Choosing a digital camera
Apr 18th, 2005, 05:30 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choosing a digital camera
I am trying to choose a digital camera to replace my 12 yr. old SLR camera. I wonder if I can justify the expense of a DSLR for international travel and for use at home. I am afraid I might be disappointed in the P/S type digital camera. Any advice will be appreciated!
Apr 18th, 2005, 06:28 PM
#2
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marsh,
This topic received great discussion on the Africa forum. If this link does not work, then
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.
“Digital cameras you are considering for upcoming safaris” is the post title. You can ignore the safari part, the discussion was about cameras.
Now here is my 2 cents. I did just buy a Nikon Coolpix 5600 P&S for travel and other purposes to get used to the technology. It has 3x optical zoom and would never replace my SLR. So I think you would be disappointed in a tradeoff like that.
Fuji has an 8 or 10 x Zoom that would be good, so does Panasonic and Minolta Dimage. None of these require lens changes.
Since I have Minolta now, I looked at the Minolta DSLR. It is more expensive than other brands but does have image stabilization built into the camera. That contrasts with other brands where expensive lenses provide the stabilization. At least that's what the camera store said. Plus lenses used on the Minolta SLR can be used on the digital Minolta.
I'll still be taking my non-digital for the next couple of trips, plus my handy digital P&S.
This topic received great discussion on the Africa forum. If this link does not work, then
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.
“Digital cameras you are considering for upcoming safaris” is the post title. You can ignore the safari part, the discussion was about cameras.
Now here is my 2 cents. I did just buy a Nikon Coolpix 5600 P&S for travel and other purposes to get used to the technology. It has 3x optical zoom and would never replace my SLR. So I think you would be disappointed in a tradeoff like that.
Fuji has an 8 or 10 x Zoom that would be good, so does Panasonic and Minolta Dimage. None of these require lens changes.
Since I have Minolta now, I looked at the Minolta DSLR. It is more expensive than other brands but does have image stabilization built into the camera. That contrasts with other brands where expensive lenses provide the stabilization. At least that's what the camera store said. Plus lenses used on the Minolta SLR can be used on the digital Minolta.
I'll still be taking my non-digital for the next couple of trips, plus my handy digital P&S.
Apr 20th, 2005, 08:39 PM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a website I found that compares hundreds of digital cameras.
http://www.imaging-resource.com
http://www.imaging-resource.com
Apr 21st, 2005, 11:08 AM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to replace your SLR with a P&S digital, you are going to need to find one with a fairly powerful optical zoom. We got an Olympus C-765 with a 10x optical zoom and have gotten some pretty amazing shots of wildlife. You will find, though, that you have to be a bit more careful about allowing for shutter lag time and also will need to be careful with it's sensitivity to movement. That said, I got some great evening shots of Rio with the lights coming on. I had to use a tripod and the time delay shutter setting, but what results I got! Including a close up with the telephoto of the Christ the Redeemer statue all lit up. My dad has been a profesisonal photographer and he recently went digital, but he did the DSLR - he got a Canon Rebel because he had all of the lenses for Canon. he loves it and gets some great shots. I think he paid just under $1000. Check out abesofmaine.com. They have some great prices!
May 5th, 2005, 01:46 PM
#5
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have used a film SLR for years, but when I decided to go digital, I went for a compact. It wasn't just P&S, there are many manual settings that I can avail of, but all the same that camera just isn't enough. Compacts just can't produce what SLRs can, to my eye. So I ended up buying a dSLR as well. I still use the compact, it's grand to shove in my pocket for a night out where I don't want to lug a camera bag around, but I would have been better off going straight for the dSLR.
Given how much dSLRs have come down in price recently, and the possibility that you can use your existing lenses and accessories (depends what make you bought into, I suppose), I think you might as well go the whole hog.
Given how much dSLRs have come down in price recently, and the possibility that you can use your existing lenses and accessories (depends what make you bought into, I suppose), I think you might as well go the whole hog.
May 6th, 2005, 05:07 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
I went with the Fuji S5100 with 10X Optical, and the price was right at $285 from B&H; of course, needed 256Mb and 512Mb media cards, batteries, charger (the extras purchased from discounters)... but I went for it.
This is also for an upcoming return to Africa trip. But my handy-dandy 35mm 140zoom will be right there with me as back-up.
So far from the few photos I've taken with the digital - it seems "idiot proof" - truth will tell on my return from Africa. Though I know there is no way digital will be less expensive then film, even over the long-term.
Check out the link "atravelynn" posted above... loads of information, most of which sounds like a foreign language to me; you'll find it useful.
This is also for an upcoming return to Africa trip. But my handy-dandy 35mm 140zoom will be right there with me as back-up.
So far from the few photos I've taken with the digital - it seems "idiot proof" - truth will tell on my return from Africa. Though I know there is no way digital will be less expensive then film, even over the long-term.
Check out the link "atravelynn" posted above... loads of information, most of which sounds like a foreign language to me; you'll find it useful.
May 9th, 2005, 04:21 PM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to those of you who have responded to my question. I will probably get a DSLR. Sandi, I think you are right about digital format not being any cheaper than film. The digital stuff is just so expensive!
May 11th, 2005, 08:57 AM
#8
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was ready to purchase digital for the first time, I was fortunate to learn from other fodors members about www.dpreview.com. This website is amazing; can answer every question you might have. I did comparisons, then looked to see who across the US had the best price once I had settled on a specific camera. I called, ordered by phone (for those queasy about giving credit card #'s online) and my camera & memory card arrived within a week. I live in the SW U.S. and purchased from Brooklyn, NY -- altogether a very positive experience.
May 12th, 2005, 12:40 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Marsh -
I've moved into digital kicking and fussing. When one has paid $2 for a roll of film and $6 to process duplicate photos, there is no way that digital can come out cheaper. Surprisingly, I've never taken more than 14 rolls of film (most being 24 exposure), on any holiday anywhere in the world, and have no intention of taking many more with digital. And if two people are traveling together, that twice the number of photos.
Sure there are sales at $0.15 to $0.19 a picture, but who wants to wait for a sale when you return from vacation.
I can only hope that this new "toy" proves itself to be worth the expense on the upcoming trip to Africa. I'll let you know when I return.
I've moved into digital kicking and fussing. When one has paid $2 for a roll of film and $6 to process duplicate photos, there is no way that digital can come out cheaper. Surprisingly, I've never taken more than 14 rolls of film (most being 24 exposure), on any holiday anywhere in the world, and have no intention of taking many more with digital. And if two people are traveling together, that twice the number of photos.
Sure there are sales at $0.15 to $0.19 a picture, but who wants to wait for a sale when you return from vacation.
I can only hope that this new "toy" proves itself to be worth the expense on the upcoming trip to Africa. I'll let you know when I return.
May 13th, 2005, 05:41 AM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sandi - I'm not sure of what you are saying here:
"And if two people are traveling together, that twice the number of photos.
Sure there are sales at $0.15 to $0.19 a picture, but who wants to wait for a sale when you return from vacation."
"And if two people are traveling together, that twice the number of photos.
Sure there are sales at $0.15 to $0.19 a picture, but who wants to wait for a sale when you return from vacation."
May 13th, 2005, 01:09 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
>>sandi - I'm not sure of what you are saying here:
"And if two people are traveling together, that twice the number of photos.
Sure there are sales at $0.15 to $0.19 a picture, but who wants to wait for a sale when you return from vacation." <<
If two people are traveling together, hopefully both of you aren't taking the exact same photos throughout the trip. And if, as with film, when processing you automatically get duplicates, you share photos. Also with 35mm processing duplicates the price of each photo is only $0.13.
I recall on our very first trip to Africa, it became obvious after the first day that we were both taking the same photos. Well, we quickly decided that this was ridiculous... and put a stop to that. Certainly, thereafter, we had some similar photos, but surprisingly, by spliting up the picture taking we got a wider range of photos throughout the trip.
As to the price of digital photo printing, the average price per photo is $0.29 so for duplicates - easy to figure is $0.58. That's an awful lot of money. Of course, there are "sales" periodically during the year where photos cost from $0.15 to $0.19 each, but if upon returning from holiday there is no sale, who wants to wait till there is one to have your photos printed. So, you're back to paying the $0.29/$0.58.
On average my cost for film and processing has been about $90-$110/per trip. Considering what the digital camera cost, the media, batteries, charger, carrying case, repair contract, I'd have to take at minimum 6-trips to justifing the initial digital camera cost. And this still doesn't cover the cost of processing/printing the photos after each trip. Assuming a minimum of 500 digital photos (people do tend to take more photos with digital then with film), that's another $145 (for singles, not duplicates)... still more than 35mm film and processing.
If I weren't doing most of my photo taking as a business expense, there is no cost justification.
It kind of reminds me of 78rpm records - anyone remember those? Well, I almost forgot there was anything before 33rpm. Until last week at my Mom's (she saves everything), one of the great grand kids found some old 78rpm records and put one onto the turntable (remember those?) Surprise, surprise... everyone in the room was open mouthed in shock... the record sounded as good as the day it was cut. Better then a CD you'd buy today.
But in the end, we all tend to go for the newest, latest (me included) - it's not always cost justified or the bestest! My personal opinion.
"And if two people are traveling together, that twice the number of photos.
Sure there are sales at $0.15 to $0.19 a picture, but who wants to wait for a sale when you return from vacation." <<
If two people are traveling together, hopefully both of you aren't taking the exact same photos throughout the trip. And if, as with film, when processing you automatically get duplicates, you share photos. Also with 35mm processing duplicates the price of each photo is only $0.13.
I recall on our very first trip to Africa, it became obvious after the first day that we were both taking the same photos. Well, we quickly decided that this was ridiculous... and put a stop to that. Certainly, thereafter, we had some similar photos, but surprisingly, by spliting up the picture taking we got a wider range of photos throughout the trip.
As to the price of digital photo printing, the average price per photo is $0.29 so for duplicates - easy to figure is $0.58. That's an awful lot of money. Of course, there are "sales" periodically during the year where photos cost from $0.15 to $0.19 each, but if upon returning from holiday there is no sale, who wants to wait till there is one to have your photos printed. So, you're back to paying the $0.29/$0.58.
On average my cost for film and processing has been about $90-$110/per trip. Considering what the digital camera cost, the media, batteries, charger, carrying case, repair contract, I'd have to take at minimum 6-trips to justifing the initial digital camera cost. And this still doesn't cover the cost of processing/printing the photos after each trip. Assuming a minimum of 500 digital photos (people do tend to take more photos with digital then with film), that's another $145 (for singles, not duplicates)... still more than 35mm film and processing.
If I weren't doing most of my photo taking as a business expense, there is no cost justification.
It kind of reminds me of 78rpm records - anyone remember those? Well, I almost forgot there was anything before 33rpm. Until last week at my Mom's (she saves everything), one of the great grand kids found some old 78rpm records and put one onto the turntable (remember those?) Surprise, surprise... everyone in the room was open mouthed in shock... the record sounded as good as the day it was cut. Better then a CD you'd buy today.
But in the end, we all tend to go for the newest, latest (me included) - it's not always cost justified or the bestest! My personal opinion.
May 15th, 2005, 08:08 AM
#13
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced that digital prints cost more, there are plenty of websites out there that offer prints for as low as $0.15 and most sites offer free "photo sharing" so you can post your pics and share with family and friends. Also, when you were shooting with conventional film you processed the entire roll (even doubles) no matter if the shots were any good or not, so in effect you ended up paying for prints that you didn't want. With digital you have complete control on the shots you actually want to print!!
May 15th, 2005, 08:39 AM
#14
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking the 10x and 12x optical digital zoom cameras would be a great way to get close shots without the bulk and inconvenience of exchangeable lenses.
In discussing this with the camera shops near me the response has been: The quality of those digital zoom cameras is nowhere near the quality of the digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses.
For wildlife photos that would be printed as 5x7s and an occasional 8 x 10 what do you think?
Thanks!
In discussing this with the camera shops near me the response has been: The quality of those digital zoom cameras is nowhere near the quality of the digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses.
For wildlife photos that would be printed as 5x7s and an occasional 8 x 10 what do you think?
Thanks!
May 16th, 2005, 09:53 AM
#16
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found a site that has a table with the number of JPEG images by resolution for various card formats, you can see it on http://www.inkango.com/fr/guide_fich...&langue=en
The article also explains the various "Speeds" available when choosing a memory card.
The Canon Rebel XT has a top resolution of 3456 x 2304 which yields a 3.3MB file. So to figure out the number of images on a 512MB CF you do the following: 512/3.3 = 155 images. It's all a question of compression since the Rebel XT also has another mode with the same resolution 3456 x 2304 that compresses to a 1.7MB file (giving you 512/1.7 = 301 images). You need to figure out what is the largest size you will end up printing so that you can choose the right resolution.
The article also explains the various "Speeds" available when choosing a memory card.
The Canon Rebel XT has a top resolution of 3456 x 2304 which yields a 3.3MB file. So to figure out the number of images on a 512MB CF you do the following: 512/3.3 = 155 images. It's all a question of compression since the Rebel XT also has another mode with the same resolution 3456 x 2304 that compresses to a 1.7MB file (giving you 512/1.7 = 301 images). You need to figure out what is the largest size you will end up printing so that you can choose the right resolution.
May 19th, 2005, 11:52 AM
#17
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, need to give my 2 cents worth on the cost of digital vs. film. My husband and I travel quite often and take tons of pictures (with digital)but very rarely print all pics taken. Only very special pics get that honor. Most pics go on the computer so we can email them to friends and family, we make a CD or DVD (slide show)whatever. So, cost is very much in digitals favor. With Film, you don't know what you have until you see it.
Jun 1st, 2005, 04:03 AM
#19
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you have used an SLR, I would go for the Canon (either the Rebel-XT or the Canon 10D or 20D), with a lens (either Canon or Tamron- nothing else) in theses ranges: 18-200mm, 28-300mm, 28-135mm, 18-85mm. (lenses for DSLRs in this small sensor type will be equal to a lens that is 1.6x longer, this is why the wider angle is better).
You may not be happy with the shutter delay on most point-n-shoots, it drives me crazy.
You may not be happy with the shutter delay on most point-n-shoots, it drives me crazy.
Jun 1st, 2005, 04:34 PM
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the help I've received. To Pisconeri: a nice camera shop person suggested the Canon Rebel xt with the Tamron 18-200 lens. Since then I've seen a report with pictures which seem to show that the Sigma 18-200 lens performed better than the Tamron. What do you think? I think that a lens with that range would be terrific for me.
