Selecting a new camera

Well, I'm really surprised that you did your excellent photos with such a "small" camera!

Chapeau!!!

I'm not the person to give any advice here - I just enjoy photographing.

Personally, I've got a ("semi-professional") digital SLR-camera (Nikon D200), since I've phtographed with SLR's only during the last decades (and have got half a dozen lenses, which I share with both Nikons :wink: ).

Many pixels doesn't necessarily mean better photos, as you certainly know. But for printing, it really should be 5 to 6 millions, and of course an optical zoom of at least 3 times, I think.

More pixels means finer resolution. This means that you can create bigger prints without graininess, or crop a picture and retain the resolution.

Make sure that you also save the picture at the highest resolution/lowest compression. Lots of megapixels don't do you any good if you then lose the data when the image is compressed.





Digital zoom means that the camera selects a portion of the image, and blows it up. This is the same as using fewer pixels.

Optical zoom means that you use all of the pixels for taking the photo, which is why optical zoom is prefered over digital zoom.





Other features, such as image stabalization, ability to manually select aperature, exposure, shutter speed, flash timing, etc. can also be desirable, based on your expertise.





T took a digital photography class through UT informal classes and came away with some really good information.

It was not until I started looking for a second camera , just like the one I have, that I realized I could find more mega pixels in one camera.

After doing a little more research, I learned that my camera is one of the lowest mega pixel cameras out there.

It is small... and for 2 years I was blissfully ignorant..
But I have learned how to use this camera to get anything I want.. except pictures that are not grainy

Well, that is not entirely true..

example
This one

was taken, same light, same size.. almost the same distance away... as this one


But the quality of the picture of the little girl is what I am getting MORE often then anything else and it is frustrating.

Photo shop helps, but it doesnt solve everything.

Im thinking, this problem will be solved with higher mega pixels?

Or.. it could just me my picture taking abilities.. ?

Or, it could be solved by an optical focus? The way DD describes it, Im wasting my time on anything else.
And since I have seen pictures taken with an optical lense, I would agree..

I noticed ACC offers some as well.
I was thinking, this next semister if I can, getting into an ACC class, then in the spring, going to UT

Hi

I've just replaced my 3mpx camera with a 9 - and I LOVE it!

I had a Fuji before and was happy with it - they come a lot cheaper than the Nikons and Canons (which I couldn't afford). I bought another Fuji on special offer Fuji Finepix s9500 - it does lots more than the blurb on the website says.

It has most of the features of an SLR - manual control, focussing etc as well as several automatic modes.

What I specially love is the ability to focus as close as 1cm (about half an inch!) in macro and it has a 28-300mm zoom - so lots of creative possibilities without having to buy extra lenses.

I'd love a DSLR but know I can't justify the money for one ... and this brings me creatively closer.

Good luck with the photography

Imin the same boat. so Im gonna listen in a bit. I cant offer anything except I had 2 Nikon coolpix and busted them both in drill-rig situations. I need a sturdy camera .

I take it you liked the Nikon?


The more I look at the options of the Nikons, the more I like them.. but..

Im also addicted to sony.. only for name though..

A year or two ago I bought a very slightly used, as in package opened and someone didn't want to read the directions... Canon Power Shot G3, at 4.0 megapixels. I got it from a2k's amazon link on the home page. This coincided with packing my voluminous worldly goods and moving and unpacking them again, and I've just put it aside. The good news is it was 1/2 or less price; the bad news is, it's obsolete now, and I still haven't read the book either. What I remember is good about it is that is saves in RAW, or some such acronym. Nothin' in my short time of play with it that seemed to be wrong with the camera. Consider used...

I have a Canon Power Shot A620, 7.1 mega pixel. We have been very happy with it, but it's not an SLR style.

I actually feel bad for my 35's....I have neglected them both since we got the Canon last fall. Mine are older SLR's, Sears sold them...KS Super II, and a KSX Super.

my suggestion :
go to the local library and borrow a few copies of any photography they have on hand - should help greatly in making your choice .

see also this website :
...PHOTOGRAPHY MAGAZINES...

...DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR DUMMIES.. should also be handy book in selecting a camera .

btw i read earlier this week in a photo mag that going beyond 5 MP is not going to help much in getting better/less grainy pictures .
hbg

I'm serious about used and slightly under the latest whoo ha...
my camera was $319 when marketed around 600. plus. Though who knows about that number.

Best of course to buy the best new, but we can't or won't all do that.

I only plan on buying used /refurbished.
My budget doesnt allow other wise, and as you said, I can get a great camera for 1/2 price or less.

I would LOVE walters camera.. but.. even used... I would have to sell a limb to afford it..

Most of my major appliances , expencive toys, and other non-necessary items are all refurbished/used/traded for .. etc. No reason to buy at full price when Amazon and or craigslist is out there.



Thanks for those links Hmb.
While I drink my coffee.. I will browse through those.
I never thought to go to the library.. I could also check out photography magazines, review books..

Thanks ! that is a great idea.



That is interesting. I guess it makes a bit of sense..
So what DOES having a large pix camera do ?

My older sister has been into photography for years. She still uses her Nikon old fashioned, bulky film camera with a case full of various lenses.

Are professional photographers using digital primarily now? Does anyone think that takes away from the "talent" and skill of getting the perfect shot?

Meanwhile, listening. Daughter has photography interest and I'm trying to decide if she needs something better than the Powershot we initially got her.

I dont know anyone who uses 35mm / or film .

Not that who I know means anything, I just dont hear of people using film.

espically when you have programs like photoshop to help make a shot perfect when it isnt..

I would be scared of using film.
I know how to catch the perfect pose/ expression/ feeling etc...

but I dont know alot about lighting, exposure, position..etc.

I think film relies more on that then anything else.

I still think it's best to start with a traditional film camera if you're interested in 'serious' photography. The understanding you gain about lighting, distances, balance, exposure helps when you then move to digital.

I think digital's great as a single tool if you're just going to be doing snapshots, or if you already have a good base understanding the technical side of photography.

Most of the pros I see around/work with use digital and film - depends on the situation and what their overall goal is.

I agree, ehBeth.

You really can't understand photgraphy (and that's something needed when you'r doing this hobby "seriously") without knowing a bit more than simple basics. And such can only be learnt by using a traditional film in a traditional camery.

(I'm photographing with both my F80 and D200 - depending on the situation AND the purpose [huge posters just look better when done with an analogue camara/film].)

But then, I'm sure, with a talent such as shewolf has got it, ... any camera will do :wink:

my first and only dig camera is a sony-cybershot DSC-L1 with zeiss vario-tessar lens , 4.1 MP , 3 x optical zoom and digital zoom (6 x ?) .
bought new a year ago for canadian $ 199 with all kinds of stuff thrown in for free . quite small : 4 x 1 1/2 x 3/4 and light , fits easily into shirt pocket . it's now been replaced by a new model .
the adjustments : flash , close-ups etc. etc. are just about endless - so i usually use the basic/automatic set-up .
it does NOT have anti-shake , so you need a stedy hand or you can use a tripod .
the pix i posted from our south-america cruise were the pictures i took ; i think they are pretty good for an amateur photographer . i posted them earlier on a2k .
hbg

...SONY CAMERA WEBSITE...

So, I am guessing, it is worth my time to take a class about using a film camera as well?

I want to use digital when I have my studio set up.

And what I am going to go for is a small studio - well lit- and just full of toys, small paintings on the walls, some drop down back grounds.., fluffy furniture.. etc

I want.. a play room for kids, where I photograph them while they find new things, play with other kids and just have fun.

That is when I take my best pictures, and that is the most comfortable environment for kids.

I dont know that i will use film.. BUT- I wont discount it either.

B ut, since using film requires that you know all of the basics on lighting/exposure etc.. then I think i can agree, and see your point on taking that class.


So, should I start with a basic?
What kind of class should I look for?

And.. should I invest in a film camera as well?

( sorry for all the type-os and skips in letters. I am wearing my braces today because my fingers are going numb again )


This looks like a good beginers class for digital photography
http://www.austincc.edu/photo/digital.htm

what should I look for in a class ?
Just one that says basic photography? Or , given what I want to do, should I seek out a more specialized course?