Any camera Experts out there able to assist a Newbie??

[jacknscoob]

Hi Everyone

I am a newbie looking to buy a new camera. I have so many questions. I am looking for a camera wizard who would like to help me out.

Anyone out there??

Thanks

Jackie

[gloozit]

Not a wizard, but I might be able to help
This is a reasonable guide: http://digital-photography-school.co...digital-camera
That could help you choose a good camera.
I use a high zoom, point and shoot. Canon PowerShot SX130 IS .This is my 3rd Canon, (first is and was a 35mm) I have also had Fuji and Kodaks. Both were good.
I like it, but I am leaning towards a DSLR for my next one. 12X zoom isn't enough at times.
I highly recommend, a camera with Image Stabilization. That's the "IS" on Canon's. Kodak also uses the "IS" tag. For any distant shots, image stabilization really helps get a crisper shot.
That guide says megapixels is not as important, as it once was. I disagree. I have taken some long distance photos, at a low zoom, and was able to bring what I wanted closer, thanks to the size of the image. Plus, you never know when you will take a shot, you want printed.
I look for a good price on a camera. I pick several, then I read the reviews and get the one, with the best bang for the buck. It's worked for me over the years.
Here is a great site for info and reviews (and all things camera): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews

[jacknscoob]

Hi Guys

Thanks for taking the time for all your posts.

I am looking to 'get into' photography, start a new hobby, learn more about photography and experiment with taking photos. I do not have any aspirations above my basic-ish station.

Budget: $200-350 Australian dollars (pls note camera's over $250, I will need a real or a plausable imaginary easily explanable reason to spend this extra money to my husband I cannot see this being a problem though.

My first real question/query is that I think I need a viewfinder. All the cameras without one which only have a screen, whatever the quality of the screen, I cant always see what I am photographing, especially in the sun. So what do you guys think? Do I need one?

Size: Not looking for travel slimline but not a camera that needs a separate handbag, something in between.

Things I think I dont need: Extra lenses to screw on and cart about. Extra flashes stuck on the top like the professionals.

Functions I need: (I think)
- Very quick ability to take picture ie no lag between pressing the button and the picture being taken. So that the click of the camera button actually takes the photo of what you can see (what is the techy term for this?) This function would be, as it is, at the top of my list. My current camera has a massive time delay.
- Timer - various settings
- Good optical zoom
- Anti-shake thingy
- good battery life
- Ability to shoot video in the dark to a 'fair/good' standard
- video that picks up sound well, better than basic
- Click the button and it takes 10 pics at once
- Ability to photograph an object yet the background is out of focus (if that makes sense) (Or is that Paintshop Pro?)

Probable things I'd like to photograph:
Surf / sea (not under water)
Animals / nature
Landscapes
People

cabbiinc - I think I have answered all your questions, I would think I would be heading for a bridge (inbetweenie). I like 'If I can I'll help you avoid the wastes of money.' Thanks. Someone has mentioned the Panasonic -FZ47. Is there anything that jumps out wrong about that one.

Major Attitude, after I have written this I will check out the camera you suggested.

DavidGP - I will prob edit the photos on my PC like I do now with my point & shoot ie., crop, resize etc. Learning to use Paintshop Pro to a greater extent is also something I am looking to do in the future.

Originally Posted by gloozit

12X zoom isn't enough at times.
I highly recommend, a camera with Image Stabilization. That's the "IS" on Canon's. Kodak also uses the "IS" tag. For any distant shots, image stabilization really helps get a crisper shot.
That guide says megapixels is not as important, as it once was. I disagree. I have taken some long distance photos, at a low zoom, and was able to bring what I wanted closer, thanks to the size of the image. Plus, you never know when you will take a shot, you want printed.

If the "IS" also helps with shakey hands, then that is something def that I would be looking for. Is Also"IS" still the correct term to use. I totally agree with the extra pixels for both the reasons you stated, for sure. Enlarging photos and printing them has been something I have done alot of in the past.

I look forward to hearing from you.

J

[cabbiinc]

First off, let me get some info. Please answer any of these questions you can and just say I don't know if you can't.

-What do you plan to shoot? Weddings are very demanding where as shooting the kids in the back yard isn't.

-What's your budget?

-What kind of camera do you prefer? dSLR with interchangeable lenses and the ability to control everything or point and shoot that makes all the decisions for you, just push the button or an in between camera called a bridge camera.

-If there's a particular inspiration you can let us know, that would also help.

There's more options out there that are meant to sell you a product more than meet a need. If I can I'll help you avoid the wastes of money.

[Major Attitude]

I will also jump in. I have a basic point and shoot but I have a lot of wildlife nearby now and wanted better photos. Problem is price. What do you want to spend? I also like my Canon cameras so I agree with above on that. Good camera, good battery life as well. I decided that the basic would not work because of limited features and zoom although the trade off was a bigger, heavier camera. I am really happy so far. It can point and shoot or you can get geeky with it, if you can afford it. Basically you can do much more with this camera then a basic point and shoot but you don't need to be a camera geek with it.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+...&skuId=3098129

[DavidGP]

Hi

I would ask as few questions as in

How much you want to spend?
What type of pictures do you wish to take (snaps as in holiday or daily or prof)?
Comapct or SLR?
Would you want to edit pics on PC or just want them as is?

[gloozit]

There are a lot of cameras out there. You will have to make the real decisions but you have a base to start with.
Budget: $200-350 (Oz money) This is where I start looking. I look at the sales in my area, and pick a few cameras in that price range. Then I go online and read their full specs and reviews. You can find those just by googling the camera.
Look for the features you need.
Shutter lag (time needed to take a picture) usually is stated in the reviews or on the fact pages.
Optical zooms (forget about digital zoom) vary from camera to camera. and some have more barrel distortion.
The anti shake thingy is called Image Stabilization (or something close on some brands) And yes it is for shaky hands.
Battery life varies. Extra batteries and a charger are a necessity.
Video capabilities vary, too. My camera takes excellent HD video, during the day, but crappy "in the dark video. It does take good concert video (semi dark) That's going to up the cost for good " in the dark" video capabilities.
A lot of cameras can take burst shots, mine will shoot continuously and save the last 4 pics or take bursts of 4. Others can have different burst settings.
The out of focus backgrounds come from shooting manually and changing the aperture settings (or Photoshop) Some cameras, mine included, have speciel settings for things like, making a picture look like a miniature. That setting blurs the background.
So it's not a matter of one of us saying, this camera is good for you. There are many more features to look at, camera size, weight, grip, "the viewfinder" (some cameras still have them), the view screen size and brightness, the size of the sensor, and a bunch more.
Best to research what you really want, instead of what someone here thinks you want.
Find some that fit your demands and post them here and the camera geeks can knock them around for you and let you know which is best.
I haven't checked the specs completely on this: http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikon...n_coolpix_p510
But it was recommended for me, by a friend. Runs about $350 USD on sale. May be my next one.
The reviews on a camera really help choose. But can be misleading. The one about the camera I have, mentioned that the SD card/Battery compartment was hard to get into and possibly easily broken off. Yeah, if you are a klutz, it is. I have no problems with that door. The camera is two years old and not one problem with it. I shoot in the winter (10f) and in the summer, from a shaky kayak. It does what I need it to.
But I bought a Kodak a few years ago. Great camera, you just could not see the viewing screen in bright light. I ignored that when I read the review, because of it's picture taking capabilities.
Choosing a camera for yourself, ain't easy.
Go hunt a few down, post them, and let the guys tell you about the good or bad of them

[gloozit]

One other thing and I don't have the link
There is a site, that has pictures taken by different cameras. Same environment and scene for the cameras. You can compare the image quality of the camera you want, to one that is a known "good" camera, if it is in their data base. Maybe someone else has the link.
I compared mine to a top of the line Canon and was very happy to see it rivaled that camera, in image quality. Considering it cost 3x what mine cost.
I've seen some very good pictures taken with low cost cameras.
Actually, there is a trend to duplicate pictures from old film and cameras that had optical weirdness. KInd of stupid to me, to take a good camera and make it act like an inferior one, but photography is magic. You can get the best shot, unexpectedly.
I got this, shooting through trees, baseball field fences, and streetlights. Someone let just a couple of fireworks off and I made a quick shot, not expecting anything. No time to set anything.


Looks better, larger, but just trying to show the "magic". You never know when a good shot will come out of your camera and it should be as good a one asyou can afford, if your serious.

[jacknscoob]

Hiya gloozit

Thanks for your post, awesome photo! Good one.

I have just had a look at the camera your mate recommended. I see it had a large optical zoom, they said 'The thing is, there are not a lot of things that you can do with a lens that long on what's essentially a point-and-shoot camera. With the lens fully extended, it's very difficult to hold the P510 still and keep your subject framed, and the autofocus is very slow, so fast-moving targets are a challenge to shoot. Plus, while the image stabilisation is very good, you're still going to want it on a tripod to avoid blur and when using its higher ISO settings.'

So before I get into other details about the camera (looks great by the way). Is this -

What would be the greatest optical zoom that would be effective (using the IS function) for someone with a tendancy to have slightly shakey hands to be able to hold the camera and not have to use a tripod to take a shot. At what point (level of zoom) would it become tricky and the level of high zoom would be wasted?

[gloozit]

Originally Posted by jacknscoob

Hiya gloozit
What would be the greatest optical zoom that would be effective (using the IS function) for someone with a tendancy to have slightly shakey hands to be able to hold the camera and not have to use a tripod to take a shot. At what point (level of zoom) would it become tricky and the level of high zoom would be wasted?

I don't have a good answer for you. I have taken photos of the moon, using a tripod. One out of 10 pictures are a good focus, the other 9 are blurry, using the same tricks. (One is using the timer, so there is no shake from the shutter push)
I have also taken them without the tripod. I have gotten nearly as sharp a picture, as a tripod one, just by leaning against a tree.
So the IS works, at full zoom, out to the moon. At least on my 12x zoom.
But other variables come in, too. Like wind.
If your hands are shaky, there are tripods that are basically a stick. ( I guess that would be a monopod? ) OMG I just googled one legged tripod and they are called monopods!
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_7g4jzjn484_b
With one of those, you would be less shaky, but not with the set up a tripod needs.
And you don't always need full zoom. I take a lot of distance pictures. Ilike to use a lower power to catch around the actual scene I want,then crop it.
Here's a list of high zoom P&S cameras. I only read the First review on the Canon, because it is the newer model of mine. I don't like that review, even though that is supposedly the best camera of the group.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/colle...megazooms.html
You're asking good questions, so you know what you want.
I don't want to say get this camera or that. I am only familiar with what I have used and know their faults and merits. Every camera is going to give up some feature, for another.
Until you go out of your budget range into the high priced ones.
I just threw that Nikon out there, to show another brand. Even my 12x zoom is bulky. ALL of them will be, compared to some little pocket camera. And any camera at any zoom becomes harder to track a subject with. I missed an eagle taking off, because I was at too high a zoom to recatch him.
Taking pictures is easy, taking good ones takes learning and experience (I'm still learning)
One of the admins here is a good photographer. She just got back from a vacation and should see this thread. She will have better answers for you.

[cabbiinc]

You're asking an awful lot for $300, Australian or US dollars.
Landscapes are typically wide angle, people are typically shot at a normal to medium telephoto length, and surf/sea/nature is usually shot with a telelphoto lens. People shots usually look much better with additional lighting which is usually pretty difficult without a hotshoe.

It sounds like you'll want a dSLR. I'm not saying that you couldn't get by with a bridge camera, but a dSLR has far more controls in camera and you can use a lens to suit the need at hand. Putting video into the mix with good audio does blow that budget though.

I'd suggest buying an entry level dSLR. Most these days have video that isn't bad. You'll see parts of movies shot with them and TV shows are starting to use them due to their small size, they are capable of getting a good quality shot from a tiny space that other cameras just can't. dSLRs also don't suffer from shutter lag, have a regular viewfinder (unless you're shooting video) which keeps the battery from having to power the LCD screen, have a burst mode (with auto exposure bracketing even).

Anti-shake can be achieved a few ways. Back in the film days you'd occasionally see an aerial shot and you wouldn't see a ton of blur. Well image stabilization wasn't around and airplanes weren't exactly smooth. They did it with a fast shutter speed (something an SLR is readily capable of). To achieve that you'd also use a wide aperture lens and high speed film (ISO). Today you just increase the ISO in camera as well as use a wide aperture lens. Increasing the ISO does increase the digital noise (red, green and blue blotches in darker areas as well as the "grain"), so you should use the lowest that lets you do what you've gotta do. You can also get a lens that decreases vibrations or movement. Each manufacturer will call it something different, but they all work pretty much the same. These will help with camera movement, but won't do a thing for subject movement (a racing car, a running cheetah, etc...) and are more useful for telephoto lenses than wide angle lenses. The general rule of thumb for getting acceptably sharp images without vibration reduction trickery is to shoot faster than the inverse of your focal length. So if you're shooting with a 50mm lens you'd want to shoot at 1/50th of a second or faster. If you're shooting with a 300mm lens you'd want to shoot at 1/300th of a second or faster. So you can see that if you're shooting a 20mm lens you're already slower than being able to capture any moving anything without it moving itself. Vibration reduction just lets you get slower than that general rule of thumb and still not have CAMERA movement.

The camera does not need to be the latest and greatest, but do go through a reputable dealer. Buying used can lower the cost but you never know what you're going to get (some used dealers have their own warranties as well, KEH.com is a good used store) and a warranty is not transferrable so ignore any ads on Craigslist that claim the warranty card was never filled out and is waiting for you to do so when you buy their camera. Also additional insurance has never done me any good so I say skip that as well. The manufacturer usually warranties any defects they did. Extended warranties just extend that. Additional warranties that cover dropping your camera or damage from misuse sound great, but you have to use their repair service and the last time I tried that the shipping and handling was half the cost of the camera. After that I just decided to take my chances.

So enough with the lesson and on to the suggested product. I'd say go to a local camera store (big box store or privately owned) and check out a few entry level dSLRs. Compare how the menus work and the button layout. They shouldn't be so vastly different that one will make perfect sense and the other wouldn't but it might. Then also compare any point and shoot or bridge cameras you see. Bottom line is that it's got to be a camera the you will like to shoot, but if you're really wanting to get into something bigger and better then an entry level dSLR with 2 lens combo may be just the thing to get you going. Add a 50mm f/1.8 lens (just about ever camera maker has one and they are about the cheapest lens you can buy but deliver good quality) and now you can shoot in low light, faster shutter speeds in bright light, and get an incredibly shallow depth of field.

Canon T3 with 18-55 & 55-250 IS
Nikon D5100 with 18-55 & 55-200

Those would be my two choices, but both are above your budget. I'm intentionally not trying to steer you to one make or the other because it shouldn't matter, but do keep in mind that once you start getting into buying lenses and other stuff it get's a lot tougher to switch brands since you've gotta sell what you have to be able to afford the other brand.

Good luck with your decision.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p510
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1100D/

[jacknscoob]

Originally Posted by cabbiinc

You're asking an awful lot for $300, Australian or US dollars.
Landscapes are typically wide angle, people are typically shot at a normal to medium telephoto length, and surf/sea/nature is usually shot with a telelphoto lens. People shots usually look much better with additional lighting which is usually pretty difficult without a hotshoe.

It sounds like you'll want a dSLR. I'm not saying that you couldn't get by with a bridge camera, but a dSLR has far more controls in camera and you can use a lens to suit the need at hand. Putting video into the mix with good audio does blow that budget though.

I'd suggest buying an entry level dSLR. Most these days have video that isn't bad. You'll see parts of movies shot with them and TV shows are starting to use them due to their small size, they are capable of getting a good quality shot from a tiny space that other cameras just can't. dSLRs also don't suffer from shutter lag, have a regular viewfinder (unless you're shooting video) which keeps the battery from having to power the LCD screen, have a burst mode (with auto exposure bracketing even).

Anti-shake can be achieved a few ways. Back in the film days you'd occasionally see an aerial shot and you wouldn't see a ton of blur. Well image stabilization wasn't around and airplanes weren't exactly smooth. They did it with a fast shutter speed (something an SLR is readily capable of). To achieve that you'd also use a wide aperture lens and high speed film (ISO). Today you just increase the ISO in camera as well as use a wide aperture lens. Increasing the ISO does increase the digital noise (red, green and blue blotches in darker areas as well as the "grain"), so you should use the lowest that lets you do what you've gotta do. You can also get a lens that decreases vibrations or movement. Each manufacturer will call it something different, but they all work pretty much the same. These will help with camera movement, but won't do a thing for subject movement (a racing car, a running cheetah, etc...) and are more useful for telephoto lenses than wide angle lenses. The general rule of thumb for getting acceptably sharp images without vibration reduction trickery is to shoot faster than the inverse of your focal length. So if you're shooting with a 50mm lens you'd want to shoot at 1/50th of a second or faster. If you're shooting with a 300mm lens you'd want to shoot at 1/300th of a second or faster. So you can see that if you're shooting a 20mm lens you're already slower than being able to capture any moving anything without it moving itself. Vibration reduction just lets you get slower than that general rule of thumb and still not have CAMERA movement.
[/url]

Dear cabbiinc

I sincerely thankyou for your lengthy and comprehensive reply. But the complex and interesting insights to the cameras you describe at that level of knowledge and understanding didnt just ALL fly over my head, it flew over, past Pluto and possibly entered another solar system.

I think that a DSLR for little me would be way above my station and actual need. When I mentioned photographing surf / beach I hadnt anticipated changing a function on the camera thats just the kind of things i'd like to photograph.

Thanks,cabbiinc. I think I was at the end of my knowledge with her last question. Me too Gloozit. I'd still like to know

I now have a more concise wish list idea of what I'm looking for thanks to everyones help and research.

Budget still - $200-350 approx. Australian
1. Extra super-dupa fast shooting performance - minimal lag
2. View-finder (for sunshine shots)
3. 15-25 X optical zoom
4. IO function - shaky hands help
5. Video good in low light and video that picks up sound well.

I hope that narrows it down a bit more

Gloontz, you mention 'Some cameras have no battery life, some never die', that sounds good or at least I need a camera with a good battery life.

Also, 'And bursts of 8 a second. ', does that mean takes 8 consecutive pics a second automatically?

Thanks all

PS: I also like the idea of being able to capture stills from video that you have taken, what would be the minimum video quality you'd need to be able to do this to an OK/good standard?

[gloozit]

Thanks,cabbiinc. I think I was at the end of my knowledge with her last question.

[gloozit]

Run out of edit time. Didn't know I was going to write abook. :D
I don't really agree with her needing a DLSR., for her needs. $400USD gets a high zoom camera that will do all she asks.
It's just sorting through features to make sure which camera has everything you need. A lot of the high zooms, omly shot JPEG, but a few do shoot RAW.
Some cameras can take rechargeable AA.s, others have rechargeable pack and to get spares for some is costly.
Some cameras have no battery life, some never die. One good feature of mine. I've used the same batteries, to take a trip to Detroit (pics along the way) . Take pictures at the hotel and before the game. And have the camera on, nearly the entire game, while taking up to 800 pictures. and some video.
I go weeks, on a set, taking pics around the yard of birds, kayaking on the lake, just out for a drive, or whatever.
That's why I keep stressing to read up on a few cameras, the ones (the OP) may think they want, to weed out those type of things.
There are some very good high zoom cameras, out there, with crappy sets of features.(I think the new term is mega-zoom)
But there are also good ones, with just the right stuff.
I saw one with a shutter speed of 1/3000. That's pretty quick, And bursts of 8 a second. That is too.

[gloozit]

Yes, on the bursts. I'm not sure which camera I looked at, but it was either the Nikon or one of it's competition. (links in the reviews) They were saying the new model took one less picture a second, than the previous one. And I'm not sure how fast you can take another burst.
Most cameras of this type take somewhere between 6 and 8 pictures a second on the burst setting,
The battery life is important. I had a Fuji that seemed like it ran out of juice, after a couple of pictures.
I lucked out. I wanted good battery life, because of how I use my camera. I leave it on a lot, waiting for a shot. I rarely use the flash so I get even more life. This camera lasts longer on a set of batteries, then any I have ever had.
I've seen a few cameras advertised that can grab a frame from video or take a picture while filming. Not sure on that. I don't do much video. Too many things on my plate now.
I think I have time today to dig for some good choices for you. I'll post later, after I wake up more.

More on the shaky hands. you may want to develop a shooting style that alows you to use a table to rest your elbows on or leaning against a door frame or some other way to steady your hands some.
Nearly all good high zooms have Image stabilization (If it is too good of a price, something got left out) so you will have that help. I've taken pictures in a rocking, bobbing, wave riding kayak and gotten crisp pictures. And all, while holding the camera ready, which gets tiring. My IS rocks!
This is one from a kayak and about 50 yards away: (that's less than 50 meters)

[jacknscoob]

Hi Everyone

To make this easier for any people skim reading my posts I am going to 'Bold/enlarge' my actual camera questions.

Gloozit thanks for your post. That is an amazing photo taken of the eagle, really clear, and u were on a kayak, was that at full zoom? What camera do you have at the moment?

So this may sound silly but what words do I look out for in a review for 'good battery life', what denotes a good battery life? 3hrs / 10hrs / 30hrs per battery?? 100, 1000, 10,000 photos? I know it depends on photos or video.

How many camera pixels/vid quality capability would allow me to at a later date on my PC grab a still from previously shot video? Not necessarily a super dupa photo, but clear and OK. Are there any techy terms for this?

cabbiinc, thanks for the link and advice

[jacknscoob]

Hi, just a quicky for Gloozit, Iv had a look at the link to http://www.dpreview.com/ that cabbiinic recommended and there appears to be a good camera search facility on that site. Might be something you'll be interested in too. It looks good so far, I'll let you know how I get on.



Back again, re 'IS' - which is best 'sensor-shift' or 'optical'?

The above website camera search is really interesting and narrowing my search down

[jacknscoob]

Me again

I have done a heap of research looking at different cameras.

One that stands out is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47 - Does anyone have any views??

Having read numerous reviews the following make me a bit nervous, are they things That I should worry about at my level.
- Slow zoom extension (takes a long time to get from 25mm to 600mm)
- Camera locks while writing to card. And that frozen image lock-up thing while writing to the card caused too many anxious moments

Also, the minimum shutter speed = 60 seconds, is that OK? normal? Seemed a longer time than other similar cameras.

Pls ignore the last three questions I asked in bold as I have worked them out now

I am not dead set on this one and still open to other suggestions.

Thanks

[cabbiinc]

No worries, a dSLR is an investment. Albeit as a hobby you can find far more expensive ones.

I do still suggest buying from a reputable store, skip the extended warranty (unless it's ridiculously cheap), and compare any models you're considering in person, even if you wind up buying online. Nothing beats holding the camera to see how it's going to feel.

Also check out the reviews for any camera you consider on http://www.dpreview.com/

[gloozit]

Originally Posted by cabbiinc

I do still suggest buying from a reputable store, skip the extended warranty (unless it's ridiculously cheap), and compare any models you're considering in person, even if you wind up buying online. Nothing beats holding the camera to see how it's going to feel.

Also check out the reviews for any camera you consider on http://www.dpreview.com/

Actually, that's what I decided after I left this morning.
Speaking in person, asking these questions, making sure the camera has the features you want, and making sure the salesman sells you what you want, not what he wants to sell. is the best way to do this.
You don't have to buy the first one either. Shop for price as well as features.