Digital cameras

[furrycute]

What digital cameras do you guys use? Aside from my audio hobby, I'm a big time photo enthusiast.

Well, DSLRs are pretty much out of my price range. So I'm now back to the small ultra-compacts. Just bought a Casio EX-Z750 camera, 7 megapixel. Some people say it's the best ultra-compact out there right now. Been playing with it all afternoon. Really like its size.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I use a Canon Digital Rebel and absolutely love it. I shoot a lot of sports so I needed something that had next to zero lag time between the button press and the shot being taken as well as something adaptable. This fit the bill in all regards and at what I consider a very reasonable price.

But, with the toddler running around, we decided we wanted something that was a little more portable and could shoot videos, so we picked up a Canon PowerShot S1. I really wanted a camera with a serious optical zoom on it since the lens was not interchangable. It's a fair bit slower and less sophisticated than the Rebel, but it is easy to take anywhere and uses our legacy compact flash cards.

www.jacobvail.com (if it works) shows photos AND videos taken with both cameras. (The Rebel does not shoot video).

 

[j_garcia]

In digital, Canon is my choice as well. Excellent color and picture quality.

 

[nav]

I use a Canon Digital Rebel and absolutely love it. I shoot a lot of sports so I needed something that had next to zero lag time between the button press and the shot being taken as well as something adaptable. This fit the bill in all regards and at what I consider a very reasonable price.

The Canon Digital Rebel (I've only used the 6 megapixel model) is very fast, easy to use, and produces quality shots for its price range (which is cheap). However, as far as professional DSLRs go, it doesn't have much configurability (certain things, like non-lossy compression formats, are something I'd like to have for a professional camera; JPEG artifacts can be nasty after some post-processing is done).

The Nikon D70 is my personal favorite DSLR (I'd take it over the D100), but it's more expensive.

I carry a Canon Powershot SD300 as my "mini-camera". It's small and I can put it in my jacket pocket (with an extra battery, even) and I've managed to get some really nice shots (I love lightning!) by just having it on me all of the time. Very good quality for such a tiny lense.

The little Sony I used to have was a decent entry level camera, but it wasn't as nice quality-wise as my Canon. I've also used a 4-something megapixel mini-camera from Pentax a bit, it's very similar to the Canon.

I also own an Olympus C5050 that I picked up extremely cheap (less than 20% current MSRP ). It's not too bad of a camera, but it can't touch a good DSLR. It doesn't shoot particularly quickly. However, it does have a remote control, does allow custom focusing (or automatic with various algorithms) and shutter tweaking, has a movable LCD (with preview, unlike most professional cameras), and a whole load of preferences you can set. I use it in "fast repeat shot" mode with a large (enough) memory card to work around the mediocre fire speed. It doesn't have any digital stabilization, which is annoying.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Another great hobby.

I looked at the Casio's before buying the wife a Canon SD400. I have the older S400, and absolutely love it. The newer canon has a Digic II processor, and downloads large 5 megapixel pictures to my pc in seconds. My slower S400 takes a while longer. The Canon S series takes sharper photos than the SD series, and is much thicker. You give up a bit of sharpness for the ultra "chic" cameras, but they have the best "wow" factor and are most compact.

It's my impression that the ultra slim cameras give up some sharpness in the corners (like the SD400 and some of the earlier Exilim's). I can't comment on yours since it's so new, but I'd guess at 7mp, it should take darn good photos. The SD400 has a movie mode at 30 and 60 fps, which is extremely fast, but you need a large memory card if you are going to be taking movies. Sandisk makes some of the best memory cards. We have 2-256 Ultra II compact flash cards for my camera, and 1-512 Ultra II SD card for the wife. The slimmest cameras need the SD cards for their small size.

I've found none of these tiny cameras do very well in low lit areas. Their flashes are powerful, but add distance, and they suffer. This website has some great reviews and tips on most of the cameras out today.
http://www.imaging-resource.com

 

[Bryguy]

I was lucky, I won a Fuji Finepix E550 at a company picnic . My film camera had just broke and I needed something quick for an upcoming business trip. I too, would love to have a Nikon DSLR but way out of my price range. Personally, I'd love to have a nice CCD camera from SBIG (santa barbara instrument group) to hook up to my scope but the ones I was looking at are in the $10K range . I guess I'll never own that one.

The finepix isn't bad and is 6.3 mega pixels. The lens is made by Fujinon who makes some good Astro and military marine binoculars. Still, it's not a DSLR.

Bryguy

 

[Matt34]

I was highly recommended the Canon Powershot S50(5MP) a couple years ago and it still serves me well.

 

[Bryguy]

I love being able to instantly see if I got the shot or not. Sometimes that takes precedents(?) over the quality of the film medium.

Bryguy.

 

[furrycute]

Now I have spent about 6 hours with my new Casion EX-Z750, I am liking it more and more.

The 750 is probably the only digital camera with an MPEG-4 movie mode! That means you can fit about 34 minutes of high quality 640x480@30fps on a 1GB card. And I looked at the clips, they look stunning! Much better than the MPEG-1 movie clips I got from my old camera.

Now I have a camera and a videocam all in one.


I do agree that the ultra-compacts don't have very powerful flashes. Indoor pictures with poor lighting only come out so so. But outdoor pictures are gorgeous.

 

[furrycute]

Here are a couple of pictures. These I took with a Nikon 7900 before returning it (didn't focus too well in low light). The Casio should give the same level of image quality. Did some photoshopping.

I printed these 3 pictures at 8x10. Got the pictures back from Costco yesterday. They look gorgeous.

 

[claudermilk]

I use a Canon 20D (gotta quit with these expensive hobbies!).

 

[furrycute]

No kidding about quitting expensive hobbies. You can EASILY spend more on your photography equipment than you can spend on hometheater equipment.


You think a $2000 receiver is expensive? Try an $1800 Canon L glass for a change. And you will probably need 3 or so L zoom glasses to complete your lens collection. You want to do low light photography? Try a Canon L prime. You'll probably end up with 3 or more fast primes. Want telephoto? Try one of those big Canon L professional zooms ($3000 and up).

Before you know it, you probably spent $10,000 on the stuff in your camera bag.

 

[HookedOnSound]

Go Canon! Go!

Price vs. features I think Canon wins. my second fav choice would be a Nikon.

That is not to say other brands are not good but I tend to hear more satisfaction from ppl with Canons.

I have a Canon Powershot that is 2 yrs old and still beats some of today's new cameras on the market. My only complaint about my camera (and alot of other cameras have this same issue that I've read about) is the low light sensitivity. Inside shots can be tough since the ambient light can affect auto-focusing and exposure. I understand newer cameras are now coming with assisted auto-focus light (I'm not sure that is the right term) to improve sensor measurements. This is definitely something I would consider an improvement for indoor shots but I haven't seen the results for myself.

I have to admit after seeing alot of my friends buy new cameras (3-5 megapixels), IMO, Canon is still a leader but the competition is fast improving, especially in the Point&Shoot models. IMO, it basically comes down to choosing a camera with the features that are most important to you and going from there with your budget in mind.

I wouldn't buy a camera today without first checking this website: www.dpreview.com

lots of good technical data.

I am going to buy another camera soon, I hope I can swing the Canon Powershot S2 for Christmas as a present for my wife but the G6 has me on the fence.

 

[furrycute]

Canon doesn't make very good wide angle lenses. Most of them exhibit significant corner softness.

Nikon makes very good wide angle lenses.


Both Canon and Nikon make very good telephoto zoom lenses.

 

[WmAx]

I currently enjoy a Konica Minolta Dimage A2 integrated camera. I tried DSLRs, but they are not of pratical use to me at the moment; the integrated A2 solution is perfect for my purposes at the moment. It should be noted that I do not have currently have a need the very high ISO capability or very long lens possibilities of a DSLR.

I will share a few shots:

-Chris

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I use an Olympus C5500 sport zoom. It isn't really heavy duty but it is a 5.1mp with a decent optical zoom. The best part is the battery life. I've had the same batteries in the camera for well over 350 pictures and the recording of 5 less-than-a-minute movies. It is perfect for just shooting around!

~Chuck

 

[Mudcat]

I have two, a Nikon D2X which I actually use more than my Minolta DiMage 7i. I really like the Nikon because there is no shutter lag and I can use my range of lenes for my F4 and F5 (Nikon film cameras). It's 12.4 mp and pictures are oh-my-god sharp even when enlarged to 4 feet by 6 feet (HP photo plotter at work). Never looked at other brands like Canon or Fuji because I already had the Nikon film cameras and did not want another set of lenses (also have a Mamiya RB67 medium format with 5 lenses compared to 4 lenses for the Nikons).

The Minolta is a great 5 mp camera, but shutter lag is a good 1.5 seconds at best, so you really need to plan ahead. Both have very good autofocus, and believe it or not, the Nikon really does not have as many features as the Minolta. However, you can shoot at 8 FPS for 35 continous shots at a high resolution (9 mb/picture), so you will need a 2 gig CF card.

You can get to Minolta real cheap nowadays, but the Nikon will still set you back about $4K on line, $3500 if you go to NYC or Singapore (got mine in Jarkarta for the equivalent of $2K - no US warranty) and shop around.

 

[claudermilk]

No kidding about quitting expensive hobbies. You can EASILY spend more on your photography equipment than you can spend on hometheater equipment.


You think a $2000 receiver is expensive? Try an $1800 Canon L glass for a change. And you will probably need 3 or so L zoom glasses to complete your lens collection. You want to do low light photography? Try a Canon L prime. You'll probably end up with 3 or more fast primes. Want telephoto? Try one of those big Canon L professional zooms ($3000 and up).

Before you know it, you probably spent $10,000 on the stuff in your camera bag.

LOL! Yeah, my lens wishlist is scary since I do a lot of low-light, no flash so it's full of L glass (24-70 & 70-200 IS top the list). Right now I'm forcing myself to leave the 50/1.8 on it & get used to dealing with a single focal length.

Fortunately the HT is nearly done & the wife thinks the camera equipment is good idea--I usually take pictures of her performances, so it works out nicely.

I'm hoping Nikon gets on the ball & gives Canon a little more competition. Both companies make good products & the competition is good for us customers.

One of the nice things about the EOS system is that you can adapt just about everyone else's lenses to it; right now there seems to be a mania amongst Canon shooters for getting manual focus German glass (those prices are truly frightening!). If I really wanted an ultra-wide prime, I could almost as easily go with the excellent Nikkor glass as I could Canon's.

From what I hear Minolta's new DSLR is pretty darn good. The more the merrier I say.

 

[furrycute]

For myself, I like the old range finder style of cameras. I know those lenses are fixed focal length, but they do give much better wide angle performance compared to the DSLR lenses. The rangefinder style lenses don't have to back focus, like the DSLR lenses do, so the rangefinder style lenses have inherently superior wide angle performance.


Really I don't mind having just 2 or 3 primes, that will cover wide angle and regular zoom.


But so far in the rangefinder department, the Epson is a disappiontment, Leica's offering is also a disappointment (and it's not a true rangefinder at that). I heard Ricoh is coming out with something else. My fingers are crossed.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

Here is one I took at work...

I had to do some major resizing, it was huge!

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/JonesSoda/Picture029.jpg>

~Chuck