# Buying New DIGITAL CAMERA



## Romans922

GA has its downsides, especially for dumb people like me who misplace digital cameras. So now I am looking to buy a new one. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions about a good digital camera? Any and all suggestions are good.

NOTE: I don't know what my price range is, sorry.


----------



## Theognome

I bought a simple, beginner level camera pretty cheap. It's Fujifilm Finepix J10, and has so far served me well. You can get them new for around $130.00, and used (as I did) for under $80.00.

Theognome


----------



## OPC'n

Someone stole my digital camera a few years ago and I had to buy another. I wish I had waited and asked for opinions like you're doing. I know of two people who can give good advise: Beth and Theoretical. I'm so excited that you get a new one!!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

TranZ4MR said:


> Someone stole my digital camera a few years ago and I had to buy another. I wish I had waited and asked for opinions like you're doing. I know of two people who can give good advise: Beth and Theoretical. I'm so excited that you get a new one!!




Theoretical??? I thought I was the only one...


----------



## OPC'n

Well, help him, don't just sit there and cry!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

My preference is a camera that gives you much for your money. I personally have enjoyed using the Panasonic 12x and 18x zoom cameras. It gives you a nice range of zoom and a good quality Leica lens. Many of the pictures in my gallery were taken with the little Panasonic FZ5 12x zoom camera. I still love that little thing.


----------



## Jake

Well, I've ended up going through several digital cameras (and everyone in my house has gone through a few) so I have a good idea of them I would say. 

Here are a few things to look for that you might not think about:

A high optical zoom (not digital; this reduces quality as you zoom) 

Good manual settings (even if you're not into photograpy, these are very useful have when you can't get a shot right. The HP cameras and cheaper Kodak cameras I have used do not have many configurable settings so they can be harder to take good pictures with in some situations)

Now, from my experience, the best cameras that have good features while still being fairly easy to use are Canons and Fujifilms. If you are willing to pay a little more, look at this camera as welll as those in the Fujifilm S series. The nicer Sony cameras are good from what I have used them, but that is not very much.

Amazon.com: Canon Powershot SX110IS 9MP Digital Camera with 10x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom (Black): Camera & Photo

If you want a simple point and shoot camera that can get you good pictures, go for a Sony Cybershot or Nikon Coolpix. They have a good balance of features and price. The zoom is not as good, usually. Avoid Kodaks. They're not awful, but not as good. 

Another thing is that it's cheaper to get SD cards usually than the other types, so if you plan to buy a lot of memory cards so you can keep pictures on them and such, you may want to get an SD camera.


----------



## Tripel

Just go to one of Tchula's Best Buy stores and look at their selection. You will find plenty of options in whatever your price range happens to be. I'd stick with a good brand name like Canon, as even their low models will be really good.


----------



## Romans922

Daniel, you are kidding right? Tchula and Best Buy doesn't mix. We don't even have a restaurant or an okay grocery store. We are blessed to have a bank and a post office.


----------



## chbrooking

Once you find the model you want (though shopping there is pretty good, too), I've found good deals at pricegrabber.com


----------



## Casey

Are you looking for an SLR?


----------



## caoclan

Nikon D40. It is a lower priced Digital SLR camera, it takes great pics.


----------



## Romans922

What is an SLR?


----------



## Casey

Romans922 said:


> What is an SLR?


Single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, it's the kind of camera that allows you to swap lenses. They cost more but have more flexibility. Rich advised me to get a Canon Digital Rebel XT when I was looking for a camera, and I haven't been disappointed with it. If you're looking to go a less expensive route and aren't interested full control (aka, complexity) in photography, then a point-and-shoot (non-SLR) is your best option.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Either a Canon or Nikon Digital SLR. I don't recommend any other option. "Prosumer" cameras are "cute" but don't allow you to take great pictures or accessorize in a way that can be used for indefinite body upgrades.

Here are some options:

Amazon.com: Canon Digital Rebel XSi 12.2 MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens (Black): Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens: Camera & Photo


----------



## bisonrancher

You may want to consider how the camera is powered. If it uses its own battery, you must be able to plug it back into its own charger when dead, but with a camera that uses AA batteries you can always have a few ready in your case if it dies. 

There are also a lot of waterproof cameras on the market now that are worth taking a look at.


----------



## Idelette

You know, I've been doing photography for several years now and worked with dozens of cameras. I've taken several photography courses, (even made my own pin-hole camera once).... and I wouldn't consider anything other than Canon! If you're looking for an SLR....the above Canon model mentioned is great! But, if you're looking for something more compact and affordable...... I would suggest the Canon SD1100 IS, its the best compact camera on the market in its class! I have this camera, and it takes excellent photo's! It's very intuitive to use, and produces high resolution images. The nice thing about this model...is that it has a wide range of options to produce SLR quality images....yet without the added bulkiness or cost! Highly recommend it!

Amazon.com: Canon PowerShot SD1100IS 8MP Digital Camera with 3x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom (Silver): Electronics


----------



## Romans922

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this MAJOR issue that plagues our home?


----------



## Romans922

What would you consider a "High Optical Zoom"? What would be the minimum on that?





Jake said:


> Well, I've ended up going through several digital cameras (and everyone in my house has gone through a few) so I have a good idea of them I would say.
> 
> Here are a few things to look for that you might not think about:
> 
> A high optical zoom (not digital; this reduces quality as you zoom)
> 
> Good manual settings (even if you're not into photograpy, these are very useful have when you can't get a shot right. The HP cameras and cheaper Kodak cameras I have used do not have many configurable settings so they can be harder to take good pictures with in some situations)
> 
> Now, from my experience, the best cameras that have good features while still being fairly easy to use are Canons and Fujifilms. If you are willing to pay a little more, look at this camera as welll as those in the Fujifilm S series. The nicer Sony cameras are good from what I have used them, but that is not very much.
> 
> Amazon.com: Canon Powershot SX110IS 9MP Digital Camera with 10x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom (Black): Camera & Photo
> 
> If you want a simple point and shoot camera that can get you good pictures, go for a Sony Cybershot or Nikon Coolpix. They have a good balance of features and price. The zoom is not as good, usually. Avoid Kodaks. They're not awful, but not as good.
> 
> Another thing is that it's cheaper to get SD cards usually than the other types, so if you plan to buy a lot of memory cards so you can keep pictures on them and such, you may want to get an SD camera.


----------



## Jake

Romans922 said:


> What would you consider a \"High Optical Zoom\"? What would be the minimum on that?



It's as much as you want. It's how far it lets you zoom in. If you can afford, it I would go for at least an 8x. The smaller cameras with 1x-3x can be much cheaper, but they can also be limiting in many situations. DSLR cameras as recommended are great, but they are out of the budget for me and maybe you. They also require more learning and practice to get good pictures, but once you have it, the pictures are excellent... you can adjust the settings for many different things, there is manual focus, etc. 

The Canon I showed you is a cheaper camera that still has some (not as quick and easy) manual focus features and such and a good zoom. Another camera with less features and a bigger body, but great pictures, is this:

Amazon.com: Fujifilm Finepix S700 7.1MP Digital Camera with 10x Optical Zoom: Camera & Photo

(My dad found it for $200 at Christmas at Walmart. Search around! That looks expensive on Amazon)


----------



## Tripel

Romans922 said:


> Daniel, you are kidding right? Tchula and Best Buy doesn't mix. We don't even have a restaurant or an okay grocery store. We are blessed to have a bank and a post office.



Yes, I was kidding. I'm familiar with Tchula.


----------



## ServantofGod

In His Grip said:


> You know, I've been doing photography for several years now and worked with dozens of cameras. I've taken several photography courses, (even made my own pin-hole camera once).... and I wouldn't consider anything other than Canon! If you're looking for an SLR....the above Canon model mentioned is great! But, if you're looking for something more compact and affordable...... I would suggest the Canon SD1100 IS, its the best compact camera on the market in its class! I have this camera, and it takes excellent photo's! It's very intuitive to use, and produces high resolution images. The nice thing about this model...is that it has a wide range of options to produce SLR quality images....yet without the added bulkiness or cost! Highly recommend it!
> 
> Amazon.com: Canon PowerShot SD1100IS 8MP Digital Camera with 3x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom (Silver): Electronics



I second this one.


----------



## greenbaggins

I have a Nikon D40x and I absolutely love it. Don't bother with the more expensive D60-D80. And unless you want to go professional, I wouldn't bother with the D90 either. The ability to change lenses is a fantastic thing. The other really nice thing about the Nikon D40 is that they have made vibration reduction lenses, which means that you can take a lot of pics without a tripod that you would otherwise need a tripod for. Yes, your outlay will be more than a point and shoot. But you will also have the ability to get a flash that doesn't give you red-eye (because you can bounce the light off the ceiling instead of directly in people's eyes). Furthermore, you will have the ability to change the white balance (basically the color) and the exposure. It's really easy to get really great photos with the Nikon series.

By the way, for basic help on getting good photographs, I strongly recommend Ken Rockwell's website. You will learn a lot about how to get really good photographs without a huge amount of trouble.


----------



## wallingj

Do you want a small I can take every where camera, if so go with the compact models. If that is not an issue then go with the DSLR. Go to www.dpreview.com. I have recommended the Canon Powershot A series for individuals who are concerned about size, but want some performance. When it comes to SLRs I am prejudiced, since I started with Canon AE-1 back when I was in JR. High, then upgraded to EOS models when they were first released. Thus, because of the lenses I have, I have stayed with the D Rebel, then purchased the D40. Both Canon and Nikon make good DSLRs, and either would be great.


----------



## CNJ

I absolutely love my *Kodak EasyShare V1003* which I have had for two years; it runs rings around the former two I had. 

I also got sick and tired of my Dell and HP all-in-one printers and love the cheap Kodak all-in-one I brought at Wal-mart with its cheaper and excellent print cartridges.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> What would you consider a "High Optical Zoom"? What would be the minimum on that?


Regarding Zoom, good photos are all about good optics and good lighting. Forget Digital Zoom and also forget about small cameras with tons of megapixels. Cramming more pixels into the small sensors that the small cameras have lead to artifacts and poor image quality.

As noted by Lane, the great thing about an SLR is that you can buy the lens you need for the situation you need. Once you've purchased a lens for an SLR body then you can upgrade to another camera in the future and you take your lenses with you. I have a 17-85mm lens that I leave on my Canon EOS-30D for nearly all situations and I bring my 70-300mm lens with me when I'm doing sports photography. The lenses of the cameras I mentioned above equate to about a 3x zoom. You can pick up another lens in the future if you find yourself needing the zoom.

The problem with built in lenses is that if you scratch the lens on the camera then fixing that scratch is about as expensive as replacing the entire camera.

Regarding lighting, I don't care how nice the camera is but everything looks terrible indoors with built in flash. Again, an advantage to an SLR is a hotshoe for a speedlite that will allow for bounce flash. Getting an external flash and getting good lighting indoors literally makes the difference between the snapshot look and something that looks great.

You don't have to necessarily worry about being sophisticated right now but the bottom line is that a SLR will be better out of the box than the prosumer, built in lens, cameras. It will work better in ambient light because the sensor is bigger and the lens is bigger allowing for faster photography.


----------



## Romans922

Was thinking about the Nikon D40x, I read a review that said of the hundreds of different lenses, it will only take 20 or so. Is this true?

Besides this, I really want to get a SLR camera, and I was seriously looking at the Nikon's (D40x) to be exact.

My wife on the other hand doesn't want to get an SLR. (Not that this is causing any problems between us), she is worried about three things on the SLR.

1) Don't most SLR's come with Wide angle lenses? Does the D40x?
2) As recommended above, there doesn't appear to be Optical Zoom on these cameras. I thought this was good? Don't we need it?
3) Batteries - SLR's use Double A batteries, instead of the rechargeable stick kind of batteries


----------



## wallingj

Not an expert on Nikon, but friends who have used Nikon's have stated that a lot of the lenses work, but depending on the lense certain features might not work. Truthfully that is why I have stuck with Canon for sooo long. The lenses I bought back in the early 90s still work with full functionality with the new cameras of today. Nikon's track history in that regard is not as good. Plus Nikon keeps changing the format of their RAW files, making earlier versions of their software outdated, in addition last I heard, but could have changed, their RAW developing software was not free.


----------



## greenbaggins

All of the Nikon lenses will fit all of the Nikon digital SLR cameras, although not all of them will have automatic focusing (the ones made for the old film SLR's may or may not have auto-focus). Personally, I went with the 18-55mm vibration reduction lens (make sure it's marked VR, as they have an almost identical non-VR lens), and the 55-200mm VR lens to start with. My next purchases will be a good wide-angle (probably the 12-24mm), and a really long zoom, up to 1000mm or so. I don't know how many lenses there are available, but you can get from 12mm all the way up to 2-3,000 mm. This ought to be plenty for even the most crazed amateur photographic enthusiast.


----------



## greenbaggins

Romans922 said:


> Was thinking about the Nikon D40x, I read a review that said of the hundreds of different lenses, it will only take 20 or so. Is this true?
> 
> Besides this, I really want to get a SLR camera, and I was seriously looking at the Nikon's (D40x) to be exact.
> 
> My wife on the other hand doesn't want to get an SLR. (Not that this is causing any problems between us), she is worried about three things on the SLR.
> 
> 1) Don't most SLR's come with Wide angle lenses? Does the D40x?
> 2) As recommended above, there doesn't appear to be Optical Zoom on these cameras. I thought this was good? Don't we need it?
> 3) Batteries - SLR's use Double A batteries, instead of the rechargeable stick kind of batteries



SLR's often come in a package with a basic lens (like 18-55mm). That means it has a zoom from 18-55mm. Wide angle lenses are rarely sold as part of the package. Optical zoom is there in an 18-55, and if you buy the 55-200 that gives you lots more zoom. You zoom manually with your hand, though they typically autofocus. The Nikon D40x uses a rechargeable battery that will take about 400-600 pics before needing to be recharged. I should also note that 18mm is pretty wide. Most of the time that will be plenty of wide-angle. Wide angle lenses are not for "getting everything in," as in panorama shots. They are rather for getting way close to a subject and still being able to get it in.


----------



## Romans922

Lane, 

I'm probably going to ask more questions, but one thing before I look again at my information...

I am NOT seeking a wide-angle lens right now (maybe later), I am wanting to ensure that the lens that comes with the camera will enable us to take "normal" (non wide-angle) pictures. Am I understanding you that the lens that will come with the D40x will NOT be a wide angle lens, just a regular (if indeed it comes with a lens at all)?


----------



## greenbaggins

Romans922 said:


> Lane,
> 
> I'm probably going to ask more questions, but one thing before I look again at my information...
> 
> I am NOT seeking a wide-angle lens right now (maybe later), I am wanting to ensure that the lens that comes with the camera will enable us to take "normal" (non wide-angle) pictures. Am I understanding you that the lens that will come with the D40x will NOT be a wide angle lens, just a regular (if indeed it comes with a lens at all)?



Right. The most common lens package is the normal 18-55mm VR lens. This is not a wide-angle, but a normal lens, although 18mm is close to wide (as you can see, it overlaps some with the 12-24mm lens). For most portraits and nature scenes, this will be the lens of choice. Make sure you get the VR lens, if you go this route, though! The extra money spent on the VR is well worth it.

I should add that there are many different packages out there with many different lenses. The 18-55 VR is the most common. I bought mine from Cameta, and I would recommend them as having good service, and a fair price (definitely the best price for the D40x).


----------



## Berean

greenbaggins said:


> All of the Nikon lenses will fit all of the Nikon digital SLR cameras, although not all of them will have automatic focusing (the ones made for the old film SLR's may or may not have auto-focus)...



Lane, slightly OT, but what about Minolta? Do they not make digital SLR's anymore? Will the lenses for the "old" Minolta SLR film cameras (MAXXUM 430si RZ) work with full functionality on _any_ new digital bodies? Thanks.


----------



## greenbaggins

Berean said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the Nikon lenses will fit all of the Nikon digital SLR cameras, although not all of them will have automatic focusing (the ones made for the old film SLR's may or may not have auto-focus)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane, slightly OT, but what about Minolta? Do they not make digital SLR's anymore? Will the lenses for the "old" Minolta SLR film cameras (MAXXUM 430si RZ) work with full functionality on _any_ new digital bodies? Thanks.
Click to expand...


I have zero experience with Minolta. I do know, however, that lenses are specific to the camera. Canon and Nikon lenses, for instance, are definitely not compatible. The experts out there agree, however, that Canon and Nikon are definitely the best digital SLR manufacturers out there.


----------



## Curt

Romans922 said:


> Daniel, you are kidding right? Tchula and Best Buy doesn't mix. We don't even have a restaurant or an okay grocery store. We are blessed to have a bank and a post office.



You have a bank?
We don't have sidewalks or a downtown. But we do have two bars (the only public businesses in town).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> Lane,
> 
> I'm probably going to ask more questions, but one thing before I look again at my information...
> 
> I am NOT seeking a wide-angle lens right now (maybe later), I am wanting to ensure that the lens that comes with the camera will enable us to take "normal" (non wide-angle) pictures. Am I understanding you that the lens that will come with the D40x will NOT be a wide angle lens, just a regular (if indeed it comes with a lens at all)?



The 18-55mm kit lens is technically considered a wide angle zoom lens but it takes "normal" shots. It is not super wide angle or fisheye and will not distort the picture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BTW, there are over 100 lenses that will fit a Nikon D40x: SLR Lenses for Nikon Cameras | B&H Photo Video

There are some lenses that are made specifically for the Nikon DSLR that focus the image directly on the sensor while the full frame lenses still work fine but overlap the sensor a bit. 

If you're buying a Digital Camera then stick with Canon or Nikon. Minolta is way behind.


----------



## Idelette

If you're getting an SLR...you really need only two other lenses besides the standard...a zoom lens, and a macro lens. Wide-angle lenses actually distort images, creating a somewhat warped effect....mainly used for magazines, and photographing architecture and other structures. But for the average person....there is no need for a wide-angle lens. You can also buy filters that attach to the lenses themselves, that will give you a variety of options, rather than buying a dozen lenses. I would still highly suggest a Canon over a Nikon, just my


----------



## asc

in my opinion, don't go SLR unless you're really interested in photography. 

it has the potential to take much better pictures than point and shoot cameras, but only if you spend the time learning at least the basics of photography and digital photography (post-processing the image is often necessary). other big downsides include expense (filters, lenses, flashes, bags, batteries, tripods, remotes, etc) and size (the cameras are much bulkier to carry around than a point and shoot camera which you can often slip into your pocket).


----------



## Romans922

Thanks for everyone's help, I hope someone (like my wife and I) learned something. We just bought our camera. My wife, who did not want the SLR at first, has came around having been convinced that she will like this camera better because like me, she is a camera enthusiast (just haven't had much time to be enthused by it since being married, seminary, and now having a child). But we are going to work at being enthused again. 

So we just bought the: Nikon D40x Digital SLR with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G *VR *AF-S DX Nikkor Lens.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Hmm... maybe I should get a nicer camera.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

asc said:


> in my opinion, don't go SLR unless you're really interested in photography.
> 
> it has the potential to take much better pictures than point and shoot cameras, but only if you spend the time learning at least the basics of photography and digital photography (post-processing the image is often necessary).



This is not true. All the new SLR's come with Automatic modes that allow you to "point and shoot" as easily as any point and shoot. They obviously support RAW photos but I rarely, if ever, do any post-processing of shots even when I'm doing portraiture for semi-pro work.



> other big downsides include expense (filters, lenses, flashes, bags, batteries, tripods, remotes, etc)


You need one filter and one lens if you want to equate the expense to a point and shoot. As I noted, if that one lens gets broken or scratched with an SLR it's the cost of a lens whereas, for a point and shoot, it's practically the cost of a whole new camera. You only need an external flash if you're interested in taking good pictures, which, if you are not then point and shoot with onboard flash is mox nix.


> and size (the cameras are much bulkier to carry around than a point and shoot camera which you can often slip into your pocket).


This is one advantage but I've found it's really not a practical advantage. I have a handheld and I never bring it with me because I find I want good shots when I'm at zoos or parks and the like and it just takes crummy photos.


----------



## jogri17

Buy a canon. its the best


----------



## asc

Semper Fidelis said:


> asc said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, don't go SLR unless you're really interested in photography.
> 
> it has the potential to take much better pictures than point and shoot cameras, but only if you spend the time learning at least the basics of photography and digital photography (post-processing the image is often necessary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. All the new SLR's come with Automatic modes that allow you to "point and shoot" as easily as any point and shoot. They obviously support RAW photos but I rarely, if ever, do any post-processing of shots even when I'm doing portraiture for semi-pro work.
Click to expand...


Again, it's just my opinion but if one is just going to buy a digitial SLR with a kit lens and use the automatic mode; you're better off buying a high end point and shoot for a much cheaper price with more automatic functionality. I'm not saying you can't use the SLR if you don't know anything, but I'm not sure that you'll get much benefit from it without learning some photography (at least the basics). 



> other big downsides include expense (filters, lenses, flashes, bags, batteries, tripods, remotes, etc)
> 
> 
> 
> You need one filter and one lens if you want to equate the expense to a point and shoot. As I noted, if that one lens gets broken or scratched with an SLR it's the cost of a lens whereas, for a point and shoot, it's practically the cost of a whole new camera. You only need an external flash if you're interested in taking good pictures, which, if you are not then point and shoot with onboard flash is mox nix.
Click to expand...


my point was just that the cost can really add up if one is going to try and take advantage of what the SLR really has to offer (over the point and shoot camera): external flashes, polarizing filters, high quality lenses, etc.



> and size (the cameras are much bulkier to carry around than a point and shoot camera which you can often slip into your pocket).
> 
> 
> 
> This is one advantage but I've found it's really not a practical advantage. I have a handheld and I never bring it with me because I find I want good shots when I'm at zoos or parks and the like and it just takes crummy photos.
Click to expand...


i own a SLR and my wife owns a compact point and shoot. again, it's just personal perference, but there are many times when i find it uncomfortable to carry around a backpack with a bunch of equipment (especially with a toddler, whom i'm often carrying around, too).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

At about $600, the DSLR offerings from Canon and Nikon are comparable (or less) than a decent point and shoot. If one finds post-processing complicated then neither a DSLR or a point and shoot make a difference because even the decent point and shoot have many features that the average user never uses.

The only advantage of a point and shoot is size - not image quality or ease of use. In fact, the DSLR is much preferred if you have small kids because point and shoots take far too long to focus on the subject and moments are lost very quickly with young children.


----------



## asc

Semper Fidelis said:


> At about $600, the DSLR offerings from Canon and Nikon are comparable (or less) than a decent point and shoot. If one finds post-processing complicated then neither a DSLR or a point and shoot make a difference because even the decent point and shoot have many features that the average user never uses.
> 
> The only advantage of a point and shoot is size - not image quality or ease of use. In fact, the DSLR is much preferred if you have small kids because point and shoots take far too long to focus on the subject and moments are lost very quickly with young children.



Hmm, i think you can get a decent point and shoot for $400 or less. If you gave a person who knows nothing about photography a $600 dSLR and a $400 point and shoot, will they notice any significance difference in the pictures? I don't think they will. Come to think of it, even if you gave them a bunch of expensive dSLR equipment, would it make a big difference (other than pixel count)? 

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from getting a SLR, but i just think it's a waste to use it like a point and shoot camera. If one likes photography as a hobby or needs a feature you can't get on point and shoot cameras (shallow depth of field, macro, telephoto, etc) then it makes a lot of sense. But i'm not sure it's for everyone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

asc said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> At about $600, the DSLR offerings from Canon and Nikon are comparable (or less) than a decent point and shoot. If one finds post-processing complicated then neither a DSLR or a point and shoot make a difference because even the decent point and shoot have many features that the average user never uses.
> 
> The only advantage of a point and shoot is size - not image quality or ease of use. In fact, the DSLR is much preferred if you have small kids because point and shoots take far too long to focus on the subject and moments are lost very quickly with young children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, i think you can get a decent point and shoot for $400 or less. If you gave a person who knows nothing about photography a $600 dSLR and a $400 point and shoot, will they notice any significance difference in the pictures? I don't think they will. Come to think of it, even if you gave them a bunch of expensive dSLR equipment, would it make a big difference (other than pixel count)?
Click to expand...

This is untrue. I would encourage you to do more research about the quality of the sensors and the lenses that make a significant difference in image quality.

If somebody doesn't care about quality in the least then I have a Fisher Price Digital Camera I can recommend that my 3 year old daughter uses that takes pictures.

But, people who might otherwise not seem to care about image quality do when they take a picture indoors and the image is blurry or is too dark or, with a flash, the red eye is severe. You don't have to be intelligent to care about such things.

You keep shifting the issue at hand, anyhow. First, you discourage the purchase because post-processing was a must for DSLR (not true). Then you say the DSLR will have so many more features than a point and shoot that the extra features are a waste of money (not true).

Stick to the real issues if you want to discourage somebody: it might be a bit more expensive and it will be bulkier. That's it. Don't try to make the issue more than it is. 

With that, however, you need to honestly help somebody assess if this will be their only digital camera. If so, then I would always recommend a person get a DSLR that they can grow their lens collection over time. Why recommend a point and shoot to parents with little kids who will want pictures of their kids growing over the years in many settings (indoors and out) where, with a minor investment, two lenses will make all the difference in the world in the quality of those pictures?

Rather, for the potential savings of a couple of hundred dollars (for a non apples to apples comparison on image quality) the person has a platform for taking pictures that it limited to snapshots and will never have capacity to grow beyond that point. And, as I have repeatedly noted, if the built-in lens on that point and shoot is ever damaged then the person needs a brand new camera.

I default to recommending DSLR for a family because point and shoot only offers a couple of advantages and every other disadvantage makes it a bad investment as the only camera that a family purchases.


----------



## asc

Semper Fidelis said:


> This is untrue. I would encourage you to do more research about the quality of the sensors and the lenses that make a significant difference in image quality.
> 
> If somebody doesn't care about quality in the least then I have a Fisher Price Digital Camera I can recommend that my 3 year old daughter uses that takes pictures.



Is the comment about a child's camera really helpful? Does it really compare to a $400 point and shoot? 

Obviously you don't think much of my opinion. That's fine; I never claimed to be an expert.


----------



## Idelette

Actually ,Alex, I think you have a valid point! It used to be the case that point and shoot cameras had poor quality compared to SLR's, but today's technology has narrowed that gap considerably! I agree with you.....in that the average person is not very knowledgeable when it comes to photography and cameras. For those individuals it would be a waste of money to buy an SLR, because they never utilize its full capacity. Unless someone really invests their time and energy into learning how to use the camera properly, it would be a waste of time and money. In fact, some people I know eventually end up buying a point and shoot because of its size and simplicity! It takes someone that is really committed to photography to stick with an SLR. 

Personally, I tend to use my point and shoot more often simply because of its size! (And my camera doesn't take crummy photo's ) As far as indoor photography....my point and shoot does have manual settings; I can turn off the flash and adjust the ISO as I see fit. And as far as the cost of replacing a lens; a point and shoot it is still cheaper than replacing a lens on an SLR. I would agree that the quality of SLR images are a bit better.....but personally, I think the only real advantage is speed!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

asc said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is untrue. I would encourage you to do more research about the quality of the sensors and the lenses that make a significant difference in image quality.
> 
> If somebody doesn't care about quality in the least then I have a Fisher Price Digital Camera I can recommend that my 3 year old daughter uses that takes pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the comment about a child's camera really helpful? Does it really compare to a $400 point and shoot?
> 
> Obviously you don't think much of my opinion. That's fine; I never claimed to be an expert.
Click to expand...

I apologize for losing patience last night. Your reaction, however, is sort of my point. Your comment about a point and shoot is not really helpful because a $400 point and shoot does not really compare to a $600 DSLR.

I have a point and shoot camera but I'm trying to provide a broad recommendation because when somebody asks for advice for a type of camera to buy I don't want to assume they don't really care about how the image looks.

It doesn't take much training or effort to develop a few skills on how to do good flash photography. Also using a lens that will take good indoor shots is key.

I've taken about 40,000 pictures over the last 10 years of owning digital cameras and have owned the gamut of camera types. I was initially satisfied with the snapshot look on pics but then realized that I could, with a meager investment, dramatically improve pictures if I just got an off camera flash.

My desire to learn a little more about how to take pictures was born out of a desire to get good shots of my kids. I've never bothered to become a bona fide expert nor do I study photography much but I've learned a few basics that are repeatable.

When I compare "decent" point and shoot, then, I'm thinking of the types of cameras that would have hot shoe support at which point these "prosumer" cameras are comparably priced to DSLR's. Without the hot shoe, a person is perpetually stuck in "snapshot mode" where they have to rely on the on camera flash with all the harshness that direct flash brings to a photograph. People become so accustomed to this snapshot look that they don't think anything of it until they learn that it's not too hard to get really decent pictures with little effort.

In fact, as I noted previously, good pics are all about lighting and optics. If you have crummy lighting then a $100 digicam is no worse than a $4000 DSLR using direct flash. But, with a few basics, it makes all the difference in the world.

Here's an example of the results with bounce flash:







and without:






The second picture is good but you can see that you could never really use the output of an indoor pic like that to hang on a wall.

Here is the same camera now with a lighting kit setup:






This picture was right out of the camera with only cropping and no other post-processing.

I got into lighting because I got tired of spending over $100 every time I got a picture of my kids at the Picture People so I spent the equivalent of 3-5 visits to a photo studio to buy my own lighting kit. I didn't have to buy a new digital camera because my DLSR works with the lighting kit.

In the final analysis, I'm trying to recommend what I think a family might expand into if they're interested in rather than tie them down to a point and shoot that will only give them snapshot capability. If I know, up front, that a person is never interested in getting good indoor pics and is satisfied with snapshot direct flash of their kids then I'd recommend the cheapest point and shoot on the market that has acceptable results.


In His Grip said:


> And as far as the cost of replacing a lens; a point and shoot it is still cheaper than replacing a lens on an SLR.



SLR Lenses for Canon Cameras | B&H Photo Video

For my Canon, I count 48 lenses that are < $250 and another 50 that are < $400.


----------



## SRoper

Romans922 said:


> Thanks for everyone's help, I hope someone (like my wife and I) learned something. We just bought our camera. My wife, who did not want the SLR at first, has came around having been convinced that she will like this camera better because like me, she is a camera enthusiast (just haven't had much time to be enthused by it since being married, seminary, and now having a child). But we are going to work at being enthused again.
> 
> So we just bought the: Nikon D40x Digital SLR with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G *VR *AF-S DX Nikkor Lens.



I was thinking about getting the D40 with the VR lens. Where did you end up getting it from?


----------



## Romans922

The great land of Ebay. Brand new, was the cheapest I could find it. If you are patient and make sure it is the VR Lens. You can get it.


----------



## Romans922

Just received the camera via UPS from Cameta Camera. Waiting for battery to charge and will hopefully take a few pics of my son Oliver.  And a snake that I just killed so someone can tell me what kind it is.


----------



## Curt

When are you going to pot the snake pic? That should be interesting.


----------



## Romans922

I've posted snake pics before because I am not good at IDing snakes. So I kill them and then post them on here (I've done it once with 2 snakes). 

But here are some pics with the new camera (if this picasa to PB thing works, it didn't two days ago very well). NOTE: this is without reading the directions just playing around.

I think they look pretty good.


This is my dog Bruce (after Bruce Wayne):





http://lh4.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5WYzy6j4I/AAAAAAAAAb8/tvsLITYVk9o/s576/DSC_0001.JPG



http://lh6.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5WZBKXKaI/AAAAAAAAAcA/trcMaamghOE/s576/DSC_0003.JPG

And then here is the snake. The head looked too rounded, didn't look poisonous. Any help on this one? WARNING: THIRD PICTURE IS GROSS (for all those ladies out there).






http://lh3.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5Yg_jRmWI/AAAAAAAAAcI/1jTWggqI5_s/s576/DSC_0004.JPG





http://lh6.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5YhscNouI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/DvYSUIsDJ2g/s576/DSC_0007.JPG





http://lh3.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5YhN1MzFI/AAAAAAAAAcM/BNInL9J7T04/s576/DSC_0005.JPG

Can anyone tell I don't like snakes. I have to pulverize them with my garden hoe before I believe they are dead.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 03:22:47 EST-----

NOTE: also, as Lane was talking about and as you can see with Rich's pictures above, the bounce flash makes a big difference, see Rich's photos compared to my built in flash on my camera, pointed directly at my dog bruce. I have to wait to get my flash (when I have money for it).


----------



## greenbaggins

Andrew, try taking a pic of the dog inside with no flash whatsoever. On the mode dial simply put it to the flash sign crossed out.


----------



## Romans922

Wow, with little light in the room, with what Lane suggested, that made a world of difference. I had to keep really still though, as the shutter speed was very slow (to get more light in). And I had to get Bruce to not move either (that was hard)!!!

Still a little blurry, but not a problem for me:





http://lh4.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5eNEIhdDI/AAAAAAAAAcw/RpM1G0hzqko/s400/DSC_0015.JPG





http://lh6.ggpht.com/_wiYJpGliM-0/Sk5eNXdylYI/AAAAAAAAAc0/n1BsJRWnuyg/s576/DSC_0016.JPG


----------



## greenbaggins

I don't generally use flash at all inside if there is even a hint of ambient light, and you can see why in these pics. The only time I use a flash inside is if there is no sunlight, or the light itself inside the room is just too low. Ironically, it is outside in direct sunlight that you need to use the flash, because the flash outside will not make the background go dark, but it will get rid of the shadows on people's faces.


----------



## Romans922

Interesting, but sounds logical to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If you want to take pics inside with no flash and there is little available light then increase the ISO setting on the camera and you'll be able to take some shots that won't require that you hold the camera really still.

Also, consider saving up for an external flash in the future so you can use bounce flash as above.


----------



## greenbaggins

One other thing to mess with constantly is the white balance. This allows you to change the color scheme in reaction to the kind of light you've got. You can set it several different modes (flash, shade, sunlight, etc.), and then you can make it go up or down to plus or minus 3 on each mode setting. Fiddle around with it until you get comfortable with it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here is an awesome resource for lighting and repeatable techniques that yield good results: Chuck Gardner's Articles and Stories


----------



## walkwithgod

I heard that Minolta has been sold to SONY. You might need to check with SONY for your old Minota lens.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

walkwithgod said:


> I heard that Minolta has been sold to SONY. You might need to check with SONY for your old Minota lens.



That is correct. Sony acquired Minolta to include Konica Monolta and has been producing some very good DSLR's since 2007 and is catching up to Canon and Nikon.

Sony Alpha 900 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


----------

