Camera recommendations

[Scottolini]

I know this isn't the best place for this topic, but I wanted recommendations from the people whose photographs I admire so much.

I still have the same camera, which uses film no less, that I've had since about 1998. I want to buy a new digital camera that will take quality photos. I have no aspirations of being a professional photographer, so I don't need anything particularly high-end. However, I would like to be able to take pictures that are worthy to post online. I realize a great deal of that lies in the hands of the photographer, but I was hoping to hear your recommendations for a good camera to purchase. Thank you in advance for your advice.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.dpreview.com/

This website was very helpful in my selection of a camera. It gives you the full specs of cameras, their price, where to find them, what they can do. It also has sample pictures and reviews from people who have them. You can compare them to other cameras too.

Check out the 'Camera database' link. That will show you a list of cameras and all the different models.

[Scottolini]

Thanks Kevin.

[Downtown_Austin]

I'm also looking for a decent camera. I've been reading Ken Rockwell. He's a Nikon D40 fanatic, but I don't like that it doesn't AF with many lenses. I'm considering a Canon XSi as well. What I've gleaned so far is that you can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. Nikon uses better LCD displays, Canon enables better color saturation if that's what you're into. It seems like HDR and panorama use is really popular here. Something I'm interested in learning more about.

A DSLR and kit of lenses that I can tote along with me as I walk around downtown, but can also use for my real estate work is what I'm hoping to find. I think the D40's standard 18-55mm lens will be fine for most uses, and a wide angle lens for my real estate work.

What lenses are some of the more prolific photographers using?

//btw, i might be completely wrong about what I said above. If so, please let me know. :-)

[JAM]

I have no allusions of being a professional photographer. I don't hardly even know what a shutter speed is, let alone all the other vast array of settings a camera could have. My goal was to get a wrist watch size camera that took better photos than my cell phone. After much research over and over it always boiled down to the compact Cannon series camera line. I think I have the Elph 1100, its a few years old now, but the picture quality is excellent, unless you want to take night photo's of downtown Austin, then its not so good, images are blurry and this is the one disappointment, but I knew that going in. The newer replacement is even smaller with more features. I think they are less than $200, so if you lose it, its not the end of the world.

[priller]

While I have a big Nikon D300 with an array of lenses, most of the photos I post here I take with a Canon G9. It's small but not too small (I don't like really tiny p&s cameras) and it has a metal body so it's sturdy and has a little heft to it (I also don't like cameras that are too lightweight).

Since I got mine they've come out with a G10, in which they went megapixel crazy and upped it to 14 MP (nuts on a compact camera). They just released the G11 now, back down to 10 MP, with better image quality. These are all pretty pricey, though, in the $400 range.

To me, the most interesting cameras to come out in the last year are the "Micro 4/3rds" cameras from Olympus and Panasonic. The Panasonic GF-1, especially. These are compact cameras but are fast and use interchangeable lenses. They are not DSLR's with the flapping mirror but more like digital rangefinders, affordable Leicas. The intent is to give you DSLR-like image quality and speed but in a smaller package. As much as I like my D300, sometimes it's a lot of stuff to haul around.

Whatever you choose, it's actually hard to buy a bad digital camera these days (unless you go really really cheap).

[bluedogok]

My wife got me a Nikon D3000 kit with two lenses from Costco for Christmas, it replaced my 6mp Panasonic (fixed lens) DSLR which was a good camera, I gave it to my mom who had an old 2mp Kodak digital. My sister has a D40 and has really liked it, she has since sold off her darkroom equipment and gone completely digital.

I have talked some about cameras with a local photographer (and motorcycle rider) about what he uses, he has a full complement of digital SLR camera and lenses, but for much of his Mexico photos on motorcycle travels down there he uses a smaller Panasonic camera. He has less to worry about getting damaged or stolen with the smaller camera.

Here is his website: Skip Hunt Photography

[tgbAustinite]

my canon sucks the life out of new batteries as quick as i put them in. any idea how to fix this?

[KevinFromTexas]

Heh, I'm no photographer, at least not professionally! I actually don't have any special lenses with my camera - a Panasonic DMC-FZ5 which is a fixed lens.

It has 12x optical zoom and I believe 5 megapixels.

The higher the optical zoom number, the farther you can zoom in. That means you can zoom in on objects that are really far away. For me, I'm a nut about taking pictures of skyline views from far away. I've been able to photograph 10 story buildings that are 12 miles away. Sometimes there will be a view where I know or think there will be a view of downtown a building, or some far away interesting object. Sometimes they're so far away that you can't see them with the naked eye. So I'll set up the camera on the tripod and let it do its magic. That's always fun.

The higher the megapixel number the better you'll be able to blow up your photos without them seeming pixelated. Let's say you take a portrait photo of someone and want to blow up the image for a large portrait. You'll be able to do that without it being pixelated. If you've ever saved a photo off the internet and then taken it in a photo viewer program or photo editing program and zoomed in/enlarged the view, you know what I'm talking about. It becomes pixelated and distorted. With a high megapixel number you could blow up your skyline images into full sized posters if you wanted.

Here's the Wikipedia page on pixelation in photos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelation

About batteries, definitely look for a camera that has a rechargeable battery, other than say AA or AAA batteries. Digital cameras eat batteries like crazy. My camera battery is about an inch square and can be taken out of the camera and charged in any wall outlet. It takes 2 hours to charge which is really reasonable considering some take up to 20 hours. Digital cameras are notorious for sucking battery life. This is especially true if you use your flash a lot or if you're doing night photography where the shutter stays open a long time. Most digital cameras now days also have video recording capability, and that also eats through batteries.

Originally Posted by JAM

I think I have the Elph 1100, its a few years old now, but the picture quality is excellent, unless you want to take night photo's of downtown Austin, then its not so good, images are blurry and this is the one disappointment, but I knew that going in.

That's true with just about any camera - night photos. Really, unless you have a tripod, or a convenient post or something to set the camera on, the images will blur. Otherwise, you have to have Monk-like steadiness to keep the camera from blurring/moving.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by tgbAustinite

my canon sucks the life out of new batteries as quick as i put them in. any idea how to fix this?

You can buy rechargeable AA and AAA batteries. They're about 2 to 3 times as much as regular batteries, but in the long run, they save you money. I have some rechargeable batteries that I've had for 5 or 6 years and they still work fine. I used them for other things like my cd player and tv controls. Some chargers come with some batteries, some don't. Rechargeable AA and AAA batteries may take a long while to charge, sometimes up to 12 to 20 hours.

[TXAlex]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

You can buy rechargeable AA and AAA batteries. They're about 2 to 3 times as much as regular batteries, but in the long run, they save you money. I have some rechargeable batteries that I've had for 5 or 6 years and they still work fine. I used them for other things like my cd player and tv controls. Some chargers come with some batteries, some don't. Rechargeable AA and AAA batteries may take a long while to charge, sometimes up to 12 to 20 hours.

Most new rechargeables can quick charge in 15 minutes.

[bluedogok]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Heh, I'm no photographer, at least not professionally! I actually don't have any special lenses with my camera - a Panasonic DMC-FZ5 which is a fixed lens.

It has 12x optical zoom and I believe 5 megapixels.

I had the updated version of that camera, the Panasonic DMC-FZ7, that's the one that I gave to my mother. It was a great smaller camera and even with the lower megapixel rating it gave much better picture quality than my wife's Nikon L18 due to superior optics and maybe sensor. Her Nikon is nice because it is compact and she can keep it in her purse but when we are doing anything other than snapshots we used the Panasonic and will use the D3000 now.

As far as batteries, for the P-N-S I prefer the AA batteries just merely for the convenience of being able to buy them anywhere if the batteries rundown. My 2mp Panasonic and my wife's Nikon uses them. I gave up on rechargeable batteries a few years back because they didn't seem to hold a charge very long, maybe they have improved in recent years. The higher end cameras would eat them up though and that is why they use special batteries designed for the camera.

[Downtown_Austin]

After months of casual research, and a week of searching for a good deal, today I purchased a like-new Nikon D40 DSLR kit. I relied heavily on the suggestions of Ken Rockwell. I also like how light weight it is.