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

"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.


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

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.

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

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

Also look at the Canon A85 and A95 if P&S is really your thing. I think if
you have to ask the question then a top line camera will just be a waste of
money.

"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 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)

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

In article HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_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.

In article HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_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.