BF2S Forums Recommend me a camera

oh i'd say mcminty knows way more than i. plus i'm at a disadvantage when it comes to shopping over there. Jasper, don't let Cam fool ya, he has taken some excellent captures.

i would recommend - a dSLR, one that you could swap lenses with, about 6mp (mega pixel), and if you could an extra battery and extra card (the 'memory' for a digital camera).
there are some nice point and shoot cameras out there, but - if you intend to get into photography, you will want the ability to change the lense.

there are plenty of camera makers out there, but two are really dominating the digital market right now, Canon and Nikon. each has it's fans, but i will say they are improving each other through competition.

i'm glad to hear you joined the flickr group - there are some talented photographers, here at bf2s.

Last edited by burnzz (2009-12-03 04:05:13)

liquidat0r wrote:

I think it'll be a bit tricky to get a DSLR + lens for £150-£200.

i think you or Camm might be more help here then - i do know, @ 6mp you can get a print big enough to hang on the wall, if you'd like.

burnzz wrote:

oh i'd say mcminty knows way more than i. plus i'm at a disadvantage when it comes to shopping over there. Jasper, don't let Cam fool ya, he has taken some excellent captures.

i would recommend - a dSLR, one that you could swap lenses with, about 6mp (mega pixel), and if you could an extra battery and extra card (the 'memory' for a digital camera).
there are some nice point and shoot cameras out there, but - if you intend to get into photography, you will want the ability to change the lense.

there are plenty of camera makers out there, but two are really dominating the digital market right now, Canon and Nikon. each has it's fans, but i will say they are improving each other through competition.

i'm glad to hear you joined the flickr group - there are some talented photographers, here at bf2s.

I don't think I'd be the best person for that.. cameras have changed a lot in the 2 years since I got my 40D While I agree that a DSLR would be a worthy investment, there are a few more questions that should be asked.

A few problems of the ones i take now are the quality, focus, and night time (its all cloudy)

What exactly did you mean with you said quality and focus were problems? With quality - are the images not sharp enough? Not enough detail? Too much grain/noise? And with focus - is it too slow to focus? Can't track a moving subject?

Also, how serious are you with photography? You joined the flickr group, which is a good start

Get a Canon Powershot, leave for the summer to China only to find out you lost/forgot the charger somewhere, only to buy a chinese universal adapter in Shanghai!

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Get one with the highest optical zoom.  Digital zooms suck and make the picture well, digital.  Look at the stat on how long it takes a camera to get ready to take another picture (lower the time the better).  Also look at how long it takes for the camera to power up and be ready to take a photo (the lower the time the better).  If you are planning on staying with normal photo sizes a 6 megapixel camera will be plenty for the novice.  The bigger you want to make the photographs the more megapixels you'll want.  Anyway, that is my 2 cents and guys please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right with the optical zoom being better than digital, however a point to note is that anything over 3x optical zoom begins to suffer from optical distortion. Seeing those "hyperzoom" cameras and lenses, 12x or more, insights a massive /facepalm. The distortion manifests itself most noticeably with "barrel distortion" at the wide end of the lens. In a point and shoot camera, I'd want at most 6x zoom, and to pay more attention to the "equivalent focal length" which tells me more about what I'll actually be able to see.

Also, more megapixles aren't necessarily better. While 6 should be fine for a point and shoot camera, increasing the pixel density past a certain point will only result in increased amounts of noise and a reduced image quality. If the lens can't resolve enough detail, the sensor will just see that lack of detail as a fuzzy image. Interestingly, when Canon released the Powershot G11, they downgraded the number of megapixels from 14 to 10 in order to give better image quality and noise.

If you can find it for cheap, a Panasonic DMC-TZ3 wouldnt be too bad. I have it. Great lens and zoom (Leica lens no distortion either) great screen, good battery life, and pretty good color. The only thing it lacks is manual controls.

All my pictures from page 3 all the way back to 8 on my Flickr were taken with my TZ3 /shamelessplug

Kmarion wrote:

Low megapixles probably wont be a problem for any modern camera. Crop factor aside.

Yeah true. Back in the day, even the 4MP of the EOS 1D (classic) were enough to fill the front page of Sports Illustrated with a nice action shot. Of course, more megapixels will allow one to crop more while retaining an image large enough to print. That being said, most people upload photos to the web or show them to friends on their computer. In these instances, there is no real need for an image more than several thousand pixels high and wide.

Wallpaper wrote:

If you can find it for cheap, a Panasonic DMC-TZ3 wouldnt be too bad. I have it. Great lens and zoom (Leica lens no distortion either) great screen, good battery life, and pretty good color. The only thing it lacks is manual controls.

All my pictures from page 3 all the way back to 8 on my Flickr were taken with my TZ3 /shamelessplug

I agree that Panasonic make some nice point and shoots, especially the more DSLR looking ones. And the Leica lenses are indeed However personally, a major stumbling block would be that lack of manual control. Manual is the best way to learn about correct exposure (if even the most frustrating ).

Nice photos btw, you did well with a point and shoot

D90 then, if he wants to spend 3 times as much.

Well the two choices used to be the D40 and D80, with the D40 being preferred for newer photographers since it was way cheaper and nearly the same...but now the D90 is out, and according to Mr. Rockwell, it completely 'obsoletes' the D80.

The Dxx's are the entry level ones though.

I just don't want him to do the same thing I did:
Spend $350 on a decent point-and-shoot, then realize a month later that a DSLR would be much better.
..although I love photography. If it's just a "once in awhile thing" for him, then he might as well get a cheaper one.

Last edited by DefCon-17 (2009-12-04 21:35:06)

I should save up more and get a DSLR?

that sounds alright!

here's my flickr page, just a few phone pics at the mo.

Get a Lomo.

A seariously awesome camera.
If you want digital though, then .. Erm, then I don't know which to get.