Need Recommendation: Digital SLR or ???

Dargo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dargo,

Here is a quick side by side spec cheat sheet for the 8800 vs 8700.
Street prices seems to be about the same for both.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/

OK guys, I've been all over the map on this search and I don't think I am any closer to a decision, but I sure am confused. And I'm convinced that if I wait 90 days then all these will likely be replaced with newer models.

But the following three cameras were given the highest recommendation by dpreviews.

Olympus E-500 SLR with a street price of roughly $699 (lens cost extra) While I like this camera, by the time a lens is added it is going to be roughly $1000, which is too high of a price for my modest needs.

Nikon D50 SLR with a street price of roughly $900 with a modest lens. That puts it at the very high end of what I would pay, but really for what I am trying to shoot, it is not worth it to me to pay that much.

Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ5 with a street price of roughly $369 (lens is integrated, and made by Leica)

All these cameras vary wildly in what they are. The Nikon & Olympus are more similar than they are different. The Panasonic is much more of a consumer simple camera, but has some things that are very appealing, and when combined with the price make it a killer deal. With image stabilization and a 12x optical lens it might actually work without a tripod at high magnification. The Nikon has the best focus system from what I can see and action shots might be easier with that unit.


The 2 cameras discussed a lot in this thread as excellent choices were both rated lower than the above 3 cameras. Those are the Nikon Coolpix 8700 and the Canon Powershot Pro1. Both were given a "recommended" rating, which is a lower rating than the above 3 cameras.

The Coolpix 8700 is running with a street price of roughly $469 (but prices range all over the place).

The Canon Powershot Pro1 has a street price of roughly $695.



Now based on my needs (as outlined in the first post in this thread) I would have to favor the Panasonic and the Nikon Coolpix 8700 as the two best choices for me. The Canon Powershot Pro1 is very similar in capabilities to the Coolpix, but is not worth the $240 price premium. The 2 SLR cameras that were given the higest rating are better cameras but honestly are overkill for my needs, sort of like buying a Ferrari and using it as a commuter car to get to work, the power is simply wasted.

So that leaves me with the Nikon Coolpix 8700 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ5 as the best choices for me. I like the image stabilization and 12x optical zoom that Panasonic provides, and the price is simply astounding. I believe the Nikon offers a better built camera, and a better quality lens. It gives up some optical zoom at only 8x, but that would still meet my needs, and the Nikon has 8 megapixels versus only 5 in the Panasonic.

So for now, my 2 choices are the Coolpix 7800 and the Lumix DMC FZ5. I'm not set to buy yet. Still looking. Still reading. Still considering. Still haven't gone to a story to touch these cameras yet.

What say you guys?

Bob,

Wait till Early March. the PMA show takes place at the end of Feb. That is when all the new cameras are announced. Kind of like the Autoshow for Cameras.

B_Skurka said:

Still haven't gone to a story to touch these cameras yet.
What say you guys?

Click to expand...

Go to the store! Touch the cameras!

The Panasonic is f3.3 at 12 x zoom while the Nikon is just f4.2 at 8x. But the Nikon has twice the viewfinder resolution. You need some hands-on time. 'Look and feel' will probably be the basis for your choice, not specs.

Can you find either at a place that allows a no-hassle return?

I could have used either of those this evening. I had the camera out photographing my installation of a new ROPS on my Yanmar, and finished just at sunset. I looked over and noticed the tractor across the canyon, a quarter mile away, had slid down where a vinyard terrrace collapsed. He looked thoroughly stuck. No ROPS. That could have been bad. If I had noticed while the light was good, and had a fast long zoom, that would have made a great picture. As night arrived, I grabbed what I could. (The fuzz in the foreground is wind moving the trees during the exposure).

B_Skurka said:

Right now the 3 leading choices would be the Coolpix 8700, the PowerShot Pro1 and the Rebel.

Click to expand...

If you go with the Rebel, then any lenses you buy for it can be used on any future Canon camera body you get.

OregonAlex said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Thats a good suggestion. I have the 50mm/F1.8 and it is a simply AMAZING lens for the grand ole price of $80. Its very compact and makes the camera quite easy to handle. I also have the 28-135 IS USM Lens. That was $400 and also worth every penny. I love the IS feature - it saves many of my pictures. Then comes the Phoenix 28-300 -- this piece of junk is proof positive that you get what you pay for.

My bother just got an 8MP olympus for christmas. I forget the model - he paid about $400 for it. The reviews from DP review where rather good, but I was totally unimpressed. The pictures looked noisey and grainy and the lens was not completly sharp on the edges.

messickfarmequ said:

Thats a good suggestion. I have the 50mm/F1.8 and it is a simply AMAZING lens for the grand ole price of $80.

Click to expand...

sometimes you get more then you pay for!! I was playing around with this len and it seems to be really sharp stopped at about f/2.2. Wide open seemed a bit soft. But hey.. I ain't complaining.. its f/2.2!

Gatorboy said:

If you go with the Rebel, then any lenses you buy for it can be used on any future Canon camera body you get.

Click to expand...

with the exception of the EF-S mount of course. But I am sure that will change as newer cameras come out which support the "-S"

California said:

Go to the store! Touch the cameras!

Click to expand...

I can't agree any more with this statement. specs are one thing, ergonomics are another. The Digital Rebel XT and the 20D take about the same quality images. However, go ahead and actually use the cameras (especially in manual mode) and it will become clear why the 20D is several hundred of dollars more. For the people who leave the camera in Auto mode and perfer a point and shoot experience the Digital Rebel XT will look like a better deal. No offense to anyone with a Digital Rebel XT. While it is true that you can change just about any of the settings on the XT as you can with the 20D its just the way it requires you to change it which makes it a little less ergonomic for "manual" freaks.

Anyone ever look at the Nikon D70 when comparing it to the Rebel XT? I found it was priced more closely to the XT then the 20D (both plastic bodies) but the ergonomics were designed more for 'manual" freaks and as such more closely related to the Canon 20D IMHO. The Kit lens that comes with the Nikon D70 is NICE quality maybe even bordering on GREAT. And as I stated, the kits lens that comes with the Digital Rebel XT is FAIR quality IMHO.

messickfarmequ said:

I also have the 28-135 IS USM Lens. That was $400 and also worth every penny. I love the IS feature - it saves many of my pictures.

Click to expand...

Niel,

any comments how useable this lens is for shooting action photos at 135mm?
That fast focus is got to be awesome I am sure.

I believe Bob is looking for a bunch of zoom to shoot action shots with. I am guess of his daughter playing a sport. Bob, did you say your daughter plays volleyball? (read indoor lighting) I don't remember exactly.

Thanks

She plays volleyball (indoors) and soccer (outdoors). I need a reasonably fast lens for indoors and a reasonbly long lens for outdoors. Hard to find one lens that fits both bills, but going the route of an SLR with multiple lenses is not desireable either.

I will be making a compromise choice and favoring convenience with the goal of getting a "good" camera for both needs within the confines of the self-imposed limits I'm setting.

Bob,

I was thinking this would be a good test for you if you decide to head to the store to check out and compare cameras.

For action shots,

1. Set Shutter Speed.
take the camera you are considering and make sure you can set the camera to use 1/125 sec shutter. You will need at least this fast of a shutter to produce a photo with any hope of not producing blurred action.

2. Zoom in
Zoom all the way in and take a shot of the inside of the store. I would recommend finding something with a dark background and light lettering on it so you can get a sense of the clarity and noise levels.

3. ISO "film speed" equilvent.
If the pictures comes out too underexposed, try increasing the ISO equiv till you find the exposure acceptable. Do not adjust shutter speed as any lower shutter will be unacceptable for most action shots. Try ISO 400, then try 800, if it goes up higher try that. As you go up in ISO equiv, preview the photo on the LCD panel of the camera . Zoom in and look around at the photo. Compare the noise levels to see what the noise looks like at each ISO setting and find one that is acceptable. Make a note of this ISO speed equiv.

4a. Zooming back out to allow a more acceptable result.
It is very likely that the result you get will still be very dark. Your only choice at this point will be to zoom back out to allow the lens to pick a wider aperature. Zoom back out till you take a shot which is acceptable at 1/125 shutter speed and the ISO speed that produces acceptable noise from the step above. When you get to this zoom level, make a note of it and move on to the next camera and repeat the test.

4b. In the event that you were able to find a camera(s) with acceptable exposure and clarity fully zoomed in at 1/125 shutter speed. Increase the shutter speed to the faster setting. 1/160?? 1/200??? 1/250, etc and redo the comparison. You will need this higher shutter speeds for faster action /sports. Like tracking a volleyball, basketball, etc.

If you follow this proceedure I garantee you that you will narrow down the field VERY quickly and will give you a sense of how much zoom you can ACTUALLY use for action photos. Plus it will give you some time to evaluate the camera ergonomics as you will need to take the camera out of AUTO mode to ensure you have a fast enough shutter speed. If you leave it in Auto mode, the camera will most likely choose a shutter speed which is unacceptable for action shots.

Good luck..

Bob,

I made some test shots for you of my daughters volleyball game to show what I am talking about in my post above. Posted below. This might help some other people.

These two shots are similiar. Same zoom 21.2 mm(approx 106mm lens equiv using a 35mm camera), same aperature f/4.0. Same iso film speed equiv 800. The first one is shot at 1/60 shutter. The second one is 1/125. 1/60 was not fast enough to stop the ball. 1/125 one was. Notice the second one is more underexposed because all othe variables remained the same. Note max aperature at this zoom is f/4.

Most of the time 1/125 was enough for this game.. but sometimes it was not. Demonstrated here and had to go to 1/250.

again same iso film equiv 800, and same zoom level 8.2mm (widest angle approx 35mm lens equiv using 35mm camera).. same aperature f/2.8 (max increased) and as a result you will notice that the photo are much less underexposed compared to the first set.

The 1/125 photo in this set is BRIGHTER then the 1/60 photo in the previous set. And the 1/250 photo in this set is BRIGHTER then the 1/125 in the previous set.

This is due to the max aperature increasing from f/4(smaller aperature) to f/2.8 (bigger aperature) when the lens is not zoomed out as far.

note: Ball is hard to find in the second photo.. look for it at the top of yellow safety pad on the post holding up the net. Center of frame.

this last set is to demonstarted the importance of the max aperature at the as you zoom in more.. as you zoom increases the max aperature drops.

same shutter speed of 1/125, same iso film speed equiv 800.
The first one the zoom is set to 16mm (approx 80 mm equiv) and max aperature is f/3.5 The second one the zoom is increased to 28.6mm (approx 143 mm equiv ) and max aperature is decreased to f/4.8.

one last one.. Some maybe be wonder if they can get away with setting the camera is shutter priority mode and letting the camera decide on aperature and iso film speed. I have had mix results.. sometimes it would get it right.. other times it makes the wrong decisions. As seen in this photo. The photo was shot in shutter priority set to 1/125 of a sec. The camera did try to open up the aperature to the max because it is obvious dark in the gym. But yet to decided to pick iso 400 film instead of 800. Guess it figured that less noise (less grainy) due to a faster film equivelent was more important then proper exposure. Bad call?? you decide?

zoom was 15.5 mm(77.5 mm lens equiv on 35mm camera) aperature was f/3.4. Compare it to the 80mm equiv/f3.5 shot above shot at iso 800 using fully manual mode.

OregonAlex said:

one last one..

Click to expand...

Don't ever forget that these are digital images, and there is a TON of post processing that can be done. Notice the colors in the girls shorts.

OregonAlex said:

Niel,

any comments how useable this lens is for shooting action photos at 135mm?
That fast focus is got to be awesome I am sure.

I believe Bob is looking for a bunch of zoom to shoot action shots with. I am guess of his daughter playing a sport. Bob, did you say your daughter plays volleyball? (read indoor lighting) I don't remember exactly.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Its workable, but I would not say great. Frankly I use the F1.8 lens and crop the shots most of the time. You gotta remeber that on a digital body the CCD is smaller than film which magnifies the lens by an effective 40% (i think). So 135mm is really closer to 200mm. Personaly I find that I set better shots by having a fast lens and cropping the pictures.

Both these are with the 28/135 - the boating picture is great! I would have never hit that without the IS feature.

Bob,

I was reading rec.photo.digital (Usenet) and found a discussion the same as your recent questions. The thread title is 'Nikon 8700/Canon S2-IS/Panasonic DMC FZ5K'.

Three people out of three, all experienced users, compared among those models then bought the Panasonic FZ5.

Here is the thread reprinted in Google Groups, if you don't have a proper Newsgroup reader.
Link to thread: Nikon 8700/Canon S2-IS/Panasonic DMC FZ5K

And here's a link describing Panasonic's 2006 models, to be released in March:
Link

When shooting indoors, it is best to use MANUAL settings on your camera. The ambient light does not change. Get yourself a gray card -- set the camera to the f-stop you want to use (typically wide open) in Aperture priority mode. Read the setting while filling the frame with the gray card. This will give you the light setting to use in manual. You may have to play with the ISO settings to get a shutter speed of 1/250 or better. Less than that and you will have quite a bit of blur with any type of action. Many gyms in my area require me to set my ISO to 3200 to get decent speeds. This is where the Canon 20D shines.

Here's a shot taken with my 135 f/2.0 lens on my Canon 20D.

California,
Thanks for the link! Looks like I should do a couple of things.
#1- I should wait until April when the new Panasonic Lumix is in stores.
#2- I should buy it!

I don't understand why they are so inexpensive compared to other brands. Anyone have any ideas?

Gatorboy said:

When shooting indoors, it is best to use MANUAL settings on your camera. The ambient light does not change. Get yourself a gray card -- set the camera to the f-stop you want to use (typically wide open) in Aperture priority mode. Read the setting while filling the frame with the gray card. This will give you the light setting to use in manual. You may have to play with the ISO settings to get a shutter speed of 1/250 or better. Less than that and you will have quite a bit of blur with any type of action. Many gyms in my area require me to set my ISO to 3200 to get decent speeds. This is where the Canon 20D shines.

Here's a shot taken with my 135 f/2.0 lens on my Canon 20D.

Click to expand...

GB,

Your shot looks awesome. Do you EVER have any luck using a STANDARD zoom lens for indoor action. On th order of 18mm-85mm/f3.5-f4.5 Or will those be too dark with a 20D @ 1600 iso? I was hoping to avoid 1600 iso as it tends to get a bit noiser compared to 800. I notice your shot was at 1/400 - 1600 iso. You would think it is possible to squeeze out 1 to 2 slower f-stops and still come up with a decent shutter speed. Would be nice not having to use a prime lens at moderate zoom (120mm+ telephoto at 35mm equiv) What do you think?

Its funny when you say to put the camera in aperature priority mode indoors. I am used to thinking about the problem the other way around with shutter priority because most of the time my lens is not fast enough to allow me to "trust" it in aperature priority mode and so I end up shoting underexposed. Having the luxury to go Above the minumal shutter speed because I know my lens is fast enough would be very nice. I wouldn't know what to do with myself.

I like your fixed 135/f2 L lens but I can't afford a $1000 lens. Any comments about the poor man's 135/F2.8? The one with the softfocus feature. $270 is easier to swallow for an amatuer photographer like myself.

I am in the middle of trying to decide which set of lens and camera I should go with. I really like the feel of the Nikon's but their lens are much more expensive then the Canon's and they do other annoying things like lack of 100 iso and don't provide you any decent RAW capture SW. You have to buy Nikon Capture SW to get anything done. The stock software you can't adjust WB and exposure compensations. What good is it ?? WTF? So it looks like I am back looking at the 20D. The 350D/XT is ok, but I am not sure I can get past its ergonomics issues. I am thinking about waiting till after end of Feb (PMA) to see what Canon comes up with. Something is a brewing because they just got done with their rebates on the 350D/XT and the 20D. Plus Nikon's D200 I am sure has given the 20D some stiff competition and so has the Nikon D50 to the Rebel XT. Notice the D50 is almost as big as the D70 but cheaper then the undersized Canon 350D/XT. But I keep going back to the lens.. once I pick a mount I have to stick with it. The Nikon lens are much more expensive then the Canon's so as tempting as the Nikon cameras are I will stay away.

I use a 70-200 f/2.8 often indoors on the better lit gyms. I'm not afraid to go with ISO 3200. When shooting high ISO's I find you want to not underexpose, for when processing your images with PS, it brings out the noise more when trying to lighten them.

Another good piece of software is NeatImage. It does a good job of taking the noise out of your high ISO images.

I only use Av mode to setup my exposure with my gray card (indoors). Once I know the exposure, I set my camera to manual. The camera can get confused when shooting a white or black jersey.

I don't think I'd go with that soft focus 135. I haven't heard many good reports of it being a decent sports lens. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens for basketball and volleyball. It costs about $350 and will really help in those dimly light gymnasiums.

It looks like I may have found my camera? I'll have to wait a bit for it to get to the stores, but that is OK with me since I don't need it just yet.

The new Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ7 Everything looks to be just about perfect for my needs.

Here is a preliminary review:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz7/

B_Skurka said:

It looks like I may have found my camera? I'll have to wait a bit for it to get to the stores, but that is OK with me since I don't need it just yet.

The new Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ7 Everything looks to be just about perfect for my needs.

Here is a preliminary review:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/panasonicfz7/

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, I thought I bought a Kodak z740 as a second camera but the deal fell through after winning the bid. But I'm glad now. Now by all means I'm not a photographer. I did the photography thing years ago and have 2 old SLR's, Canon AE-1 and a Nikon F4 with a bunch of lenses and a couple hot shoes. I, like Dargo, found AUTO too easy to study aperature and shutter while wasting film.

Until the Power Show this weekend I had read many Digital Photography reviews and came to the conclusion Panasonic is what I want. The FZ5 didn't have enough expandability, the FZ7 wasn't out yet and I thought I'd wait. Right now camera size doesn't really matter to me. I already have the z7590 and frankly it's as small as I want to go.

Now since this little venture to the Power Show, I've come to the conclusion the flash systems are way too insufficient on digital cameras without support. The luxury now of course is being able to experiment manual operation without wasting film. Now flash ability is what I see as the stumbler for the FZ7. I have to believe it will need supplimental flash in a venue like the Power Show. Yes, you can add a DC flash adapter, $50-$150.

All this said, I'm now favoring the FZ20 or 30, both with hot shoe. Now a question for all the experts. Other cameras specify dedicated hot shoes but not Panasonic. What's your thought? Can I use one I already have or will I need a new one? Any other thoughts on the cameras listed in the comparision chart attached? Input is appreciated......

http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelComparisonResults?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&catGroupId=24999&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702&surfCategory=Lumix%26reg%3B&items=94140|71418|96060|95962|

Greg, did you notice that the built in flash of the new FZ7 has greater range than the older FZ5? I'm not sure if it is up to your needs, but the FZ7 has a 6 meter range, which I would find sufficient indoors. You may be shooting the tractors, etc from farther away than 18' but I consider it a pretty nice improvement.

Big Dog said:

Now since this little venture to the Power Show, I've come to the conclusion the flash systems are way too insufficient on digital cameras without support. The luxury now of course is being able to experiment manual operation without wasting film. Now flash ability is what I see as the stumbler for the FZ7. I have to believe it will need supplimental flash in a venue like the Power Show. Yes, you can add a DC flash adapter, $50-$150.

All this said, I'm now favoring the FZ20 or 30, both with hot shoe. Now a question for all the experts. Other cameras specify dedicated hot shoes but not Panasonic. What's your thought? Can I use one I already have or will I need a new one? Any other thoughts on the cameras listed in the comparision chart attached? Input is appreciated......

Click to expand...

I think you are setting yourself up for failure if you are looking for a camera with built-in flash or even a low price external flash that has the capability to properly illuminate a scene in a location like the Power Show. Anything that powerful is going to be a very expensive professional system, with aux fixtures and large capacitors.

Do your primary flash testing and evalluation in a setting more appropriate to your usual usage.

I would have to agree with DaveNay on this. Plus an external flash might defeat the purpose of a compact camera. With a compact camera, I would be more concerned with the proximity of the on board flash to the lens. Too close on you can count on really bad red eye. So bad you can't fix it in software.

I don't know about others but I absolutely HATE to use a flash. I would much rather get a fast lens on the camera and shot in natural light. But then again, this is not the inexpensive route.

The Panasonic's look nice. Especially when shooting at low iso equivelents. Noise appears to be an issue however at 400 iso. Less so on the newer models like the FZ5. Interesting note on the upcoming FZ7. They support iso 800/1600. Well kind of sort of. The manufacturer says "you can make acceptable prints at 4x6" when using iso 800/1600. Then dpreview.com goes on to say that 800/1600 is at reduced resolution. So I take all this to mean... they have an algorythm in the FZ7 which automatically downsamples the image so you don't see the noise so much. Anyone else agree? I am guessing acceptable 4x6 prints mean somewhere around 1 - 2 MP?

Pretty clever. For $350 the camera sounds like a great value.

Looks like Nikon is really trying to get people onto their Lens mount with the D50.
Current Nikon D50 DSLR prices are very impressive. Too bad their lens are so expensive.

Camera Body only is $495 on-line.
Camera with kit lens is $599 at CompUSA.

OregonAlex said:

I am guessing acceptable 4x6 prints mean somewhere around 1 - 2 MP?

Click to expand...

For prints you really want 300 ppi -- so for a 4x6 you want an image that is 1200x1800.