Hi folks!

I have a digital camera, a Nikon coolpix (not sure of the model #) point n' shoot type. It's a few years old and has some issues that warrant a replacement. Photography is starting to turn into a hobby for me, so I'm thinking I might be better served by a DSLR type camera, though I'm a 'newbie' at this hobby.

My questions are:

1) Are the higher end point and shoot cameras any good, or would I be better served by an entry level DSLR? I'm definitely interested in high quality pictures and having some flexibility with camera settings that a DSLR offers. I'm not sure how the higher end point and shoot models compare. I'm definitely NOT interested in a little camera that fits in a purse.

2) Any recommendations on a good entry level DSLR? My budget is perhaps $600 or so. I've seen a few models that look promising: The Nikon D40, the Canon Rebel XS, and the Sony Alpha A230. However, I have no experience with any of those, or with DSLR's in general. I just know that I'd like to take my pictures 'to the next level'.

Any advice as far as model recommendations and why would be most helpful!

First, let me say that there are some fine pocket digitals out there that are quite capable of taking stunning photos. But if you really want to take your photography to a higher level...and you don't necessarily want a camera that's pocket-sized...I'd recommend a DSLR. Some of the higher end "pocket" cameras do offer fairly high resolution (the XS and G11 are both 10 MP) and pretty rich feature sets (including manual exposure modes). The greatest flexibility DSLRs offer is the ability to change your lens...everything from the economical beginner's lens to the high-end, high-cost glass used by professionals.

I'm a long-time Canon shooter so my recommendations follow that experience base. But as much as I enjoy the friendly rivalry with Nikon shooters, I readily admit they're fine cameras. I don't think either one is a bad choice. I have no experience with Sony. Go to a good camera store and handle them. Decide on the features you like. Find out which one feels best in your hand.

ETA: a good resource for information is DPReview.com

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

If you find yourself with an old unused digital camera, look up links for "digital camera hacker". One interesting thing that people do with some cameras is to remove one of the internal filters and make an ordinary camera into an IR sensitive camera.

__________________
"Never let the task you are trying to accomplish distract you from the study of computers."

You can't go wrong with whatever is within your budget thats made by Nikon or Canon. I shoot Canons myself (haha). Other manufacturers make decent cameras, but none are as overall good as Nikon or Canons. For example pentax cameras are ok, but what makes them very interesting is that all of their mid-range bodies and lenses have real honest to goodness weather sealing. You need to spend a ton of money to get that from Canon or Nikon. Only their tip-top of the line models have full weather sealing.

A high end, or even mearly halfway decent point and shoot compact camera can take some surprisingly good pics, but it has some pretty severe limitations. I would go with a dslr first though if you want to get serious. A nice compact can be useful later to have on you at all times. Once you start to notice photographic opportunities when you don't have you full kit with you

Hi redshifter, Swift recently asked the same question, maybe the replies in his thread could be useful to you too.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin | Meet the OOONG TOE.
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
'No, mad's when you froth at the mouf,' said Gaspode. 'He's insane. That's when you froth at the brain.'

What he ^ said!

I'll second that by saying I've a few 8x10s hanging some local studios, and a few have sold for a pretty penny! Just one sale paid for my Canon PowerShot SD850 IS Digital Elph - the camera used to shoot it. I've had it since 2006, and it's gone everywhere with me, including hiking, camping, and backpacking, high altitude (top of Pikes Peak and Mt. Belford), and getting absolutely soaked on a water ride at Elitch Gardens. Keeps on ticking...

So, yes - you can take some stunning photos with a pocket digital. For that camera, the biggest limiting factor is ensuring the lens remains squeaky clean, as it's small, and the tiniest speck of dust or smudge noticeably degrades the picture.

As for DSLRs, the only advantage of an SLR is that you "see through the lens." In other words, the optics go clean through the camera, from the viewfinder through the lens.

You mentioned your budget was $600, so you should take a look at the $600 MSRP, 10 megapixel PowerShot SX1 IS. Although it has an SLR-style body, it's not actually an SLR. However, it does have a viewfinder, but instead of seeing through the lens, you see a CCD image. It has a backplane screen, too, for viewing a much larger image.

If you want a true SLR, however, the EOS Rebel line starts at $600, and tops at $900. My preference is the T1i, as it'll shoot full 1080i HD video.

One of the nice things I really like about Canon is that they allow users to review their products on their own website! Quite amazing, actually... Be sure to read the Pros and Cons if you choose a Canon.

If you choose another brand, that's ok, too. I've tried others (Argus, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, and Vivitar) and I keep coming back to Canon.

Oh, and for outstanding service and just about the best prices, B&H is the place where professional photographers, videographers, and audio engineers get their equipment. I first purchased from them more than 25 years ago, in 1983. I've been buying cameras, video cameras, stereo equipment, mixers, audio processors, and monitors from them ever since.

Stellar company!

But if you feel more comfortable buying local, that's quite all right, and you'll have more of an opportunity to handle the unit.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

I love my Fuji S100. It's not DSLR, but it's not like what "point & shoot" normally means either. It's got perfectly easy access to controls for shutter speed, ISO speed, and aperture controls (a dedicated clicking wheel you turn one direction to collect more light and the other to collect less, while possibly holding down one of two buttons to determine whether you do that by shutter, ISO, or aperture) without having to fish through menus, and the ranges for each of those settings are pretty wide. Its optical parts and sensor are about as big as it gets in non-SLR cameras. It lets me record raw sensor data instead of saving as JPG on the spot, so I can control the conversion process on my computer at home later on. Its screen on the back surface flips up and down if I want, and it also has an eyepiece viewfinder. It has its own flash but also a "hotshoe" on top for attaching a separate one.

Compared to normal P&S cameras, it's bigger and heavier but easier to hold in a stable manner, the image quality blows them away (due to bigger optics & sensor, RAW format, and wider control ranges which can be accessed more quickly), the eyepiece and flipping screen make it usable under a wider range of environmental circumstances, and the zoom range is bigger.

Compared to SLR, it's smaller and lighter than most (only slightly in some cases, more like half in others), it has a movie mode which only one or two models of SLR got very recently, and I never have to change lenses or carry extra lenses around with me. (Of course, with an SLR you could leave the same lens on all the time, but it would have a much narrower zoom range.)

Adding to this Nikon and Canon support fest, I have a Kodak Z1485 point & shoot camera, and while I like that it is 14 megapixels, and takes 720p HD video, I am generally convinced that I should have bought a Nikon or Canon instead. It is slow and unreliable about auto-focus, and has already been repaired once because the external shutter stopped opening.

If you are ready for the extra work and bulk of an SLR, then you should go for it. It's nice having a diversity of lenses available for different kinds of shots.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I am in the same boat as you, I want to take my photography up a level too, for me it is a choice of the Nikon D90 12.3 MP DSLR Camera or the Canon EOS 500D 15MP DSLR, I am using a Vivitar 5105s point and shoot digital camera at the moment, it does take a good picture, I have some in my profile albums.
An expensive hobby to start up with to buy the equipment.. but worth it when you can get those special one off pictures.

__________________
*Come to the dark side we have cookies*

"Why change passwords when you've got a baseball bat?"

Just a few hints that might be useful. I started taking photos in January 1968 and in the mid-70s became a professional photographer and retailer, later started my own studio, then bought the shop and studio in which I first worked. I don't know digital cameras and certainly want to get one but my budget is limited after 20 years as an invalid.

However, a few things that applied 'back then' probably still do. My shop had a reputation for straight and honest dealing and I taught many night classes and was a competent black-and-white printer.

I was often asked "What is the best camera?" and my quick reply was, "The one you know best and does what you want." Don't fall into the more-money-than-brains-trap of thinking a certain brand of anything will get you better photos. A camera is merely a tool, like a spade, a pen, a paintbrush or a computer is. I've seen people with the most basic gear take wonderful photos, and rich people with the latest and flashest gear who can barely take a decent snapshot, let alone a photo that makes viewers say "Wow!" Also, the most expensive, sharp lenses aren't much use if they're smeared with grime or fingerprints.

Like all good tools, a camera should become an extension of your brain, eye and hand. It should be so familiar that you use it automatically, without thinking.

Cameras take photos; photographers make pictures.

Ever been in a group where an amateur photographer sets you up and, holding the camera up, says, "Smile," and then does absolutely nothing? Your smile is fading away and you're wondering when that clown is going to take the photo. That is not being a photographer, it's being a thoughtless dope. When I took groups I would pose them so that as much as possible their faces would fill an 8x10 format then carefully compose them in the camera with the top heads at the top of the picture (never a long thin line across the centre of the picture, wasting the top half), moving or zooming in as close as possible and focusing. Then I'd drop the camera, and if I wanted them smiling would make them laugh, and when they looked right, bring the camera up very quickly and grab the shot. Take two very quickly in a row if using flash to catch all the eyes open, and a few more just in case.

Another question I was asked often was, "What camera should I buy?" The quick reply was a question -- "Got 20 minutes?" That was about the minimum time in which I could ask all the questions, get all the answers, and start to form an opinion as to what that person should buy. Usually, during the discussion, I would point out that I owned five very different cameras -- a 6x4.5cm professional SLR (Bronica ETR), a 6x6cm twin lens reflex with interchangeable lenses (Mamiya C330 -- my favourite camera), two semi-automatic and manual 35mm SLRs with a range of lenses (Canon EF -- second favourite), a neat little old fully-manual folding 120 (6x6cm) high-quality German camera (Voigtlander Perkeo II in a solid leather case), a fully automatic 126 snapshot camera (Rollei A26), and a sixth that didn't really count as it was just a tatty old well-used backup and held together by Araldite, my first decent 35mm SLR which took Pentax thread lenses (Ricoh TLS 401). All just different tools for different jobs, and besides, upstairs in the studio there was a Polaroid passport camera.

So pick the features you want, then use and use and use and use and experiment with that camera until it becomes automatic. 'Back then,' the best trick for improving one's work was to keep scrapbooks of good photos to remind you of what can be done and to inspire you, but nowadays the same can be done with a computer. Doing this can help develop your "seeing eye." That is one thing that good press photographers have in abundance. They turn the ordinary into the adorable.

Some simple rules:

Get in close, and just before you press the shutter button, get in closer.

Think "Frame, frame, frame." Fill up that frame, don't waste picture area, and don't put everything in the centre.

Never shoot kids looking down on them. Get down on their level. Or get lower and shoot up. [Yeah, I know what you're thinking!]

The best photos often have the trickiest lighting, and tricky lighting and automation don't always mix.

All rules have their exceptions.


******
Back on topic: Someone earlier mentioned cheapie digitals with manual exposure. That's what I want. At least 30-second exposures to catch stars, planets and satellites. Any specific recommendations?

__________________
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Generally, even the lowest-end DSLRs are faster and more responsive than most P&S cameras.

Most P&S cameras have significant "shutter lag" (delay from pressing shutter button to when picture is taken).

Most P&S cameras use an LCD screen on the camera to compose the shot; in some conditions this is non-optimal. E.g, a dark concert hall (bright screen is obtrusive), or outdoors in sunlight (screen is hard to see).

DSLRs typically have more direct "hard button" access to major functions, and don't require stepping through menus to reach those.

OTOH, DSLRs are bigger and heavier than a P&S, and the mirror slap noise can be disruptive in a quiet environment.

DSLRs require much larger and longer lenses for the same zoom magnification than a compact P&S. There's a relationship between lens focal length vs sensor size which determines this. DSLRs have much larger image sensors, requiring a physically longer lens to achieve the same magnifcation.

In bright conditions, a good P&S camera can produce images that rival a DSLR when viewed at common image sizes. However in dim conditions a DSLR often produces better images, and you have less missed opportunities since the DSLR focuses and shoots quicker.

However it's important to not over-emphasize the camera itself. Since the digital era, photography has evolved from being camera-centric to more emphasis on post processing. The lens, the photographer, and the post-processing often make a bigger difference than the camera.

DSLRs more commonly support shooting "RAW" images, which is a data dump straight from the sensor. This allows more flexibility at image capture, and provides more elaborate post-processing. E.g, when shooting RAW, white balance can be completely fixed in post processing, something not possible with jpg.

Whatever camera you get, invest in some good books or software tutorials on post processing. Be prepared to spend several hundred dollars on software for this, such as Adobe Lightroom or Nikon Capture NX2. Using these techniques you can often salvage pictures that looked unusable, and transform mediocre images to great ones.

There's no need for all that! Cameras that save raw sensor data (RAW file formats) come with their own software for letting you control the process of conversion to a standard file format, and anything beyond that is minor. There's been nothing I've wanted to do that I couldn't do with a few simpler image editors I got for free.

And most of the advantages you listed for SLRs (eyepiece viewfinder you can use instead of the panel screen on the back, exposure control with hard buttons & wheels instead of by looking through menus, bigger sensors & optics, RAW file saving) are available in non-SLRs, although, again, I wouldn't call the cameras I have in mind (such as my own) "point & shoot" either. There is a fully automatic mode, but you can also take total control if you want. (I don't know how its shutter response delay compares with SLRs, but I do know you don't have to wait for autofocus with these kinds of cameras because there's a manual focus.)

Although I don't count these kinds of cameras as "point and shoot" or "compact", that's the section of the manufacturer's website you have to look in to find them, just because they aren't SLR. The closest equivalent to my Fuji for people who insist that Nikon and Canon are somehow better than others would seem to be Nikon's P90 and Canon's SX# series (#= 1, 10, or 20).

I notice, however, that the kind of camera I'm talking about, sometimes categorically called "bridge" cameras (due to their in-between status bridging the SLR-compact gap) or "superzoom" cameras, seem to be diminishing in numbers and replaced by smaller new SLRs. For example, Panasonic's Z50 was a great example of the type, but is now gone, in favor of a few new SLR models. I wonder if camera manufacturers believe that the customer base for "bridge" cameras just wanted SLR all along or has recently changed and would now prefer SLR... I know I'm not interested in needing to take multiple lenses wherever I take my camera and getting dust inside...

Point and shoot = tiny sensor. That is the single biggest limitation.

Thanks a TON to all who helped out on this thread. I've had to 'refine' my buget a bit, which means no DSLR for me However, I can get a 'super zoom' type camera. From what I've read, the super zooms (think baby DSLR) have a pretty good feature set and a decent lens for telephoto and wide angle shots. Plus, there aren't multiple lenses to lug around. It sounds like I won't get DSLR quality shots, but at least I'll be able to get something that's versatile enough that I can play around with it. Here are the models I'm considering:

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_280SX20...ch=sx20&tp=262

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_133FZ35...rch=z35&tp=262

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_054P90/...rch=P90&tp=262

So far I'm leaning towards the Panasonic as it has received good reviews from both http://www.dpreview.com and http://www.photographyblog.com, but I'll need to check them all out in person first.

Question: Is the ability to shoot in RAW format a big deal? I anticipate experimenting with photo editing, but I don't know that I'll need to shoot in RAW format for that.

Read the manual online before you buy!

Don't forget the location of the most used features. Are they burried deep in the menu or just one touch away? You don't want your subject to wait while you dig through the menu.
My most used (flash, timer, macro) are all one push away, no menu needed.

You don't need RAW for photo editing. I shoot mostly RAW, but using a Nikon D300 which can support that. Nonetheless RAW takes much more file space and can limit the max shots in the camera's internal buffer.

My advice is ask on the forums specific to your camera what people's experience is with RAW vs jpg. Some superzoom cameras don't support it, some support it but not well, etc.

I've sometimes switched to jpg when shooting thousands of shots. Under some conditions, (e.g, low light with lots of blurred images) the larger quantity can sometimes produce better shots through "brute force" than a lower quantity of RAW shots.

The Panasonic FZ cameras are very good.

I'm unsure how useful raw on a compact camera would be. The dynamic range on those small sensors isn't very big to begin with. DSLR sensors usualy have a bit more dynamic range than can be displayed, allowing you to pull the shadows up and such alot more than can be done with jpg.

I've liked the quality of some of my own enough to put them up on my wall at 8" by 10", 12", or 14". (I don't know what I'd think about bigger sizes. 8"-wide paper is just the biggest size that can be used by the easiest and cheapest printer that I have access to.)

If I were buying one of those three, I think I'd buy the Nikon. It's not that I care about brand name, but it has that little second wheel. That has to be for increasing or decreasing your basic control factors (shutter time, aperture, ISO), as it is on my S100. Most other cameras, including the other two you've got here, don't have that, so changing those things means navigating menus. Also, it has the tipping screen, which the Panasonic doesn't. I presume it can save raw data, but can't confirm that for some reason. The Canon you've picked does not do that, and the Panasonic does. (Don't worry about where it says that the Nikon takes SmartMedia cards. It actually takes SD.)

My only objection to the three you've got there overall is that they all have a motorized zoom instead of manual, but you might not care about that. (There are some with manual zoom with similar prices, but you didn't happen to pick any. They do seem to be a minority.)

It is to me... maybe even the biggest deal, something I would sacrifice other features for if I needed to in order to have this.

Suppose you look at each pixel's brightness in a JPG file on a numerical scale from 0% for no light to 100% for the brightest light that it can make. How many separate levels can you divide it into along the way? Two hundred, in multiples of 0.5%? Five hundred, in multiples of 0.2%? A thousand, in multiples of 0.1%? A camera's sensor records information in a greater number of smaller gradations than JPG image file format accounts for. To make a JPG file from that data, things need to be rounded off, so several different recorded light levels get simplified to one saved light level. The question is how to do that, how to determine exactly which recorded data values get matched up to which output values. If, for example, you stretch the low end and compress the high end, you smear some more brighter shades together but prevent some darker shades from getting smeared together, thus sacrificing some shade-detail at the bright end in order to rescue some more details at the dark end. If you compress the low end and stretch the high end, you rescue some bright detail at the sacrifice of some shadow detail. This lets you preserve aspects of the picture that your eyes/mind saw while you were there but which wouldn't have survived the camera's own file-saving process when going straight to JPG.

And since this is presented in the form of an on-screen curve that you can grab and push different parts of up or down, you can choose which levels get stretched or compressed along the whole way from black to white, and how much, even changing the slope several times so there are more than one areas of compression/stretching, even separately for the three colors. You can't do this starting with a JPG file because it's already been done; the input would not have more gradations of brightness than the output; when the camera saves a JPG, it's already doing this step for you, and not always the same way you would have done it.

Also, another thing that cameras do when saving as JPG is apply noise reduction. This tries to get rid of random dots of wrong color or brightness that pop up in any camera. Essentially, it means looking through the data for conspicuous pixels that stand out from their neighbors, and making them blend back in. This gets rid of not only random noise but also legitimate details that you want to keep, which means the picture can get blurry. A camera saving straight to JPG already applies noise reduction in whatever amount or of whatever type is was programmed to. One that saves raw data lets you choose the noise reduction or not use it at all. And that, again, is something you can't do with regular image editors starting with a JPG, but only with the original raw data.

The cameras we're talking about now aren't compacts and don't have compact-sized sensors. (I think the Canon he chose might, but not the others.)

Thanks Delvo! I appreciate the explanation regarding RAW format. Only the Panasonic apparantly can record in RAW of my three 'finalists'. It sounds like a useful feature. If not right away, certainly down the road as I develop my photography skills.

All 3 have a 1/2.33 " (6.13 x 4.60 mm) sensor. The smallest dslr sensor is 4/3 " (18.00 x 13.50 mm)

How do you translate a $400, 15 megapixel camera with a 1.7 inch sensor as being "tiny?"

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

See here.

The 1/1.7 inch sensor is only 7.6mm x 5.7mm in size and has an area of 43mm². Compare this with a full frame 36mm x 24mm, 864mm² sensor of Nikon D700 which has only 12 megapixels. Larger photosites translate into superior dynamic range.

"Mega" sounds big, but it's about how many pixels the sensor is divided into, so it doesn't imply anything about sensor size. A tiny sensor could have lots and lots of pixels in it if the pixels are small enough, and compact cameras really need small sensors, so making the pixels smaller is the only way to get more of them in there. And smaller pixels are more prone to noise, which degrades image quality.

Manufacturers still advertize their cameras based on the presumption that more pixels is always better (like CPU manufacturers did with clock speed for a long time), but that's just because they expect the public to think so, too; in reality, as megapixel numbers have risen, they passed by the point where it became false at least a few years ago. High megapixel count is now just a gimmick that, because the sensors are just getting subdivided more instead of actually being any larger, contributes nothing to image quality or detail and can even make them worse. (One of the considerations I had in mind when I bought mine was that I was able to verify that its sensor is bigger than those in compact cameras, although still not as big as an SLR's. Apparently that's not true of all bridge/superzoom cameras.)

For a while there, Fuji actually defied the trend and tried to make the best sensors it could even for its compact cameras, and let their megapixel numbers be a bit lower than other companies' compact cameras' numbers in order to keep the pixel size sane on those small sensors that compact cameras need. But they apparently decided that that wasn't good for sales, and started participating in the stupid megapixel race like everybody else a couple of years ago.

I recently did some web-shopping for a waterproof compact camera, just for outdoor shooting in especially wet conditions. One of my decision criteria would have been to actually get as low of a megapixel count as I still can. If the megapixel race keeps up, any future cameras of mine might need to be SLR just to avoid letting my pixel-to-sensor size ratio get out of control.

Thanks all! Unfortunately, budget restrictions pulled me out of the entry level DLSR market. I did order a Panasonic DMC-FZ35. It's one of the 'super zoom' cameras, with a decent lens and all the features I wanted for playing around with photography. It does not have a large sensor, it's closer to point n' shoot size I believe. However, it has received good professional reviews, and it sounds like it'll keep me happy for a few years until I can enter the DSLR market.

Does anyone have any suggestions for my query in post 10? --
Someone earlier mentioned cheapie digitals with manual exposure. That's what I want. At least 30-second exposures to catch stars, planets and satellites. Any specific recommendations?

My budget is very limited, but I'd find it hard having a camera that can't do at least a 30-second exposure. Once upon a time manual cameras were cheapest, now it seems they are dearer than automatics. 3x zoom would probably do, but more would be nicer.

I'm on very slow rural dialup and internet searches are often extremely slow due to so many websites being designed for broadband users, so any suggestions will be appreciated.

__________________
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

The 30 second exposure criteria might be tough. Canon makes the Powershot range that have manual exposure, as well as shutter/aperature-priority. Mininum shutter speed is 15 seconds, though.

Although, with most small Cannon cameras, you can use CHDK to override the default settings and get manual exposures of 60 seconds or more.

__________________
“There’s nothing that spells progress in large, friendly letters like trying to combine two totally incompatible technologies.” – David Szondy, Tales of Future Past.

I have used CHDK on my Canon SX10 IS, and it is quite useful, especially for the long exposures. I hate waiting though.
the SX10 is a good camera too. the only problem is that it does have a little bit excessive noise, probably because of the small sensor. I got this camera mainly for the zoom, but I will probably get a DSLR eventually (when I have a decent job, because I am a student now)