A newbie request help selecting digital camera

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:19:13 -0700, Matt Ion wrote:

Well, I don't currently own a P&S, although I sometimes borrow my wife's
Casio.

So if both P&S-only and DSLR-only users are all insecure, what does that
make the likes of us who use both? Bipolar? Bi-cameral? Bi-optic?
Bi-curious?

Bi-bi...

Bye Bye (watch the) Birdie.

Warning: Long post explaining most everything you need to know for your
camera hunting needs:


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


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.


The only problem you'll have is over-exposing your moonlit scenes. I have
to constantly remind myself to highly underexpose those shots compared to
what my P&S cameras are suggesting. Lest they always come out looking as if
they were taken in sunlight. One of my more favorite nighttime shots is of
a moonset with just as many colors in it as a vivid sunset. It was quite a
remarkable sight when I got up well before sunrise to see what was making a
noise outside of my tent. The moonset photo taken from a cliff over a
remote island-dotted lake in the wilds of Canada. A spectacular view, day
or night. The problem being that it's hard to get it to look like a moonset
when printed. If it weren't for the few brighter stars in the sky (the
dimmer stars being washed out by the full-moon light) people would always
mistake it for a sunset. In either case, they are in awe as much as I over
that scene. Taken with a "lowly" P&S camera. All of my P&S cameras can
easily capture stars as dim as magnitude* 8 or 9 on a dark night. Your
naked eye can only see stars as dim as magnitude 5 or 6 on most decent
dark-sky nights. Just to give you an idea of how dim of an image you can
capture.

*The higher the number, the dimmer the light, in case you aren't familiar
with astronomical terms. 1 magnitude difference is ~2.5 times (2.512 to be
more exact) dimmer or brighter. A good P&S camera with manual shutter
speeds of 30 to 60 seconds can record stars 5 to 7.5 times dimmer than you
can see with your naked eye.

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.

This is why getting a camera with an EVF/LCD viewfinder combo is essential.
You'll see exactly what you are going to get on your final image before you
even press the shutter. The vast majority of them also display the chosen
shutter-speed effects in real-time preview. If you want to soften flowing
water into a milky mist, just crank down the shutter speed. The EVF/LCD
display will show you exactly the very same effect that you'll get when you
press the shutter. The converse is also true. Increase the shutter-speed to
1/3200 of a second (or much much higher on CHDK supported cameras) and
watch in your EVF/LCD display as those rapidly thrumming hummingbird or
dragonfly wings in flight are now outlined in crisp detail as your
viewfinder scene matches the shutter-speed and freezes their motions. There
is no greater preview convenience, something that DSLR owners will never
comprehend with their "superior" optical viewfinders. :-)

The other upside to cameras with LCD/EVF viewfinders is that they
automatically increase the gain in them in lower light levels so you are
able to accurately frame and focus your shots well beyond what was useful
in any optical viewfinder. Contrast-detection focusing is also much more
accurate than phase-focusing (dslr) methods. It can be slower at times, but
the accuracy of it pays off handsomely. What good is faster auto-focusing
if it's always out of focus 75% of the time, more missed shots, that's what
it's good for. To ensure fast focusing times when using contrast-detection
focusing cameras (P&S cameras), try to keep your image as steady as
possible. The camera needs to find sharp edges to latch onto. If they are
moving from camera-shake or your inability to pan accurately on a moving
subject then it will take longer to focus. People who complain about slow
auto-focusing times in P&S cameras are only revealing their really poor
hand-holding skills and how badly they suffer from camera shake, this is
all they are revealing. However, slower focusing is a greater problem with
super-zoom P&S cameras when used at long focal lengths. The camera shake
now amplified from the magnified image. We grew up at a time where 250mm
focal length was considered a long reach and you put it on a tripod to use
it correctly. Now you will have lightweight cameras in your hand that
easily go to 430 to 520mm or more at the touch of a control or zoom ring. A
very steady-hand is important at those focal lengths. Never blame the
camera, due to your own inability to hold it steady enough to allow it to
focus quickly at those focal lengths. This is why I laugh so much at "PRO"
reviews of these P&S cameras online. The idiot reviewers don't even know
how to hold a camera steady enough to use if properly, and then they have
the gall complain about the slow auto-focus speeds when it's their own damn
faults and stupidity that caused it! Garbage in, garbage out. :-)

Most cameras also have some form of image stabilization (IS) in them too
these days. You'll be able to take photographs, hand-held, at speeds up to
1 full second and make them tack sharp, if your hand-holding skills are up
to snuff. I've done this many times. I doubt I'd buy a camera without some
form of IS in it anymore. It really is a huge benefit to hand-held nature
photography.

When you get a good EVF/LCD viewfinder camera, do something fun after
you've used it for a while. Go back and pick up your old SLR and look
through the viewfinder. You'll wonder why you put up with that dim view all
your life and how you ever managed to get photos with it. I always used an
Olympus system in the past. It has the brightest optical viewfinder ever
made for any SLR camera. The last time I looked through it I was amazed at
how dim that image is compared to the EVF viewfinders in the P&S cameras
that I own and use today. Another upside to an EVF/LCD display is that it
matches 100% of the FOV of the scene in the final image. It isn't only
approximating the FOV by some arbitrary 95% or 97% coverage as happens in
nearly all optical viewfinders. You can now make every pixel count with
less post-processing cropping needed, if you have a good eye for
composition at the time of snapping that shutter.

You mention crawling or laying in the mud or some-such to get your photos.
Then I highly recommend any of the excellent P&S cameras that have what is
known as an articulating LCD viewfinder. The display swings out from the
body of the camera so that you may reposition it to a new viewing angle.
Some of the Canon P&S cameras have articulated LCDs with the greatest
amount of motion. Even inverting them to the direction that the lens is
pointing. This allows you to easily compose self-portraits when nobody else
is around on that mountain-peak to help frame your shot for you. Some of
the Sony super-zoom models also incorporate an articulating LCD display,
with more limited up and down-only motion. But still, this allows you to
get low to the ground, then point the lens up underneath a mushroom-cap and
compose your scene of the mushroom's gills and colorful slug without any
other part of your body touching the ground, nor doing a contortionist's
act trying to get your eye by a viewfinder lens.

I know all too well about crawling in 'gator infested swamps and mud (or
snows) to get "just the right shot" of some of the world's rarest orchids
and other life-forms. I wouldn't buy a camera without an articulating LCD
to save my life now, they are that necessary of a feature for any
well-rounded wildlife and nature photographer. No DSLRs that I know of have
this highly beneficial feature. Is that rarest-of-the-rare orchids on that
little branch about 2 feet above your head and there's no way to get up
there because you're already standing in 2 ft. of mud and could sink in
further? No problem. Swing out the LCD display, hold the camera at arm's
length and compose your shot. Simple as that. Some even use the camera on
the ends of their walking-sticks with a ball-head clamp and reach even
higher, then trigger the camera with a remote cable release. (All CHDK P&S
cameras can use an easy to make USB cable for the remote shutter release,
to any length you want. Since it's an analog voltage pulse that triggers
the shutter on these cameras you're not even limited to the standard
16-18ft limit of USB cable lengths for distance, go half a mile for a
remote shutter release if you want.) All the while that the camera is high
above your head at the end of that walking-stick you just watch in the LCD
display to compose the shot. Some also get the (relatively) inexpensive
electricians' gaffs made of telescoping fiberglass poles and mount their
cameras to the ends of those to reach a "bird's-eye" view of what's inside
of those rare-birds' nests without having to climb the trees and disturb
the birds even further. The light weight of a P&S camera and the LCD
display allow you to use them this way. Granted, you might need to
incorporate some little Amici-prism binoculars from your pocket to observe
the LCD view from that far away. That's generally what's used when doing
"pole-photography".

Having fun on a train ride going over a curved trestle above a canyon? Hold
the camera out the window at arm's length (make sure that camera strap is
wrapped good & safe around that arm!) and compose your shot in the LCD.
It'll look like you hired a crane and crew to record that amazing view. Are
you crawling through a narrow cave and there's no room to get that camera
close enough to one cave-wall while looking through the viewfinder in order
to capture that never-seen-before cave-painting? No problem, swing out that
LCD display and put the back of the camera up against the wall of the cave.
Get your head out from behind the camera to give the camera more room, your
silly head doesn't have to be there anymore. :-) People who photograph the
interiors of homes for magazines also love this feature, putting the camera
right up against the walls of narrow hallways and rooms. You'll wonder how
you ever did without an (articulating or other) LCD/EVF viewfinder after
you find all the new uses for them. Your creativity and unique shots will
increase exponentially. Something that will never happen if you've never
used them.

A Non-Optics and Non-Camera Equipment Hint: For macro photography of the
kind you enjoy, get yourself one item for your camera gear that few if any
have ever considered. It's the single-most important addition to my camera
gear that I ever thought of. Go to any department store, in the bike and
sporting goods section. Grab a kid's set of knee and elbow pads for biking
and skateboarding. The next time that you are scrambling over sharp stones
and rocks, trying to compose that macro image of a 1/2" long skittish
beetle, lizard, snake, or butterfly that scurries away at the slightest
danger-alert, you'll be glad you have those pads to keep you from flinching
when you dig your knee into the rubble or a sharp twig, causing the critter
to move off 5 ft. away, time and time again and then go scrambling after it
time and time again. They also prevent the loss of tons of ruined pants and
shirts from getting green-slime stains and tears from crawling in moss and
swamp-edge waters as you're kneeling in those too. They also allow you to
remain motionless much longer, the comfort of them extending any fatigue
level. You are more like a rock-solid stable tripod this way for hand-held
macro photography. The other added benefit is if your knee and elbow joints
are getting a little sorer these days from cold and damp, they allow you to
remain out there much longer protecting you from that too.

From your price limits (wholly understandable) and the kind of photography
you do, you really do need to look into any of the newer super-zoom P&S
cameras. A DSLR kit is just too overpriced to get comparable image quality,
too limited in use and features, and has way too many drawbacks to ever
justify it. I've only suggested two brands of P&S cameras so far with many
of the essential options, there are others. The Lumix line from Panasonic
is also exceptional. One of my other good pro-photo-buddies has one and
I've used it. I almost bought one myself after that, but I like my Canon
and Sony ones better for my photography style. If you are into infrared
nature photography then look into the last few years' models of Sony
super-zoom P&S cameras. Look for a feature called "Night Shot" mode in
them. There are about 5 models in the past that included this (but not this
year's model, I don't think). You'll be able to take nighttime wildlife
photography by infrared light alone. Or if used in conjunction with a
Wratten Green and an IR filter combo (to cut down daytime IR levels to the
higher-sensitivity of the Night-Shot's mode) then you can do hand-held IR
photography in sunlit conditions too. No longer needing a tripod for IR
photography, all done hand-held these days. IR video too.

You'll never regret moving over to digital, no matter which way you go.
What a relief to finally take aurora, nebulae, and meteor-shower photos and
not have them send back a crumpled up roll of negatives with a sticker on
the envelope saying "Remove your lens cap!" or "Hold your camera steady!" I
can't tell you how many times that has happened in the past. The dolts in
processing totally ruining my once-in-a-lifetime shots. Then adding insult
to injury with their lame envelope-stickers, due to them not being able to
recognize any type of photographs other than "Pasty's Birthday Party"
snapshots. Now I am no longer hindered, disappointed, nor my shots ruined
by the infinite-stupidity of others. Nor will you be any longer.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:28:37 -0400, ASAAR wrote:


Sorry. I said "some guy named nick" not in an attempt to fool
you, but to give you an opportunity to remember. The post that I
referred to was actually made by you five months ago unless it was a
forgery posted by someone else. Here's a copy of it, minus a couple
of header items that aren't relevant :

OH LOOK! The DSLR-TROLL IS STALKING EVERYONE (in error) AGAIN!

What a surprise.

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. 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.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:01:11 -0500, Troll-killer wrote:

Sorry. I said "some guy named nick" not in an attempt to fool
you, but to give you an opportunity to remember. The post that I
referred to was actually made by you five months ago unless it was a
forgery posted by someone else. Here's a copy of it, minus a couple
of header items that aren't relevant :

OH LOOK! The DSLR-TROLL IS STALKING EVERYONE (in error) AGAIN!

What a surprise.

Wrong, as usual. I tend to save useful, interesting messages and
didn't recall having saved any of Nick's previous messages. When I
tried to created "nick..." folder, the newsreader popped up an error
message, saying 'no can do - it already exists'. So I looked to see
what it contained. What is no surprise is that you're wrong again,
but are keenly aware of stalking, as you KNOW that you would be
stalked by many people if you didn't keep changing your nym, troll.
Thanks, BTW for making your reply short and to the point. Based on
your M.O. it might easily have been in the 300 to 400 line range.
Your "(in error)" is also wrong, but that too isn't surprising.

"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
...
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

P&S cameras have small sensors and that affects the image quality. An 8 MP
P&S will not give youthe same quality photo as an 8 MP DSLR. The DSLR
sensor is larger, the P&S sensor will generate more noise. When you view a
4x6 or 5x7 photo, you don't see much difference. Blow up a photo and then
the difference will show. Size matters in a camera sensor.

The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the Sigma
DP1 and DP2. The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S. Otherwise,
if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't find
it in any other P&S.

In article , Pete Stavrakoglou
wrote:

The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the Sigma
DP1 and DP2.

that depends which dslr. they might be comparable to the old digital
rebel or nikon d100, but against a canon 450d or nikon d90 or d5000,
definitely not.

The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S.

that's because they're both slow and quirky.

Otherwise,
if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't find
it in any other P&S.

olympus e-p1, along with other micro-4/3 cameras that are expected to
be released.

Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
[]
The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is
the Sigma DP1 and DP2. The reason is that these cameras have and
APS-C size sensor like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses
in their DSLR, it's pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who
just wants to P&S. Otherwise, if you are interested in the image
quality that a DSLR has, you won't find it in any other P&S.

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

David

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Pete Stavrakoglou
wrote:

The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the
Sigma
DP1 and DP2.

that depends which dslr. they might be comparable to the old digital
rebel or nikon d100, but against a canon 450d or nikon d90 or d5000,
definitely not.

I disagree. The camera can hold it's own in imqage quality with quite a few
current DSLRs.

The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S.

that's because they're both slow and quirky.

Yes they are but they aren't for the "average" person who wants a P&S, they
are for more serious shooters who want image quality above speed and
convenience.

Otherwise,
if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't
find
it in any other P&S.

olympus e-p1, along with other micro-4/3 cameras that are expected to
be released.

m4/3 aren't P&S cameras. The Oly looks to be larger than the DP1 and DP2
but it (Oly) does have interchangable lenses unlike the DPs.

In article , Pete Stavrakoglou
wrote:

The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the
Sigma
DP1 and DP2.

that depends which dslr. they might be comparable to the old digital
rebel or nikon d100, but against a canon 450d or nikon d90 or d5000,
definitely not.

I disagree. The camera can hold it's own in imqage quality with quite a few
current DSLRs.

such as which ones? 'hold its own' doesn't mean much. how does it
compare and where are the comparison photos? if all you print are
8x10s it's not likely anyone is going to notice a difference no matter
which camera is used (including the better p&s cameras).

current dslrs are 12-15 megapixels and that completely negates any
advantage a 4.7 megapixel foveon might have. in fact, in dpreview's
dp1 review they said it didn't come close to a 10 megapixel nikon d60.
this does not bode well for the forthcoming sd-15, by the way.

what i've seen from the dp1/2 are generally better than tiny sensor
digicams, but often have blown highlights, red dot flare (strange) and
the latest oddity is red rings on blown highlights (truly bizarre).

red dots:
http://brittonx.smugmug.com/photos/295447995_5t6aU-L.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2466896214_6e971d6f91_b.jpg

red rings:
http://fiveprime.org/blackmagic.cgi?id=3624595756
full image:
http://fiveprime.org/blackmagic.cgi?id=3623978153

The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S.

that's because they're both slow and quirky.

Yes they are but they aren't for the "average" person who wants a P&S, they
are for more serious shooters who want image quality above speed and
convenience.

more serious shooters don't bother with quirky products. they don't
need the hassles.

foveon based cameras are for foveon fans and people put up with the
problems just to get the sensor. if the sigma dp1/2 had a large bayer
sensor in it, nobody would buy it.

up until now, the dp1 was the only large sensor compact digicam but
those days are over. micro 4/3 looks like it will easily surpass it,
both in image quality and in ergonomics. if m4/3 gains any traction,
nikon and canon will move into that space and olympus will have a tough
time competing, let alone sigma.

Otherwise,
if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't
find
it in any other P&S.

olympus e-p1, along with other micro-4/3 cameras that are expected to
be released.

m4/3 aren't P&S cameras.

what would you call this:

http://43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2aaecd1.jpg

The Oly looks to be larger than the DP1 and DP2
but it (Oly) does have interchangable lenses unlike the DPs.

it's actually about the same size as a dp1, if not slightly smaller,
plus as you say it has interchangeable lenses rather than a single
fixed focus lens so there's no need to buy multiple cameras if you want
something other than either 28mm or 41mm.

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/orwell_photos/comparison.jpg