot.

Admittedly, there could be other aspects of the camera that could contribute to this.

Beyond the perceived hype, I basically see the difference and the difference is appreciable, at least to my untrained eye.

[Brunellus]

Simple answer, the images from the Panasonic camera with Leica lenses are considerably better then the ones taken with the Canon Powershot.

Admittedly, there could be other aspect of the camera that could contribute to this.

Beyond the perceived hype, I basically see the difference and the difference is appreciable, at least to my untrained eye.
there are an awful lot of variables there. Operator skill; differences in auto-exposure/auto-focus algorithms; differences in image-processing algorithims; sensor noise; subject contrast; lighting.

I'm not saying Leica glass isn't good--it is--but it's not magic. My "best" lens (subjectively speaking) is a "cheap" Jupiter-9 85mm f/2.0, built in the USSR. The results can be very good indeed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/49527154/in/set-72157594214264149/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/45471247/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/45471251/

Some of my best photos were taken with a similarly "obsolete" lens, a Pentax Super Takumar 35mm f/2:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/sets/72157600044757286/

[popch]

For amateur digital photographers who are NOT using interchangable lens camera systems, the considerations are different. You will be let down, ultimately, by the limited resolution of your recording media. Your biggest problems will be distortion (barrel and pincushion) and uncorrected chromatic aberration (purple fringing on high-contrast backlit subjects).

The presumption is that your camera starts off with a lens which is decent enough. Some manufactures appear to be pinching more than a few pennies by using bottle bottoms for lenses.

[Brunellus]

The presumption is that your camera starts off with a lens which is decent enough. Some manufactures appear to be pinching more than a few pennies by using bottle bottoms for lenses.
True. But amateur photographers tend to get rather gear-oriented.

If your pictures are bad, the camera might be to blame--but the single biggest determinant of the quality of the pictures is the photographer. Traning can make up for a lot. People can take decent photographs with Holgas, for heavens' sake--I have seen them.

[popch]

True. But amateur photographers tend to get rather gear-oriented.

If your pictures are bad, the camera might be to blame--but the single biggest determinant of the quality of the pictures is the photographer.

Yes, and that simple fact occasionally escapes my mind because I have nearly five decades' worth of experience. Thank you for reminding me.


People can take decent photographs with Holgas, for heavens' sake--I have seen them.

Besides which, some people even manage to use their camera's shortcomings as features. The result of their defective equipments become central to the design of their pictures.

[mips]

The results can be very good indeed:]

Some nice photos there Brunellus!

[RAV TUX]

there are an awful lot of variables there. Operator skill; differences in auto-exposure/auto-focus algorithms; differences in image-processing algorithims; sensor noise; subject contrast; lighting.

I'm not saying Leica glass isn't good--it is--but it's not magic. My "best" lens (subjectively speaking) is a "cheap" Jupiter-9 85mm f/2.0, built in the USSR. The results can be very good indeed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/49527154/in/set-72157594214264149/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/45471247/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/45471251/

Some of my best photos were taken with a similarly "obsolete" lens, a Pentax Super Takumar 35mm f/2:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ouij/sets/72157600044757286/


The picture of your father is wonderful! Thanks for sharing and your points are well taken as always.

You have become like an Oracle of knowledge and wisdom.

I cherish your friendship and value your advice.

Also, you have shown me an important lesson I need to take more pictures of my parents.

I have started to use my camcorder to make videos of my mom cooking. Since none of her children have taken the time to learn to cook like her(including me).

I will make it my goal to spend more time with my parents.

[cardinals_fan]

Get a Canon. Any Canon.

[dasunst3r]

There seems to be some very interesting discussion over equipment, skill, and whatnot, and I'd like to share with you my experiences with how my interest in photography took off over the past three years:

I started off with the Sony DSC-P73, which I won during a raffle (cost basis = $25, salvage value = $61). It had a manual mode that I could make use of, but it was very limited. Nevertheless, I got an endless stream of compliments over my photography skills and soon outgrew my camera. Since I have some money to go around, I shopped around for a new camera, hence this thread. I promised myself that I will not get a "wimpy pocket camera," which I think the Canon PowerShot S3 IS I settled on is surely not. Up to this day, the compliments continue and people get surprised when I tell them how much my camera cost (about $297 in May 2007).

In my opinion, the bottom line is that if one wishes to become a good photographer, he/she should start off with "wimpy" equipment, learn how to cope with that, and then move on to better equipment. Indeed, someone trusted me enough to let me touch her Nikon D80, and it took me a couple minutes of learning where the controls are before I started taking decent pics. I don't believe in postprocessing (except for red-eye removal), and half of the pics I take do not get added to my collection of 4,600+ photos online.

Please, keep this discussion going!

[Brunellus]

The easiest way to remove red-eye is not to have it in the first place. If you know you will need a flash, make sure the flash is as far away as practicable from the axis of the lens. I use an old Vivitar 283 for my flash photo needs. The thing stands maybe 20 cm away from the lens axis--no chance of red-eye there!

The key thing when selecting a camera is considering exactly what kind of use you'll put it to. I don't carry my Pentax *ist DS with me all the time. If all I want is to take boozy snapshots of my friends at the pub, well, I have an unremarkable Olympus point-and-shoot for that.

But certain things carry over, no matter what equipment you're using. The ability to frame a shot is crucial: you must be aware of what's actually going into the picture. An understanding of how light works is even more important.

I took a bunch of pictures as a kid, but I never really got into photography as such until I had a fully manual camera. Even now, with my DSLR, I use nothing but manual equipment. First off, it's cheaper; second, I already know how to use it.

[zeller]

I've really been digging the manual controls on my D40. I've taken about 1,200 shots over the past 4 days just to practice with using different apertures, shutter speeds, and ISO settings. I hate flash. It's usually so unnatural looking in my photos.

Oh yeah, some of those shots were of family over Easter, but not nearly as many as practice shots!

[Brunellus]

Hard and fast rules for exposures:

Learn the f/ scale by heart:

1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 3.5, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 . . . .

For every "full" stop you move on that scale, exposure times double or halve. So if you get a "good" exposure with a shutter speed of 1/250 of a second at f/8, you get an equivalently "good" exposure at 1/125 at f/11 and 1/500 at f/5.6.

Smaller apertures (Bigger f/ numbers) mean more depth of field. That is, things closer and farther away from your point of focus will also appear sharp. Bigger apertures (small f/ numbers) give very shallow depth of field: only those things within the plane of focus will be sharp--everything else will be blurry.

Rules of thumb:

"Sunny f/16": A subject in full, even sunlight will be "properly" exposed if you stop the lens down to f/16 and set the shutter speed to the reciprocal of the ISO rating of your film/sensor. Thus for a film/sensor rated 200, you'll get a decent exposure at 1/200 at f/16.

Camera shake: camera shake is your enemy. Use a tripod. If you can't, remember that even with good technique it is hard to hand-hold a lens for a shutter speed that is longer than the recpirocal of the lens's focal length in mm. So with practice, you can hand-hold a 35mm lens at 1/30, a 50mm at 1/50, and so on. Any slower and you WILL get unacceptable shake. If you know you're going to work in crappy light, brace yourself against something solid, hold the camera properly, and use a soft, smooth touch on the shutter release.

[popch]

Learn the f/ scale by heart:

1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 3.5, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 . . . . .

I would have expected 4.0 in place of 3.5.

For those who are not numerically challenged, it's a simple series where each value gets multiplied by roughly 1.4 (the square root of two, to be accurate). Hence, every other value is a power of two.



Rules of thumb:

"Sunny f/16": A subject in full, even sunlight will be "properly" exposed if you stop the lens down to f/16 and set the shutter speed to the reciprocal of the ISO rating of your film/sensor. Thus for a film/sensor rated 200, you'll get a decent exposure at 1/200 at f/16. .

That's really great; I did not know this rule of thumb. I must have missed that because I reckoned film speed in DIN for quite a few years.

Thank you.

[Ioky]

I am a pro photographer myself. I think is really depend on what you want. SLR are big, and with the money, I wouldn't recommend you to get one because, you need a lot more thing, to get a DSLR to work like the way you really wanted. I mean if you are really interest on Photography.

But there are two camera, that I recommend you to get, the Canon G9, and the FUJIfilm f100FD or f60FD.

They are the best Non DSLR I have ever try. I never really own any of them because there is no need for me to use them in work. and I have a old fujifilm camera that just work for every day thing. so

But yes, they are really good, especially FujiFilm they are one of the best company for non SLR camera, if you never use them, you mean thing they are not as good because it is cheaper then most others. but I would say they are even better then Canon on non SLR in general, It is just that good.

The main reason why I recommend this two cameras is because they both have manual functions. so you can have more control when you need it. of course, their smart function is just as powerful. Personallly I think the FujiFilm f100FD are more worth then the G9. in term of money vs value.

What I don't recommend is those camera that tend to be stylish, I mean I personally love cool style stuff. but what do you any good, if it can't do whatever it was mean to get done? A camera is al about making good photo. so yeah, have fun with your photo.

[Brunellus]

I would have expected 4.0 in place of 3.5.

For those who are not numerically challenged, it's a simple series where each value gets multiplied by roughly 1.4 (the square root of two, to be accurate). Hence, every other value is a power of two.



That's really great; I did not know this rule of thumb. I must have missed that because I reckoned film speed in DIN for quite a few years.

Thank you.
yeah, looking at it, I should have put 4.0 there. I guess I have 3.5 stuck in my head because it's "wide open" for a few of my lenses, so I'm used to thinking "3.5, 5.6, 8 . . ."

Sunny f/16 works (kind of) in DIN as well. I have an old Rolleiflex with a DIN exposure table that amounts to the same thing.

[ShodanjoDM]

Ah, does anyone here remember the smell of Dektol? Or the oh-so-fine grained T-Max films?

The dimmed room with the red light on? The feelings when seeing your picture slowly appearing on the surface of a silky paper when it's still submerged in the tray?

I remember when I had to print 100+ images for an exhibition. It was a week before the deadline and in the end I found myself pretty exhausted and sick from developer poisoning...

:lolflag:

Anyway to get back on topic, now I have my eyes on the Olympus E-510, or E-3 if I can afford it :p

[popch]

Ah, does anyone here remember the smell of Dektol? Or the oh-so-fine grained T-Max films?

The dimmed room with the red light on? The feelings when seeing your picture slowly appearing on the surface of a silky paper when it's still submerged in the tray?


I do not know those particular brands, but the smell of developers, vinegar acid, the dim lights and the slowly emerging image definitely does ring a bell.

Mind the saliva.

[zeller]

When I took a photography class in High School and another in College we were forced to use actual film, chemicals, etc. The hardest part was getting the roll of negative placed on a wireframe in complete darkness before the fun part of developing prints.

Ah, those were the days. I wish I could do some of that all over again. Sometimes the process is more fun than the actual result. Only sometimes.

[Brunellus]

Ah, does anyone here remember the smell of Dektol? Or the oh-so-fine grained T-Max films?

The dimmed room with the red light on? The feelings when seeing your picture slowly appearing on the surface of a silky paper when it's still submerged in the tray?

I remember when I had to print 100+ images for an exhibition. It was a week before the deadline and in the end I found myself pretty exhausted and sick from developer poisoning...

:lolflag:

Anyway to get back on topic, now I have my eyes on the Olympus E-510, or E-3 if I can afford it :p
I never really liked T-Max films; they were fast, sure, but the grain never really grabbed me. Towards the end, I was using Tri-X in Diafine (and rating it at ISO 1250!) for low-light work. I also liked Tri-X and Ilford HP5 in HC-110 or Ilfosol.

T-Max grain was always a bit--I don't know, "fluffy," to me. Getting that "T-Max" look meant using T-Max developer, too, which was pretty darn fussy about temperature and timing. Diafine solved most of those problems for me.

The magic of seeing a print develop out really hooked me on photography. If I weren't studying so hard, I'd really love to do some alternative photographic processes--large-format negatives for cyanotype prints, and that sort of thing. There are a few photogs doing that here in the DC area, and I love their work.

[LacosteGirl23]

I would go with the Canon Powershot S5 IS. I have it. And love it!! It's not a pocket camera though. It's a dslr-like camera.

[Rhapsody]

To actually add a request to this thread, I've been looking at buying a digital camera myself and ended up looking at the Kodak EasyShare P850 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000BD7ZZO/ref=nosim/coffeeuk2768-21). It's within my budget and appears to have everything I wanted, but am I being sensible here or is there something better an amature photographer should be looking at? Also, far more importantly, if I do buy this, will I be able to make it work with Kubuntu?

[Neobuntu]

DSLR, DSLR, DSLR. They are "better" is some situations. But what's up with the price $500 and up?

I like my Panny FZ18 even though it's a little noisy, in low light and without flash. If they could put a better, small sensor in the FZ18, it would be darn near perfection. It's about $299. The newer Nikon P80 does not best the FZ18.

So a DSLR is "better" but starter kits at ~$500 don't have live view. They don't do movies. They have serious dust problems. They are bulkier. They do not go from (35MM equivalent) 28mm to 504MM optical, very high quality lens either; for the price.

So basically, if you need no flash sport quality, you're toast. You'll need about $600 just to get started (a D40 2 lens kit on steep sale.)

I say we change this. That's just too much money for what you get. I say we demand better prices. Vote with our wallet and ask for better ultra zoom sensors. That's what most people want. A good camera.

[gn2]

The best photo I ever took was taken using a disposable single use camera.

It was published in a national aviation magazine.

Two professional photographers that I knew at the time said that in their opinion it was one of the best photographs they had ever seen.

I know very little about photography.
Give enough monkeys typewriters.....

Currently my typewriter of choice is a Canon A590IS which does all I need it to and more.
It's a very nice little camera indeed.

[mips]

So a DSLR is "better" but starter kits at ~$500 don't have live view. They don't do movies. They have serious dust problems. They are bulkier.

Should be able to get an Olympus with Liveview in the $500 price range. The olympus brand also has the best dust removal system out there. The E4x0 olympus is actually pretty small but not as small as some of the P&S zooms out there.

[Neobuntu]

Should be able to get an Olympus with Liveview in the $500 price range. The olympus brand also has the best dust removal system out there. The E4x0 olympus is actually pretty small but not as small as some of the P&S zooms out there.

Yes, but 28-504mm? One lens vs. multiple expensive, add-on lenses? Still, it's DSLR and will take cleaner pics. The question is, can you live with the quality a fz18 produces for about $300 total?

(Low light)Sport shooters, get a DSLR. I still have a bad taste in my mouth for Olympus as they tried (in vain) to push their xD cards. Now one can get SDHC or CF. For a starter DSLR you may overall prefer a D40 or a XTi (or a D60 or a XSi).