Regular digital or digitial SLR?

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

On 2004-12-31, 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.

Expectations too high, or sloppy technique, or possibly a lemon camera.

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.

What kind of film camera would you buy? Point and shoot, or SLR? Same
for digital.

Big difference between SLR and non-SLR cameras is the shutter lag. Some
of the problems I've seen and heard of have to do with shutter response.
Press the button, and if the shutter doesn't fire when expected, it
might fire when the camera's already moving again afterward.

I got a Canon G2 a few years ago with the idea I'd use it for a lot of
shooting. Shutter lag killed that idea! What it does do is great
product shots for the web, and that's all it does now. Processing time:
minutes from shot to up on site.

All modern cameras, both film and digital, have bangshooter mode for the
technophobic. Great for the wife.

You decide whether or not you want to work for the quality you'd like,
and choose your gear accordingly. If not, get a point and shoot and
don't worry about the quality. I'll probably be good enough in any
case. OTOH, if you want to step up to taking responsibility for quality
shots, get a Canon DReb or the like, a decent zoom lens, and learn how
to use your gear properly. Never know, you might really like
photography, as opposed to snapshooting.

Will D.

In article HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51, says...
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.

Sounds like you'd be happy with a higher-end, regular digicam, perhaps with
some manual options to play around with. Check out Canon A95, Olympus C-770
(if you want a big zoom) or a C-60.

--
Feel the Sound - www.audiofil.net
d.B.

"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

Jeff, you pays your money!!!!

Go for the DSLR, far more user friendly in the long run & you will wonder
why you ever stuck with a crappy point & shoot. If you want sharpness & high
quality life like images then a good quality 5m pixel + camera is for you.
Stay clear of the Olympus range (I've had 2 x E10's & 1 x E20) these all
started to show serious noise after 1 year!!! Go for a Canon 10D or 20D if
you can stretch that far.

I thought about this and rather than spend the extra $500 for a DSLR I
purchased an Oly 5060. One deciding factor was that I have telephoto and
wide-angle adapters(used with my trusty 2020z) that are very small and
give me enormous reach. Yes, the camera is a bit slower than a DSLR and
there are times when I wish I could open the lens up a bit more and get
a quicker start, but it produces dramatically good photographs, with its
lenses and a spare battery can be put in a very small case, and has more
features than I will ever need. This is not to say that I won't get a
DSLR but I find that for my semi-professional work I have a lot of
camera and when I travel I have plenty of room in a conventional bag for
a small point and shoot, MP3 player and other tools and goodies.

I have some fine K mount lenses and when a Pentax DSLR kills dust and
uses CF cards, or there is an adapter for my lenses so I can use them
with an Oly DSLR I may taken the plunge -- when the price point gets
below $700.

Finally, though cameras in the 5060 class are 'point and shoots' or
'prosumer' they have an enormous number of overrides and manual controls
to satisfy just about every need you run across, particularly if what
you want to do is a lot of domestic photography. From your list I would
go with the G6. I doubt very much that in terms of basic photo quality
you will lose much of anything.

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 rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:

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.

I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

nosredna wrote:
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.

It is amazing how many people I see using a digital camera held out in
front of them. I can't imagine how they can hold it steady. I need the
stabilization of that ten pounds of ugly fat (my head) to damp out minor
motions.

lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


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.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

If you will compare the specs on some of the latest model P&S cameras in
the $400-$500 range, you will find them much closer to the DSLRs of only
last year. This should be more than adequate for 90% of users. I am
quite impressed by the performance of my Kodak DX6440 (which is last
year's model), and newer ones are even more advanced, with faster focus,
faster processors, and more pixels. The quality of newer P&S cameras is
amazing, and is a moving target as well.