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 » Marketplace » Digital Photo Equipment For Sale
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Regular digital or digitial SLR?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 31st 04, 11:18 PM
Jitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Regular digital or digitial SLR?

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




  #2  
Old December 31st 04, 11:31 PM
G.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jitz" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_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.


I have a Canon A70 and a Digital Rebel. You can get pretty damned good
pictures out of the non-DSLRs but my main complete with my A70 is that it is
slow as hell, I try to take pictures of my niece and nephews and they're
never in focus. With my DSLR my action photos are almost always in focus.
I must say that it was pretty similar with my p&s and SLR film cameras.

Greg
--
"destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll" - the mekons



  #3  
Old December 31st 04, 11:41 PM
leo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



Any decent cameras should produce sharp photos, in a sunny day or using
flash. DSLR has an advantage in low light, due to larger sensor and
possibility of getting fast lens (read: expensive). DSLR is especially
good for portraits because it has shallow depth of field, when comparing
to pin-sharpe compact digicams, so you can isolate the subjects from
distracting backgrounds.
  #4  
Old December 31st 04, 11:51 PM
Aerticulean Effort
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Ruf wrote:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:18:15 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "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.



First, you need to find out why your M70 photos were blurry/fuzzy. I would
suspect this was due to slow shutter speeds, exacerbated by shutter lag,
slow focusing and non-optimal technique in lower light situations.

A dslr has a much different focusing system and as such focuses better and
much more quickly in low light situations. This can be improved more by the
addition of a fast (ie, non-kit) lens.
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 )
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

If you've had problems (IMHO) a DSLR won't help - stick with P&S

There is nothing wrong with 3MP if you know how to handle it

Aerticeus
  #5  
Old January 1st 05, 12:07 AM
Kitt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just a few thoughts from an on again, off again amateur. First
question, are you sure it's not you instead of the camera? Try some
shots from a tripod or set the camera on a firm surface and use the
self timer. Are the shots still blurry/fuzzy? If not, work on your
technique. Even the best camera in the world won't correct for an
operator who's not holding the camera still.

As to camera? I just ordered an 8x10 online to try out Wal Mart's new
one hour service and I was astounded by how good it was. I took it
several years ago with a Kodak 2 megapixel point and shoot. Telling
you what we've done might help you, since I'm sure that most folks will
tell you similar stories about changing needs and wants. We shot
hundreds upon hundreds (probably thousands) of exposures with that
Kodak and a Fuji 2 mp of the same ilk and we were never disappointed.
Understand that CD slide shows, on screen/online, and 4x6's off of a
little snapshot printer were about the extent of what we used them for.
Those cameras work great as long as you recognize their limitations
and practice good technique when shooting. About six months or so ago,
we bought a little Canon 3mp job with image stabilization. Wow! What
a difference. Now, even those long shots and the ones where I did move
a little were great. All these cameras take quite acceptable pictures
for most applications. The one big downside is speed. Time to start
up, time between shots, time to focus. Well, after saving for two
years, my Christmas present to me was a Nikon D70. Although I haven't
even scratched the surface yet, I don't see how it can get much better.
Turn it on and it's ready. Shoot several pics in a row and you can
see through the viewfinder for every one. I actually did that this
afternoon kind of by accident and after I shot about three exposures of
a duck playing in the water, I thought, OMG! It was just like my old
SLR, only with a motor drive that I didn't have then. I am totally
impressed and can see I'm going to spend the next several months
relearning and learning anew. Of course, now I need another five grand
or so for lenses and gadgets, but in the meantime, I've got a great toy
to play with!

Now, there are a lot of variations on the progression my wife and I
took. There are some real long zooms with image stabilization, high
megapixels and better speed for lots less than a DSLR if you include
lenses in the cost of the DSLR. There are also high mp cameras with
good optics that are nearly miniature cameras that you can literally
stick in a shirt pocket... and then there's everything in between.
Here's where you have to decide what your personal needs and
preferences are. There's a camera out there for you.

As far as technophobia goes with the more sophisticated cameras, when
the wife uses it, put it on full auto and it *is* a point and shoot.
They're as easy or difficult as you want them to be.

Just be aware that they've become just like computers. As soon as you
buy one, they'll come out with three others that are better, faster,
cheaper and prettier. ;o)

  #6  
Old January 1st 05, 12:22 AM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


In short: You don't need a SLR. There is nothing you listed that you
want that requires a SLR. In fact, I suspect, you would not be happy with
an SLR. While I have one and I believe it is best for me, I am not you, our
needs, willingness to put a lot of work into a photo and skills are
different.

First make sure you are doing the best with what you have. Find someone
who can evaluate your results and see if they can spot places where you may
be able to improve results with your current camera. You might also try
visiting your local camera shop and try the non-SLR camera of your-their
choice and see what kind of results you can get.

I don't know what your acceptable quality threshold is, but I would
guess you may find that with a little help you may find you can do a good
job with what you have.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


  #7  
Old January 1st 05, 12:30 AM
nosredna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article [email protected]_s51, "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

If you're like most people I've seen using digital cameras, you hold the
camera out and look through the LCD to compose the shot. They don't seem
to be gripping the camera very firmly; I don't see how they can get a
good, crisp that way--I know I don't trust myself to do it that way. I'd
rather use the LCD (vs the viewfinder with potential parallax error) to
compose, so I look through the LCD but hold the camera next to my
forehead to steady the camera, keeping my elbows close to my body. Maybe
that's all you need to do to get crisper shots.
  #8  
Old January 1st 05, 12:58 AM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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/
  #9  
Old January 1st 05, 02:08 AM
RonFrank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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:[email protected]_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






  #10  
Old January 1st 05, 04:00 AM
mort
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Regular digital or digitial SLR? Jitz Digital Photography 51 January 3rd 05 10:04 AM
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos Alan Browne Digital Photography 4 December 22nd 04 08:36 AM
Sad news for film-based photography Ronald Shu 35mm Photo Equipment 200 October 6th 04 12:07 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? eProvided.com General Equipment For Sale 0 September 5th 03 06:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.