Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
trailjunky Backcountry Bumpkin'
Joined: 14 Jun 2004 Posts: 1124 | TRs | Pics Location: timberline |
|
trailjunky
Backcountry Bumpkin'
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:13 pm
|
|
|
I would like to get into digital photography, but really have no idea where to begin. I'm tired of the old point and shoot camera I'm currently using and would love to take great quality digital pictures while on the trail. I am most interested in a great camera for a reasonable price. What should i look for? # of megapixals? Battery life? Weight? Someone please point me in the right direction, i would like to stay around the $500 range. Thanks!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alan Bauer Member
Joined: 11 Jan 2002 Posts: 942 | TRs | Pics Location: Fall City, Washington |
You will need to stay away from thinking DSLR if you want to be in that $500 range. DSLRs barely are <$1000 and that won't give you lenses, which isn't a factor if you already have SLR lenses to use.
But $500 will get you a very nice point and shoot digital camera like the Canon G2/G3 stuff many have here or high-end Nikon Coolpix models, etc....
4-6 megapixels will be plenty of fun and these all carry that much. Focus more on features and EASE OF USE and not so much on megapixels. A tilt-swivel LCD screen for odd angle viewing when shooting for example is appreciated by many, including myself, when using P&S cameras.
|
Back to top |
|
|
trailjunky Backcountry Bumpkin'
Joined: 14 Jun 2004 Posts: 1124 | TRs | Pics Location: timberline |
|
trailjunky
Backcountry Bumpkin'
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:24 pm
|
|
|
If i were to spend around $1000 what might i be looking for? Is it worth the money to spend the extra dough?
|
Back to top |
|
|
mtngrl Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 248 | TRs | Pics
|
|
mtngrl
Member
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:29 pm
|
|
|
Though I will always prefer 35mm, at the start of the year I got an Olympus C-740 Ultra Zoom. It's a great little digital camera and I've been quite happy with the results. Very user friendly and full of features. The price has dropped considerably since the start of the year, you can now get a Olympus C-740 for around $300. For about $150 more you could also look into the Olympus C-750 which is a 4.0 megapixel with a 10x optical zoom.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17857 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:31 pm
|
|
|
Pretty much any brand name 4 MP digital camera will do the trick these days. I wouldn't go with a DSLR. Too heavy, too bulky, no live preview, changing lenses is a pain, DOF works against you for landscape shots, etc. I'd look for something with at least 4x optical zoom. 28mm wide angle is also nice to have. I really like the Minolta A1 for the money.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6305 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
Pentax has annouce a >$900 DSLR, and Konita Minolta is probably not far behind. I imagine by the time X-mas rolls around, we'll be knee deep in more 'affordable' DSLRs.
|
Back to top |
|
|
kleet meat tornado
Joined: 06 Feb 2002 Posts: 5303 | TRs | Pics Location: O no they dih ent |
|
kleet
meat tornado
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:21 am
|
|
|
There's a decent review in PC Magazine on 6 digital cameras with 'super' zooms that ought to get you started.
A fuxk, why do I not give one?
A fuxk, why do I not give one?
|
Back to top |
|
|
frankm3 Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2003 Posts: 338 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle, WA |
|
frankm3
Member
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:10 am
|
|
|
The Lumix FZ-10 is mentioned in the list Kleet posted above; I just got one of these and love it. If you like wildlife, this is a great way to indulge your interest until you can afford to get a DSLR, etc.
This photo from my recent trip was posted pretty small to keep the size down.
The photo posted below is a detail of the same photo taken at 12x zoom and full resolution. I couldn't be happier with the results for a $500 camera.
full res detail
|
Back to top |
|
|
trailjunky Backcountry Bumpkin'
Joined: 14 Jun 2004 Posts: 1124 | TRs | Pics Location: timberline |
|
trailjunky
Backcountry Bumpkin'
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:29 am
|
|
|
How well is the quality of the images when using a 10x or super zoom camera when the lense is fully extended? The problem im having with my 35mm 4x zoom is when i do use the zoom feature the images loose detail and tend to be a little blurry. Also are you able to use longer exposure times like when creating effects with running water?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17857 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:17 pm
|
|
|
Capturing running water is no problem as long as you have manual controls and a filter. I took these 1 second exposures with my trusty G2.
As far as zoom quality, most of the big zoom cameras are surprisingly good. The reviews ususally give a pretty good indication of quality.
|
Back to top |
|
|
trailjunky Backcountry Bumpkin'
Joined: 14 Jun 2004 Posts: 1124 | TRs | Pics Location: timberline |
|
trailjunky
Backcountry Bumpkin'
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:39 pm
|
|
|
who makes the G2? Do you like it?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17857 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:07 pm
|
|
|
The G2 was the predecessor to the Canon G3 which I currently use. The G series are great cameras, although the competetion has caught up. It's hard to find a bad digital camera today.
|
Back to top |
|
|
frankm3 Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2003 Posts: 338 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle, WA |
|
frankm3
Member
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:48 pm
|
|
|
I actually also own a G2, which I used regularly for almost two years before getting the FZ-10. They are both great cameras.
I found that the big shortcoming (as I like to take wildlife photos) of the G2 was the lack of focal length; I bought a 2x converter to make it about the equivalent of a 300mm. The G2 is really good with macro shots, it excels at close up work relative to the FZ-10.
The FZ-10 has an image stabilized zoom; most all of the wildlife photos in this post from a recent trip were taken at 12x zoom, many with fairly slow shutter speeds. In many cases the animal was relatively far away and I had a hard time keeping the subject in the viewfinder. Very few if any of the photos were blurry, and when taken at full 4mp resolution most all of them could easily enlarge to 11x14 and still look good.
You will likely be happy with either camera; nowadays I just like the long lens on the FZ-10 for what I like to do.
HTH,
Frank
|
Back to top |
|
|
tk-421 Dead Weight
Joined: 03 Jul 2002 Posts: 167 | TRs | Pics Location: D) None of the above |
|
tk-421
Dead Weight
|
Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:55 pm
|
|
|
Tom wrote: | I really like the Minolta A1 for the money. |
So, given the choice between the A1 and the A2...? I've read through dpreview.com's voluminous reviews and the A2 seems like a worthwhile follow-on.
I'm gathering the birthday-and-Christmas wishlist and want to go for a big ticket item this year.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001 Posts: 17857 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:29 am
|
|
|
Yeah, now that the A2 is down in price I might opt for it instead.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|