what camera should I buy?

[fishyj]

Hi all, I have a Kodak 10.3 camera and it does not take great pictures. Wondering what kind could I get that won't break the bank?

[rickztahone]

what is your budget? i just bought a D-SLR olympus camera for 379 w/ lens at fry's and it has been the best purchase i have ever made. after going SLR i will never go back to compac cameras. they do have some conveniences at times when you can't lug around a big camera but if you look up the specs for the olympus E-410 the specs are one of the smallest in the SLR family. let us know your budget

[fishyj]

I am looking to spend probably no more than $400.

[rickztahone]

well the olympus was 379 plus tax which was a little over 400. i'm telling you, it's a great camera. you can also check out the regular compact cameras, they do have good ones out there do not get me wrong. it's just that i see the difference in quality and it's hard to go back to it. it has all to do with the lenses, it's hard to beat a Single-Lens-Reflex

[fishyj]

I know what you mean, I am going to start my shopping.

[ikevi]

So what do you plan on using your camera for? If it is just for setup shots, than sure go with a SLR. But if want to use it for day to day activities I really wouldn't go that route. You really wont take as many pictures and after a while will find you aren't even willing to lug your camera around. (Hence why most people if possible have a dsl and a compact of some sort like the PowerShot SX200 IS.)

[wgtaylor]

I agree with Ricardo, a digital slr camera is the way to go. They have come down in prices. I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT that I think takes pretty good pictures. Not long ago it was over $1000 but recently price came down. You can probably get the best price on-line, just google the camera you want to check out,

Bill

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll50/wgtaylor/Simply%20Discus%20Contest%202009/canon-rebel-xt.jpg

[ikevi]

Just one question to those that tout the DSL. How often do you bring your DSL with you day to day? Because I will take mine with me, and leave it in the car. But my compact will be with me when I go hiking, to when I am just walking in the city. (In other words how many people do you see walking around with a DSL? While how many do you think are sold out there.)

Sure a DSL is going to have a better overall image quality. But you can take photos like this with a older cannon SD 800 IS that is ~4-5 times smaller and lighter why would you lug a DSL around?
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/ikevi/IMG_5976edited.jpg

But if you just want your DSL for preset shots, sure it will give you a better shot.

[Wahter]

Definitely go with the digital SLR - if you get last year's model, the prices drop significantly. Don't go on megapixels alone, the lens, sensor, etc... will have an impact on the images. My Canon EOS 20D is only an 8 megapixel camera, but I get a lot of compliments on the photos that it takes. And yes, I have taken a class on photography (about 20 years ago - back in the film days), so that helps too (with learning about composing shots, how lighting works, etc...).

http://forum.simplydiscus.com/picture.php?albumid=19&pictureid=129

Hope that helps,


Walter

[Wahter]

Just one question to those that tout the DSL. How often do you bring your DSL with you day to day? Because I will take mine with me, and leave it in the car. But my compact will be with me when I go hiking, to when I am just walking in the city. (In other words how many people do you see walking around with a DSL? While how many do you think are sold out there.)

Sure a DSL is going to have a better overall image quality. But you can take photos like this with a older cannon SD 800 IS that is ~4-5 times smaller and lighter why would you lug a DSL around?

But if you just want your DSL for preset shots, sure it will give you a better shot.

Sure a point and shoot will be smaller and more convenient to carry around, but I like DSLR for:

1.) the flexibility of being able to use an external flash - I can hit a subject that's over 50 feet away with my Canon Flash

2.) I like the flexibility of using multiple lens - I have a wide angle and a telephoto (greater than what a point and shoot can offer).

And yes, I've taken my DSLR over on my trips to Asia multiple times, so I do lug it (and my High definition camcorder) with me. Goes in my backpack. :) I've always had an SLR (even in the 35mm film days), so I'm used to carrying one around. They are great at sporting events too.

This was a parotocinclus fry that I took using my Canon EOS 20D.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/Chunker/aquarium/paroto02.jpg

My thumb to show scale (that's a brown discus in the background):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/Chunker/aquarium/paroto01.jpg

Just my opinion.


Walter

[rickztahone]

Just one question to those that tout the DSL. How often do you bring your DSL with you day to day? Because I will take mine with me, and leave it in the car. But my compact will be with me when I go hiking, to when I am just walking in the city. (In other words how many people do you see walking around with a DSL? While how many do you think are sold out there.)

Sure a DSL is going to have a better overall image quality. But you can take photos like this with a older cannon SD 800 IS that is ~4-5 times smaller and lighter why would you lug a DSL around?
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/ikevi/IMG_5976edited.jpg

But if you just want your DSL for preset shots, sure it will give you a better shot.

i agree with you which is why i say that at times when you do not have the luxury of lugging a DSL around a small compact might be better. the only thing i want to get straight is that D-SLR's have come a long way and are not the super big and bulky things they use to be. i honestly carry my SLR everywhere we go and my wife takes the small compact one. at the end of the day i must agree with Walter though and say that a DSL will just give you superior quality photos. like he says, do not go on mega pixels alone because they just come into play when you are blowing a picture up. when it is on a smaller scale (like us SD'ers), you can't even upload such a huge picture which is what a high MP will give you. i have 2 lens now, and will be getting a flash with diffuser and a macro lens, can you get those with a compact?...no you can't. compacts have also come a long way but you must keep in mind that if you get one right now in a couple of months yours will be outdated whilst a SLR holds value longer and regardless of age it will take great pictures. reading up on photography is a huge necessity in my opinion because if you plan on getting an SLR and just putting it on Auto then you are wasting the potential of the camera. sry for the essay here but i was on the fence when shopping for cameras and i got the SLR on a whim because i didn't get fool proof that one was better than the other. i do not regret my decision to this day and i like i said, i will not go back to a compact and i feel like most of the other people with these cameras will agree with me

[ikevi]

I fully agree. An DSLR wins with the lens, of course a good lens costs money. But when you say you luged them with you. That is a big trip, sure you are going to bring it with you. I am meaning day to day. Say if you go someplace with friends for the day? Are you going to lug the DSL with you? (I wont, but I will have my compact in my pocket.)

All I am trying to emphasize is that a DSL are great cameras, but that one should look at what type of pictures they tend to take before going for a bulky camera.

And compacts can have external flashes. Something like the Canon HF-DC1 High Power Flash is good for the PowerShot SX200 IS.

Of course that makes them much less compact...

Either type of camera you get you will be happy. I am just attempting to point out the other side. (And yes I have experience with these things, heck I bought my first canon rebel SLR when I was in 5 grade after saving for years...)

[FLGirl1977]

I too was in the market for a camera just recently. I still would love to get a Nikon d90... but price telling me that will have to wait a bit. I didn't want to spend more than $400 just recently, so I took a trip to Best Buy and looked around. After research and asking advice, I ended up walking out with a Canon Cybershot (newest one I believe) 12.1 megapixel for $180... much lower than my original budget! I've been very happy with the image quality and performance so far! :)

[Wahter]

Jim,

You didn't say what type of camera your current Kodak is - if it's a point and shoot, then keep that for everyday use, but consider getting a DSLR for taking better shots. You need to decide what else you want to use the camera for - if it's only/ mainly for taking photos of fish, that could be an expensive 2nd camera. On the other hand, if it's something you want to bring with you on vacation, to sporting events, zoos, shows, etc... then it will be well worth it.

In my experience, a DSLR focuses much faster and can take photos under lower light conditions than a point and shoot. Also the built in flash in both a point and shoot and a DSLR is pretty wimpy - maybe 12 feet or so at best (good for flash fill though).

Of course, no matter if you have the world's best DSLR, if anyone is not experienced in photography basics, then even the best camera in the world isn't going to help you take better photos. There are a gazillion photos here where people are too close to the fish (all cameras/ lens have a minimum focusing distance, get close to that and it'll be blurry) and it shows up blurry, yet they are scratching their heads wondering what's going on. Also, lots of people seem to take flash photos with their camera's flash facing perpendicular to the glass, giving a big white blob in the photo. Lots of people seem to forget to clean off the glass before taking photos. People try to take a photo of the fish and their hands are too shaky, but don't use a tripod. People don't center the fish and instead get only 80% of the fish in the photo. People try to take a photo of the fish without a flash, but don't understand that the lighting over the tank isn't bright enough to allow for a higher shutter speed, so the moving fish is blurred.

I've posted a bunch of tips here:
http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?t=59339

I took this photo from across the RBC center during a Duke University versus NC State University basketball game. I was sitting in a company suite (so I was NOT that close to the court) on the opposite side. The camera lens I'm using is a 300mm telephoto zoom (the DSLR has a 1.6 multiplier factor since the sensor is not 35mm in size, so the effective zoom is 480mm; I can guarantee you will not find a point and shoot that has this much zoom) and taken without a flash.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2230/2337590363_31c0ca8912_b.jpg

Here's an action shot:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/2337593309_5219774bc5_b.jpg

Now again, it depends on what you want to do with the camera - this lens itself cost more than what you want to pay for the camera and lens, so you'll need to decide.

Hope this helps,


Walter

[fishyj]

The Kodak is a point and shoot. I am looking for some thing that I can use on vacations and stuff like that and of course taking pics of my fish and other pets. I am looking for a better quality picture.

[alpine]

Buy a D80 Nikon They should be affordable now that the D90 is out .
Roberto.

[Elite Aquaria]

I agree with Roberto go with the D80 if you can. When I was shopping I wanted to buy the D80 but it was out of my price range so I settled in on the Canon S5 IS ===> http://www.nextag.com/Canon-PowerShot-S5-IS-588067459/prices-html

Check out the pictures that I get from this one ===> http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?t=71451

[zn394]

I have both: a very old Canon Power shot S100 2mg pixel that still takes great shots (even thought I've only used it a couple times since I got my dslr). Today's model, the SD1000 or something like that, is much nicer and waaaay cheaper - mine was $500.

My DSLR is a Nikon D50 6.1 mp. It takes shots that blow away the old Canon, but then again, the sensor, lenses, etc are much better than those in a compact camera. You can get a D40 for around $400. Both are basic DSLR's, but take amazing pictures.

My pick? Let's put it this way, if pictures are to be taken, it's the Nikon. My wife and kids just share lugging chores. But even if I were the only one, DSLR without question. The only drawback is a little extra weight and the cost of all the lenses, flashes, and other accessories is much, much higher. However they can be added as time goes by.

Jeff

[fishyj]

Thanks everyone, now totally confused. (lol!!!) I guess I will just have to decide what I really want out of a camera and go from there.

[zn394]

One thought - try ebay. you can get nearly new excellent dslr's with extras even for $300 or so. I used to but and sel cameras on there and had only one or two bad deals out of hundreds. I even bought all my extra lenses for the D50 off ebay. They were just as good as new and cost half the price.

Jeff

[fishyj]

Thanks Jeff, I'll look into that.