Hey Myer at least you don't have to buy a Leica to get good pictures:)

Various responses follow

Jim, You're a pro. Not fair. You take the equipment for granted and 'focus' on the subject. I was hoping to keep away from depth of field.

Actually, the main theme of what I wrote was a lense that doesn't permit enough light must be compensated for by a slow shutter speed which invariably ends up with results that are not very sharp.

I wrote 'reasonable' camera. Doesn't have to be expensive.

I chose a 28-105 (28 to 105) lens because I wanted moderate wide and moderate zoom. I didn't want something that was cumbersome to carry around on trips.

Some of my travel photos are at

www.travelwalks.com

A cable release is what one of the writers was referring to as to what screws into the lens area and eliminates the shake. However these are primarily available on pro cameras. However the main thing one should learn is COMPOSITION, very very important, whether with a point and shoot, pro cameras, disposable, etc. And true, those disposable cameras are great if used WITHIN their limits, such as the flash not being effective any further than say 10 feet away, not a half mile away at the super bowl or from a mountain top. Happy Snapping. Halfpint.

I am getting ready to buy a digital camera and would like to know what are some favorite ones in the $300-$400 range.

I think we're basically saying the same thing, Myer. And there are plenty of inexpensive (relatively speaking) cameras available capable of delivering both professional and casual shooting results...especially film cameras.

I enjoyed your website.

Thanks Jim.

I always use Leica's, the investement is worth it, I still have one from the 80s knocking around. They're beautiful to hold, and to look at, but more importantly the lenses are the finest quality delivering razor sharp detail everytime.

HowardR
You wrote in an earlier response:
"1. Remember that the camera only sees a portion of what your eyes are taking in."

I find this is one of the major causes for disappointment in photos. You're 100% correct.

M_Kindom2
You obviously have good (and probably expensive) equipment. I don't know how steady you are so let me ask. Assuming you don't use a tripod, how sharp would your daytime photos be if you were restricted to 1/20th - 1/30th of a second?

I konw I'm not quite as steady as I used to be. 1/125th - 1/180th (or even 1/250th) of a second does wonders.

I recently found a minitripod that easily fits into my bag that I carry with me. As you know, a tripod makes such difference to the sharpness of the image. I'm by no means a professional, but I have found that my Leica does lead to a noticeable improvement in the quality my photography. Of course there is the focusing and flexability that even Leica's compacts offer when compared to similar cameras.

Wow! this is a long and interesting thread. I think I just took a photography course.

A number of years ago I worked with professional photographers and the one thing I learned is that you have to shoot A LOT OF PICTURES to get a good one. A side benefit is that you learn from your mistakes. Since I have purchased a digital camera I have saved a small fortune in film. Over the years I feel that if I get one or two good shots out of a roll I was doing good. It took me a long time to go to digital, but I am glad I did and would not go back.

Sally: Go to this web site: http://www.pbase.com/ and click on "camera database" they have examples of photos taken with various digital cameras to compare. The site also has some beautiful galleries of photographs. Everyone has their opinion on a camera that is best. My suggestion is to go to a camera specality shop and pick the salespersons mind and have him show you the various cameras that will fit you need and pocketbook. You can also find some really good buys on Ebay. I have an Olympus 3.2 digital zoom that I paid about $400 for and I am happy with it. About the only complaint I have had with the digital cameras that I have used is that there is a second or so delay before the picture is taken after you press the shutter button.

Myer, I'm glad that you too recognize the difference between what the eyes see versus what the camera "sees." And if you think about it, that bit of advice is really strongly related to my other comment about taking the extra 20 seconds to frame the scene in your viewfinder. Once you've done the latter, you'll realize the former!

Something that is very worthwhile doing to see what the viewfinding actually captures - find a sign that is the same shape - rectangle - as the viewfinder. Fill the viewfinder so the outside edges of the sign are just in the frame, take the picture. Upon being developed you may find that there is more than just the sign in the picture or the sign has been croppped. Bear this in mind when taking photos with that particular camera, adjusting the frame of your shot accordingly.

I'm far from an expert on this subject, but will share my recent experiences. After a lot of searching - and asking questions on this board as well as researching on photography sites, etc. - my husband and I purchased two digital cameras. We wanted to do a variety of things, and no one camera fit all of our needs, so we decided to splurge and get them both.

Camera 1: Pentax Optio S4i. Tiny, tiny, tiny. Advertised to fit into an Altoids box, and it does. (I've chosen to use the ever-so-fancy plastic travel soap box for mine, however, and love the way it protects the camera. 4 megapixel, and 3x optical zoom. $349 + the cost of whatever secure digital card you choose. This is our "take everywhere" and "always ready" camera. It fits neatly into a pocket (shirt or pants) and is simple to operate.

Camera 2: Nikon D70 w/ 2 lenses (28-80, and 70-300), with Nikon case, 1 gigabyte Compact Flash card, and a few small miscellaneous pieces, it cost a total of $1600 (including shipping and insurance). Wonderful, wonderful camera - we've only begun to scratch the surface of what it can do, and are thrilled to pieces with the results.

Some words of advice (to echo and elaborate on others' comments above):

1. Pick up the cameras you like and try them out. This means you have to visit photo stores and see it. I loved everything I read about the Canon cameras, and absolutely hated them "in my hand." None of the buttons were logical to me, everything seemed to be in the wrong place, and it was awkward. This is entirely a personal preference (not a knock on the Canons - they're great cameras!), and I'm glad that I went and tried out a bunch of cameras before I chose one.

2. Go to the photo websites and read and compare the reviews of the cameras you're most interested in. We were considering the Nikon D70, but couldn't find one anywhere in our area. (I know, I know, we broke "Rule 1" above, but we did play with a variety of other Nikons, so were able to get a good feel for the general operations of the camera.) When we read the reviews online, this camera seemed to blow away everything in a similar price range. More importantly, it seemed "better" at some of the things that we deemed important.

3. Read the book! We've only had our cameras a few weeks (6 weeks for the Pentax, less than a month for the Nikon) and I've read the entire Pentax book almost three times (I'm going through it each evening). I've been through the Nikon book once (it's a big book!), and am starting over. You learn a LOT more on the repeated times through.

4. Take a course if you can. We bought the Pentax through Ritz Camera, and you get free photography courses if you do that. (They're a little miffed that we bought the Nikon on-line - ebay - but, tough!) Even though the courses aren't really in-depth, they've given us a good overview and reminder about photography techniques.

5. We bought a "cheat sheet" on ebay for the Nikon. It was only a few bucks, and it is already priceless to us! Quick reference and really easy to carry.

6. Practice, practice, practice. We take the cameras everywhere. I have taken lots of practice shots of dogs and cats, weather formations, flowers, and our friends. I'm learning a little at a time to take better shots.

7. Understand that you'll "need" a variety of accessories for your camera and that will end up costing money. We have the following Compact Flash cards for our Nikon: 128 mb (free from the ebay seller, when they had an unexpected glitch with the 1 gb cards); 512 mb (bought on sale at Staples because we were too impatient to wait for the 128 mb to arrive); 1 gb (came with the camera, but really arrived about 2 weeks later than the camera); and 4 gb (just ordered, due tomorrow, so I'll never run out of file space on vacation). We've also purchased a dehumidifier ($10) for the camera case, a new camera case ($155, but we like the size/shape better than the one that came with the camera), the cheat sheet mentioned above ($10), a "lens pen" (lens cleaner, $10), filters ($80-ish for 6), a filter bag ($15), etc., etc.

We'll give the cameras their first major tests at a couple of family reunions over the next month or so, and then see what happens when we go to Scotland this fall....

Gayle

P.S., Like someone mentioned above, I've taken some great shots with my cheaper point-and-shoot film cameras, and even won "honorable mention" years ago for a picture taken on vacation in England. But, I believe the better cameras, coupled with the instant feedback of the digitals, will improve my photography a great deal.

Yes, mk2, that's a solid bit of advice that I have found helpful...and it's one of the first things I've done whenever I got a new camera.
leonberger, while a lot of your advice is good, I still say, you don't have to spend $2,000 (which is about what you said you spent on your cameras and the extras) in order to take good pictures! And the converse is also true, spending $2,000 won't guarantee that you'll take good pictures! (Yes, I know: The more expensive camera will improve the odds!)

leonberger makes good points.

After reading that post, I would be willing to bet that, on the next Europe trip, the Pentax will catch most of the worthwhile pictures while the Nikon sits back at the hotel.

This is a very helpful post. Now I have signed up to take a digital photography course at the local state university.

HowardR,

The problem with spending 20 seconds framing the subject is that the subject is gone by then.

It's not fair to your companion, or my wife.

Reading the prices of what others are writing, I tried to show how you could get something reasonable for about $300. Most seem to be spending a lot more.

Nikon. I played with Nikons before buying my Canon elan 7e. I found the Nikon auto focus to be slow and noisy.

As written above. All personal preferences. If one was completely better than the other, they would all go out of business except for one.

Leon - excellent post

It all comes down to personal preference - "went digital" a while ago with a Canon G1 - great little point and shoot (okay not so little compared with what is out now). It has taken (with a little help from me) some great shots. But after a few months I realized something was missing - not so much in the quality of the pictures but the process of taking the pictures - I jsut missed the sense of connecting with the photo that I get with an SLR - somehow I feel more part of the picture. On this point I will agree with MK - so I went for a digital SLR and haven't looked back. I love the fact that I can take 300 photos in a day. I also like the fact that, on vacation I can review in the evening, often I'll see something that I'd like to go back and shoot.

I also appreciate the ability to change ASA on the fly - bright and sunny outside the Blue Mosque, so problem, interior shots, a couple of adjustments on the camera and off you go.

Myer, obviously, there are times when you'll miss the shot if you "take that extra 20 seconds." However, I'm talking about the majority of pictures that most of us take on vacation. Also, the 20-second time is just a guide. The point I'm trying to make is that you'll improve the quality of your pictures if you take a few more seconds before snapping away (or to put it another, if you don't rush your shot).
(PS: My wife has learned to tolerate my picture taking......most of the time!)

Myer, I agree totally with your comments about the capacity and "feel" of the SLR (and with your premise in your original email).

Our 4 GB card arrived yesterday (a day early - wow!) and we loaded it into the Nikon. After formatting, the camera indicates how many pictures we can take - 1100+, at JPEG Fine and the highest image size (3008 x 2000)! Even on RAW, we could theoretically take almost 400 pictures with that card in the camera.

Howard, I don't recall ever claiming that others have to spend $2000 (or even close to it) to get good pictures. What I tried to do was explain a little bit about the process we went through and some of the steps we felt were important. I added our final choices and the price, so folks could have an idea about the outlay for various cameras.

We tend to do a good amount of cropping and then enlarging details, so a higher resolution and great image quality/size was very important to us. This may not be true for everyone else. (My husband is a web developer, so often uses detailed pictures in his business.)

I also think that it is possible to get excellent pictures with an inexpensive film camera. I think digital costs a bit more to get really good shots. Why? Because film is more detailed than cheap-o (1 or 2 megapixel) digital cameras. You really need 4+ megapixels to get close to the quality of film. So, in my opinion, if you're looking for a really inexpensive camera that does a great job, stick with film. You don't get the "instant feedback" of digital, but you get a high quality print, which may be more important. (Or, of course, splurge on a digital with higher megapixels, so the quality is there. Many good digitals in the 4-ish megapixel range can be purchased in the $300-$400 price category.)

FYI: An excellent site for comparing cameras and reading detailed reviews is dpreview.com.

Gayle

P.S., metlc, I'll take that bet! I'm hardly able to pry the Nikon out of my husband's fingers. I suspect his goal will be to fill that 4 GB microdrive on a 2.5 week vacation... (I'll probably be allowed to use the Pentax.) :)