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

Ï "Ray Fischer" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
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.

Maybe wanton photographers:-)
I usually carried around everywhere my Nikon FM-2, complete with 3 lenses,
vintage soviet-made flash.Just its bag was as heavy as a pair of army's
boots.While all really suited me, was a compact, because in family's
meetings I usually shoot snapshots (which of course came out badly, from
time to time).But as you say, you had to shoot a whole roll of film just for
that pair of good slides.I also took it in an army drill, in a smaller soft
case with just the Nikkor 50 1.4, where the 1A (skylight) filter was
shattered , with the lens being OK.How that happened, even today I do not
understand.Now, I got bored of all this and I really didn't have room for a
wet darkroom, and the convenient room-temperature (20 o C) RA-4 tetenal
chemicals were long obsolete in greece, probably the prelude to digital
photography, and it was more and more difficult to procure the right
chemicals and to process slides, and so now I have my digital outfit, with
which I can conveniently print at home, up to A4 (a bit larger than 8
X10")without the hassle of a wet darkroom (and without its frustration)and
without the frustration of a fully manual camera, dicovering after having
your precious film developed, that the only meant-to-be good photo of your
cousin getting married was out of focus, or the flash wasn't powerful
enough, not to decribe the usually terrible quality of all lab chromogenic
"fast food" prints....(No more tetenal C-41 room temperature chemicals)I
have a couple of good, framed B&W printed on Ilford Satin 11X14 FB( I used
exclusively FB, not RC)but that was in my early youth...Now at 34, I use my
camera for family events a dozen times a year...No more mountain climbing,
no hiking, no skiing, I am discharged from the army, no more evenings spent
in the darkroom...What should I photograph, the fellow electrician with the
pincers and the fish tape or the trowel?Although I still strive for good
"negatives" and good "prints" with the least possible correction....








nism 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.

--

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

Ï "ray" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news
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.
Probably you will "outgrow" your camera before it will fail...Or it will
become obsolete.The bargain of today is the trash of tomorrow.Although I
really hate having working electronics appliances sitting on a shelf, so I
gave my infamous Kodak CX 7300, complete with (now almost obsolete)ni cd
Orbit charger discharger to a realtive, which was pleased.


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



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

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