Topic: Buying a Camera

[Muffin]

Taking good pictures is 76% talent (creativity, perspective, attention to detail, etc.), 13% technique and experience and 11% the camera. Numbers are approximate

A few things you should keep in mind when buying a camera.
If you are looking for compact cameras then anything below $200 will not be a much of an improvement over the phone. For an all-around compact I would choose Canon's SD1400 IS or Canon SD3500 IS (the latter has slightly better lens and screen, plus it's touch screen).
For dSLR's I would recommend Nikon's D3100 (or D3000) or D90 (which I own).
But do your research.

I would recommend getting a compact first and see how things go. He can upgrade later when taking the photography class, if he wants. Plus he will be able to tell you which one
The compact you could keep it as a family camera to pop in your pockets whenever you go out.

[Jahn]

Taking good pictures is 76% talent (creativity, perspective, attention to detail, etc.), 13% technique and experience and 11% the camera. Numbers are approximate

A few things you should keep in mind when buying a camera.
If you are looking for compact cameras then anything below $200 will not be a much of an improvement over the phone. For an all-around compact I would choose Canon's SD1400 IS or Canon SD3500 IS (the latter has slightly better lens and screen, plus it's touch screen).
For dSLR's I would recommend Nikon's D3100 (or D3000) or D90 (which I own).
But do your research.

I would recommend getting a compact first and see how things go. He can upgrade later when taking the photography class, if he wants. Plus he will be able to tell you which one
The compact you could keep it as a family camera to pop in your pockets whenever you go out.

I have lost my camera, at least I can't find it.
So I bought a new one, the same edition of Canon Ixus 110is.
The price range for this camera goes from SEK 3500 to only 1400, that is about USD 500 to 200.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2009/08/12/Canon-IXUS-110-IS/p1

review


comment NICHOLAS JONES said on 14th August 2009

I bought one a couple of weeks ago for £189.00 from Amazon in their sale. It has replaced my old Canon 850 is. It is a great little camera & is much easier to use than my old one. The on screen hints are very useful while you are getting used to the camera. The quality of the photos & movies are really excellent. I wasn't sure about not having an optical view finder but the screen is bright & sharp it isn't a problem. A great buy, highly recommended.

[Muffin]

Jahn, that's pretty much the same camera under a different name. Canon uses different branding for the American (Powershot) and European (Ixus) markets.

Canon Ixus 110is  = Canon Powershot SD960 IS
Canon Ixus 130    = Canon Powershot SD1400 IS

IS stands for Image Stabilizer. Don't worry if you don't see it on newer models, Cannon dropped the usage from the names, but the cameras still have it. Look for the specifications if in doubt.

[Michael]

That's timely - I have become very dissatisfied with our old Kodak compact, which has been a fabulous camera, but 5 mp is now obviously too small for proper cropping.

When I bought the Kodak I did a lot of research. It seemed most pros always like Cannon, but because all these companies are constantly leap-frogging each other in feature improvements, at any one time reviews recommend different ones.

I'll look into these ones Rudi suggests here. I recall there were many factors - eg metal cameras were safer with travel (less likely to break), speed of readiness to take the photo from switch-on, type of battery (lithium), size - small but not too small, size of the back viewer, and especially the optical zoom, so long as quality was not sacrificed. I'm rusty on this now, but the most critical factors as I recall was not just the mega-pixels, but the size of the sensor (or whatever they call the thing which receives the image for capture). Lastly, and most important, the lens.

[Muffin]

PS: Lori, I'm sorry for polluting this thread, some moderator please feel free to split it. We can have a discussion on cameras in a dedicated thread.

Actually, megapixels is the least important factor. I have a 12MP camera and I shoot with the equivalent of 6MP, and I still crop and downsize my images. See my latest swan pic.
You only need 12+ MP if you want to print your images in larger then standard pic format (cca 11x14").

The first thing you need to decide is if you want a compact point-and-shoot or a SLR camera.
Interestingly enough, Nikon's canadian website has an awsome display of their range of products. Couldn't find such a clear presentation on any other site, Nikon or Canon.
Compact vs. SLR

In case of the SLR camera the lens is less important because they are interchangeable and work on pretty much all the models Nikon lenses on Nikon cameras, Canon lenses on Canon cameras, Sony lenses on .. well you get the drift. There are also independent lens manufacturer who make lenses for these companies. That's a huge field to explore.
Talking about zoom factor when buying an SLR  camera makes no sense, your zoom is whatever the focal length of your lens is. A standard 70-300mm lens is called a zoom lens not because you have a 4.2x optical zoom, but because it can see far. My 18-55mm lens has a 3x zoom factor but it is a wide to  standard lens. I also have a 50mm, fixed focal length lens - I take a step back or forward if I need to. I cannot take a picture of a pidgeon on the roof of the cathedral 100 meters away, but who cares. In the past year I used only this lens, which means that I am walking around with a 0x zoom camera.

For SLRs, Nikon and Canon are considered pretty much equal, with Nikon having a hair edge on the top end cameras. The Nikon D3x is considered the best "prosumer" digital camera in the world, for $8.000 it should be. On the entry and advanced level their offerings match each other.
It is a matter of preference, I'm very happy with my Nikon and I wouldn't change it for anything. (well, maybe for the new Nikon D7000 )

There are two sensors on the SLR market, DX and FX, and they are important mostly to professional photographers. FX stands for "full frame" - 36x24mm, DX stands for "half frame" - 24x16mm. The full-frame is equivalent to the 35mm film sensor, they are also much more expensive and you tend to find them only on high-end professional cameras.

In case of compact cameras the situation is a bit complex. You buy the camera on a what you see is what you get basis. In this case sensor size does matter, but usually they sport a standard size over all the models.
For mega-pixels, choose the one that is smaller. If you see two otherwise equivalent models with say 10 and 12 MP, choose the 10MP. However between 2MP and 12MP choose the 12MP!!!
Zoom is relatively important here, the high-end Nikon compact has a 7x zoom, but the focal length is equivalent with 28-200mm on an SLR camera. The Canon camera I recommended (not high-end) has a 3.7x zoom, equivalent to 28-105mm, that's half as the Nikon. You can zoom in more with the SLR by replacing the lens, not so with the compact. Not such a big issue as you shouldn't be afraid to take a step forward or backward - don't worry about people look funny at you. Walk that extra mile if you have too

You also want a lens that has large maximum aperture, weather you are going SLR or compact. The Canon apparently has a very good quality lens which takes sharp pictures, and paired with the large aperture size it sounds a sweet deal. Large apertures, low f-stops (f2. lets you take better pictures in low-light conditions by allowing you to reduce the exposure time. They are also hard to manufacture and very expensive.

Between other stuff you mentioned, I would say speed of readiness is one of the most important factor. The camera should feel snappy both when turning on and on working with the menus, options, the interface should be clean and easy to use.
Consider the picture I snapped today in a nearby park. I was strolling in the park with no intention whatsoever to take pictures, my camera was inside the camera bag which was inside a backpack which was on my back, with my hands tucked away deep in my pockets (temperatures -10C/14F), when I saw the sun appear from behind the clouds and trees. I rushed to get out my camera and take a snapshot. I wasted about 30 seconds to get my camera out. Luckily my camera is almost instant-on, it takes only a few microseconds from being turned off to fully operative. I took 3 pictures then tried to adjust the exposure, but by that time the sun was gone.
Compact cameras could take quite a few seconds to turn on, which sometimes is annoying, and can cost you the picture. Or you could keep the compact camera in your front pocket.

[Michael]

Yes, as this is an interesting discussion, it should have it's own thread - perhaps Vicki could stick it somehwere, as she's good at that.

I'm personally less interested in the SLR stuff, as that is getting serious, and most people who get serious do a lot of research before they purchase.

Most professional photographers apparently use at least two cameras - an SLR and a compact. The compact is in the pocket, or at least more consistently available, so they use that for unexpected snaps. I use the compact when travelling, as I don't like carrying around a heap of bulky equipment. Actually Julie now uses the compact and I use the video camera, which is still fairly small but doesn't take as good stills as the compact Kodak.

For some reason I don't understand, I have read that most professionals prefer a particular model of Cannon compact, which is now long superseded by other models and brands in features, but they still prefer that one, which of course I forget which it is.

So for the Compact, we have a few issues:

1. Mega-pixels. I understand most advisers dismiss this now because every new camera seems to have reached the practical limit of mega-pixels, even mobile phones. The main drawback as I understand is the size of the picture - how many you can store on the camera, how many you can store on the computer, and how fast your computer is to process large files in Photoshop.

I can definitely see the degradation of my 5 mp photos when I crop say 50%. This is probably less of a problem for Web as you can only have 72 p/inch there, yet I still see a difference. The problem may be other aspects of the picture from the camera than the mega-pixels, but the full version looks great (though no where near an SLR pic like Rudi and Taimi take).

2. Sensor size. From what you say Rudi, it seems most bands have also evolved this aspect, or are you only talking about SLRs? Where do you see the sensor size specs for a compact? What is the technical term to look for?

3. Zoom. This is most important for me, because while travelling, I like to take pictures of people who don't know I'm photographing them. This is where the cropping comes in. I recently realised this as I have been doing a lot of video editing, and once I perfected the digital zoom in editing, I don't have to bother so much with the zoom on the camera. So long as there is plenty of digital info to allow quality digital zooming. Thus the biggest file the better for me, as I can handle them on my computer.

However zooming in the camera is important as it affects how I feel about a shot, and thus whether I want to take it at all. Also I am always of the belief that artistic quality should be pushed as close to the original action as possible, in any art form. Thus the more creative I can be in actually taking the picture the better - editing should only polish it up.

I have seen professional photographers dance all over the place, in and out of people's faces, but while I travel around, I prefer to be as discrete as possible, and still get the unaffected picture (unaffected by the photographer).

I would not want to consider anything less than 7x zoom on my next compact camera. But I don't fully understand what you mean by focal length in relation to zoom Rudi - please explain. I thought it meant the lens's depth of field in any one shot. Don't see where that relates to zoom.

4. Aperture. I'm not up with this - I assume it means how wide the opening, and thus how large the lens. But surely the quality of the lens is more important than it's size? The ability to take un-flashed pictures in poor light is definitely on my list of required features, so I assume aperture size is important here. What technical spec do you look for in this?

5. Speed of readiness. This is something I saw focused on with most reviews, but actually in practice, I notice Julie misses a shot because she delays clicking for too long - something about speed of eye, and decisiveness.

[Nichi]

Yes, as this is an interesting discussion, it should have it's own thread - perhaps Vicki could stick it somehwere, as she's good at that.

Did so. You're in it, baby! 

(Thought "Pictures" was the appropriate place, but if you like another spot, jes' lemme know.)

[Michael]

Thanks V - yep, pictures is the place.

[Ke-ke wan]

Taking good pictures is 76% talent (creativity, perspective, attention to detail, etc.), 13% technique and experience and 11% the camera. Numbers are approximate

A few things you should keep in mind when buying a camera.
If you are looking for compact cameras then anything below $200 will not be a much of an improvement over the phone. For an all-around compact I would choose Canon's SD1400 IS or Canon SD3500 IS (the latter has slightly better lens and screen, plus it's touch screen).
For dSLR's I would recommend Nikon's D3100 (or D3000) or D90 (which I own).
But do your research.

I would recommend getting a compact first and see how things go. He can upgrade later when taking the photography class, if he wants. Plus he will be able to tell you which one
The compact you could keep it as a family camera to pop in your pockets whenever you go out.

Thanks for all the helpful tips Rudolf! 

[Muffin]

Thanks for all the helpful tips Rudolf! 

You're welcome, I'm glad you found your way over here.

[Muffin]

Let's get the easier ones out of the way. These should be the last things you want to consider. Meaning, first decide on the lens you want (focal length, aperture size, shutter speeds), then see what are your options for MP's and sensors for the given lens type. Not the other way around.

1. Mega-pixels and 2. Sensor size

Actually what matters is pixel number to sensor size ratio. The more pixel you try to cram on the same size sensor the smaller the pixels have to be. As a rule of thumb, larger pixel sizes will produce a sharper and less "noisy" image. 10 million pixels on a 1/2.3" sensor will create a smaller resolution image (smaller printable size/ less zoomable) then 12 million pixels, but the image quality will be better and more life-like.
12 million pixels on a 1/1.7" sensor however feel fine because the sensor is larger, which makes the extra 2 million pixels happier
Though the quality of the image produced depends also on the manufacturing process, so it might be that Canon can get good quality out of small sensors and small pixel sizes.

Ultimately you don't really have much choice for these two properties. One will get either a 10MP or 12MP camera, with one or the other sensor size. The difference between them will be perceptible only to the top professionals. If you are shopping for an all-around camera it will make no difference whatsoever.

For the enthusiast, like Michael, the choice will be a matter of personal preference and type of photography one wishes to do : quality over quantity? And available budget.

The technical term to look for the sensor size is sensor size.

Canon G12	CoolPix P7000

A good, in-depth description of sensors can be found here.

I will cover the focal length and aperture in a subsequent post.

PS: the FX and DX sensor sizes are used in SLR's, and are not relevant to compact cameras. You will never find a 35mm sensor in a 50mm camera. Well, maybe in 2050.

[Ke-ke wan]

You're welcome, I'm glad you found your way over here.

I followed the signs!

[Muffin]

Focal length:
Zooming

The focal length is the distance between the lens and the sensor (film) when you focus the lens on infinity. This length will define the field of view and the magnification of distant objects. In other words how much you can take in horizontally and how far you can see.

Below is an illustration to see just what a difference focal length can make in an image
<a href="http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/focalflash.swf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/focalflash.swf</a>

Magnification and field of view depends also on the size of the sensor, therefore a 50mm lens will perform different on a 1/1.7" sensor and 1/2.7" sensor. The 35mm film was kept as a reference point, so to avoid confusion, manufacturers will often include the equivalent of the lens on 35mm.
Example:

Canon S95	Nikon CoolPix S8100

Lenses are organized in three  categories: wide-angle, normal, tele

< 20mm	Super Wide Angle
24mm - 35mm	Wide Angle
50mm	Normal Lens
80mm - 300mm	Tele
> 300mm	Super Tele

Lenses are further categorized in zoom and fixed lenses. Any lens that has variable focal length is a zoom lens - you can zoom in and out with it. Lenses with only one focal length, are fixed - not surprisingly.
The zoom factor is the factor between the longest focal length divided by the shortest focal length. In our examples we get a 3.75x zoom factor for Canon and 10x zoom factor for Nikon.

When buying a digital reflex camera it makes no sense talking about zoom, because you can change lenses based on requirements. On the same body you can have an 18-55mm lens (wide-angle zoom) or a 75-300 mm lens (tele zoom) or a 50mm (fixed normal - I use this most of the time, and leave my zoom lens at home ).
However in the case of compact cameras you are stuck with the lens attached to the camera, therefore manufacturers try to build lenses that can cover the most distance possible. Naturally, with higher coverage comes higher prices.
Just look at the new Canon PowerShot 30SX IS - it has a very impressive 35x optical zoom, for a very impressive €500 price tag. But don't get fooled, it's not likely a camera you can carry in your jeans' pocket.

On the bright side, when the optical zoom is not enough you can always cheer up that there are ways to zoom and enhance images digitally.

[Michael]

These are great Rudi - and I read that site on sensors. I am learning a lot, but shit, there is much to learn!

[Jahn]

I have lost my camera, at least I can't find it.

Heh ... I found it in drawer in the garage. So now I got two cameras