A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:18:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-06-14 18:04:50 -0700, LOL said:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
-----------------
Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
Google but didn't know how to limit the search.

So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
started.

Thanks again!

- Kris


You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.

Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)

Too too funny! LOL!

...and Kris, if you hadn't noticed before, the above remark is from our
resident P&S troll who will try to hide his identity via constant
change, and has an agenda which is more destructive than helpful.
There are doubts in this Group of his ability to produce images as he
has yet to submit any sample of his work.
The best advice remains buy what works for you.

OH LOOK! It's the useless piece of **** pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL
AGAIN! Don't believe anything he ever says!

LOL

You ****ingly childish idiot.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c wrote:

I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to
say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions)
a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to
change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I
sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went
totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon
equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good
system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically
say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any
technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them
and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite
feel comfortable with the use my equipment.

I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses.

I hope that your 81 years haven't contributed to the discrepancy
shown by what some guy named nick posted about 5 months ago. If you
care to tie up the loose ends it would be appreciated.

I have used both Canon and Nikon systems and have accumulated lenses
for both systems. The camera in my bag has been the Canon 1DMKll. Many
months ago I had been bitten by the update bug and pondered the
thought of buying either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. I looked at
other cameras and many were reported as being good cameras but I
favored getting either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Try as I
might, I did my very best to zero in on getting one or the other
camera. I read reports, questioned users, and could not readily decide
which one to buy. Indecision led to procrastination. Finally, I could
contain myself no further and I did the only thing one could do who
labored with a muddled mind; I bought both cameras. Yeah, I bought
the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300.

I'm as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers.

If he discovered that both of them were his one assumes, and not
from two friends (or a single friend) happy to see him.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

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

Autofocus really can handle that concern, and that's pretty simple
compared with some of the added AF features that have evolved. Some
of today's P&S cameras also have multiple AF points. Nikon's entry
level DSLRs (D40, D60) only have three AF sensors, laid out in a
horizontal line and you can select the one that is used for some
shooting modes, but that's pretty limited. The older D50 has five AF
sensors, adding one above and one below the central AF point. The
D5000 isn't really an upgrade for the D60. It's positioned between
the D60 and the D90 which has 11 focus points as does the D5000.

The D300 and all of the Nikon's full frame DSLRs provide many
more. The D300 lets you use 11 or 51 autofocus points, 15 of the 51
being the more sensitive cross-type that are sensitive to both
horizontal and vertical patterns. In continuous servo mode where
you're shooting many consecutive shots of fast moving objects, such
as in nature or sports photography, the D300 will track the moving
objects as they move away from the selected AF sensor, transferring
control to adjacent AF sensors. For this you can choose to use 9,
21 or 51 focus points. Many DSLRs from other manufacturers also
have many AF focus points, but none of them are spread as widely
across the frame. Since the 51 point AF module is similar (or
identical), these 51 points aren't spread quite as widely across the
frame in the Full Frame D700, D3 or D3x as they are in the D300.

Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote in
:

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

Hello!

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos,
but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs
more and more to develop "experiments".

So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
century, and go digital.

But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and
the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was
trying to make my way through this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera-
Reviews.aspx
but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo
newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance.

So here I am.

WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural
subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've
(sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination,
BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital
cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental"
film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete
junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to
get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm
lens.

What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've
been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are
merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality
photographs).

At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
price is a consideration

Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho'
I wouldn't reject that ability, either


So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
confused newbie to a good starting place to look?

Many Thanks in Advance!

Kris K.


Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've
waited so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera
can't be beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of
exactly what you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to
mention high-quality video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs
dSLR-pushing trolls. They know not of what they speak.

I feel compelled to note that nobody is pushing SLR on me. As mentioned
elsewhere, I'm used to using my film SLR, so I did ask about DSLR.

I'm looking for my first digital camera (I don't count the crappy little
web-cam thingy I got for $20 in Target in 1999), so I just asked what was
an obvious Q. for me (i.e., about DSLR). So in all fairness, nobody can
blame people for answering the question I admittedly asked.

Meanwhile, the link you offered is excellent, and give me additional food
for thought:

Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats
a new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...utdoor_results
.shtml

That's certainly useful info, esp. the info macro photography...I will
add that model to the things I'll look at in detail.


In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S
camera) from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra
20 lbs. in weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and
heavy tripod to be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I
did the math.

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


Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even
have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400.

Exactly. I'm definitely a "dew on dragonfly sidelit by morning sun" type.
Or "lie on freezing ground for 30 min to get *perfect* upshot of frosted
grass-blades against Winter sunset sky". I also would really love to be
able to do low-light photos, like "running brook in moonlight", or "full
moon over snow", and the like, which I don't even bother attempting with
film.

My frustration w/ film is that, all too often, I get the light wrong, and
end up with pneumonia, or covered with mosquito bites, or whatever, for
nothing but a smear of blobs (that cost a lot fo money to get developed).
It's not the medium I don't like - it's the utter frustration of not
getting the settings right, with no way of knowing they're wrong until
after getting them developed.

But with digital, you can see the shot on those little screens, so you know
instantly whether, and how, it needs to be tweaked. That's the attraction
for me.

That's the one and only thing that
dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller
apertures on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom
settings on P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO
benefit.

For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S
camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro
photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough
depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to
worry about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your
dSLR's sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome
lenses.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.


This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of
the 1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and
horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to
adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end
the convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been
doing all along.

If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or
will ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by
the free CHDK software add-on for them.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was
originally provided by the manufacturer.

Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even
longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking
1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest
speed. You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's
maximum 1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill
shadows in harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion
detection for nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response
times are fast enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the
pre-strike step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing
hand-held lightning photography during daylight this way. Using short
shutter speeds and the built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter
at the right time. That's never been done before in the history of
photography. No need for a tripod and keeping the shutter open hoping
for a random lightning event. Just hold the camera in the direction of
the storm, composing your shot. The camera snaps off a frame only when
there's an actual strike.

Wow, now that's pretty nifty...


Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in
weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal
intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and
archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures.
Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the
earth. Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras
that run internal scripts.

If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's
Best CHDK Photos" at this link:

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk

Wow, I never realized!

Nice think is the links to the site where you can get the info of what
camera was used. So it's easy to see who takes the kids of photos I'd like
to take, and see what they used, so I then can look into those models =:-D


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!

- Kris

Savageduck wrote in
news:2009061219480928524-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
said:

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

Hello!

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature
photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and
it costs more and more to develop "experiments".

So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
century, and go digital.
---------

-----Diatribe snipped------

If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+
"World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link:

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk

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

If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.


Oh! Well, I'll add that to my list of things to look at in more detail,
too...Thanks for the heads-up...

- Kris

Bob Larter wrote in news:4a333f53$1
@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
Kris K.


Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old

Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
want to downgrade to a digicam.


I thought DSLR is a type of digicam? I want to get away from film because I
missed too many shots (that I suffered to get) because of not getting the
settings just right, and not finding out until paying a lot to get the film
developed.

I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work
for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to
know; if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are
reliable (and outdoors-capable).

I didn't mean to spark a war. I'm mainly trying to separate mere "snapshot
boxes", from cameras I can use to take decent-to-good photographs. My first
thought was DSLR, for the reasons I'd described, and I want to retain control
over focusing my pictures in whatver area of the frame I want, so I don't
like the sound of "auto-focus" - but if "point and shoot" includes some
quality items, I'm open to info on them as well.

Right now, the variety of types is bewildering, tho' I'm not impressed by
what I've seen in the under-$200-range (esp. when a lot of hoo-ha is made
over "color choice" - black is fine by me), so the info and links people have
generously provided here are a starting point for good cameras within my
price-range.

I know it takes time for people to offer info, regardless of their viewpoint,
so I appreciate that, and really did not mean to start an argument... =:-o

- Kris

John Navas wrote in
:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:31 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote in :

Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
Kris K.

Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old

Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
want to downgrade to a digicam.

Stooping to his level by insulting other cameras only serves to
undermine your own credibility.

Cameras are just tools, and no one tool is best for all jobs. dSLR
cameras have their place. Compact bridge cameras have their place. P&S
cameras have their place. Even cell phone cameras have their place.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/bart.transit.officer.murder.charge

Like paint brushes. I use a 90-cent boar-bristle thing for brushing flux
onto my stained-glass copper foil prior to soldering; I also OTOH once paid
$75 (and that was back when a dollar was much "bigger") for an absolutely
perfect Kolinskij Sable art brush for doing lines that would range from 1/3"
thick, to *barely* a hairline, that's how perfectly the brush responded (now
my hands shake too much for that kind of work, but the principle stands).

I know the end result I want; also the $$ the budget allows me to spend. So
I need to mesh those. I was thinking DSLR, but maybe I do need to widen my
investigations? THe info is grist for the mill and I appreciate people
taking the time to offer me that info.

Good qoutes from Adams, BTW

- Kris

tony cooper wrote in
:

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

What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've
been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are
merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality
photographs).

I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center.

Oh, OK! See, I didn't even know *that* =:-o Now I do

I
have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
is in focus in the edge of your image.

My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are
the same.


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...

- Kris

John Navas wrote in
:

[...]

CR is a good general consumer resource, but does a poor job of
evaluating specialized products like audio gear (especially speakers),
cameras, and the like. Much better advice is contained in reviews by
qualified reviewers, which are readily available on the Internet.
Some of the best (IMHO):
* http://www.dpreview.com
* http://www.cameralabs.com
* http://www.imaging-resource.com
* http://www.steves-digicams.com
* http://www.dcresource.com


THanks for the links!, all are now saved =:-D

- Kris

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...

Granted, a True Artist can cerate art using ground rocks and a frayed reed
(liek the Lescaux etc cave art), but having th ebest tool one can get isn't a
bad thing, either G!


There are good, hi-end
P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size.

Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure
dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital
camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode.
The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode,
and more total capability than any dSLR.

I wrote that one down


... Advanced dSLR users use
what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the
camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and
compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ...

Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography.


But it's good to know, because I also do computer graphics and 3D modeling,
so that part I understood

It's all grist for the proverbial mill

- Kris