Need Recommendation: Digital SLR or ???

OregonAlex said:

Dargo,

Nice photo... did you leave the camera in Auto mode for this?? I notice it was has a moderately low DOF setting (relatively open aperature) by the blurred back ground. Which is a good thing for action photos...

Click to expand...

Yes, automatic is the only setting I've ventured to try so far. I don't have a clue what a DOF is. For me, automatic is gooood.

Bob,

If the larger size of a camera like Dargo's isn't a problem, than his Nikon or a Canon S2-IS (my preference) should do the job. I don't see any reason to look farther than those two. Both are excellent. Or possibly as Ibrahim suggested, put a 200mm lens on your Nikon film camera. If you get a CD back with the prints, those digital images are likely sharper than using a digital camera.

The Panasonic I mentioned is pocketable but not anywhere near the Canon or Nikon specs. I'm interested in it because it combines IS, the integral lens cover, and small size. For me that means it is more likely to be available when the perfect photo opportunity appears. YMMV.

Alex, your are right that I shouldn't have relied on Program Normal mode when using the doubler. I thought that photo was interesting because it shows what a 2mp sensor + doubler could accomplish once in a while when I held it unusually stable. With IS and setting the lens wide open, I would hope to get much better photos with a modern camera like Bob is considering.

Incidentally that's a Nikon 950, max f4 @ 21mm focal length, not the later Nikon 990 you cite.

The ExifReader that I cited (free download) can read the EXIF fields from your photo and Dargo's. (and SI's where it just reveals 'Photoshop CS'). For some reason the Photoshop Elements I used to shrink my photo strips the EXIF data. Maybe that's a feature of its 'Save for web' sizing. I see you and Dargo use Program Normal mode also!

California said:

Bob,



Incidentally that's a Nikon 950, max f4 @ 21mm focal length, not the later Nikon 990 you cite.

The ExifReader that I cited (free download) can read the EXIF fields from your photo and Dargo's. (and SI's where it just reveals 'Photoshop CS'). For some reason the Photoshop Elements I used to shrink my photo strips the EXIF data. Maybe that's a feature of its 'Save for web' sizing. I see you and Dargo use Program Normal mode also!

Click to expand...

California,

Yup... sorry about that 990 vs 950 confusion. Still very nice lens on that camera.

Thanks for the ExifReader tip.. I shrunk both of my photos with Photoshop CS to allow them to be posted on FF. Photoshop did not strip the Exif data.. the SI photo didn't have it in the first place before I shrunk it.

I agree, I am guilting of using Auto way too often. Most of the time the results are acceptable.. but a lot of times it is a disaster.

Like Dargo, I (or more accurately say my wife) got luck with those sports actions shots. Whenever I try to incourage her to use Manual mode, her eyes roll backwards.. no surprise. It takes an effort to produce good photos in low light conditions. Auto is a crap shoot.

Looking at Dargo's Exif photo data.

f/5.8 @ 89mm (350mm equiv you were fully zoomed in f4.9 was the max aperature fully zoomed in) Iso speed 50, shutter 1/100. Wow!! you really got lucky with this shot Dargo.

1/100 shutter is on the brink of blurred action. I am not sure what kind of shot it was doing with an a wide f/5.8, iso 50, and 1/100 shutter. This would normally indicate a portrait shot, but the fully zoomed out data has me confused. California?? any idea what the heck Dargo's 8800 was thinking here? a zoomed up portrait??

f/5.8 at 350mm equiv... is great however... and your lens helped a huge amount with that shot even though your camera's AUTO setting was fighting you all the way.

Manually setting it to f4.9, iso 200, shutter 1/500 would have given you the same exposure and would have been SI quality.

OregonAlex said:

Looking at Dargo's Exif photo data.

f/5.8 @ 89mm (350mm equiv you were fully zoomed in f4.9 was the max aperature fully zoomed in) Iso speed 50, shutter 1/100. Wow!! you really got lucky with this shot Dargo. Your camera was doing the same thing as
California's. It thought you were taking a landscape shoot instead of an action photo. 1/100 shutter is on the brink of blurred action. You can tell by the low iso speed it picked that it thought it was doing a landscape shot.

f/5.8 at 350mm equiv... is great however... and your lens helped a huge amount with that shot even though your camera's AUTO setting was fighting you all the way.

Manually setting it to f4.9, iso 200, shutter 1/500 would have given you the same exposure and would have been SI quality.

Click to expand...

What did you just tell me? For all I know you insulted my manhood but said that I made up for it with speed.

Does this mean I should read that 10,000 page manual? Or, maybe, if I read some of the manual the camera is capable of taking some pretty decent pics? I have a bunch of lenses that screw on then end of the camera and one of those funky looking lens hoods and a cool box of different filters and stuff too. I had a friend who seems to really be into his camera stuff pick out my camera based on my stated needs and he also picked out all of the other option things. He wanted me to get the Canon EOS 1D. It sounded really cool until I heard the price.

Dargo said:

What did you just tell me? For all I know you insulted my manhood but said that I made up for it with speed.

Does this mean I should read that 10,000 page manual? Or, maybe, if I read some of the manual the camera is capable of taking some pretty decent pics? I have a bunch of lenses that screw on then end of the camera and one of those funky looking lens hoods and a cool box of different filters and stuff too. I had a friend who seems to really be into his camera stuff pick out my camera based on my stated needs and he also picked out all of the other option things. He wanted me to get the Canon EOS 1D. It sounded really cool until I heard the price.

Click to expand...

All I was saying was that in Auto mode the camera is taking its best guess at to what aperature, shutter speed and iso speed settings it should be using. It can pick many different combinations at still arrive at a photo which is exposed properly (not too dark, not too light); yet one photo may have a blurred subject yet great depth of frield and low noise (like the photo California shot) and other photo can have a non-blurred subject but a blurred background and foreground with possible increased overall noise(like the SI photo). It depends what the photographer is actually going for in the shot. Look at California's photo.. you see how pretty clear the foreground and background is? Now look at your photo... background and foreground a bit more blurry. His camera setting where better then yours for a nature shot. Now look at California's soccer object and look at yours. His is blurred but yours is not. Yours are better then his for an action shot. So if the intent was to make a nice pretty nature scene without action, California's camera settings choice would be better then your. If the intent of the photo was to make an action shot without a blurry subject then your camera settings would be better. Which is better overall? NEITHER!!! It depends on what you were trying to take a picture of in the first place. The camera has no clue which one is best, it is just guessing.

What the camera chooses in AUTO mode is a crap shoot. It really doesn't know what the photographer is actually going after in the shot and just takes a best guess. For zoomed up action photos that guess will normally be wrong when in Auto mode. Having a good lens helps your chances a lot that the photo will still look acceptable. So if you want to leave your camera in Auto mode and don't want to read that 10,000 page manual or dont have time or interest to learn how to make your camera pick more apropriate settings for the shot you are attempting to take, then throwing money at the problem by getting a nice lens will help.

You guys are a bad influence. I almost spent money I didn't need to spend.

I went to Fry's to play with that small Panasonic IS camera I thought looked good, based on the specs. I would have bought it if I liked it. (Panasonic DMC-LZ2. 5mp, IS, very pocketable, with integral leaf-style lens cover that opens at power on.)

Equipment review:

The specs looked good, but in person I would grade the ergonomics and overall user satisfaction maybe B at best.

I can't get used to no viewfinder. The digital display panel is excellent but it was hard to frame precisely, or compose using the tiny image. At 6x zoom it is hard to aim because the image is tiny - it's easy to scan right past the subject.

No manual controls. I suppose the 'sports' setting is intended to stop motion like we are talking about here but it gave me several blurred pictures of people walking 100 ft away. On the other hand the display was showing 1/13 second and the background was in focus, so I guess it was doing the best it could.

The plusses are substantial, too. I still might buy one off eBay if they get cheap enough. (Presently about $200.)

Truly pocketable size.
Auto-opening lens cover at power-on. These are major plusses for me. A camera that is 'Too much hassle to set up' never gets used.
Image stabilization. It worked very well. This is the only pocketable camera with IS.

If I were outfitting a family member with a foolproof camera this would be my first choice. The various programs and the IS should result in a high proportion of flaw-free photos. Likewise if I were departing on a trip I would probably grab one. (And take the Canon too for assured reliability).

For now my Canon A-75 is the better camera. But the 2006 cameras should be out soon. Either the Panasonic's price will drop to irresistible or some 2006 camera will have similar advantages plus a real viewfinder. I can't wait to see!

Dargo said:

What did you just tell me? ... Does this mean I should read that 10,000 page manual?

Click to expand...

Relax. Your camera makes jpeg's that include more stuff than you may have realized.

There's usually a thumbnail encoded in there, and a chapter of text data (EXIF fields) that lists camera brand and model, date, exposure, zoom, flash on/off, etc. To view your EXIF data:
Download EXIFreader. Link. Start it up. Drag a jpeg into EXIFreader and all will be revealed.

There are related programs to write whatever you want in the 'user comment' field, that is there for that purpose. Photoshop CS may do all this, I don't know. Also some users think it is a good idea to strip off the EXIF data before posting anything on the Internet, because it might be used as a digital fingerprint identified with you.

Alex and I and the whole world can see the EXIF data in the pictures you post. But we won't tell you all that it reveals.........

California said:

Also some users think it is a good idea to strip off the EXIF data before posting anything on the Internet, because it might be used as a digital fingerprint identified with you.

Alex and I and the whole world can see the EXIF data in the pictures you post. But we won't tell you all that it reveals.........

Click to expand...

Dargo, Its also a good idea to wear a tin foil helmet while you are posting on the internet so 'they' can't read your mind.

California said:

Relax. Your camera makes jpeg's that include more stuff than you may have realized.

Click to expand...

Whew! I suppose you now know that I was too stupid to lie about anything photo wise. It appears that you verified that I took that pic on auto setting zoomed as far as I could across the soccer field. It didn't record me bitching about it being 95 degrees, did it?

From that same soccer game, I know that with the 8 mp camera, when you view a picture at 100% size you can see all sorts of detail. I snapped a pic of a mom on the opposing team yelling for her daugher and sent it to a friend of mine for kicks. Viewing the pic at 100% allowed us to see that she hadn't brushed her teeth in a while, she apparently had berry Pop Tarts for breakfast, and she had a real issue with nasel hair sneaking out. What surprised me was that the afore mentioned picture of the lovely lady was taken from about 50 feet away.

The Nikon Coolpix S4 seems to fit my bill. It has a 10x optical zoom, pict-bridge direct print capability, but I can't find information on how quickly it will shoot photos. For action shots I'd like to get 2fps. Can it do that? I like the small size, but I'm not convinced of the hoky twist to shoot pictures design of the camera. Lens aperature is dubious at f3.5 except in bright sunlight.

The Coolpix 8700 has a nice fast lens [f2] (for a camera of this price range), but I can't figure out if it has Pict-Bridge or how many frames it can shoot per second. The camera comes with a lot more bulk, but the improved lense and internal sensors are probably the main reasons for that.

Canon has the Digital Rebel series that look interesting too. And the Powershot Pro1. They have a similar size and form factor to the Coolpix8700.

California . . . too bad about the Panasonic, I like the concept of image stabilization and a decent zoom in a pocket camera.

Anyone have any additional thougths? Right now I'd probably go for the Coolpix8700 or a Rebel EOS or a Powershot Pro1 but I'd still prefer a smaller package than they offer.

B_Skurka said:

Anyone have any additional thougths?

Click to expand...

Yes.
98% of this went over my head.

Have you all decided on a camera that I too can get? Something I can use as a point-and-shoot that Mrs. Zoom and I could use. We can use the power button, zoom and then click. Much more than that will mess us up.

bczoom said:

Have you all decided on a camera that I too can get? Something I can use as a point-and-shoot that Mrs. Zoom and I could use. We can use the power button, zoom and then click. Much more than that will mess us up.

Click to expand...

I absolutely LOVE the Canon PowerShot S series cameras. They have been upgraded and now are called the SD series. They are small but still high quality. Metal case so they can take a bit of abuse. Point and Shoot simplicity. Good zoom function, good quality, good color rendition and ease of operation and from a camera that is the size of a pack of cigarettes. At home we use a Canon S500, at work I keep a S230 (older version of the S500). Go to Canon's website and look at the SD series, they are the more updated equivalent of S series.

If you want a cheaper camera take a look at the A series cameras from Canon.

B_Skurka said:

The Nikon Coolpix S4 seems to fit my bill. It has a 10x optical zoom, pict-bridge direct print capability, but I can't find information on how quickly it will shoot photos.

Click to expand...

Capture Modes: 1) Single, 2) Continuous (approx. 1.3fps), 3) Multi-shot 16 (16 frames 1/16 in size)

B_Skurka said:

For action shots I'd like to get 2fps. Can it do that?

Click to expand...

no


Bob,

a word of warning.. You said you were concerned about the lens in the S4 @ f/3.4. And that the 8800 was better at f2. I don't know I would worry too much about it as this is the max aperature at the WIDE end.

But you are onto something. As I stated earilier I would be concerned with the max aperature at the NARROW end (fully zoomed in ). The S4 won't be good for any sort of action photos @ f13.6... the only thing the zoom is good for on this camera (fully zoom in) would be for stationary objects and you most likely have to use a tripod as well.

Five-step; aperture values for the entire zoom range are: f/3.5, f/4.0, f/6.8/ and f/13.6

if you looking to take action photos on a camera (fully zoomed in) you better make sure the camera you choose has the following specs.

1. The ablity to go into Shutter Priority Mode so you can control what shutter speed the camera chooses (i.e. at least 1/250 or faster). The ability to also choose either iso equiv or aperature would be nice too as it would pretty much dictate the other variables. controlling aperature would yield iso and vs versa.

2. a max aperature at the narrow end (fully zoomed in) that is on the order of f/6.5 or less.

3. iso equivelents of at least 400 and make sure the noise if tolerable if the camera does support 400, 800, or more.

Dargo said:

Whew! I suppose you now know that I was too stupid to lie about anything photo wise. It appears that you verified that I took that pic on auto setting zoomed as far as I could across the soccer field. It didn't record me bitching about it being 95 degrees, did it?
.

Click to expand...

Just be glad that build-in GPS never became popular. There is a field for latitude and longitude in the Exif header.

Actually I think that would be cool. This picture was taken HERE and such and such a date and time. I am sure it would be a great recording tool.. police crime labs, insurance claims, etc.

I have the first Canon digital rebel and I love it. The pictures are simply amazing compared to some of the pocket camera's being sold. I use it several times a week for different web work and i tote it to any fun events. The only draw backs - first size - its big. And second you end up spending still more money on lenses.

California,

I was looking at the specs for the S2 IS and they certainly do look impressive. 12x zoom @ f/3.5!! However, its strange that Canon's top of the line non-SLR camera the PowerShot Pro1 (which competes with Dargo Nikon 8800) only has a 7x zoom @ f/3.5 ("L" series glass).

Do you know what Phil Askey means in his review of the S2 IS by:
Cons section of dpreview.com (Conclusion section)
***Limit to highest shutter speed usable at wide apertures*****

Note that Canon high end camera (Pro1) does not give you IS with similiar wide aperature specs to the S2 IS. Note, their Pro camera, the Pro90, DID have IS back in 2001 with similiar max aperature specs.. but their currentPro camera, the Pro1, does not.

Looking deeper into things, the Canon Rebel EOS and the Nikon Coolpix 8700 seem to be the top contenders, but I have to admit that I am afraid of their size.

As Neil Messick points out, the Rebel is large, the Nikon is no smaller. I almost feel like I should just pull out one of the old, but very trusty Nikon F2As.

These cameras meet all my criteria except for their large size.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should give up a little on the optical zoom and scale it back to something like a 6x to see if I can get a more compact camera with a good lens.

B_Skurka said:

Looking deeper into things, the Canon Rebel EOS and the Nikon Coolpix 8700 seem to be the top contenders, but I have to admit that I am afraid of their size.

As Neil Messick points out, the Rebel is large, the Nikon is no smaller. I almost feel like I should just pull out one of the old, but very trusty Nikon F2As.

These cameras meet all my criteria except for their large size.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should give up a little on the optical zoom and scale it back to something like a 6x to see if I can get a more compact camera with a good lens.

Click to expand...

Bob,

When comparing the Coolpix 8800/8700 it would be more fair to compare it to the Canon PowerShot Pro1.

When comparing the Canon Digital Rebel XT it would be more fair to compare it to the Nikon D70.


In both cases, I think you will find the Canon's superior.


I think you are on the right track in easing back on your zoom requirement. Just make sure whatever camera you pick can do shutter priority and apropriate max aperature zoomed all the way in.

messickfarmequ said:

The only draw backs - first size - its big. And second you end up spending still more money on lenses.

Click to expand...

Niel..

When you take into account how much good lens cost, the Canon Digital Rebel starts to look like the cheap piece in the equation. A good lens will easily cost as much or more then the camera itself.

Reminds me of the Inkjet Printer vs the ink cartridges scheme... no wonder camera companies are motiviated to get the DSLR prices down.. once they got you on their Printer (camera) then they got you where they want you; buying their ink cartridges (lens).

the kits lens which comes with Digital Rebel is not on par with the camera itself. That is obvious. Its just a way to get you to buy the camera and have something useable at a low price. Anyone who buys the Digital Rebel will be blown away of what that camera is capable of with a quality lens.

What kind of shots do you make with the Digital Rebel when you say you do "web work"?

If you are curious what that camera is capable of doing and not spending a lot of money, can I recommend you consider getting a "prime"/fix lens?

maybe a Canon 50mm/f1.8 (will give you about 80mm equiv) or a Canon 35mm/f2 (will give you about 56 mm equiv). Price is about $80 and $200 respectively. The lens are not "L" series quality but very good for the money.

Bob,

although you will find that the Nikon 8800/Canon Pro1 are almost the same size as the Digital Rebel XT/Nikon D70 DSLR and priced closely. Don't loose sight of what you are paying for. With the Nikon 8800/Canon Pro you are buying a NICE camera with a NICE lens. With the Digital Rebel XT/Nikon D70 DSLR you are buing a GREAT camera with a FAIR quality lens.

also.. dont forget the kit lens which comes with the Canon Rebel XT is a macro zoom len. 18-55mm (28mm-88mm equiv)..hardly a big zoom lens. If you want a quality zoom lens on par with the lens which comes inside the PowerShot Pro1 you better reach deep deep deep into your pocket book. So, if you want a good wide angle lens be prepared to reach even further. With the partical frame nature of these DSLR any lens you put on it make sure you factor in the 1.6x magnification factor effect. So going the camera to telephoto is easier then trying to find a lens to make it go wide angle. That is why DSLRs have been hard to sell into people shooting landscape and wedding photography.

I stumbled across a Kyocera that looks interesting. Any thoughts?

http://www.kyoceraimaging.com/product.asp?itemnum=300390

re Kyocera

Just observations, I'm not strongly pro or con:

Only 4mp, so limited enlargement or crop ability. I hope it isn't priced like a more-megapixel camera. Fry's just closed out a similar 4mp Panasonic, with IS, for $199.

No Image Stabilization. Does their literature emphasize a high ISO?

Digital viewfinder. It seems to me that only a glass viewfinder will show you if you are holding it steady enough.

The rapid startup and next-pic figures look good, may be the best of any similar camera.

Bob,

which cameras are you considering against this Kyocera? Are we talking compacts or prosumer cameras like the Dargo's 8800 and a Canon PowerShot Pro1. Just curious if you have given up on the smaller camera and are now focusing on the bigger ones.

Sorry I don't know much about that camera. www.dpreview.com is always a good place to look for reviews if you want a good run down of pros and cons.

Right now the 3 leading choices would be the Coolpix 8700, the PowerShot Pro1 and the Rebel. I like the form factor of the Coolpix the best of those 3, but that is without actually touching it. I'd like to touch, hold, and play with a camera before buying. The Kyocera is 1/2 the price of the others, lower quality lens but probably more than adequate for my tasks. But it has the features I am looking for.

BTW, my first choice would be a Leica Digilux2. But I'm not going to drop serious cash on a camera that is going to be used infrequently.

Food for thought.....

I'm not into the smaller cameras with AA batteries and big hands. I like the Kodak series and just bought my second Kodak, a z740 for $215. Simple for the dummy in me..

Take a look and BTW the website Steve's Digicam is a great source for info....

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/z740.html

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dx7590.html

B_Skurka said:

but that is without actually touching it. I'd like to touch, hold, and play with ...

Click to expand...

Hey, hey. I've got one you can touch and play with; er a camera that is. It's an 8800 and I have no idea the difference between that and an 8700 besides 100 though.

Let me toss another camera into the mix. Nikon's D50. It is an SLR format similar to the Rebel, but it is rated higher than any of the cameras. But what I am attraced to is the focus system. I was unaware of it prior to getting a PM from another member. But the autofocus seems to track the subject and adjust on the fly to keep the moving subject in focus better than many other cameras. I suspect it probably is similar to image stabilization, but done differently? It sure looks interesting. dpreviews gives it their top rating.

Bob, just get the Canon EOS D1S Mark II with the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM EF lens like my uncle has. Your search will be over then. He is well pleased with his camera. I actually had to look up an email he sent me to see what he had. Not knowing any better, I'd emailed him saying that I liked his camera and was wondering what it was. He is still wondering why I didn't buy one. I'll give you one guess why, and it's not because of any physical aspect of the camera.

NOPE, not even going to look at that one. Its too big, too expensive. I'm still looking for my ideal camera and it would be small & light enough fit in my shirt pocket but have a huge fast/lens that pops out of body. Such a beast does not exist.

What I have pretty much figured out is that there is a big division in the cameras. I may end up scaling back my optical zoom requirement to 6x and my shots per second to 1 fps to see if I can come closer to my ideal. If not, then I will very likely buy a pro-sumer grade camera.