This Question is for Digital Camera Expert !

[jamal1984]

Hi
I'm planning to buy a new camera, i need some of your digital camera expert out there.
I do love DSLR, but i'm not a professional so i think it's just a waste for me.
I'm looking for something that take excellent pictures at night scene without blurry and without the support of tripod.
My olympus sp 350 does the job with Tripod, but without tripod it's blurry like hell. And it's eat batteries like crazy.

I heard the Nikon P5000 does the job.

[ALY]

what's your price point?

Also a DSLR is a great way to learn photography, will out perform any point and shoot camera and will grow with you. When you get better (and technology improves), get a higher model (same manufacturer) and your lenses move with you.

[jamal1984]

$400 dollars or less :)
Yeah i had been thinking about DSLR lately, but too much manual it's kindda hard.

[eTiMaGo]

entry level DSLRs have pretty decent automatic programs too, I have a Canon 350D, if I leave it on full automatic it's more than good enough.

The 400D is now the top of that range, so you should be abel to get a 350D much cheaper, and it's still a very good camera, if you want to give that a try

[jamal1984]

Originally Posted by eTiMaGo

entry level DSLRs have pretty decent automatic programs too, I have a Canon 350D, if I leave it on full automatic it's more than good enough.

The 400D is now the top of that range, so you should be abel to get a 350D much cheaper, and it's still a very good camera, if you want to give that a try

i was looking and reasearch about Canon 350D last night. I saw some sample pics....it's look great. Probably going to DSLR is a recommended ha? ok i must save money and get me a dslr.

How about a good pocket point and shoot camera?

[eTiMaGo]

I've always been a fan of Minolta for compact cameras, but I think Casio makes some good ones too... There's so much out there, best to do some research on www.dpreview.com or www.stevesdigicams.com

[rage2]

All cameras are gonna be blurry at night without a tripod. There's ways to reduce the problem when a tripod isn't handy tho... I use a Canon SD700IS, which has an optical image stabilizer. When taking night shots, I use the manual mode and turn on multi photo. Once I'm ready I hold the button down, and let the camera take 5-6 pics while holding as still as possible. Most of the time, 1 of those pics will turn out sharp.

For moving up, I've been in the same situation the last 2 weeks. I want SLR quality without SLR price or complexity. I dont wanna swap lenses out, just want a camera that can introduce me to a lot of stuff... while offering easy automatic modes as well. So I tested a bunch of cams, Panasonic DMC-LX2, Canon PowerShot G7, Panasonic DMC-FX100, and finally the Panasonic DMC-FZ50.

Prob took about 500 pics with those cameras and compared the images. The FZ50 is in a league of it's own, offering pictures that have a SLR sharp look to them that none of the other cameras can touch. It also shoots in RAW mode, which allows you to do non destructive post-processing editing. Best of all, at $400us or so, it's a lot more cheaper than a SLR with a similar lens.

Here's 2 quick shots to illustrate the huge difference in sharpness and quality.

SD700IS:


DMC-FZ50:


One look at the edges of the hood will show exactly what I'm talking about hehe.

[acrbill]

get a d-slr if you can. My Pentax can shoot well at night because it has a nice anti shake feature that will allow you to stop down 1.5-2 stops.

I have a pic somewhere that I took in low light, hand held for 1.5 seconds. Its grainy as hell but its not blurry at all.

[ALY]

Originally Posted by eTiMaGo

entry level DSLRs have pretty decent automatic programs too, I have a Canon 350D, if I leave it on full automatic it's more than good enough.

The 400D is now the top of that range, so you should be able to get a 350D much cheaper, and it's still a very good camera, if you want to give that a try

I own the 400D and love it. With the automatic functions, even a monkey can achieve great results and you also have the ability to override the auto functions in manual mode to practice and master photography.

For point and shoot cameras, Casio has the most functions in a small size to fit anyone's budget.

[WRBlue]

Originally Posted by jamal1984

$400 dollars or less :)
Yeah i had been thinking about DSLR lately, but too much manual it's kindda hard.

I bought a Nikon D50 early this year for $300. But I already had a bunch of lenses. I've been shooting with SLR's sence about 1982, and I still leave it on auto about 90% of the time

I'd post a sample picture, but all cameras are sharp and its the photographer that makes the pictures not the camera.

[nsmitchell]

I've found that SLRs require you to be in a serious picture taking mode. Some people are intimidated when you whip out an SLR and wat to take some picturres of them. I want to be able to just pull out a small camera and snap some quick good quality pics. I now have a Panasonic DMC-FX7 ( a few years old ) It does a good job with it's OIS.
I'm sure the newer Pannys kick some serious ass. Panasonic has a plethora of cameras to choose from though.. http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...oduct2-_-Lumix
Do some Googling on each model line.

Canon and a few others have the face recognition stuff that looks pretty damn cool too.

[jamal1984]

On last sunday i went to best buy and playing around with digital point and shoot Camera and DSLR.
DSLR - Can't find anything below $400 dollars at the moment, and it's kindda give me headache when i look at all the buttons and features, so i'm not gonna get it at the moment but i will definitely get one later for the right price.

So that lead me to Point and Shoot

everything is nice but somehow i'm very attractive to Canon SD1000 and SD900 because both of them came out excellent pictures in Night Mode without Flash.

The only thing i don't understand is both of them don't have Optical Image Stabilization but the pictures came out very clear without blurry. But Sony and Kodak does have Optical Image Stabilization but it's came out blurry if your hand is shaking.

SD1000 - 7 MP Excellent Image Low Prices
SD900 - 10 MP Decent Image, High price
Should i get SD1000 or SD900 ( for more MP)?

[eTiMaGo]

More megapixels does not always mean better pictures There's a lot of factors like sensor size, signal to noise ratio, and optics quality that come into play. Plus, unless you are going to print the picture in a large format (A3 or bigger), there's no need for all those extra pixels.

In other words, if you feel the picture quality is better in a smaller, cheaper, lower resolution camera, then go for it!

[hasher22]

Yea what E.T said...... :P

my new camera when i go overseas in 2 months!!!



OH SNAP!

[jamal1984]

Originally Posted by eTiMaGo

More megapixels does not always mean better pictures There's a lot of factors like sensor size, signal to noise ratio, and optics quality that come into play. Plus, unless you are going to print the picture in a large format (A3 or bigger), there's no need for all those extra pixels.

In other words, if you feel the picture quality is better in a smaller, cheaper, lower resolution camera, then go for it!

thanks thomas, i'll go with Canon SD1000 for the moment since this one only $195 bucks. I will play with it for a little bit before i move up to DSLR.

[ALY]

There is nothing wrong with investigating/ researching the used market...

[rage2]

Originally Posted by eTiMaGo

More megapixels does not always mean better pictures There's a lot of factors like sensor size, signal to noise ratio, and optics quality that come into play. Plus, unless you are going to print the picture in a large format (A3 or bigger), there's no need for all those extra pixels.

In other words, if you feel the picture quality is better in a smaller, cheaper, lower resolution camera, then go for it!

Ya I just figured this out recently. I've been buying higher and higher megapixel cams for the last 5 or 6 years, and just couldn't get the sharp, HDTV like quality that other guys with SLR's are getting.

I didn't want to invest in a SLR, and after testing literally 10 different non SLR cameras, the Panasonic Z50 came damn close to SLR in quality. It blew everything non SLR out of the water.

[eTiMaGo]

Right on. From my experience, for a compact digicam, there's not much improvement when going over 3MP for normal use (i.e. not printing any bigger than 4x6 photo paper). I now have a 350D (8MP) for when I need/want to take really nice pics, and my phone's 3.2MP built-in cam which is more than good enough for casual pictures, even amazing great quality in daylight

Here's a very very very good writeup about all this:

http://www.dansdata.com/gz059.htm