kelliebellie

Well how cool is that? Thanks Robespierre.

http://tinyurl.com/hkv8k

Scarlett

wanderluster, my husband is looking at the Nikon D200 or the D70S..plenty of research is going into this!
I am keeping the Canon G3~
It worked well enough for the Portland Japanese Gardens to want my photos for their ads/brochures

Clifton

Scarlett, you can tell your husband that there's at least one recommendation for the Nikons. I have a D70 that has been doing great for two fairly rough trips.

wanderlust5

Re: Photobooks:

Have had several made at www.shutterfly.com and also at the Microsoft Site. Both are great. They are great memories, and I have given as gifts to others we have met on various trips.

woot

I have a Nikon D70 which I love, love, love. At first I was debating whether I wanted to lug it around Italy during our upcoming trip b/c I have a few lenses, accessories, and a bulky bag. But then I thought, why have a $1k camera (at least it was a year and a half ago) if not to take on vacation? Plus, it will be a great opportunity to use my telephoto lense which rarely sees the outside of the camera bag.

Nikki

I would love to switch to digital but the several cameras I have tried drove me crazy because of shutter time lag. What level do I have to go to in order to avoid this problem? Is it possible in a point and shoot? Suggested models?

julies

woot--

Bulk, hauling extra lenses and size are exactly why I din't choose to go with a DSLR when I just purchased a new digital. I got a top of the line prosumer instead because it had a manageable size and is multi-functional.

kelliebellie

Nikki - look at anything labeled "advanced compact" and then you will just have to check the specifications of all the models. I know what you mean. We were kissing the Blarney stone and I was taking pictures with my Pentax Optio 555 and my mother-in-law's Kodak digital. I was able to take many more with my Pentax.

Another thing that may be hampering your shutter speed is the time the picture is displayed on the screen. That is a changeable option. Most of them these days have very fast shutter times.

grsing

Nikki: A lot of that has to do with settings on the camera (not just time the picture is displayed, and most cameras will still let you take a picture even while a picture is displayed), although, provided the camera has to focus and such, it's not completely avoidable. There isn't really a set level to go to to get rid of it, just depends on the camera (and the situation; really complex pictures take longer for the camera to figure out).

Nikki

Thank you kelliebellie and grsing. Your comments do not make me want to switch to digital, however. For me it is not a matter of how long before I can take the next picture; it is that I am very accustomed to pressing the shutter and having the picture taken at that moment with a film camera. With the digital cameras I have tried, I feel a total lack of control of the picture because I don't know at what moment the shutter will actually open. If this depends on the situation and not on the camera itself, I really have trouble imagining how people take the great pictures they do and how they feel they are in control of the process.

grsing

Most reasonably good digital cameras have a feature where you hold the shutter button down halfway and it does its focusing and light adjusting, then when you press it all the way, it takes the picture immediately. I think this would solve the problem in most cases (you are right that, if you just press the button all the way down immediately, it does take a substantial amount of time to actually take the picture, enough to miss any fast-paced action). If I'm trying to take a picture of something fast, I'll just focus before it gets there by half-pressing the button, and then press it when whatever it is shows up; the vast majority of the time, this works (or, if you get a camera with manual focusing & light adjusting, you can set it to manual and adjust it before the picture, which should make the time for the picture very short, much like a film camera).

grsing

Another thing you can do on some cameras if you're trying to catch a particularly quick-moving or elusive object is enable the feature where you just hold down the shutter and it takes pictures in rapid succession until you release the shutter or the memory card is full.

rkkwan

There's no difference in "shutter lag" between digital or film camera. Your picture is taken the moment you press the button all the way down.

However, there are two other differences:

1. Time to start up the camera. Many older digitals take over a second to "boot up". Newer ones are better. Some, like mine, default to show a "welcome screen" when first turned on that waste precious time. It can be turned off via the menu.

2. Time between photos can be taken. This depends on speed of camera to write to the memory chip, speed of the memory chip, and sometimes how much juice is left in the battery. Film camera has a lag too - time to wind the film. Better and more expensive digitals have less lag, check one out first if that's a concern.

Nikki

rkkwan, thank you but now I am really confused. The times I have tried digital cameras, it seemed as if the picture was not taken immediately upon pressing the button all the way down. The pictures that appeared were not the ones I had framed; things had moved. Partly it's that I don't hear that satisfying click that tells me when the shot goes off, but it really seemed like more than that to me.

Maybe I just don't get how to take pictures with digital cameras, but it doesn't feel right to me yet. This thread is getting me discouraged, though, about the possibility of getting a digital camera with which I will feel comfortable.

Neither of the two other points you mentioned would bother me. Booting up isn't an issue, and time between photos is not usually important to me.

kelliebellie

Nikki - Maybe you are talking about low light situations or hard to focus situations. In both sometimes my Pentax will just refuse to take the picture or take it after several tries of focusing. If I had a film camera the picture would just have been taken. I don't know if it would have turned out, but it would have taken. I, too, hate it when electronics think they are smarter than I am (although sometimes they are right).

Many cameras have a manual mode. I think this shuts off a lot of fancy items and turns them more into a film camera. I think the digital SLRs are much closer to real film cameras as well, but pretty $$$ right now.

My Pentax has various shutter noises you can choose and I use the good old fashioned click/film winding noise. Sometimes I turn it off in churches and such and it is really disturbing not to hear that famous noise when you hit the button.

If you don't feel comfortable taking pictures with your camera, then don't switch. But for me, the advanced editing controls once I get the photos to the computer are worth the trade offs.

Keep trying. They are coming out with newer and better models all the time!

rkkwan

Nikki - In my opinion, the experience you feel is the fault of the particular models you've tried. There's nothing inherent about digital cameras that will cost shutter lag. In fact, one can argue that because there's no mechanical shutter that needs to be opened and closed, it's inherently "faster" than a film camera.

Try some newer models in a store. Some slightly better models and not the bare bones.

julies

I too have a film camera I really like, and I was hesitant to switch because I kept waiting for a digital that could replicate the quality of my film camera. See my post above (somehwere in the middle of the thread) for what I finally ended up with as a digital.

I would never go back to film. The results I can get with the digital are amazing without even doing any processing on them in the computer.

Definitely try out higher end cameras and read reviews extensively before you purchase. To me there is definitely a learning curve to digital, especially if you purchase a higher end camera like I did and if you are coming directly from film.

I too sometimes have the problem with the camera searching for a focus in low light but am working on how to deal with this. The first digital I had home, I too was frustrated because I was outside and trying to take action shots and it seemed that I couldn't get what I wanted. After asking for some help on dpreview.com, I found out what I was doing wrong and how to correct this. I was outside just yesterday practicing again and was able to get some fantastic shots of bicyclists.

Buy at a place you can return with no charge if you don't like the camera and then practice, practice, practice. The nice thing about digital vs. film is that you can see your results without investing a penny in developing, so practicing really is worth it.

GreenDragon

I'll weigh in as well...

I love my Minolta DiMage Z1. It is digital, fairly lightweight, 10X optical zoom (plus 4X digital zoom I don't use, as I photoshop everything anyhow). It retailed at around $400, but I got it on ebay for $200 in the box with all accessories. It has an auto setting, but also settings for low light, night shots, macro, sports, etc. It has no delay on the shutter (very important! I hate that with most digital cameras!) and runs on AA batteries. it uses Secure Data cards, and I've been pleased with them -- the 512 holds 300 at the highest resolution (I sell my photoprints at 8X10 size). It's a 3.2 MP size.

I believe it's discontinued for a new model, but has a great feel, and it was great on our trip to the UK.

wanderer

Thanks everyone.

Our short list is:

Sony Cybershot R1
Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ30
Konica Minolta Dimage A200
Fujifilm Finepix S9000
Kodak Easyshare P880 Zoom

I think we have decided on a Prosumer rather than an SLR at this point (we had looked at the Canon Rebel XT).

If anyone has these cameras or knows of them, would love your take. Julies, please comment when you get back from Paris how you liked the A200.

Again, our top priorities are wide-angle, a good zoom, able to take pictures at night (we weren't able to take shots of the Grand Canal in Venice at night on our last trip - heartbreaking!) and low-light shots (i.e., in churches). This is least important to us.

We also don't want a camera that is too heavy, and I know the R1 is over 2 lbs.

kelliebellie

I think the Kodaks are junky. My mil's had awful color tones and slow shutter speed. And it was a newer high end model.