Buying a camera.

edited January 2008 in Chit chat
Any photography enthusiasts in here*? I was planning to finally make the graduation from hobby photography (ie my n73) to amateur photography (ie SLR-like) 'cos it's something I always wanted to do.

I've been hunting around for a good SLR-like (aka ultrazooom) cameras and was wondering if anyone can recommend a decent one that's <$400-450 in price. I've actually identified the Canon Powershot S5 IS and the Sony DSC H7 as 2 models that match what I'm looking for. Can anyone who knows better comment on them or suggest other options?



*Yes I could have gone to a photography site but I figured WoSF is as good a place as any for answers to life, universe and everything!
Post edited by Arjun on

Comments

  • edited January 2008
    I've played around with both of the ones you mention and the Canon one is what I'd go with if I had the money. Can't really go into tecnical detail but just handling both for about 15 mins each was enough for me to make up my mind.
  • edited January 2008
    Just need to clarify something there - what you're looking at are "bridge" cameras. They are essentially the same internals as a compact cameras that add some SLR type manual functions to them. They are not true SLR cameras.

    If I was looking at moving on from a compact to an SLR, that exactly what I would do, and not go with a bridge camera. You can soo much control with an SLR, and the expansion options are great (additional lens, flashguns, filters etc...).

    I personally own the Nikon D40 SLR camera. It's a consumer entry level one that has pretty much all the bells and whistles of the prosumer ones but with some limitations (that can be gotten around if you know what you are doing). I highly recommend it!
  • edited January 2008
    Thx for the input guys!

    SG> Yep, the "bridge" camera is what I'm looking for as I don't think I'll be fiddling around with lenses or accessories too much. Basically, I'd like the ability to take decent photos without too many hassles. I checked out the Nikon D40 though and it seems to be a good camera indeed. A little beyond my budget though (Rs. 24k here which works out to ~$600).

    ZnorXman> I've heard the same opinion regarding the Canon from other folks as well so it does look like this will be the one I'll go for. But I've just stumbled across the Panasonic FZ8 and the FZ50, both of which appear to give the S5 IS a run for its money! Decisions. Decisions!
  • edited January 2008
    I have a Canon 350D that's pretty good. I know a few people with the 400D and also the Nikon D80 who rave about them.
  • edited January 2008
    Token thickie here: What is an SLR camera? I have a digital camera (Canon A560) which I think is great, at least for my purposes (point and click, I don't bother tinkering with the ISO or other settings), and I know that professional photographers tend to look down their noses at digital cameras, but why? Digital images look fine to me, although admittedly I know nothing of the deeper aspects of photography.

    Anyway, even if digital cameras do give inferior results to SLR or non-digital cameras, then I do think that the convenience and speed that digital cameras bring to the non-expert user more than compensates for any difference in end quality - the pictures my not exactly expensive (just less than a ton, including a 2GB SD card) camera comes up with are fine both on screen and printed out.

    Still, I take it that for someone who treats it like the art and science it can be, photography really needs considered decisions and maybe digital camers don't offer the flexability of options that a good photographer needs. Or is it that by their nature, digital cameras can't produce the highest quality that non-digital cameras produce? Maybe the CCD sensors just can't match the accuracy or the range of a chemical based film?
  • edited January 2008
    I think it's harsh to say that pro camera users "look down" on compact users. You will find that most of us have a compact too and find it extremely handy for times when an SLR simply is overkill.
    SLR stands for "Single Lens Reflex", where a physical mirror (that allows you to look through the lens) lifts up and allows the picture from the lens to pass to the "film", and the difference between them is the following:

    True WYSIWYG. Where some cameras (like the bridge) have an eyepiece that shows what you see truly (via a tiny LCD), with an SLR, you see via a mirror system that looks through the lens with no LCD display. Compact cameras either have no eyepiece, or if they do, it is offset to the lens, so you don't have a true view of what you're shooting.

    Interchangable lenses - if the lens is compatible, you can shove it on there. huge zoom lens, fish eye lenses, macro lens, you name it; if it's made for your camera, you can shove it on - and then maybe another one on top of that too :D

    Filters - Especially the circular polarizing filter. Programs like Photoshop can certainly mimick the effects of many filters, but it cannot do many others the Cir-pol filter removes glare and reflection from water and glass, and adds deeper colours to things like sky. I've yet to see photoshop do the same job just as well.

    Flashguns - the compact (and bridge) cameras' flashes are designed for a distance of no further than about 5 metres, and suffer the "direct lighting" flaw, where people can look washed out with harsh shadows directly behind them, and the chance of dreaded red-eye. Flashguns not only increase the range of possible shooting to 20m plus (my most basic one goes that far), but allows you to do bounce lighting. That's where you point the flash upwards towards the ceiling, and it "bounces" off back down to your subject, giving soft natural shadows and better contrast of colours (this works best when the ceiling is no higher than about 2m higher than you). The alternative is the ceiling is higher, or are in a studio, is to connect your SLR camera to a pro-lighting rig (you know the ones, the lights with the umbrellas). That is the same principle, but on a much larger scale.

    Shutter/Aperture/ISO control - total control on how fast/slow the camera is, and how sensitive the "film" is to light. Ask a pro to take a sunset picture with a compact/bridge and then the same shot with an SLR and see the difference.

    Depth of field - when doing portraits or shooting a subject, the depth of field of the image adds to the image, making sure only the items you want in focus is. With most compacts, you can't do that to the same level (a "cheat" would be to use the macro function designed to shoot closeup for a portrait, but you're limited to a very restrictive distance).

    Continuous shooting - most compact/bridge cameras have this, but is either restricted to 2-3 shots or only as fast as it can save the image/charge the flash etc... An SLR with a flashgun (they run on their own power, not the cameras) can shoot almost constantly at an average 2-3fps (sometimes higher) until either the memory card fills up, the flashgun overheats or the memory buffer within the camera fills up (rare). Obviously certain modes will prevent this, but that would be taken into consideration.

    There are lots of other things too, but I won't go into too much detail! Hope that helps explain the difference.
  • edited January 2008
    If I was to get a bridge camera, I would only look at the Panasonic range.

    Something like this:

    www.panasonic.co.uk/high-zoom/dmc-fz18eb-k/index.htm

    If you can find this one in your range, or at least a bridge my Panasonic, get it! They are simply superb quality, especially since since they use Leica lenses (considered the best in the world).
  • edited January 2008
    ewgf wrote: »
    Token thickie here: What is an SLR camera? I have a digital camera (Canon A560) which I think is great, at least for my purposes (point and click, I don't bother tinkering with the ISO or other settings), and I know that professional photographers tend to look down their noses at digital cameras, but why? Digital images look fine to me, although admittedly I know nothing of the deeper aspects of photography.

    Actually, professional photographers almost all use digital these days, they most certainly do not look their noses down at digital. All the pros I've bumped into recently stopped using 35mm years ago - film is now really just a large format niche for them.

    Of course, professional equipment is just a little bit higher specced and pricier than a point and shoot, or "amateur level" digital SLR. A typical pro's digital SLR will cost upwards of ?3000 (vastly more expensive than the film camera body it replaces, but also when you consider how many rolls of film they would go through, the reduction in processing costs and decrease in turnaround time pays for this very quickly). Once digital cameras got good enough for pro use, the pros dropped film like a hot potato.
    Anyway, even if digital cameras do give inferior results to SLR or non-digital cameras

    There are SLR cameras which are digital. I have one (a Nikon D70)

    For your first question, SLR means Single Lens Reflex. You have behind the lens a mirror that reflects the light through the lens on a ground glass screen. Above this a pentaprism which brings this image into the viewfinder. This means when you look through the viewfinder, you are looking through the lens - so you can see whether the right things are in focus, you don't have parallax problems, and in the case of digital, you have a much better viewfinder than a low res LCD.

    SLR cameras also have removable lenses.

    Digital SLRs also have physically larger sensors - the expensive ones will have full 35mm sensors, but even the less expensive 'amateur' digital SLRs will have a large sensor, something like 20mm. By contrast a typical all in one camera has a CCD about the size of your pinky nail or smaller. Bigger sensors are much less suceptible to noise, and you get fewer other sensor artifacts with the larger sensors - leading to much better image quality.

    These are the major features that distinguish an SLR from a lesser camera; you get a much better viewfinder allowing you to compose the shot better, and you also get to be able to change out the lens so you're not stuck with what came with the camera. You also can use better quality glass. While my Nikon D70 is only 6 megapixels, if I go out doing some arty-farty stuff with it I get a much nicer image than an all-in-one camera with 8 or 10 megapixels, because with the all-in-ones, the lens quality all adds artifacts to the image (which usually results in the extra megapixels not doing anything to help image quality, merely making the lens artifacts more detailed!).

    SLRs tend to also have more operating modes than non-SLRs, for example, with my digital SLR, I can operate it fully manually (manual exposure time, manual aperture, manual focus) so I can take a different kind of photograph than what the camera designer might have thought of. The same distinction goes to film cameras - film SLRs had the same sort of differences to film 'point and shoot' cameras.
  • edited January 2008
    After much delibration I've gone and ordered a Canon Powershot S5 IS. A couple of factors that tilted the decision in its favour were the following :

    1) Favourable reviews:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons5is/
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s5-review/

    2) My need for a functional, hassle-free, good quality camera.

    3) Canon s5 and the FZ18 were the only 2 cameras in my budget (and at the limit at that). The Indian import duties and taxes put the rest (including all the SLR's - the Nikon d40 really tempted me though!) beyond my reach.

    4) I'm still learning the tools of the trade. I figured starting out with the Canon s5 will be a good way to go till I make up my mind as to how far I want to take my photography hobby to.

    5) The FZ18 does have the Lieca lens but according to reviews, is only marginally better than the S5 for it. Ultimately, the price factor for me (FZ18 costs ~$90 more) tipped the scales in favour of the s5.

    6) The other camera that I had in mind sony DSC h9 apparently suffers from image degradation worse than the s5 and the FZ18 and forces the user to use too many proprietary technology (memory card for instance).
Sign In or Register to comment.