Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?

As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
produde sharp pictures?

Thanks for info

wrote:
This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

The latter. But you may have different standards.

Here's a test:

Imagine that you see a beautiful picture just begging to be captured.
You take out your camera and snap away. But when you get home you see
that the picture lacks sharpness and contrast, has poor color, and
is generally disappointing.

Do you shrug and pass it off without any concern?
Did you not even have your camera handy, having left it in a drawer?
Did you not think to take a picture?

If you generally answer yes to those questions then buy the cheaper
camera. If you don't care that much then don't waste money on a
camera that you won't make full use of.

If you want to take really nice pictures, if you're willing to shoot
1000 crappy pictures to geta couple of good ones, if you don't mind
schlepping around a camera all over the place, then spend the money
for a good camera.

Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

Yep. But they're big and heavy. I carried a Canon Digital Rebel
along with a tripod and four lenses up to the top of Mount Lassen
(yes, and back down again). Most people aren't that ... whatever.

dSLRs generally last longer than most compacts because they are made
to higher standards and have fewer motors and gadgets to fail. The
people who use them routinely shoot 10,000 pictures every year. I
tend towards landscapes and do a more moderate 2000 to 3000 each year.

Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new?

Not an issue.

In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?

Yes, things wear out. The shutter is typically rated to about
100,000 shots. Lenses have motors and moving parts. Batteries
need replacing in time.

Before that happens you'll either get tired of the whole photography
business and/or decide you need some new feature.

As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
produde sharp pictures?

Probably, yes.

Now then, "sharp" is subjective. There are some people who spend $800
just on a single lens to get the best color and sharpness. Are you
one of those? What did it for me was a trip to the mountains. There
I had a gorgeous shot with snow on the ground, big puffy clouds with
sun rays coming from behind them and a snowy stream in the foreground.
But I was using a cheap $100 lens, and the edges weren't sharp and the
contrast was so-so. A great picture turned into a mediocre one.
That's when I spent $700 for a good lens.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca wrote:

This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.

Why would you do that? You could just as easily buy the $200 camera and
pocket the extra $600. It ain't gonna wear out that quick.

- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

Don't know why it shouldn't. I still have my Kodak DC210+ which is now
closing in on ten years old - still works fine - just take decent care of
it.


Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

Yes - and so will less expensive ones, too.


Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?

As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
produde sharp pictures?

Thanks for info

On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, said:

This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.



Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.


Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?

Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
last another 20 years.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

snip
and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
snip

Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
neighbors.

Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, said:

This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.

Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
your needs, what's the problem?




Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?

Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.


Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?

Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
last another 20 years.

wrote:
snip
and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
snip

Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
rapidly.

Not really.

Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
neighbors.

A decent starter DSLR will last a very long time, take better pictures,
and be a better teaching/learning tool for the "average" photographer,
whatever that is. Good quality lenses one might add from time to time
will last virtually forever, and better bodies can be put behind them
when you're rich or famous.

--
john mcwilliams

On May 21, 11:19 am, wrote:
snip and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.

snip

Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
neighbors.

Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

I don't believe this is true at all. About two and a half years ago
my wife and I bought a Canon 20D, the camera is still a great camera
and in no way obsolete. This camera was mainly for my wife, who had
been trying to use a compact digital and getting justifiably
frustrated.

Not only does a DSLR take way better photos then a compact camera but
it is also way more fun to use. And I would much rather be using a
fairly old DSLR, like say the 10D that came out 4 years ago then any
of the current compact cameras. Sure there are compact camera with
10MP and the 10D only has 6, but the 10D still takes better looking
photos. The point is that even if someone 4 years ago had decided to
go for the DSLR I don't think they would have been at all
disappointed, we certainly where not buying the 20D two and a half
yours ago.

Scott

Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

I don't believe this is true at all.

It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.

We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
reasons that have been stated.

It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
mode, then it is versatile enough for us.

It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.

It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
you should buy more.

The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
features.

Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.

We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
It is mostly about us.

Wayne wrote:
Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.

I don't believe this is true at all.

It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.

We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
reasons that have been stated.

On the contrary, I'm sure many of the reasons that have been stated
drive many decisions. (I'm certainly not claiming *all* though!)

It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
mode, then it is versatile enough for us.

Contrast and color, in particular, are not the faults; the cheaper the
camera, the more those two are likely to be pumped up in fact!

One could stay in A mode (probably P mode actually) and still want
faster autofocus and faster general responsiveness, though.

It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.

From listening to friends and personal experience, the P&S seem to last
1-5 years before they die.

It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
you should buy more.

I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.

(But I'm not claiming *every* 2MP image will print a decent 8x10; just
that it's surprising what you can get away with sometimes.)

The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
features.

Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.

You could call them "features", but there are performance issues as
well. Fast lenses. Fast autofocus. Autofocus tracking of moving
subjects. Fast repeat rate.

We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
It is mostly about us.

Always true of any tool, of course.