Regular digital or digitial SLR?

"Jitz" writes:

I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

It's *very* unlikely that the blur/fuzz problem you're seeing is a
result of low resolution. How are you viewing the pictures when you
see the problem? On a computer monitor, or after printing on paper?
And what size? It's probably a question of camera shake, slow shutter
speeds, and subject motion, and can only really be solved by better
technique on your part (including not trusting the camera
automation).

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.

I can't obviously give a meaningful answer about what you'd be happy
enough with. I can make some guesses in that direction, though.

My guess is that you're not dedicated enough to photography to take
the effort to lug around the big DSLR plus lenses, or to work them
hard enough that you get much benefit from them compared to the better
P&S cameras. Please don't take this as criticism; there are many days
when I'm not dedicated enough to lug around my big cameras either, and
either shoot nothing, or some kind of P&S. Fancy equipment that ends
up being more trouble than you're willing to spend doesn't contribute
to better pictures for real people! You have to decide how hard
you're willing to work vs. what quality of photo you'll be happy
with. None of the choices there are "wrong"; you're taking pictures
for yourself and your family, not for me.

Before spending money on a new camera, I'd make some serious attempts
to figure out what's really causing your problems with the results
from your current camera. If you can identify the specific ways it's
failing you, that'll make it much easier to select your next camera,
because you'll know in more detail what you need it to do better.
(And you might learn that you can make your current camera produce
results you like, which would save you money.)

Two things to check -- on a bunch of unsharp pictures, check the 35mm
equivalent focal length and the shutter speed in the EXIF
information. The rule of thumb is that the shutter speed should be
1/focal length or shorter (but with sloppy hand-holding technique you
can do worse than that, and with good technique you can do much
better).

Also, try taking some pictures of detailed subjects holding still with
your camera on some kind of support (a tripod is traditional, but just
setting it on a table works for this). The intention is to eliminate
any question about your technique holding the camera steady. If
*these* pictures are unsharp, blaming it on the camera in some way
looks more reasonable.

Or is it possibly as simple as you're letting the focus spot fall
between subjects, so you're focusing at the wrong distance? Make sure
you know how your autofocus system works, and how to lock focus.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

For someone who just wants nice images, but is not really wanting to mess
with photography, I'd go with a high end Prosumer model. You don't have to
worry about dust, and high end models have many of the features that a low
end DSLR has. The huge advantages of SLR's is next to zero shutter lag,
fast in general, bigger sensor, external flash control, SLR shooting, and
interchangeable lenses.

The high end prosumer models are a bit slower, have less image quality due
to MUCH smaller sensor areas, generally have compromised optics, and are
MUCH slower. I'm betting that these things are not going to matter much to
many when the SLR disadvantages are cost, size, and more complexity.

Ron



"Jitz" wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
always use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The
colors seem OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
better, it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

Hi,

I am very happy with my new Canon Digital Elph S500, with a 5 MP chip. I make
very nice prints up to 8.5 x 11" with good color and sharpness. There are a
few manual adjustments possible, if you care to put the camera into manual
mode. It fits into a pocket, and comes from Canon which has a good reputation.
My H-P printer, let alone my laptop, allows me to make improvements in the
print-making process.

As with any camera, you must hold it steady and push the shutter button gently
to avoid shake-blur. Also, you must first depress the release button halfway to
allow the camera to focus, then press further to take the picture. Should you
just press down quickly all the way on the shutter release, the camera may not
focus properly.

Good luck.

Mort



Jitz wrote:

I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

Hi,

I am very happy with my new Canon Digital Elph S500, with a 5 MP chip. I make
very nice prints up to 8.5 x 11" with good color and sharpness. There are a
few manual adjustments possible, if you care to put the camera into manual
mode. It fits into a pocket, and comes from Canon which has a good reputation.
My H-P printer, let alone my laptop, allows me to make improvements in the
print-making process.

As with any camera, you must hold it steady and push the shutter button gently
to avoid shake-blur. Also, you must first depress the release button halfway to
allow the camera to focus, then press further to take the picture. Should you
just press down quickly all the way on the shutter release, the camera may not
focus properly.

Good luck.

Mort



Jitz wrote:

I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

Jitz wrote:
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff




There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However, if
you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may disappoint.
The reason is that the better the equipment is, the more skilled you
need to be to use it to best advantage. You can buy a $1500 DSLR, and
spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if you just use the general
purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you might as well get a good
quality point and shoot.

A good sensor, and a good lens are the most important aspects of the
camera, but the end result also depends on the person behind the camera.

I suggest you look at some of my pictures on Webshots. Those of the
cruise to Cozemel were taken with a 2mp Kodak DX3600, and the ones of
the Alaskan cruise were taken with a 4MP Kodak DX6440. The userid to
search for is rphunter42. Both of these cameras cost under $400.


--
Ron Hunter

I also own the Toshiba PDR-M70 and moved up to the drebel. There are
well-known problems with the Toshiba. The main one is poor
auto-focusing in not-so-bright light. The flash is also anemic.
Shutter lag, characteristic of P&S cameras is also a problem.
However, it has razor sharp Canon optics. I have gotten some really
good pictures. They can easily be blown up to 8x10. Bottom line,
there is more likely something wrong with the way you ar taking
pictures.

Jim

Just from not even finishing your post you indicated you don't want to "lug
around a bigger camera". Stop right there, DO NOT buy a DSLR camera. I use
to have an Olympus Stylus 400 and liked it a lot and it took great pictures.
Not to mention it was weather resistant. I took it out on rainy days and
never had any problems with it.


"Jitz" wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors
seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

Just from not even finishing your post you indicated you don't want to "lug
around a bigger camera". Stop right there, DO NOT buy a DSLR camera. I use
to have an Olympus Stylus 400 and liked it a lot and it took great pictures.
Not to mention it was weather resistant. I took it out on rainy days and
never had any problems with it.


"Jitz" wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors
seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera?

Jeff-

Do your kids sit still and wait for you to take their picture?

There are some fine non-SLR cameras out there. However one common
characteristic of these cameras is that they have long delays between pushing
the button and actually taking a picture. I've often had people move out of
the frame before the picture could be taken.

Most of the SLRs have a small focus delay, but nothing like the point & shoots.
I'm quite pleased with the speed of the Canon 300D. Other models may be even
faster, but usually cost a lot more as well.

Fred

Fred McKenzie wrote:
My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or
is the picture quality significantly enough better that I should step
up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera?

Jeff-

Do your kids sit still and wait for you to take their picture?

There are some fine non-SLR cameras out there. However one common
characteristic of these cameras is that they have long delays between
pushing the button and actually taking a picture. I've often had
people move out of the frame before the picture could be taken.

In case the OP isn't aware, you can half-press the shutter button on many
cameras to set up the focus and exposure for a particular shot, which
reduces the final delay quite dramatically.

I'm now using a Nikon Coolpix 8400 which has a secondary focussing aid to
reduce even the basic focussing delay - perhaps you can try one in a
store? It has a particularly wide maximum angle (24mm equivalent) making
it great for indoor shots.

Cheers,
David