Looking for suggestions on a new digital camera.

My budget is about $200.00 US. Ive been looking for a good point and shoot camera. I was wondering if anyone has experience with some good cameras what do you have and about how much you have paid for it? Im looking to do mostly night time photos and some daytime photos too. Looking for some input. Thank you.

I have a really good point and shoot and seems to have quite alot of good features that really help, night time, stars, ect

Its the Panasonic lumix TZ7, and also has 12X optical zoom, Its around £200 in the UK so just have a peek around in the US as it may be cheaper, Sometimes ebay ect you can get them for half the prise,

reply to post by asala


Thank you. Ill check it out.

reply to post by JohnieG


all i got to say is

optical zoom
not digital zoom

good luck

reply to post by Dyax-


Thank you ill keep that in mind.

First I'll have to disclose I'm biased towards Nikon and have been using Nikon equipment for both film and digital. Others are biased towards Cannon although I think that is an issue more of price than quality.

Two thousand is enough for you to think entry level DSLR. There are many advantages over a point and shoot. You have to first decide how much effort in learning you want to put in and is this a passing fancy for you.

First with a DSLR you have the huge advantage that as you collect lenses, you will be able to use them with each new Body you purchase in the future. This is another reason I endorse Nikon. The huge disadvantage to not going DSLR is that if you do go point and shoot at consumer level and then decide you like Photography enough to stick with it, the point and shoot won't satisfy you and it will land in a drawer or sold for pennies on the dollar as they don't hold value. While a good DSLR will remain useful to you for a long while and when you retire the body you only need to purchase the newer body as the lenses will survive many new bodies.

I'd say you should carefully consider how serious you are. If all you want to do is take family and vacation photo's, you should maybe spend a few hundred and there is no reason for you to spend two thousand, so why waste it on features you will never use.

On the other hand, if you want to learn photography at a serious level a point and shoot will disappoint you very quickly. You will find you want to be able to shoot from long distances, no way to do that without a DSLR and a long lens. You may find you want to do large high quality prints, the quality from a point and shoot won't satisfy you. You may find you want do to take studio shots and again a point and shoot does not have the features you need provided through all the accessories. The programed modes on point and shoots limit greatly what you can do but work wonderful if your just filling the family album.

The downside of DSLR is that the initial purchase is just the start. One good lens can cost far more than the body. Say you decide you enjoy shooting birds in flight or you are into wildlife shots. The lenses you need will far exceed the cost of the initial camera.

If in doubt, buy a point and shoot under five hundred and then decide if its something you will want to truly learn and take up as a hobby. Then if its something that is just a passing fad with you, your not out a lot of money. If you do decide to then step up to good equipment, you still have a good point and shoot to keep in your car or handy for unexpected shots and your not out anything.

As to what brand? I say Nikon if you can afford it but Cannon is a good option also. My Wife who is a Pro and myself have both, but we never use the Cannon body and lenses that sit unused. The sensors in the Nikon bodies are simply better.

I should mention when dealing with Nikon, you need to understand that the mega-pixel count is misleading. A for instance ten mega-pixel will give better quality images than say a twenty mega-pixel in another brand with inferior sensors.

You can likely pick up a like new used D200 (excellent camera for a beginner), D300 (even better) or similar for low enough to even have money in your budget for another entry level lens or two.

Remember on top of the camera body and lenses, if your serious your looking at needing Photoshop and PS Plug-ins and all the time that goes into learning. Photography requires a real investment of time and money.

Again if your needs are met by a point and shoot, you don't need to spend that much. Remember also that the DSLR functions as a point and shoot also with excellent automatic or programed settings.[

Originally posted by Dyax-
reply to post by JohnieG

 

all i got to say is

optical zoom
not digital zoom

good luck

Good advice. That is another big consideration. Many are mislead by digital zoom which is useless.

I just got a used canon 350d (a digital SLR) with lens from ebay for around £200
I am really happy with it and you can still use it as a basic point and shoot camera in automatic mode, but it also lets you go fully manual if you want to take photography more seriously

I can posts some pics if you want to see the quality of the images it produces

reply to post by Blaine91555


Thank you for that wealth of information. I will truly consider spending more. It seems getting a body may be what im really looking for.

Originally posted by davespanners
I just got a used canon 350d (a digital SLR) with lens from ebay for around £200
I am really happy with it and you can still use it as a basic point and shoot camera in automatic mode, but it also lets you go fully manual if you want to take photography more seriously

I can posts some pics if you want to see the quality of the images it produces

Some pictures would be nice to see if you got time to post them. It would be appreciated!

I will also let you see some pics i took with mine, heres some i have taken with my camera

www.facebook.com...

And also this one

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/67dd74cb8762.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by JohnieG
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Thank you for that wealth of information. I will truly consider spending more. It seems getting a body may be what im really looking for.

Your welcome. Don't be afraid of used either. Much of my equipment was purchased used and even years later is like new. I've noticed DSLR's even one generation old drop a lot in price. Currently I'm in love with the Nikkor VR lenses (vibration reduction). I'm getting older and it allows me to continue shooting handheld shots with long lenses even though my hands are not as steady as they once were.

Don't let me lead you to Nikon though as Cannon makes excellent camera's and are somewhat cheaper for similar capabilities. Good luck and have fun with whatever you get. It's a wonderful hobby or profession.

reply to post by asala


That Panasonic lumix TZ7 takes some really nice pics. I like it!

reply to post by JohnieG


Is there anything wrong with using 35mm regular cameras? I was looking at a 35mm film camera called Canon EOS Rebel k2 with a Tamron 28-80 lense. What do you think?

reply to post by JohnieG


Here are some pics taken with my canon 350d (its also called digital rebel I think) click for the image again for a full size picture
All the images were taken in more or less point and click mode using the cameras presets as i havent gone to deep into the manual setting yet

The only problem with traditional 35mil cameras is getting the film developed which is getting more difficult all the time.

image 1
image 2
image 3
image 4

Hi, a regular 35mm cam can take great pics, if the film & lighting are good, but the cost of processing has essentially rendered 35mm cams obsolete.
For the money I would go with a Fujifilm S series cam (the best you can afford) or a Lumix. I've used both & they both take BEAUTIFUL, crisp, great colour images, especially the Fuji.
I sold my S9600 last year to 'upgrade' to a Nikon & was VERY disappointed.... the edge of the images had severe purple fringing & the colour was washed out & nowhere near as good as Lumix/Fuji. Image detail was nowhere near as good either. I took the Nikon back thinking it was defective & eventually sold it. The next camera I get will be another Fuji S, probably one of the newer more compact ones.

reply to post by HelionPrime


Thank you for the info and helping in my quest for a good camera.

reply to post by davespanners


Just for the automatic mode those are very clear images. I like it.

reply to post by JohnieG


One other advantage that a dslr has is that the bigger lens lets you control the depth of field. On mine there is a pre set mode that automatically controls it

The photographs I linked all have a shallow depth of field i.e. the foreground is in focus and the background is blurred, it's hard to achieve that with a camera with a small lens like most point and shoot cameras have, although I think some of the newer ones do have an option like that

Originally posted by HelionPrime
Hi, a regular 35mm cam can take great pics, if the film & lighting are good, but the cost of processing has essentially rendered 35mm cams obsolete.
For the money I would go with a Fujifilm S series cam (the best you can afford) or a Lumix. I've used both & they both take BEAUTIFUL, crisp, great colour images, especially the Fuji.
I sold my S9600 last year to 'upgrade' to a Nikon & was VERY disappointed.... the edge of the images had severe purple fringing & the colour was washed out & nowhere near as good as Lumix/Fuji. Image detail was nowhere near as good either. I took the Nikon back thinking it was defective & eventually sold it. The next camera I get will be another Fuji S, probably one of the newer more compact ones.

Truly odd as Nikon always sets the standard, with Cannon not far behind? What model? I have an old 5 mp Nikon point and shoot from ten years ago that still outperforms newer ten or twelve mp camera's for low noise and clean prints? At the high end not even the other manufacturers would dare compare to a new D3X, the new standard for Pro's but of course way out of consumer range in price. $8,000 for just the body. You can shoot noise free in extremely low light. The sports photographers are mothballing their Cannons it is so supperior. It is the first 35mm equivalent DSLR to match the quality of medium format film in fact. You must have had a defective camera if it was a low end camera? Even Nikons mid-priced entry level take excellent shots if the person knows how.

I notice you say "compact" as if that is a good thing. It is unless you want good photo's. The smaller the sensors, the more noise, less detail, worse vignetting and fewer circumstances it will do what you want. It simply won't perform in low light or produce files for good quality large prints. It's a matter of perspective I suppose, but in the camera world it goes Nikon, Cannon and everything else below for quality in DSLR's. Google some testing labs results for facts. If your goal is only 4x6 family photo's then by all means consumer cam's are plenty good. Most any brand.

Please don't take me wrong but your describing bad chromatic aberations from a Nikon? Hard to swallow unless it was a defective camera, in which case they would have replaced it without argument. Either that or some settings were way off kilter or it needed the firmware reinstalled.