A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A newbie request help selecting digital camera



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old June 15th 09, 10:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:54:43 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

tony cooper wrote in
:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:


Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A
"Pro" setup simply is not in the budget.


Why did you wait so long to bring this up? At $300, you are limited
to compact cameras and to a camera that may not have the feature you
want the most: manual focus.

At $500, you are limited to the Nikon D40 with just the 18/55 lens for
a dslr, or some of the better compacts. (I don't know the compacts)

You can forget Canon or Pentax dslr unless you go used.

I suggest you read Steve's Digicams at http://www.steves-digicams.com/
and read the specs very carefully of the cameras in your price range.



OK, I looked here
http://www.steves-digicams.com/deals.asp

THis doesn;t look bad, is pushing the budget but they have a discount for
first-time buyers:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=10007881

That's for a camera body only. No lens. The lens will add a couple
of hundred dollars. Note that ZipZoomFly does not accept returns. A
very bad sign!

Here's something else you need to check out: the reliability of the
store. ZipZoomFly has a rating of 6.2 out of 10 at
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/ZipZoomFly Almost 40% of their
buyers were unhappy after the sale.

Check any vendor at ResellerRatings. ZipZoomFly is not the worst, but
they aren't great. Some vendors are absolute rip-offs.

Your most dependable vendors are Adorama, Abe's of Maine, and B&H
Camera. Many of the others push accessories, cancel orders if you
don't buy accessories, add and over-charge for accessories included by
reliable vendors, or supply you with gray market (no US warranty)
items.



These also don't look at all bad to me, but it might just be that I don't
know any better:
http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?i...=NKD402LK&l=CJ

The Nikon D40 is new, not reburbished. That's the set-up I have. Two
lenses.

http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?i...KD401855K&l=CJ

THey're refurbished, I think, but if the refurbisher is reputable, is that a
bad thing...?


Abe's of Maine is a dependable vendor.

Buying used is a gamble. Digital cameras are more delicate and more
prone to problems than are the old slrs. Electronics, you know. I'd
consider a used lens from KEH, but I wouldn't buy a used dslr body.

You can Google for all of the names I've mentioned.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #102  
Old June 15th 09, 11:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kris Krieger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

Chris Malcolm wrote in
:

Kris Krieger wrote:

Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do
things like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a
tree frog that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that
it will be what is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations
about auto-focus - it sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because
it isn't what I think it is...


In your manual focussing SLR you probably had a special central
focussing aid, such as a split prism.


Yup - and I *loathe* it. It is a huge distraction and I've never used it.

So you pointed that at what you
wanted to focus on, got the focus right, and then swung the camera
round to compose the shot as you wanted.


Nope, I place the subject (say, frog on palm leaf) where I want it, IOW
move the camera (which is usu on a lightweight tripod) to get the subject
placed correctly in the viewfinder, then "fiddle" with the lens until the
subject looks crisp - while trying my best to ignore the obnoxious
facetted-circle-thingy in the center of the viewfinder. When the subject
looks crisp, I snap (using an extender, so I don't juggle the camera by
pressing the button directly).


I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use
its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus
and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus
point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you
want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on
the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button
half pressed.

You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the
focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done.

Unless you have one of the more expensive DSLRs with unusually
accurate focussing aids this is not only much the fastest way of
focussing, it is also the most accurate, because good modern autofocus
systems are better than even the trained manual eye and hand. There
are the usual special exceptions of course, such as shooting through
wire netting or twigs when the autofocus will probably choose the
wrong thing to focus on.


Exactly my point. It sounds to me like something I'd have to learn to work
around. Granted, I didn't knwo anythign about it before, but at this
point, it sounds like somethign that I could adjust to, but would probably
find annoying, like that thing that's plopped into the center of my film-
camera's viewfinder - whihc I *did* try using, and which screwed my photos
up every time, perhaps because it played havoc with my astigmatism.

That's one big reason I'm "down" on autofocus. As an analogy: I also
prefer to drive a stick shift - and only drive auto now because of
arthritis, but still find the auto-transmission lack of control VERY
annoying.


The best modern autofocus systems can also do all sorts of new
wonderful things, but only if you specifically ask them to do them,
such as select the best compromise focus for a group shot, or track
the rapidly changing focus of a bird in flight even when you can't
keep it in the centre of the image.


The bird-in-flight is the main reason I'm considering it. When I'm
interested in a group of objects, what I've done with film is either use
the shorter lens to get the group (tho' it also includes more background,
which can distract from the main subject), or use the longer lens an
dselect which item in the group (flower, rock, etc.) I want to be Primary.
But that's a matter of desired composition - and it depends upon what it
was aboutthe group of objects that caught my eye in the first place.

So I don't know how that relates to DSLR vs P&S, or auto-focus...

If I were to photograph people as subjects, I'd approach that like any
other subject - look for the thing that caught my eye in the first place,
which is almost always an abstract compositional factor, be it light,
color, shape of a pose, etc. I don't knwo how to explain it better


The same kind of choose-and-lock facility can be selected for
autoexposure as well, e.g. in a portrait of someone looking at a
sunset you can choose to set and lock the exposure on the face and
then compose the shot.


If I did that, I'd prob want to focus really tight-in, for example catch
the reflection of the sunset in the eye. Other than that, people don't
usually interest me as subjects. So portraiture, while certainly a worthy
art form!, is just not a factor for me personally I know it's a bit
weird, but there it is. So to be honest, I don't knwo how to even relate
it to my research; teh idea of having to focus on somethign centraly and
then go through a procedure to get teh camera to focus on my subject in the
place where I want it to bein the photo and then focus onit there...to be
honest, it sounds like a headache. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just
trying to clarify my questions (both for the group, AND for myself, too!)


I suggest you borrow the manual of a camera you fancy, or print a copy
from the maker's web site, and have a good lengthy browse through
it. I think you may be in for some pleasant surprises :-)


I've started looking at mfgr sites as I'm seeing camera models that look
interesting, so downloading manuals as a preview-assist is a good idea,
thanks!

- Kris
  #103  
Old June 15th 09, 11:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kris Krieger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

ASAAR wrote in news:29dc35ts9al3gjvtb808qm2to9oljukgt0@
4ax.com:

On 15 Jun 2009 11:28:46 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use
its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus
and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus
point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you
want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on
the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button
half pressed.

You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the
focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done.


I've done that too, but it won't guarantee that the intended
subject is precisely focused after swinging the camera round, but it
may be good enough for many people.


Now THAT is good to know! If it's not a guarantee, then it's not useful to
me - I know how to do it fast'n'EZ with my old Minolta (my film camera), and
adding multiple steps to the process, *especially* with variable results!, is
definitely not good enough to me.

I think it would work well if
the lens's field of focus was spherical, but I think that most
lenses are somewhere between spherical and the flat fields that are
a property of macro lenses. If lenses were generally of the
spherical focus type, even stopping down to get a large DOF probably
wouldn't generally be enough to take edge to edge sharp multi-person
portraits of people standing in a straight line. Or so it's said by
Thom Hogan and a number of other photographers having similar
knowledge, if lesser accomplishments. Using a corner or edge AF
sensor (if available) is the best way to go.



Ah, I Googled Thom Hogan and got his website - good stuff, thanks!

- Kris
  #104  
Old June 15th 09, 11:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
P&S_PRO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

ASAAR wrote in news:2hlb35ha9pl40aj7ecnr96v3514ir18o6f@
4ax.com:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
type" P&S cameras.

Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard LOL!!

Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links!


Virtually all of it intended to be misleading. This was, after
all, the pathetic anti-DSLR troll you were responding to, who is
easily recognizable and changes his name *very* frequently because
he knows that if he doesn't do so, most people will quickly add his
name to their newsreader's kill files.

It's true that some *good* P&S cameras are capable of taking
excellent photos and they may be that you need, but they *all* have
severe limitations in many areas. First, if there isn't enough
light available, all digital cameras need to increase the ISO (in
other words, boost their light sensitivity - ISO is practically the
same as the ASA value used with film). Because they use much
smaller sensors than DSLRs, even a slight increase in sensitivity
degrades the image considerably.


"Practically the same"? ASA and ISO are the same when it comes to
exposures, idiot. Proving once again that you don't even know what cameras
and film are all about. You're such an obvious pretend-photographer
DSLR-troll. Really ASSAR, go get a real camera someday. Go out and use it.
You'll find out that 90% of what you say is utter nonsense. You'll hang
your head in shame realizing how much crap you have spewed onto the net all
these years while living in your basement.

ASSAR, haven't you been paying attention? He's been shooting with ISO100
(ASA100) film all his life. He doesn't need your high ISOs that you keep
going on about it (the one minor thing that DSLRs are sometimes better at).
Pros are like that, they don't need high ISOs. I never find a need to go
above ISO200 because I know what I'm doing. There is no more noise in the
images from a good P&S cameras at ISO200 than a DSLR at ISO800. Get a clue
will you? But that's impossible, you have to actually own and use cameras
for you to be able to get a clue.


***OH!!***

OK, that's important to me!! With my fil camera, I can open the lens
aperture and/or increase teh exposure time, but *have* been able (when I
get it right) to get soem beautifully crisp images in shadow, and in
backlit situations.

Here is somethign I'd like to photograph, *if* I ever see it again:
I was in the woods one time, and came across anopening where a shaft of
light illuminated a huge spider-web that spanned teh space between two
trees - and the "threads" of the web were refracting the light, creating
hair-fine "rainbows".


I have quite a few photos just like that. I just looked through them and
was going to post one for you. All taken with P&S cameras. But now I
believe we are all being trolled from two sides and there's no reason to
entertain trolls nor hand out valuable shooting experience for free to
them. I could give you some simple pointers on how to ensure you capture
those web-rainbows correctly (it's not as simple as you might think at
first, no matter what camera you use).


That's one sort of photography I want to do, but didn't know whether
digital was capable of handlign that sort of contrast and color-range. But
it does sound like DSLR would be stronger in that sort of situation.


Why would that be so? All of my rainbow-hued web photos look just fine here
taken with all manner of P&S cameras.

Oh what the hell, let's entertain the trolls. Here's one of my scrapshots
(meaning not anywhere near good enough for commercial use, the only kind I
will ever rarely post to the net a few times a year). Don't bother to zoom
in looking for details. I use a lot of downsizing and extra-high JPG
compression, enough to destroy all details so nobody can use these photos
for anything of importance.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/...e63d510046.jpg

Before the pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls start spouting their nonsense,
sensor-blooming artifacts and aliasing artifacts have absolutely nothing to
do with all the myriad rainbow-hued colors that you see in this photo. I
know the difference and am 100% certain. I realize that basement-living
trolls never get out into the real world, but yes, spider webs from certain
species of spiders actually do look this way in sunlight from the proper
angles. See what you are missing? Not enough incentive yet for you to crawl
out of your troll's basements? I thought not.


When the low base ISO is boosted
to 200 or 400 the images from P&S cameras become "noisy" and is
often easily seen without substantial magnification. Many DSLRs can
be used at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and produce cleaner images than P&S
cameras. I have several of the better Canon Powershots and they're
nice, but they turn into little noise boxes when the lighting is
low.


OK, that would definitely not cut the proverbial mustard...


Second, P&S cameras focus using contrast detection, which is
*much* slower than the phase detection used by DLSRs, which under
similar conditions is much quicker and more accurate. Try them out
in a camera store that allows you to test them. You'll see, easily.


THat's another term I can add to my list - I previously would not have even
known to ask abotu that! So Thanks!


Contrast focusing CAN be slower, so much depends on light levels. DSLRs
cannot auto-focus in low light no matter what, which makes them infinitely
slower than any P&S camera on earth. And then the light-levels are so low
that you can't focus a DSLR by using the optical viewfinder either,
lose-lose. Something that DSLR-Trolls conveniently seem to forget when
going on about them. They've never actually used any of these cameras that
they talk about in real-world conditions. Contrast focusing is much more
accurate and can focus in light levels so low where you would normally put
away any SLR type of camera. Contrary to what ASSAR says. He knows not of
what he types. I am also 100% certain of that.



P&S cameras have several other drawbacks (which others can point
out if they wish), but they still serve a purpose and most DSLR
owners find it convenient to also use a P&S. So if you get a one
and find that its limitations are sufficient to force you to get a
DSLR, all is not lost.


There isn't room in the budget for me to get two. The above example of
things I would like to photograph is tellign, also, I like things such as,
small tree frog among a slew of palm leaves (haven't yet developed the fil
but tried to get that a couple weeks ago; green tree frong on the still-
shrubby Pindo palm in my back yard); or a dragonfly warmign up in the
morning light on a blade of the 7'-tall 'Dallas Blues' var switchgrass
(near the pindo palm). Or water glinting in the moonlight.


In possession of tons of photos just like that. All taken with super-zoom
P&S cameras. You won't be able to get the full body of the frog nor
dragonfly in focus with any DSLR, not enough DOF. This is where P&S smaller
sensor cameras will always excel, for macro nature photography.

Not sure whetehr the following clarifies, but here goes =:-o :

My "manifesto", is:
I don't "do" snapshots.
I want to photograph **what __I__ perceive**,
not cutesy pic-lets that show someone else touristy views of this place or
that - for that, there are postcards, and tourist guides, and visitor
booklets. To be totally "rude" about it LOL!, I don't really give a crap
whetehr my photos would appeal to people who wabnt to see snapshots. I do
these things because I am driven to do them, and wht matters to me is
whether *I* am satisfied - and I'm pretty demanding of myself.

Yeah, I admit, *occasionally*, I might send a distant relative a
"snapshot" of the garden or house or whatever, but overall, nope.

So that's the core of my concern - what will best allow me to do the above?
I've occasionally changed lenses using my film camera, but usually use
(going to check) (OK, am back) the "MD Minolta Celtic f=135" lens, and only
VERY rarely use the "MD Rokkor 45mm 1:2" lens, because i'm usually doing
something like, picking out a cardinal sitting on a branch are of leaves
but loaded with berries, or similar.

OTOH, that's what I *do* like about the film camera - I do have the option
of using the one that best suits the capture of what *I* am perceiving
(again, with the lack of preview being the biggest frustration, along with
expense of film-development).

So for now, I've been looking at the Flickr site, selecting the photos that
are similar to the sort I'd like to take, and seeign what poeple use. So
far, tops are Canon EOS series (from 20D up to 50D), and Nikon D-series
(D200, D50, etc). SO that seems to be useful info, too...


I hope you choose any of them. Then find out that you're going to have to
spend well over $5000 in lenses to get comparable images to what you would
get from any decent $200-$300 P&S super-zoom camera right off the shelf.
Along with all the cumbersome dust-covered sensor problems that come along
with any DSLR, only to find out that all your images are ruined when you
get back to the computer to view them. Each and every moment lost forever.
Been there, done that way too many times, never again. That should make you
very happy. It'll be just like sending your photos off to a lab only to
have them come back all ruined.




Anywhere, that's all very rambling, but I'm sort-of at that "rambling"
stage right now in terms of the search, so I guess it fits

- Kris


This is fun, watching you take the advice a troll who's never even held a
camera before. :-) (i.e. ASSAR)
  #105  
Old June 15th 09, 11:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kris Krieger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

"David J Taylor" -
this.co.uk.invalid wrote in news:8gmZl.42676$OO7.6382
@text.news.virginmedia.com:

Kris Krieger wrote:
[]
My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding
out that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off,
or some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...


Kris,

I think you will find that any of today's DSLRs will do what you want.
They all have fine control over the colour rendering - but it may be up to
you to get the colour temperature correct for your shots or using manual
colour balance and a white card. You can usually adjust the sharpness for
the JPEGs produced by the camera.

My prime camera is a Nikon D60 - the bottom of the range - and I've been
very pleased with it. I usually carry the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR (image
stabilised) lenses, giving me a "35mm equivalent" focal length range of
24-450mm. I also carry a compact P&S camera - the Panasonic TZ3 - for
those times when I need a "pocket-sized" camera.

Cheers,
David



Thanks, yes, I started looking at the Nikon D-series. Good not ebaout color
adjustment!, I didn't know you could do that, either!

Amazon has a new one for apx $170.50 with shipping.

They have, for $399, a NikonD60 Body Only (wondering whether my Minolta 45mm
lens and Minolta Celtic 135mm lens will fit onto it...my impression is
Yes...)

ALso, refurbished Nikon D60 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G
AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for $450 with shipping. THere is aplain-old-
used one for an insignificant amount ($50) less.

The PITA about trying to shop online is that, when you put in "Nikon d80
DSLR", you get everythign from bags to straps to all sorts of other drivel,
as opposed to just CAMERAS (or even camera "kits" with lenses).

- Kris
  #106  
Old June 15th 09, 11:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Kris Krieger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

Chris Malcolm wrote in
:

Kris Krieger wrote:
John Navas wrote in
:


On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
wrote in :

Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.

True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take
great pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot
take great pictures without a great photographer.


My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out
that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or
some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...


You can make your own comparisons of picture quality from different
cameras by checking out public photosharing sites such as Flickr and
sites with plenty of technical discussion on user forums such as
dpreview, Digital cameras store camera model and the technical details
such as focal length and aperture along with the digital image, and
these details are still often present and examinable along with the
screen display of the image.


Yup, someone had posted a flickr link - talk about addictive LOL! But it's
giving me soem idea about what kind of photos are available using which
models, so that's a very useful link! Same with dpreview

THanks!,

- Kris
  #107  
Old June 16th 09, 03:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
P&S_PRO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:


Here is somethign I'd like to photograph, *if* I ever see it again:
I was in the woods one time, and came across anopening where a shaft of
light illuminated a huge spider-web that spanned teh space between two
trees - and the "threads" of the web were refracting the light, creating
hair-fine "rainbows".


I failed to mention some important things which may not be apparent to you
at first. DSLRs will be unable able to capture these web-rainbow photos
properly. The lighting conditions in which they need to be shot preclude
the use of very small apertures needed in ALL DSLRs for enough DOF. At the
small apertures required by a DSLR for enough DOF you'll need to use
flash--instantly destroying the very lighting that causes this effect. A
P&S camera does not have these huge drawbacks. If using a DSLR you cannot
line up the angle of the web to the camera in a flat plane to get enough in
focus while getting any kind of decent composition while also making sure
the angle of the sun is where you need it to be and still see and
photograph the refraction rainbows. The most you will ever hope for with
any DSLR is to get a few strands in focus that will show one color at best,
all the rest being just a huge smear of out of focus blobs, never being
able to focus on the large expanse that shows all the hues of the rainbow
at once. Which is precisely what makes the sight so spectacular in the
first place. Otherwise it's not even worth photographing. I speak from many
many years of experience doing all manner of photographs just like this, a
minor subset of the types of nature-photography that I do.

Here's a good example of someone attempting this with a DSLR, the best I
could find.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11957541@N08/1198711037

I found a lot of great shots online of rainbow-refracting webs from P&S
cameras (many of them far better than the example scrapshot that I posted,
that's why it's a scrapshot), but this is all I could find from a DSLR user
that was good enough. None of the rainbow-hued strands are in focus.
Smearily artistic perhaps, but not a good representation of nature and the
awe inspiring sight you are trying to capture. If they align the DSLR to
get a flatter plane and get more in focus then they lose the rainbows. Been
there, done that. A waste of time and effort, and a total waste of the
thousands of dollars spent on the camera and lenses you'll need in
attempting to do so.

Sorry, no DSLR on earth will ever cut it for decent macro
nature-photography. No matter what all the DSLR-Trolls in newsgroups might
whine about to the contrary.

They know not of what they speak. None of them have ever used any of the
cameras that they cry about in real-world nature photography shooting
conditions or they'd instantly know better. This is precisely how I know
that they are pretend-photographer DSLR-Trolls and nothing more than that,
nor will they ever be more than that.

Buy a DSLR to bolster some pretentious "wannabe pro" pride while cutting
off 90% of all great nature photo opportunities. A bit like cutting off
your nose to spite your face. It's up to you.

  #108  
Old June 16th 09, 03:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:50:43 GMT, nick c wrote:

I found all this very interesting. After reading this post several
times, I have to say it's a great post. It's well written and may be
very helpful to anyone who may be interested in having two systems.


Agreed. I archive only a small number of newsgroup posts, and
they're most often the ones that are either interesting or contain
useful information. That's why I saved his (your son's) and more
recently yours.


When I was active, I used 35 mm cameras, 2-1/4 cameras and Speed
Graphic (sheet film 5x7 and 8x10) cameras, all at the same sequence of
time so I think nothing of someone being happy using two systems. By
all appearances it does sound like something I would write but
unfortunately it wasn't from me. Upon further investigation I found it
was written by my son, Alex, using one of my laptop computers, which
he borrowed while his was being repaired. Since he visits me often, he
may have written it while he was visiting me. I have several laptop
computers 'cause the damn things seem to always need maintenance and
are often in the repair shop. A pox be on whoever opened Pandora's
computer box.

Alex originally bought into Canon because I had bought into Canon.
While he was, and I think still is, satisfied with keeping Canon,
wasn't. I won't keep what I'm not comfortable with. I changed back to
Nikon. This morning when I called him to inquire about this post, I
find he's still using the two systems and seems to be content. I
noticed this post is signed Nick. That momentarily puzzled me 'cause I
don't usually sign my posts. Perhaps Alex thought I was a regular
poster in this group 'cause I've often referred this group to him and
signing my name, to him, while using my computer may have seemed
proper. I neglected to ask him about that. Anyway, AFAIC, I really
don't care to know. Shrug. Alex is not into news groups, he's much too
busy in the world of finance to become attached to news groups. Now,
as for me, I like to lurk and at times, I fire up one of my Ser Jacopo
pipes and take a bottle of Port and one of my laptops outside and sit
in the shade of the patio and play with my laptop while watching the
grass grow. Now, that's interesting.


No pipes for me, but maybe a bit of port . . .


Have to ask, did the post, in your opinion, contain information that
was not correct or informative? If there's beef in this hamburger, I
can't find it. I'll tell Alex not to upset the net police again. I
don't think he meant to do anyone harm.


No, nothing incorrect. The replies (both of them) were
interesting and informative. Alex did no harm, needs no warnings,
and I certainly wasn't trying to be a net cop. I you look a little
closer at my previous post, I was only trying to understand an
apparent discrepancy between the two posts, which you didn't have to
answer, but you cleared it up nicely. Thanks.

I don't understand the "beef" reference. I'd have thought that
most people would *want* beef in their hamburgers. At least Clara
Peller, the "Where's the beef?" lady in the Wendy's commercials did!


I'm 100% Nikon. I even bought my wife the D60 kit and she loves it.
Oh,well ... what the hell, she leaves it on "P" and doesn't care to go
any further. I guess I don't really care how she uses her camera.
Whatever makes her happy tickles me half to death. Besides that, when
she's content she tends not to futz around with my toys.


She might like Nikon's little P6000. True, it can't do everything
a DSLR can do, but it takes some very nice pictures, has all of the
manual controls of Nikon's DSLRs, works with Nikon's Speedlights, is
much more silent in operation, easier to carry and even has a
built-in GPS receiver, so she'd later be able to say "We were at
these coordinates when we realized that we were lost."

  #109  
Old June 16th 09, 03:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

You might want to add the Sony DSC-R1 to that list as well.


Thanks , I also want to investigate the Sony A-series (as mentioned
on the website luminiouslandscapes.com).


You may want to read up on the DSC-R1. It's an interesting
camera, but that model was discontinued long ago. It had an
excellent lens and a large APS-C sensor, the size used in DX DSLRs.
Its drawbacks were that it was expensive for a non-DSLR ($1,000),
was slow writing JPG and *very* slow writing RAW files (9 seconds
each), high noise levels at high ISO, autofocus wasn't the best,
especially in low light, and it was a heavy camera, a real brick.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSCR1/page27.asp

  #110  
Old June 16th 09, 03:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
dj_nme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default A newbie request help selecting digital camera

Kris Krieger wrote:
ASAAR wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]

For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.


Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.


If you are currently using Minolta manual focus SLR gear and hope to use
the lenses on the Sony Alpha DSLR cameras, you may be in for some
disappointment.

I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler

snipped for brevity

That may cause you a problem: not having any autofocus lenses.
Particularly if you're currently a Minolta film SLR camera user, as
their AF mount (called "Dynax" by Minolta, now "Alpha" by Sony) is
incompatible (different bayonet and longer mount to sensor distance)
with MC/MD manual focus lenses.

You might be better served to look for a DSLR camera which can take your
lenses, otherwise you'll have to purchase all-new AF lenses.

If you're a Minolta MD/MD or Olympus OM user, then you will have to
either start from scrath again with lenses or you could use an adapter
on a FourThirds DSLR or MicroFourThirds EVIL camera and put up with a 2x
crop factor (50mm lens would have the same angle of view as a 100mm
lens on a 35mm camera when used via adapter on FourThirds cameras).

It's ultimately your money to spend as you like, so the final decision
is really up to you.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help selecting digital camera Dave Boland[_2_] Digital Photography 28 December 8th 08 11:58 AM
Selecting new digital camera Javier Digital Photography 5 November 16th 06 12:34 AM
Advice request for a digital camera... [email protected] Digital Photography 4 February 26th 05 03:32 PM
Need help selecting budget digital camera... ct Digital Photography 3 February 10th 05 03:30 AM
>>> Request for Recommendation: Digital camera with specificrequirements phil w Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 July 3rd 03 05:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.