Does my ideal camera exist?

[ftaok]

I see you're leaning towards the G9, so I'm just going to throw something else in to confuse the situation.

Looking at Amazon prices, the G9 is $450. The Nikon D40 is $480. I would think long and hard about this.

The G9 has longer zoom range, but is not as wide. The G9 has higher MP, but that's not always a good thing. The G9 has movie mode, but honestly, movie mode in just about all cameras are terrible and not that useful (no zoom during filming).

The D40 is so much more flexible. There's more room to grow into a dSLR. And no one else has mentioned this, but you'd probably learn more with a proper dSLR than with a P&S (even a hi-end P&S like the G9). To start, put the D40 in Full Auto mode and shoot away. Study the information on the photos that turn out well and match those settings in the "manual" modes (I guess you could do the same with the G9).

When you have more money to spend, buy some other lenses. You won't have to learn a whole new camera.

As for shooting video, that's best done with a camcorder. Now, I know that camcorders can be a hassle, but a nice miniDV camcorder can be had new for around $300. Also, there are some neat "HD" camcorders that record onto SD cards. Look up Aiptek .. they sell them in Circuit City and other places. Not sure which one is the good one. I saw a clip posted (I think in the Video forum) and it wasn't bad. They go for about $130 or so.

You can compare the video from the Aiptek (if you can find it) vs. the G9 and other digicams. http://www.dcresource.com has downloadable video clips included in their reviews.

Good Luck

ft

 

[Smileyguy]

Ha, that does confuse the situation, but in a good way, because I want to take my time with this and make the right choice.

Okay, let's say I'm willing to sacrifice having a movie function, and get a DSLR. My concern about a low end DSLR such as the D40 is that once I've got to grips with it, I'll want to upgrade to a new camera anyway in a couple of years.

What's the general consensus on the D40 anyway? I remember considering it before, but some people (on these forums, I think) suggested I would be better off getting the next model up, or perhaps an older version of a higher model. Something about the D40 being limited, I think, in the lenses it could take.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[ftaok]

Decisions, decisions...

There's plenty of discussions about the D40 and the other entry-level dSLRs. Lots of opinions (good and bad).

The limitation that you're referring to is that the D40 does not have an in-body Auto Focus motor, so you must use lenses that have the AF motor if you aren't inclinded to manually focus. These lenses are designated as AF-S lenses.

The kit lens that comes with the D40 is an AF-S 18-55mm (27-83mm 35mm equivalent) lens. It doesn't have image stabilization (Nikon uses the term VR). Unfortunately, you cannot get the D40 as "body-only" through regular retailers (i.e. Amazon, BestBuy, Sears, etc) and pick the lens that you want, say the 18-55 VR lens. A camera store may be about to put something together, but I really don't know.

In a few years, you can get a new body, like the D80 (or it's replacement) and keep the lenses. Use the D40 as a back-up. The thing to remember is that once you choose the dSLR, you're kinda locked into that system, unless you enjoy eBaying stuff, since the manufacturers aren't compatible with each other.

I would suggest going to a Best Buy and playing around with all of the cameras (dSLRs and P&S). See what you like best. Maybe they can offer a good deal, but just prepare yourself with information on internet pricing to see what a good deal really is.

That said, I ended up with a Canon XTi, even though I initially set out to get the D40. Just felt better in my hands (which is opposite the typical reaction ... at least what I've read). I had considered a high-end P&S vs. dSLR, just like you and decided that the dSLR was a better choice for me. I've not regretted it at all.

Also keep in mind that at your current budget (gleemed from your acceptance of the $450 G9), there are other dSLRs that can be had. Olympus and Pentax also have dSLRs in this range. Canon's Rebel XT can be found near this range as well. There are lots of options ... and this probably will make it harder for you to make a decision ... sorry.

ft

 

[Smileyguy]

Thanks for the input.

One reason I'm leaning towards a compact as my 'starter' camera is that, if I do decide to upgrade to a DSLR I'll still want to have a family P&S camera that is easy to carry and can take basic movie clips and is good for basic stuff.

I don't know how much heavier the Nikon D40 is than a Powershot G9, but I imagine there's a difference and that the D40 is something you'd mostly bring on dedicated photography outings. I know the G9 isn't small, but I had a chunky powershot before and still didn't mind taking it on trips to the beach etc..

 

[ftaok]

Thanks for the input.

One reason I'm leaning towards a compact as my 'starter' camera is that, if I do decide to upgrade to a DSLR I'll still want to have a family P&S camera that is easy to carry and can take basic movie clips and is good for basic stuff.

I don't know how much heavier the Nikon D40 is than a Powershot G9, but I imagine there's a difference and that the D40 is something you'd mostly bring on dedicated photography outings. I know the G9 isn't small, but I had a chunky powershot before and still didn't mind taking it on trips to the beach etc..

I totally hear you on that. After all, even the greatest camera in the world can't take great pictures if you leave it at home.

The G9 isn't that small, but it's certainly easier to take with you that any dSLR. Here's a REVIEWfor the G9. It's much smaller than the Nikon D40, but it's still not what I would consider small.

Unfortunately, there aren't many compact P&S that have long zooms and full manual control. The Panasonic TZ5 that I mentioned earlier has almost everything, but it doesn't have the manual controls. The G9 doesn't have the tinyness. It's just a matter of picking the features that you can live without and trying to stay in your budget.

I don't think you'll be unhappy with any of the recommended cameras.

ft

 

[OreoCookie]

If you really want to learn how to take pictures, there is no substitute for a (d)slr, unless you get a Leica M-type rangefinder camera. Ricoh makes one, as does Sigma. Sigma's DP-1 (I think that's the name of the model) even includes the APS-C-sized Foveon chip.

 

[Digital Skunk]

The D40 isn't really limited in the lenses it can take, it's more like those that see a limitation in the body don't know how to compensate/adapt to the camera body.

The D40 may not be able to AF with lenses that don't have the motor drive (AF-S) but with the amount of lenses that are out there from other vendors, and there is always the photog's ability to adapt and be creative, which is a feature being lost in many current photographer's skills.

If you do want to forgo the movie mode, then the D40 or one of the many Rebels is your best bet. Keep in mind though, that you aren't stuck with a brand once your purchase their cheapest body and two or three lenses. If you go Canon or Nikon and want to switch once you feel experienced enough to move up to a semi-pro or pro body, you can always go for another brand if they have the body/feature/lens/accessory/ that you want.... and if you freelance for a newspaper, then see about looking into their pool of gear. I bought a D200 for myself and a few other bodies and lenses, but for the past two years I have been digging into the staff pool, and can grab a 400mm f2.8 when I need it.

 

[nutmac]

Many pros and enthusiasts use Canon PowerShot G9 as a carry-on camera. While it isn't super tiny like ultra compacts, it is small enough to be carried almost anywhere. It may not be "cheap", especially when compared to Nikon D40, but it is more portable with features Nikon counterpart does not have (e.g., video mode, longer focal length with image stabilizer vs. D40's kit lens).

If you really want to learn how to take pictures, there is no substitute for a (d)slr, unless you get a Leica M-type rangefinder camera. Ricoh makes one, as does Sigma. Sigma's DP-1 (I think that's the name of the model) even includes the APS-C-sized Foveon chip.

Most of these high-end rangefinders come with a fixed focal length lens (requires adapter for different focal length). Sigma's DP-1, for instance, cost more than average entry-level SLR while providing only 28mm focal length.

 

[cube]

Given that you say you don't care about noise, I second the suggestion that you look at the Panasonic TZ5.

 

[ChrisA]

That's really useful.

I realise that an SLR would be ideal for taking the kind of pictures I want, but here's my reasoning: If I do want to get into wildlife/nature/landscape photography in a 'serious amateur' way, getting the right lenses and kit will cost a lot, which I can't afford right now (I did say I wasn't setting a strict budget, but that was in reference to compacts, really I don't want to go above $700 in total for all gear).

If the goal is to learn about photography the best camera is a fully mechanical, film based SLR loaded with black and white film You can buy a quality system like that for $100. The image quality will be better than any digital SLR. Film still wins when it comes to IQ. Yes you'd have to pay for film but the cost of film is lots less than the difference between a $100 camera and a mid-range DSLR. I used to buy B&W film in 100 ft bulk rolls.

But with a $700 budget you can go with a Digital SLR. All of the entry level SLRs are below that price. A good Nikon D50 can be bought for $425

 

[147798]

Hi to all you good people,

I've started a few threads on here before about buying a camera, but I'm finally getting around to actually doing it now.

My first decision was to go for compact or SLR - I've opted for compact because while I'm keen on making photography a serious hobby, I don't know much and can save money, capture video and still learn a lot with the right digital compact

Ideally, I'd like something that would fit the following criteria (I'VE UPDATED THIS FOLLOWING SOME HELPFUL REPLIES):

1) Taking outdoor/landscape/nature/simple wildlife pics. This is my main photography interest.
2) Occasional work related photos. I work as a journalist and write a lot about architecture, so might need to take simple shots of buildings, people etc that can be printed in a magazine or newspaper (not National Geographic standard, of course).
3) Learning how to take good pictures and how to use a camera, and about cameras. LEARNING PHOTOGRAPHY IS MY MAIN REQUIREMENT - I don't mind buying a proper SLR in a year or two, but I want to have learned a lot when I get it.
4) Taking home/family/friends movie clips.
5) The smaller the better.

I think this last point is where it gets tricky. Does a digital camera exist that has all of the above functions but can still fit in my pocket? If it doesn't, I'm just going to have too accept a big size.

Any advice would be really appreciated. I'm not limiting myself to a particular budget - I'm willing to spend if it's worth it.

If your goal is to take some pictures, there are LOTS of pocket-able options, but if your goal is to really learn photography (exposure, subject, framing, color, depth of field, etc.) then I'd recommend you find some place to take some lessons and/or join a photography club. Absolutely the knowledge of the elements of photography are best learned on a fully manual film SLR, but film takes so long to process and see the results of your work. Still, if you join a club and start with a film SLR, you will learn the most. At the least, if you buy a digital SLR and join a club, you will still learn a lot. If you are OK with that approach, then I'd say buy a used SLR or DSLR and don't spend a lot to start. You don't even know if you'll like it yet, so don't sink a ton of money into it. Any film SLR at this point can be bought very cheaply used. You could also get an older Canon XT or Nikon at a reasonable price if you look around.

You can buy-up later, if you find you enjoy it.

I don't think you need to learn all about photography to take reasonable snapshots, but if you want to learn photography, you won't do it from behind a point-and-shoot.

One note of warning: you can spend hours, days and weeks READING about photographic equipment and think you are learning something -- buy you really aren't. It's like learning about race car engines and thinking you have driven the NASCAR circuit. Of course, you haven't. You only know about combustion and gears, not how to feel a turn or properly downshift. You have to get out there and shoot, and if you are just beginning, then take a class with used equipment. That's the best way to see if this is something you'll end up sticking with. You can self-teach yourself this stuff, but it's very helpful to have others explain to you why your pictures turned out the way they did, so get involved with something where others can give you input on your form, style, and yes, your use and knowledge of the tools.

 

[eddx]

Best Compact = Canon G9

Best Budget DSLR = Nikon D80 with 18-200mm VR lens


You want a compact, the Canon G9 will do everything you want, I now dozens of people who use them for many different aspects of photography and have never heard any complaints, I even know someone who moved from a DSLR to the G9 which is saying something!

 

[nutmac]

Best Budget DSLR = Nikon D80 with 18-200mm VR lens

At around $1400-1500, I am not sure if that combo classifies as "budget". And not everyone needs all-in-one 18-200mm lens (27-300mm at 35mm equivalent). Some will want faster max aperture at long telephoto length, some lower distortion at wide angle, and some sharper, optimal performance fixed focal length lens. The beauty of SLR.

 

[OreoCookie]

Many pros and enthusiasts use Canon PowerShot G9 as a carry-on camera. While it isn't super tiny like ultra compacts, it is small enough to be carried almost anywhere. It may not be "cheap", especially when compared to Nikon D40, but it is more portable with features Nikon counterpart does not have (e.g., video mode, longer focal length with image stabilizer vs. D40's kit lens).

Yes, I sometimes shoot with P&S, too. But if you want to learn about photography, they don't cut it. I've had to live on a P&S for six months (it was in 2003 when dslrs were Expensive with a capital E). You are not even close. And I was using an equivalent of what was the G-series at that time (Olympus C-4040).

Once you know how to take pictures, you can use `any' camera, but you cannot learn how to take pictures with them.