Looking for a Good Digital Camera

I would like to buy a good digital camera. Mine is an older 2MP and film and processing are getting expensive to practice with. I am in a one-income family right now so it has to be very affordable unless other arrangements can be made. Thanks a bunch!

A lot depends on how you plan on using it and what your budget will allow.

One of my favourite sites is www.dpreview.com. He lists cameras by manufacturer and gives indepth reviews. Read his intro then conclusions first. The you can go back and see all the tech data.

From this photographer's view point an optical zoom is very important, much more than digital zoom. You can "digital zoom" in photoshop with better results most of the time.

Give us a little more info. You never know what we'll come up with.

Lucian hit the nail on the head. Optical zoom is good. Digital zoom is not.

Digital zoom basically crops the image and resizes with interpolated pixel information. This almost always blurs the image.

Oh wow that is really good to know thank you! What I really want is a Canon Rebel but there is just no way I can get one of those. Like I have said before I'm not much of a landscape person. I like taking portrait pictures more than anything. I have my Canon film camera but I worry about blinking and funny faces and things like that. You don't know it until its too late. I just want something affordable that will do good protraits inside and outside. There are so many different kinds out there I have NO idea.

The E20 is an excellent camera for portrait work. I use it a lot in that way. Another advantage to the E20 is the non-interchangeable optical zoom lens (35-200mm equivalent in a 35mm SLR). This is a big factor here in west TX, don't worry about dust on the CCD.

When they first came out they were $2400. www.bhphotovideo.com in NYC is now selling them at $899. With the rash of 8MP's that have come out the 5MP cameras are coming down in price. And most of the reviews I've read say that the color and sharpness of the 5/6MP is better. Too much artifacting in the 8MPs.

The write times to the CF or SM card (it'll take both) are slower than what I would like (Nikon D1X is fast) but for portrait work the write times are fine. And you can shoot a burst of 4 before the camera stops to write so you still get a pretty good deal in that respect. If you don't have big bucks this is a pretty good way to go.

Thanks I will look into that.

Well, if you want to keep it cheap, a 5mp digicam is a good route. both the Nikon 5700 and the Sony 717 take good portraits. I have a friend who does model photography with a 5700 (or atleast he was till it got stolen. he's upgrading as we speak) his site is HERE (http://www.bouska.net) if you want to see what a camera like that can do. Definately read up on review sites. Your best shot at getting the right camera is if you figure it out for yourself rather than having someone tell you.

Side note: The point about the 8mp cameras that Lucian made isn't true. I thought so when they first came out as well, untill I looked further into it. The 8700 and 828 have more problems with artifacts than the rest of the 8mp lot (and they were the first ones out, so alot of people heard about it) but none of the 8mp cameras have anymore noise than the rest of the non-dSLR cameras in general. Thats a missconception. Any digital camera will have noise at higher ISO's, though non-dSLR cameras have quite a bit more when you go above say 200 ISO. It's the same across the board. Don't let that scare you off though, in good lighting conditions there is no need to shoot at an ISO above 100 anyway. gl

Thanks Thrill00.

Well, I don't want to start a spitting contest, but Lucian and Thrill00 are both right. All the 8MP digitals take nice pictures at ISO 100 and below. Noise becomes unacceptable by ISO 400, and by ISO 200 on a couple of models.

There is a very good reason for this. The pixels on the CCD's of these 8MP cameras are as small as 2.7 microns. Compare that to the Nikon D70, which has 7.8 micron pixels on it's CCD.

The CCD's on these cameras are a good bit smaller than the CCD of DSLR's, so to put more pixels in that smaller space, the pixels must be smaller and the boundaries between pixels must be thinner, and therefore less opaque. Light can spill in from an angle, causing noise, color fringing and soft edges, especially at wide lens angles.

So, if most of your shots can be made at ISO 50-100, and you need an 8MP camera, any of the current crop of 8MP digicams will probably make you happy. If you can "make do" with 5-6MP, then I think you'll be happier with image quality, expecially if you want to use higher ISO settings.

I think 5-6 should be good. I'm sure I will use it for other things besides strictly portraits but that is my mail objective right now.

*tries this for a 2nd time, and hopefully this time mozilla wont all of a sudden close itself and try to submit an error message*

What I really want is a Canon Rebel but there is just no way I can get one of those.

I also want the Canon 300d *aka digital rebel*, but the price is steep for me right now, not to mention im getting married in a year so im tryign to save what I can.

In Canadian prices, itll cost something like this for me to get the camera:
Canon 300D - $1500
200 or 300mm lense - $300-$400
UV filter - $10
Polerizer filter - $50
Battery pack $100 or so *will try to get it off of ebay first since you can generally get stuff cheaper there*
Two batteries $50 each, *will try to get generic batteries since thier a fraction of the canon price and are prob made by the same company, and do last just as long as the canon ones, for like $20 each*.
And a pack pack for the camera and gear - $not sure, but it looks nice.

And once I can afford it, a nice wide angle lens, which is good for some wedding shots. But thats like $1000-$5000 or so, depending on the quality.

I was thinking that if I can, I could rent the 300d and do some weddings, and the money from that I could put towards a 300d of my own. I also want to do stock and portraits, so having the 300d would really help that out. More so the stock than portraits since I can do a half descent job with my fuji 3000, just cant make it to large.

Yeah Im also oohing and aahing over the 300D. But Ive just shelled out 4 G's to have my family come over for a holiday in September so :roll: no camera for me. Ill get there one day, just not today, and prolly not tommorrow :D

On Ritzcamera.com they have a Canon Digital body for $899. I already have a Canon Rebel 35mm so my lens would fit. But......no $899 here. :( Maybe after my business has been going for a while (which is mine on Tuesday!!!!! :D ) maybe just maybe I can afford to get one.

Kara, you interested in shooting weddings? :0) could be one way to get some extra money for the camera.

I wonder how hard itll be to get some weddings just starting out. Ill be moving to the states in May, so then I could advertise in the area that Ill be moving by putting signs up around town, perhaps tryign to make deals with some places that weddings are shot at to recommend me if I recommend them, etc.

Well, I don't want to start a spitting contest, but Lucian and Thrill00 are both right. All the 8MP digitals take nice pictures at ISO 100 and below. Noise becomes unacceptable by ISO 400, and by ISO 200 on a couple of models.

There is a very good reason for this. The pixels on the CCD's of these 8MP cameras are as small as 2.7 microns. Compare that to the Nikon D70, which has 7.8 micron pixels on it's CCD.

The CCD's on these cameras are a good bit smaller than the CCD of DSLR's, so to put more pixels in that smaller space, the pixels must be smaller and the boundaries between pixels must be thinner, and therefore less opaque. Light can spill in from an angle, causing noise, color fringing and soft edges, especially at wide lens angles.

So, if most of your shots can be made at ISO 50-100, and you need an 8MP camera, any of the current crop of 8MP digicams will probably make you happy. If you can "make do" with 5-6MP, then I think you'll be happier with image quality, expecially if you want to use higher ISO settings.


Psssh, I can clear 20 feet on a windy day :)

Anyway, thats what I was talking about with the missconception. All non-dSLR cameras have high noise at those levels, not just 8mp cameras. You take a Nikon 5700 at 400 ISO and it's going to be just as noisey as an 8700. The reason being (as has been said) that the sensors just aren't as large as a dSLR's. Alot of people have labeled it an 8mp problem though it is present in all digi cams.

The reason for this, most likely, is that when 8mp cameras came out they were directly compared to dSLRs because of resolution advantage over the previous digicams. If you read up on it, or if you test it out yourself you'll find the same noise problems in 5mp cams, 4mps cams etc. on down the line. The difference was that none of these previous cameras were directly compared to dSLR cameras in their reviews. Since they weren't being directly compared to the dSLRs, the problem didn't stand out as much, and thus wasn't mentioned as much.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't expect to be able to use a 5mp camera at high ISO any better than an 8mp, which seems to be a popular view (I thought it was the case at first too). If you need to work at that level, you need a dSLR. There is no substitute.

And this is completely off topic, but I figured I would try and clearify that lol

And thinking of the Canon 300d, I have a questoin. Im not sure if ive asked it before or not, at least here. Ive heard that with dslr's you cant use the lcd screen to preivew the shot before you take it like you an with regular digital cameras, due to the single lense reflex thing, with the mirror and viewfinder, you ant do the preview. But im thinking all the camera has to do is move the mirror as if its taking the picture and display waht it sees on the lcd screen in real time. I prefer the lcd since I can see the entire image at once, I usually miss stuff when looking through the view finder.

So the question is: with dslr's, the Canon 300d specifically, can you use the lcd to preview the image before you take it or are you forced to use the viewfinder?

Ok so answer this. This is what I want to do. I want to take Senior pics, kids portraits, or basically just whoever portraits. I did one wedding and wasn't very fond of it. Tooooo stressful! I want to do indoor with backdrops and outdoor. So would it behoove ( I just love that word :D ) me to get the Canon Rebel Digital or just a smaller, more user friendly point and shoot type? I know they will want some 8X10 and possibly larger.

You can print a 3.2mp picture to an 8X10 after some slight enlarging, but with a reg point and shoot you dont get much control over hte aperature and there for not much control over the background being in focus or not.

Also you dont look to professional using a regular small point and shoot camera. The clients may be thinking "Im paying $$$ for this?".

The good thing about the dslr's is thier sensors are larger and there for not as noisey as point and shoots, so you can enlarge them larger. I hear you can enlarge a dslr 6mp picture larger than a point and shoot 8mp picture, since the p/s has more noise.

And if they want an even larger picture, you can sell it to them, and make even more money. Also if you want to crop more, you can. And with a dslr, you can get other lenses that will give you more of a wide angle or more of a telephoto zoom in to get tighter on the people.

You may be able to get away with what I got, which is somehwhat p/s but looks higher end. Fujifilm 3000. But its the smaller sensor and only 3.2mp. Theres the 5000 and 7000 but thier mp isnt much larger and small sensors as well I believe. It would mostly give you the appearnce of a better camera, and give you zoom. There are other cameras that looks like slr's that gives you 6-10X optical zoom as well. But for that price, Id rather spend double and get a real dslr.

Ive assisted in the wedding photography and I didnt find it stressful. What did you find stressful about it? Were you organized or did you try to arrange the shots at random while there? :0).

I guess what I meant to say was if I had an really good dslr then I wouldn't mind doing weddings. That way if I thought someone blinked or moved or whatever I could always check and see, otherwise if I didn't know for sure I wouldn't know until I got the film back then it is too late. That was what I stressed out over was that I wouldn't have something set right and the pictures would be trash and I wouldn't know it until it was too late. I understand about the "looks" factor. I just want to get the best that my budget will allow.

Ok so answer this. This is what I want to do. I want to take Senior pics, kids portraits, or basically just whoever portraits. I did one wedding and wasn't very fond of it. Tooooo stressful! I want to do indoor with backdrops and outdoor. So would it behoove ( I just love that word :D ) me to get the Canon Rebel Digital or just a smaller, more user friendly point and shoot type? I know they will want some 8X10 and possibly larger.

Well, I myself would go for a Nikon D70. But thats just me. Ummm, under good lighting conditions, 90% of the time you wont be able to tell a difference between something like an Olympus C-8080 and a 300D. but the other 10% is where the difference lies. If you are wanting to take on paying jobs, then you have to go for a dSLR imo. An advanced P&S camera is a great back-up or travel cam however, but thats all it should be on the professional level.

Also don't forget about glass :) good glass is mucho expensivo.

with that said, you CAN get by with a 5mp or 8 mp p&s camera. You would be able to make 8X10 or larger prints with them, though on the whole the quality wont be equal to a dSLR. Just gotta ask yourself if the extra money is worth the extra quality to you.

Good point. I guess I could find somewhere where I can put a Canon Digital Rebel on lay-away or something. :roll:

I guess what I meant to say was if I had an really good dslr then I wouldn't mind doing weddings. That way if I thought someone blinked or moved or whatever I could always check and see, otherwise if I didn't know for sure I wouldn't know until I got the film back then it is too late. That was what I stressed out over was that I wouldn't have something set right and the pictures would be trash and I wouldn't know it until it was too late. I understand about the "looks" factor. I just want to get the best that my budget will allow.

Dont stress over if they blinked or not. Get the people to sign a contract saying that if anything happens to the pictures or if some shots are missed or not great like everyone blinking, its not your responsabiltiy and cant be held liable. Its good to have this if your doing digital as well.

And when doing the group shots, take 3 pictures of each set. That way odds are people ar enot blinking in all 3. And if theres no great shot, you can photoshop the eyes from one non blinking picture to the other picture so all the eyes are open.

Oh, and on a side note, in that contract have it stated that you own the copyright to the images. In canada, with out that stated in the contract, the client owns the copyright apperantly. And even in the states, it may be a good idea to have that in writting so the client knows that.

Yeah, that's a good point, Gerry. In general, however, it's a good idea to have a airtight contract either way, and ownership of the negatives and photograph copyrights are important...