NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
hey yall-
im looking to get a new camera (my current one has no lense cover, decides to have diva flip outs every once and a while, and is held together with duct tape) and i wanted to get some good opinions on this.
im looking for something pretty simple, nothing too fancy, nothing too big, and not spensive.
any suggestions?
the one i have now is some cool pix 300 camera or some mess from the year 1800 (aka 2004)
Sounds like you're looking for a point and shoot? It really all depends what you're going to be using it for. Look for something with a high digital and optical zoom (digital zoom attempts to render the pixels and reorder them to make the sharpest image, optical doesn't). The megapixel count is getting to be pretty standard around 4 i think? So, aim higher then that if you want to and can afford to. I got mine with a fast shutter speed (well, fake shutter) so I could shoot breakdancing with a flash under low light conditions and not have much motion blur. Just all depends what you're gonna be using it for.
Detroitrider I don't mean this as a personal attack but almost everything you said is completely incorrect.
If I could get any P&S it would be a Coolpix 6000 which was just released as Nikon's top of the line P&S. If I were looking for a very small, very easy to use P&S I would get a Sony T-700. When I was given unlimited funds by another camera buyer I bought her the predecessor the T-300 the photos look great, the lcd is huge, and it's incredibly compact.
Those in my opinion would be the best which is all I'm good at giving advice on, if you would like to do more research you can go to DPReview.com . Both of the cameras I mentioned are currently on the front page.
I don't have much personal experience with point and shoot camera's, but being a fan of the digital sensor performance on my Canon SLR, I have thought about getting a power shot when I don't need the heavy artillery, but I have not been following recently released cameras in a while.
I agree with Franz that detroitrider, no offense, has no idea what he is talking about, and that dpreview.com is the best place to look when researching camera features and performance.
@franz - please, correct me then? It looks like the average mp is higher then 4 but if they were shooting a CP300 before, that had a 2MP capability. Anything is a good step up from there.
I have no problem with people correcting me, so no, I don't take it as a personal attack. The best camera for someone is rarely the most expensive or newest one on the market. The prices aren't even released on those yet but it's a safe bet they won't be cheap.
Check out the Canon G9, it's a p&s but it kicks ass and costs about 350 on e-bay, Or look for a used Nikon D50................... it's a great dslr ( used ...250-350)
I second that comment about spirals's olympus. I like my panasonic lumix a lot 10mp for $229 but the underwater things is very much how you say... badicool.
• It would be incredibly difficult to go out these days to a camera shop and even find a 4 megapixel camera. The average P&S released today usually has at least 10mp.
• Digital zoom is not a useful feature and should be turned off if you have the choice, all it does is crop in the camera which degrades the image.
• If you are shooting in a dark room with flash you shouldn't need to use a high shutter speed as the speed of the flash, which is an extremely short duration, is what determines the sharpness of the image.
"Look for something with a high digital and optical zoom (digital zoom attempts to render the pixels and reorder them to make the sharpest image, optical doesn't)"
Completely made up information. Digital zoom is basically taking an optical image and rescaling it, and is not much different then taking an image and just making it bigger in photoshop, it will do nothing for sharpness and I generally equate digital zoom with poor quality as it is basically cheating for a lack of optical range. Perspective changes with optical zoom, so the only possible benefit I could see to it is if you want to get in tighter but with a wider perspective angle, but you get the same effect by cropping and rescaling an image in photoshop.
"I got mine with a fast shutter speed (well, fake shutter) so I could shoot breakdancing with a flash under low light conditions and not have much motion blur."
The ability to shoot action in low light without a flash has to do with the interrelationship of shutter speed, aperture, and the size and sensitivity of the digital sensor. It's more complex then just saying I got mine with a fast shutter speed. For more information about exposure there are a plethora of online resources.
I really highly recommend the Canon S2, S3, or S5 (in order from oldest to newest). I have an S2 and have used it for two years. I also have an SLR kit, and because of the bulk and the inability of SLRs to shoot video I almost never bring it. The S5 It has an excellent lens for a compact camera, over 10x image-stabilized zoom. It also shoots really great quality video, which none of the SLR-style cameras will do. They're also really affordable. The entire camera will cost less than a single decent-quality SLR lens. If you get a proper SLR kit you can easily go over $100, while a brand new S5 is $349, and you can fit the S5 in your coat pocket.
Unless you want to be a pro photographer and carry around an extra (minimum) ten pounds of gear, I don't recommend an SLR to shoot midnight rides.
I've used several Canon point & shoots, the latest being the Canon S2 IS, which is kind of an advanced point & shoot; fine picture quality, nice zoom and good video capability.
Then I made the leap to a digital SLR (Canon Rebel XTi) just over a year ago. I got used to the bigger size and weight pretty quickly, but the problem with having an SLR is that it becomes difficult to use anything else. They are just so much better in terms of picture quality (especially in low light), response, and versatility that I rarely use either of my point & shoots any more.
In terms of cost, also keep in mind that most of us that use SLRs have upgraded from the kit lens, which most serious photographers consider almost a "throwaway" lens.
Conclusion: decide what you intend to use your camera for, what your budget is, and how serious you want to be. Read the reviews and make an informed decision. Buy a good brand like Canon, Nikon, Sony or Olympus. For most people, it's probaly not a bad idea to start with a cheaper camera and work your way up. Like most things electronic these days, digital camera technology is advancing at a rapid rate and you can save quite a bit by not buying the latest and fanciest model.
I realize my description of digital plus optical concerns wasn't very clear. Mi mal. Thanks for pointing it out. I understand that optical is always better then digital and just didn't give the most clear description. For a point and shoot, I don't mind using the digital if I have to. Sure, I notice the image quality tends to be pretty sketchy, especially if you don't have a steady hand. But when you're at a concert and don't want to bring a SLR with you, it gets the job done. They're built for convenience, not studio quality shots, just remember that.
As for shooting dancers in a club setting with a point and shoot, you need to have a cranked up film and shutter speed with a flash. The majority of high speed action shots in the dark will need a flash, agreed? That's all I was trying to point out. Not all of them have the ability to get to a high enough ISO or shutter speed to capture this. Some of them do and a person might not need it. That's why I was saying "find out what you need, then buy that".
I take pictures for a living and I could totally get away with a P&S. The reason I bought an SLR was Midnight Ridazz.
For my work I photograph buildings and landscapes in daylight for documentation (not publication). Any camera can do that. With MR we take pictures of people and moving objects at night. That's hard to do for most cameras esp if you don't want to use flash in every picture.
Hey Photogs, what are some examples of the "photographer's point and shoot"; like a point and shoot that offers better than average optic quality and range, and fast focus and shooting. I find the biggest irritation with the point and shoots is the sluggish focus and shutter releases. Someone stole my old Sony so I'm back in the market for something small (Note: I already have a DSLR, Nikon D70s)
I'm looking for a good point and shoot with manual exposure control, decent non flash low light performance and built in time lapse that captures full rez and can go down to 1 second intervals. I'm basically looking to setup a rig for capturing license plate numbers for every car that passes me on the road in addition to being a light alternative to my SLR for touring. Kind of specific demands, but if anyone knows something good I'd love to hear about it.
canon elph. sd1000 it's what I used to capture this... there is a hack available that will enable it to take full res picts. pretty much any of the newer canon digital elphs have time lapse and are hack-able from what me understand..
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
@ spiral
redundant post is redundant