I'm in the market for a new digital camera and I'm sure there are plenty of knowledgeable people here who would just love to help me pick one. Here's the problem....I'm not really sure of what I want/need. I'd like to get a bit more serious into photography, but at this point I am very amateur. Heck, I didn't even know what aperture really meant until a couple of days ago (as you can tell by the arch pic below). I'd like something that I can have with me all the time, but I don't know if that necessarily means it has to be pocket sized. I'd rather have a nice camera I can really learn on and take great pictures with over just a handy size.

I do know that I want it to be fast. Right now I have a 6ish year old Sony DSC s85. It was a nice camera when we got it, but it's just sluggish. I'd like something where you push the button and the picture is snapped without the 1 second pause in between. I take too many pictures of my kids, and by the time the picture is snapped they've moved on to something else. Also, I'd like a quick reset between pictures. I've tested a few out that have about a 4 second pause between pictures...I don't like that.

I saw a camera yesterday that had a macro/super-macro setting. I hadn't really thought about it before, but I'd like something like that. Is that a setting you need to look for, or can that just be done with manual adjustments?

I can't decide if I'd rather have a camera with AA batteries, or a charger type deal. My Sony has to be charged and usually what happens is that I go to take a picture and the battery is dead. AAs are easy to replace, but they probably don't last as long (although I'd get rechargeables anyway). Maybe a battery level indicator would be helpful so I knew when it was time for a charge.

I've been looking at Canon's mostly, but recently started looking at Fuji too. I'm interested in Nikon too.

So, I'm guessing I'll be getting a point and shoot, but I've seen some Canon digital SLRs online for around $450. That's a bit higher of a price than I was looking at, but maybe it would be worth it if it really was that much better. The high speed photo taking appeals to me especially.

So, with my very limited help here, does anyone have any comments or suggestions? Any specific aperture ranges, ISO ranges, or anything else I should specifically look for as a must-have?

Here are a few of my recent shots on my old camera. Like I said, I'm just starting to learn about photography, so this is all just auto settings at 4 megapixels.

Then you need to get a dSLR. My wife likes to take pictures of our dogs catching frisbees and such and our old camera wasn't up to snuff. After a lot of research I found out that the dSLR is the way to go. We now have the 10MP Cannon Digital Rebel XTi. It's pretty nice and it takes pictures right when you push the button.

That's what I've discovered, but until DSLRs come down to <$300, I have to live with my Canon Elph thingie.

I was looking at this Canon dSLR 8 MP
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007QKN22/ref...

One thing I noticed in the reviews is that you can't use the big screen for lining up and taking your shots...it's only for review and menus. Is the 10MP like that too?

As a "serious amateur" myself, given the research I have done, I found that a good intro camera is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18. It's a pseudo-SLR (the viewfinder has a LCD screen so it just mimicks) at a good price, with very good Leika lens and an insane 18x optical zoom (yes, optical). It supports RAW and I think that's what you'd have to aim for in the first place.

It has a proprietary battery, unfortunately, but the result is a surprisingly compact and light camera.

Also, keep in mind that a true SLR is not a very practical travel camera, given all the hardware. Think carefully about your needs before acquiring one.

http://tinylink.com/?gnpygYoSPJ

That link leads you to dpreview.com where you can do side-by-size comparison of cameras.

They (dSLR's) are ALL like that except for one relatively new Olympus model. The view through the eyepiece is truer (WYSIWYG) than the viewscreen and so is preferred by serious photographers.

If you want to get more serious about photography, I'd say a digital SLR is the way to go. I bought a Canon 400D (Rebel XTi) about a year ago, and it's been my most-used gadget ever. Yes, it's bigger and heavyer than a compact (depending on the lens you use, potentially a lot bigger and heavier!), but it opens up a whole new range of possibilities for your photography.

The reasons that made me go the SLR route include these:

1) I can choose between many different lenses (doh!), allowing for great flexibility. With a fixed lens compact I am limited to the zoom range, aperture, etc. of the lens built into the camera. With an SLR I can have wide-angle zooms, standard zooms, telephoto lenses, dedicated macro lenses, fast primes, etc., using just the one that is applicable at the time.

2) Having a fast lens (=lens with large maximum aperture) allows me to play with low depth of field in my pictures. Very nice for, say, portrait photography, artistic game component pictures, etc.

3) For low-light photography, SLRs rule. Without flash, the superior high ISO characteristics of SLRs allow very nice natural light photos (especially with large aperture lenses). Alternatively, using an external flash that can be bounced off, say, the ceiling, allows for flash photography looking much, much nicer than what you can get from a compact camera.

4) Depending on the autofocus speed of the lens used, there is potentially very little delay between half-pressing the button and taking the picture.


Of course, the unlimited flexibility you get from being able to change lenses comes at a price - literally. "Lens lust" is a dangerous disease among photo enthusiasts, and one that really makes one appreciate just how cheap a hobby boardgaming really is!

So, in conclusion "more serious about photography" strongly points in the direction of an SLR. But of course, compact cameras (or even "SLR-like" fixed-lens cameras) are cheaper, smaller and lighter, and you have to work out just how much each of these concerns matter to you.

I believe some of the latest Canons (40D, 1D mk.3) and possibly a new Sony camera have this too.

When I first got my Canon SLR, I too was a bit worried about not being able to use the LCD as a viewfinder anymore. Turns out my concerns were unfounded. As fizzix says, the optical viewfinder feels much superior and I don't miss using the LCD for that purpose a bit.

The best way of avoiding the problems of lens lust is to have a dead relative that owned 30K worth of lenses that are compatible with a modern digital SLR. The problem then becomes transporting the lenses on long trips.

Yes, SLRs are miles better than a compact camera as far as picture quality and versatility. It's just a matter of physics.

I'm not a camera expert either but when I was researching one for my father who is also very much an amateur but wanted a decent camera with good zoom features we chose this as the best choice:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/panasonic_tz3.ht...

It's quite inexpensive for the features it has and has good zoom and is quite a compact design.

The Leica optical lens is a good quality one which is one of the reasons we chose this particular Panasonic model.

Read the last page for this particular reviewers conclusions and you can decide whether it's speedy enough for you:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/panasonic_tz3_pg...

This camera might be a notch below a DSLR in terms of speed (I'm not certain as I've never used a DSLR) but I do think it likely would be able to accomplish 95% of everything you would want and for probably half the price of a decent DSLR as well.

Again, just my suggestion as it's basically the best digital camera we could find in terms of bang-for-the-buck ratio.

Can't add much more info that people above have already said. We jumped into the DSLR market several years ago with the Digital Rebel (the first Canon DSLR that was consumer priced) and have never looked back. I love the quick shutter (ability to take action shots)




And I love being able to change lenses. We have acquired some nice lenses for it now: the kit lens zoom 18-55, a tamron macro lens, a f1.4 50mm lens and the Bigma (Sigma zoom 50-500).

If the price point of a DSLR is too high right now, then just wait and save up some more money. You won't regret it. We are now in the market for a new body - obviously it will have to be canon considereing our lenses.

That is also one thing to consider, if you are going to go with a DSLR, is to maybe research the lenses that you think are best and then go with that brand of camera.

Check out www.dpreview.com

If you want to get into photography, you'll only really learn more about the nitty gritty (ie. not just framing a good shot) by getting a camera that allows you to go into full manual mode. And it needs to be easily adjustable. Many non-SLR's will let you adjust everything, but it's typically far to cumbersome to do so.

Check out the Nikon D40. I have the D80 and LOVE it, but I knew enough about photography to make the jump to that camera. If I were just starting out, I'd go with the D40. I can now take photos of my kids and not miss the moment because the camera needed to run through a pre-flight checklist before taking the shot. Even full auto mode is pretty fast.

The D40 has been getting great reviews (as have the Canon's mentioned earlier, but I have some major complaints about Canon's video equipment so I'm avoiding them for the time being). You won't be able to tuck it in your pocket, so you'll probably want to hang on to your little camera, but you'll be able to learn a lot about photography and
actually manipulating a shot without having to go to Photoshop.

And definitely check out dpreview.com They have excellent in depth reviews on most major cameras. Read through the ones recommended here to start with. A bunch of it will probably be over your head (a lot of it is over mine still), but you'll learn a ton in the process and be pretty well informed on the pros/cons of an particular camera. They also have a very helpful and active user community that could answer any questions you have after getting the camera.


Good luck! Let us know what you end up with.

Great photos, by the way!

I got my wife the Canon 20D, when it first came out and she loves it. Her mom just recently got the 40D and loves that too, so at some point, I'm going to do some research on it. The Steve's Digicam link provided above is the way to go for that, IMO.

Nice pics!

Not to detract from the DSLR discussion, but I'd also be curious to hear which of the compact cameras my fellow gamers have found good to carry in their game bags?

Bob

The $450 for a dSLR is probably body only or a poor lens. The big downside with a dSLR is that it's so big, you really have to be committed to taking it, especially if you have several lenses. I found I wasn't carrying my SLR around much, and I never changed from a 35-140 zoom, which is about what you get with a compact. So, I've switched to a compact I can carry in a pocket: you want the two smaller dimensions to be 4" or under.

A dSLR will gather much more light with a non-zoom lens, but won't do much better than a compact with a zoom. A down side of dSLRs is that with the mirror down, the main sensor is blocked, so you're reduced to a much smaller set of sensors for deciding on exposure. One dSLR allows you to lock the mirror and use the main sensor like a compact can--I forget which: I think it's called "Live View". Myself, I won't consider a dDLR--I like the exposure accuracy of using the main sensor. At some point, they'll wake up and offer exchangeable lens cameras without the legacy mirror reflex system.

AA batteries will last longer than a similar size rechargeable battery. You can always get rechargeable AA batteries and a charger.

A Canon compact is a good choice since most have nearly all the controls of an SLR. Nikon compacts are a bit big. If you get a compact, make sure it has all the controls you want, and a tripod mount. Pocket tripods are inexpensive and invaluable when light isn't perfect.

As in all electronic products, what costs $500 now will be $300 next year. This is less true of lenses, but definitely true of cameras. If money is an important factor, I suggest getting about a $300 (street price) compact and planning on getting another in two or three years.

I definitely endorse the recommendation of www.dpreview.com -- it's the BGG of digital cameras. Though it was bought by Amazon(?) a while ago, I haven't noticed any significant changes. It has a camera picking search where you can pick features and get a list of cameras.

I carry an old Canon S45 in my pocket. (My game bag stays on the games table.) About time for a new compact!!! I want to like Nikons, but their compacts are either too big to pocket or too low-featured. So, another Canon is likely. Probably one with image stabilization (model numbers end in IS).

This is the one I was looking at. Looks like it might be a slightly older model. Retail price is $600...Amazon price is $459.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007QKN22/ref...

Thanks everyone for all the info so far; it's very helpful. Keep it coming. At this point I'm leaning towards either a less expensive dSLR like the one linked above, or a nice point-n-shoot.

I was talking to someone at a camera store yesterday and they said they don't like the Panasonics because he's seen too many issues with the components breaking. I took a quick look at the one suggested above and it looks pretty good. Anyone have any brand specific likes or dislikes? I started out looking only at Canon's, but I'm willing to expand my view. I'll look closer at the Panasonic for sure.

This is nearly a three year old design. A more recent design is the XTi. The lens is somewhat slow (f3.5), and 18-55mm, wide to "normal" (as the eye sees). The closest you can shoot (according to Amazon) is 28cm (11"), compared to 4cm for your current camera. Some people really like wide angle lenses; most compacts stop at 35mm (to convert to SLR-equivalent numbers--the sensor is smaller in a compact, so the lens numbers all change; but everyone quotes equivalents). Personally, I don't consider an 18-55 lens very useful, but tastes differ.

Typical compacts are 35-105 (3x) or 35-140 (4x) on out, telephoto usually being more common that wider than 35mm. Your current camera is 32-104, f2.0 or f2.5 at 104mm (considerably better than the f3.5 of the XT's lens). Think about shooting a picture: can you usually not back up enough to get everything in the shot or do you have trouble getting a picture of something in the distance? If the former, you want wider angle (less than 35mm), but pictures will start looking distorted. If the latter, you want more than 105mm.

You'll probably want a longer lens (more than 55mm), which will run you $200-$600, the lower end underperforming a compact camera. And a macro lens if you want that capability. So, you could be looking at $1000 to replicate all the capabilities of your current camera, albeit with higher quality.

Let me shift gears here and take care of some of your other questions. Camera functioning speed shouldn't be a problem: check dpreview for specs--they have specs on everything: their reviews are huge. I like Canon and have heard no complaints about them. Nikon is more competitive in dSLRs than compacts. Pros use Canon and Nikon pretty interchangeably, but you're talking much higher level dSLRs.

Canon used to offer full controls even on smaller cameras, but they aren't doing that now, unfortunately. You might look at the Canon PowerShot S5 IS: this is a compact but not pocketable camera. This should let you learn all about more technical photography at around $350 for a complete camera with a 36-432 zoom, image stabilized:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons5is/

Remember to get a bigger memory card. Cameras ship with little ones. The main explanation for the better pictures pros take is that they take a lot more pictures than amateurs. Digital cameras have leveled that field by making shots nearly free; but, you need a card to hold those pictures.

However, on an XT a 18-55mm lens is very much a "standard zoom", meeting the requirements of wide angle - short/medium telephoto in one lens.

Keep in mind that not only compact cameras have small sensors, compared to the 35mm standard. The XT, like all of the cheaper SLRs, also features a smaller-than-normal sensor, in this case a "x1.6 crop" one. That means that you have to multiply the focal range numbers on the lens with 1.6 to get 35mm equivalent numbers. So, for the XT, a 18-55 lens becomes approximately a 28-88mm lens. As stated, that's a bit wider on the wide end than what you get with most compacts (which usually start at 35mm equivalent), but I find the extra wide angle very useful, and would hate having a standard zoom that only started at 35mm equivalent.

The 18-55mm kit lens that is shipped with the cheaper Canon SLRs is a slow lens, with the rather small max. aperture of f/3.5 actually only being available at the wide end of the focal range. As one zooms towards the tele end of the lens, the max. aperture decreases, ending at f/5.6 at 55mm. That means one the one hand that its low-light characteristics won't be spectacular, and on the other that you can't get very low depth of field in your pictures.

The lens is widely held up by photographers as not very good. All is relative, of course, and while most other similar lenses beat it handily (and cost more), it is still an OK lens, capable of taking excellent pictures. Check out the Pbase galleries for pictures taken with it:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_1855_35

It's true that the XT/350D body itself is an older model: The XTi/400D is the current model in Canon's cheap range of SLRs, and people expect that to be replaced by something else before too long.

Being an older design doesn't make it a bad camera, of course. The lens used, technique, composition, lighting conditions, etc. will matter a lot more to the quality of photos taken than whether the body is the newest model or not.

If you were looking at the Rebel XT I would argue for the XTi, the newer model. While you may be saving money initially - the XTi has an image sensor cleaning system. I've had my 20d for a couple years now and I have to get the sensor cleaned. A kit to clean it yourself costs $50 to $75 - plus you run the risk of ruining your sensor. A sensor cleaning system is necessary because of the dust that inevitably gets on the lens and begins showing up on your images as dark spots.

Initially I would opt for a off brand lens and start with the body only. Tamron makes a similar lens albeit 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 for only $70. It's a versatile lens, while not as wide (you might not be able to get as much into the frame in confined spaces) it is longer (great for portrait shots).

Do not forget to factor in the cost of a flash. While the flash on the body is serviceable you can not sync it with the shutter (which would have made it possible to take a picture of your children along with the arc in the background.)

Others have mentioned a memory card and with a dSLR - you'll probably need a couple. It is quite possible to fill 4 to 6 gb worth of memory off of one battery (especially if you don't have time to check your pictures every time).

Lastly, while not necessary for an initial investment you'll probably want a tripod. Those are best tested in person to determine what style you'd like.

If that sounds like too much - then the Canon S5is is not bad - it even has a hotshoe if you would like to add a flash.

I'd also recommend comparing it to the Nikon D40. The D40 is fairly new on the pro-sumer range of dSLR's, and probably comparable to the XT family.

dpreview.com would most likely have an in depth comparison of the various models (usually towards the end of the review), and does a good job of comparing without too many opinions getting in the way (ie. fairly technical and comprehensive, yet understandable).

I'd highly recommend comparing several in the same price range. They all have their pros and cons, it's just a matter of choosing what you think you can live with or want as a feature. It's more of a long term investment than compacts typically end up being.

I actually was looking at the Nikon D40 also. I think maybe someone here had recommended it.

So, after discussing it with my wife a bit more, I think right now we're looking at holding off on the dSLR. We need to replace our Sony camera and would like something that I could keep with me at all times very easily. While I'd love to get an SLR now, I think I'd end up buying 2 cameras if I did that. So, for now, we will be getting a nice point-n-shoot and holding off on the dSLR. I think I'll be able to go a little nicer on the dSLR then too instead of just looking at the cheapest ones.

So, the Canon S5is is in the running. We might go for something a bit smaller though, but only if I like the features as much. A few that I've been looking at:

Fuji F50 / S700
Nikon P5100
Panasonic DMC-T23
Canon SD870 / SD1000 / A570is / SX100

I have been looking at dpreview.com for everything. A lot of it is over my head, but it's still good info. My issue is that it gives the specs, but I don't know what kind of ranges I should really be watching for and which ones don't really matter. Yes, some cameras have better numbers here and there, but is it worth the price jump for those things. This has all been great info though, and I'm learning a lot. My need for a new camera was reiterated last night when I tried to take a close up picture of something on the side of a game box and I couldn't get a nice clear picture because it was too small.

Just thought I'd add that the following site (if you haven't seen it already) as it's a decent resource that's basically a meta-review site that has links to reviews from 15+ digital camera review sites for pretty well every manufacturer and model of digital camera made. Helpful in comparing models and getting multiple opinions on a camera to help narrow your search down a bit.

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/reviews/Default.asp?brand...=

Canon makes very good compact cameras: Whether you get an SLR-lookalike like the S5 IS, a smaller one like the new PowerShot A720 IS (which has just been reviewed on dpreview.com) or an ultra-compact like one of their PowerShot SD cameras, you can hardly go wrong. Note that some of the ultra-compact PowerShot SDs feature a wide-angle lens (starting at 28mm), which is rather unusual - and extremely cool - in a compact camera.

A year or two ago, Fuji had a very good reputation for making small cameras with very good noise characteristics when using high ISO - old cameras like the F10, F11, F30 and F31fd are still being traded second-hand. The secret is a much larger sensor than that seen in other compact cameras. The newer cameras in the line, the F40fd and the F50fd have compromised on this somewhat - the sensor is the same size, but the megapixel count has been increased. Still, worth considering - I have the F40fd, and while certainly no SLR, it is a nice and very handy camera (bought it for Essen last year ).

Panasonic cameras generally give you a lot of nice features - powerful zoom lenses, image stabilization, etc. - for the price. They generally go overboard with the noise reduction when using higher ISO values, making anything above ISO 100-200 of limited value.

Finally, dpreview.com has a useful features search here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp