# (Help!) Shopping for digital camera



## smoke king (Oct 23, 2008)

Judging by some of the beautiful pictures y'all post, a lot of you must be pretty knowledgable about digital cameras.

I'd like to get Mrs SK a new one for Christmas, but I'm a little under-informed. Let me list what _I do_ know about them;

1) "Megapixel" - I know this is a word that is, or at least can be applied regarding digital cameras

And thats really about it.

So what do you use? Shes not Ansell Adams, nor does she aspire to be, but I'm sure she would appreciate nice, _usable_ features. What is a reasonable price point? Since we already have a "photo" printer, is there a compatability issue? What other "considerations" need to be addressed? 

Thanks everyone-as always, I do appreciate your input!!!


----------



## Barbara L (Oct 23, 2008)

I have an Olympus 7.1 megapixel Stylus 780.  We paid about $170 on ebay (new).  I really love it.  It is simple to use and has a lot of easy to use settings (portrait, sport, indoor, cuisine, sunset, just to name a few.  I don't have a tripod yet, so the night scene and night portrait settings don't work too well.  I used the sport setting when on vacation and was taking pictures from the car.  It worked great for that.  It also has a few underwater settings, but I haven't tried them (you have to put it inside something water-tight).  If you go to the advanced settings you can set it on macro-closeups, and it works well.

I use a memory card in the camera (it will only take 7 or 9--can't remember--pictures without a memory card) and a card reader to transfer pictures to the computer.  It is very simple to do.  All the pictures I have posted in the last couple months, and the pictures in my vacation albums, were all taken with this camera.

Barbara


----------



## attie (Oct 23, 2008)

This is a great little camera which we won at a trade show which #2 son has confiscated for his fishing photos. It's a point and click camera that does most things itself but I have no idea of the price.
Canon IXUS 950 IS Review
Here's an action photo he snapped of a Black Marlin that he recently caught







 There could be newer models out by now but this one takes great photos


----------



## Adillo303 (Oct 23, 2008)

Good Morning Smoke King - Yesterday, I bought a Cannon Power Shot A1000 IS. I spent $199.00 for it. It came with a memory card that will take 11 pictures. I bought ($24.00) a card that will store 1,100 pix. 

It is basically a point and shoot, but if you want to get creative, there are a host of settings as Barbara L suggested. You can even go fully manual if you like. It has image stabilization in case your hand is not steady and a 4 X power zoom ( To bring you closer without moving). 

I got it for work, and like it so much I will be trying to condition myself to carry it always.

BTW - Pixels are dots on the screen. The more pixels the sharper and clearer the image.

A cable is supplied to connect to a computer. They give you software to edit pix. Also windows will read the memory card like a hard drive.

Hope this helps.

AC


----------



## getoutamykitchen (Oct 23, 2008)

I have a Nikon D80 and I love it. It's 10.2 mp and I even use it to shoot an occasional wedding once in a while. A good lens is neccesary also. I use a 18mm - 125mm most of the time. Here's some samples. 
My kitty!










And here's the quality I get for weddings.


----------



## YT2095 (Oct 23, 2008)

I use a Sigma SD10, DSLR, with the Foveon X3 sensor.
I`v won a few local competitions with it also, they`re quite rare now but if you can get one it`s worth it.
there`s also the new SD14 and DP1 however, they use the Foveon X3 technology as well


----------



## GB (Oct 23, 2008)

I am a semi-professional photographer. I have been using digital cameras before most people even knew what they were. I have learned quite a bit about them. Here is the advice I will give to you.

1. Have Mrs. SK handle whichever camera it is you are thinking of buying her. Just like a knife or shoes, a camera needs to fit. If someone has large hands then a credit card sized camera with small buttons might be very difficult to use. If they have small hands then a large camera with spaced out buttons might be just as difficult.

2. Have her try the menus. All digital cameras have menus to access features. Some cameras are set up logically and you can access the most used features very easily and without thinking. Others bury needed items deep in then menus in places it might be difficult to remember where they are. if you have to go digging for them then you will not use them.

3. More megapixels does not equal a better camera just as more expensive does not always equal better. There was a time when you wanted more megapixels, but cameras are at the point now that for amateur photgraphers, every digital camera on the market has more than enough (and sometimes too many) megapixels. Do not shop by megapixels alone. 

4. Do not fall into the trap of digital zoom. Digital zoom is a useless feature. most point and shoot cameras have this feature. Do not base your buying decision how how many times digital zoom it has. Ignore this feature altogether. Optical zoom is a different story. You want to get the largest optical zoom possible in most cases. Most come with at least a 3x optical zoom. That is great. if you can get higher than that in a camera you like then that would be even better. 

5. The brands I recommend are the well known camera companies such as Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, etc. Companies that make cameras as their main business will have a much better product then a company that makes other things plus makes cameras (such as Hewlett Packard, Samsung, GE, etc.). The exception to this is Sony. Sony actually does make a very good digital camera line. 

That is all I can think out now, but that will at least get you started.

Oh and to answer your question about price (assuming you are talking point and shoot and not DSLR) I would say $200 is around the bottom of what you would be spending. You could get a very nice camera for that price. You could get something with a few more bells and whistles for a bit more. $200 should get you a very good camera though.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 23, 2008)

That was pretty good indo, GB. Especially looking for an intuitive menu. 

One thing I look for is a viewfinder. They are harder and harder to find on point and shoots, but are indespensible as far as I'm concerned in bright daylight conditions, when it can be all but impossible to view the display.


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 23, 2008)

GB is right on with his advice.

I would add, look for a camera with a large dispolay window on the back for easier picture viewing.

Look at battery life - how many pictures you can take on one charge of the battery(s).  There are some significant differences there.

Plan on buying a memory stick separately.  Most cameras don't come with one.  Don't skimp here.  Get one that will hold a couple of hundred photos or more.  

Shop online, that's where you'll find the best prices.

Read the online reviews of the cameras you are interested in.  they have a lot of good info.


----------



## love2"Q" (Oct 23, 2008)

i love my nikkon d40 ..  seems like a good camera for me ..
what i like the most .. besdes the best pics i have 
ever taken .. is the speed .. if i do not have to wait
for the flash .. it takes at about 2.3 per second i believe ..


----------



## smoke king (Oct 23, 2008)

Thanks everyone (so far) this is exactly what I was hoping for!!

Mrs is much more computer savvy than I am (as is Coco the monkey!) so while _I_ may have trouble operating it, I'm sure she will not.

The pictures you all posted are beautiful-That is the quality I am hoping for. I think I'll hop on over to ebay and check some of your suggestions out. I'll be back in a while. Thanks!!


----------



## GB (Oct 23, 2008)

love2"Q" said:


> i love my nikkon d40 ..  seems like a good camera for me ..
> what i like the most .. besdes the best pics i have
> ever taken .. is the speed .. if i do not have to wait
> for the flash .. it takes at about 2.3 per second i believe ..


the D40 is a great camera (I am a Nikon fan and have a D70S). the one issue I have with it though is it does not take standard sized Nikon lenses so if you already have a Nikon SLR or DSLR you can not use the lenses from that camera with this one. Also, if you ever plan to upgrade to another Nikon DSLR then the D40 lenses will be useless. It is a very good camera though and perfect for someone who is looking to get into DSLR photography and not spend a ton.


----------



## smoke king (Oct 23, 2008)

DSLR??  I'd google it, but this will likely be quicker.

What is it? Do I need/want it?

If it makes a difference, I'd rather spend more now than *wished *I had down the road.


----------



## love2"Q" (Oct 23, 2008)

GB said:


> the D40 is a great camera (I am a Nikon fan and have a D70S). the one issue I have with it though is it does not take standard sized Nikon lenses so if you already have a Nikon SLR or DSLR you can not use the lenses from that camera with this one. Also, if you ever plan to upgrade to another Nikon DSLR then the D40 lenses will be useless. It is a very good camera though and perfect for someone who is looking to get into DSLR photography and not spend a ton.



I found out about the lenses before i bought the camera .. 
thankfully .. but at this point i do not plan on buying many lenses
except for a 55 - 200 mm ...... 
but the camera is great .. had it for about 8 months now 
and having fun playing around with the different settings ..
and at 500 bucks .. it was within my price range ..


----------



## texasgirl (Oct 23, 2008)

I have the same a Jkath, hehe, her pics are the reason I bought mine.
Kodak Easyshare Z740.
The best 2 pics I can think of to give you an example of regular and zoom on this camera, was our trip to Texas Motor Speedway. This is at our seat, Tony Stewarts pit is just above and to the left of the O in O'Reilley's and then, zoomed to Tony Stewart, through the fencing btw and up close from the same seat. 
The rose was from appox, 15 feet with zoom.


----------



## GB (Oct 23, 2008)

smoke king said:


> DSLR??  I'd google it, but this will likely be quicker.
> 
> What is it? Do I need/want it?
> 
> If it makes a difference, I'd rather spend more now than *wished *I had down the road.


DSLR stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex camera. An SLR camera is basically the cameras you see where you can change lenses and manually control things like apreature, focus, flash, shutter speed, and most other functions of the camera. the professional cameras you see are always DSLR or SLR cameras.

the other style of cameras are P&S or point and shoot. That means you can just push a button and take a picture and that is what they are primarily designed to do. that is not saying that you can not do the same with a DSLR or that you can not control shutter speed and other things with a P&S. 

For the average person who does not know or care a ton about photgraphy and just wants to be able to take snapshots of vacations and family members and birthday partys and things like that, a P&S is exactly what they will want. they are also known as PHD (push here dummy) cameras because you do not have to know anything about photography. You just push the button and you can take a very good photo. The P&H are less expensive and much smaller than SLR's so they can usually fit in a purse or pocket.

If your wife is into photography as a hobby more than just taking quick snapshots then she may want a DSLR, but if she is just looking to capture those quick moments then P&S is probably what she will want.


----------



## jabbur (Oct 23, 2008)

We have a Kodak and a Canon.  They are both point and shoot and take very good pics.  We spent less than $100 on either because we waited for them to go on sale etc.  The Kodak was around $80 at Woot.com.  They are both easy to use and we like the video feature as well as taking stills.  I agree that it is a good idea to get a bigger memory card than what comes with the camera.  Good luck and hope Mrs. SK likes it!


----------



## YT2095 (Oct 23, 2008)

having Macro capability on your lens(es) is also a good idea, although you can use macro rings between the lens and camera body, you`ll lose certain functions like AF and auto-aperture control, so you`ll have to switch the lens to manual, but with a TTL view it`s not a problem


----------



## smoke king (Oct 23, 2008)

YT2095 said:


> having Macro capability on your lens(es) is also a good idea, although you can use macro rings between the lens and camera body, you`ll lose certain functions like AF and auto-aperture control, so you`ll have to switch the lens to manual, but with a TTL view it`s not a problem




uuuuuuuh......?


----------



## GB (Oct 23, 2008)

What YT is talking about has to do with SLR's. Most, if not all P&S cameras have a macro mode that lets you take close up shots. It is great for taking pictures of things like insects or flowers very close or things like that.


----------



## dave the baker (Oct 23, 2008)

Barbara L has the right idea.  KISS - keep it simple, silly.    I've been a pro photographer, a talented amateur and am now a duffer.  In other words, I don't want to go to all the work to get a good photo.  If you're looking for something to give good results without a lot of book learning and time-comsuming adjustments, not to mention $$$$ add-ons - take Barb's advice.


----------



## NAchef (Oct 23, 2008)

Have your wife go look at some with you and decide on which size will work out best.

I have a few different cameras and I take the one appropiate for the activity that I will be attending. Some cameras today can get pretty small and some people will like this others do not. If you are not comfortable using the camera you will not bring it along as often as one you enjoy using.

You have gotten good advice here in other posts, now go pick them up and handle them and see what fits YOU best.

Good luck, let us know what you get.


----------



## Fisher's Mom (Oct 23, 2008)

Lots of great advice here, smoke king. I'll add my 2 cents. The things I think are most important when deciding on which camera are:

Image stabilization - this is an awesome feature! It lets you capture more non-blurry pictures under more conditions. I have a friend who's dad has Parkinson's (very pronounced shaking), and he is taking pictures again because of this feature.

Optical zoom - the only way to go. Don't settle for a camera that only has digital zoom.

Battery - some cameras use AA and some have their own proprietary battery that can be recharged. I personally like mine, which uses AA. I use rechargeable batteries so that I am never caught with a dead battery. One of my sons prefers the proprietary battery because he can recharge without having to open up the battery compartment and keep up with batteries.

Camera size and shape - will your wife want to carry it in her purse? A pocket? There are some excellent pocket-sized cameras and for those that want to take their camera _everywhere_, they are fantastic!

Storage media - there are lots of different types of storage cards. I personally prefer SD because it's very easy to find high capacity SD cards on the net at a heavy discount. My husband has a Fuji Finepix, which is a great camera but it takes XD cards, which aren't as readily available at a deep discount.

Optical viewfinder - lots of cameras are being made now without an optical viewfinder - only an LCD screen. These can be hard to see in bright sunlight.

Camera layout - sometimes the buttons are in very awkward places that can become really annoying after a while. The same thing with the camera menus. The best way to check this out is to hold one in your hand and actually use the menu navigation.

Good luck with this. I know your wife will be thrilled. Oh, and be sure to check out the digital camera review sites. There are several that have in-depth reviews that are extremely helpful. I _always_ check those out before buying a new camera.


----------



## middie (Oct 23, 2008)

I have a Kodak Easyshare M763 7.2 megapixel and I love it. Has all kinds of neat features. Very easy to use and to transfer pics onto the computer. If I can do it..... ANYBODY can do it. We paid $120 for it.


----------



## smoke king (Oct 24, 2008)

Again, thank you all. Lots of useful stuff here for me to process.

Did a cursory check on some of the brands/models mentioned, and while she is very good with techno type stuff, some may be waaaaaay above and beyond what we'll be using it for...I think!!

A couple of them,priced at, or maybe a little over 1000.00$$, mentioned that the price included _only_ the camera body....I'm not sure what that doesn't include, but I'm guessig whatever it is, you _need_ it, and its expensive too-yikes!!

Sounds like a few hundred bones will buy a camera that will suit our needs. I will report back after some more comparison shoppin'!!

Thanks everybody!


----------



## sattie (Oct 24, 2008)

SK, let me know what you decide upon.  I have a digital that is very outdated and I expect that sometime in the near future, I will be upgrading as well!!!


----------



## Wart (Oct 24, 2008)

I would stay away from the point and shoot cameras. They my work well for snap shots posted to the web but if you ever want to do more your basically out of luck. More pretty much includes printing. 

I suggest a basic DSLR with a basic kit lens. Should run you mid $400 to low $500 range.

I have a Nikon D40 6.1, GREAT Camera. When I'm feeling lazy I set it to AUTO and it's a darned good Point and Shoot. I rarely feel lazy, though. I usually use my lenses that are 20 to 30+ years old. It means I have to manually focus and expose but, Hey, I'm old school, plus the camera has tools built in that help me get it right even when using my old manual lenses.

To those who grew up with film, shoot and review is super cool.

Some issues that have been brought up:

Batteries. Many cameras use proprietary batteries that can cost an arm and leg. On sale I can get a battery for the D40 for $50~$60. BUT I mail ordered a higher capacity battery for $20.

Storage: Some cameras use storage thats costly. I like the SD card. A 2 gig card that holds over 200 pictures in RAW format cost me $18. It's not the _fastest_ card, but a fast card is only needed when shooting continuous frames.

Image stabilization: My Mavica had a stabilization feature, I didn't much care for it. The picture sort of floated around in the viewfinder. I have a slew of tripods. Come to think of it I shoot about everything from a tripod. 

*MENUS* Don't let the menus freak you out. No matter what camera you get whether it's a cheap point and shoot or $2000 camera body the menus are going to be scary. And Confusing. After a while they are no big deal.

Software

Oh Boy ....

The camera should come with basic image editing software. It's usually junk.

You don't need fancy and expensive software, So many people get a digital then get talked into thinking they need Photoshop ... No.

Gimps free(?), I use PaintShopPro X, got it for $40 out of the bargain bin.

I should post some pictures ... Oops, its 0300. Not tonight.


----------



## roadfix (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> I would stay away from the point and shoot cameras.



I don't agree.

I like to take my camera with me when I go travelling, hiking, or bike riding. That means a good quality, simple point & shoot camera that is compact that I can carry in my jersey pocket. I can't have a camera hanging around my neck. My SLR film camera days are over when I used to be a photo geek.
My suggestion for a first digital camera is a simple point & shoot.  I don't think you can go wrong with them with the quality and features they come with these days.


----------



## Barbara L (Oct 24, 2008)

Mine fits nicely in my pocket, which I love.  It also takes video--not movie quality by any means, but decent enough to at least capture a moment.  I bought a couple extra rechargable batteries on ebay and make sure I always have at least one ready.  The batteries seem to last pretty long on a charge.  I have a couple memory cards, which I bought on ebay.  I also bought a card reader (it works with my camera's memory cards as well as on James's) at WalMart.  It makes it super simple to transfer the pictures to my computer.  The camera, batteries, battery charger, memory cards, and card reader all fit nicely in my little camera bag, with a little room to spare.  

I use my camera for recreational use and will soon start using it for ebay, and it suits my needs perfectly.  The only thing I wish were different is that the on/off button is near the shutter button and I have accidentally turned it off a couple times when trying to take a picture (I was in a hurry and didn't pay attention).  Two things I love about it (besides the pictures it takes) is that it is shock resistant (it was knocked off a table once and out of the car once--not while driving!--and it didn't hurt it), and it is weather resistant.  

I mentioned some of the different settings it has.  It also has an automatic setting, if you don't want to fool with the settings.

Barbara


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> I would stay away from the point and shoot cameras. They my work well for snap shots posted to the web but if you ever want to do more your basically out of luck. More pretty much includes printing...


 

While I am sure the Nikon D40 is a very good camera, I disagree that photos taken with a point and shoot camera are only good for snapshots. My PS produces very crisp, sharp prints up to 8x10. I have several mounted and framed in my home.


----------



## YT2095 (Oct 24, 2008)

I agree, some very good shots can be taken by even the simplest of cameras, I have a few here that are older than Gods dog and take great shots, granted they are film cameras, but when you consider that the cam body is made of pressed cardboard and there`s a single meniscus lens with no way to focus, I`v taken some very good pictures with them.


----------



## texasgirl (Oct 24, 2008)

Andy M. said:


> While I am sure the Nikon D40 is a very good camera, I disagree that photos taken with a point and shoot camera are only good for snapshots. My PS produces very crisp, sharp prints up to 8x10. I have several mounted and framed in my home.


 
I agree, Andy. I have pics of my boys that turned out a lot better than the professional pics that cost me an arm and a leg


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> I would stay away from the point and shoot cameras. They my work well for snap shots posted to the web but if you ever want to do more your basically out of luck. More pretty much includes printing.


I disagree with this as well. I have sold photos that have been printed and framed that I have taken with point and shoot cameras at very low resolution (below a megapixel even). 

I have seen photos taken with cell phone cameras (notoriously poor quality) that could be part of a photo exhibit in any art gallery. As a matter of fact, I have seen art shows where all the photos were taken with cell phone cameras.

It is not so much the camera, it is the photographer. It is kind of like saying you need All Clad pans to cook a great meal. A good cook and use the worse pans around and still turn out an amazing meal. 

There is ZERO point in someone who is only going to be shooting in automatic mode to buy an SLR. It is too much camera for zero additional benefit. it would be like someone buying a high end sports car to only drive 1 mile down the road to the supermarket. Sure it will get the job done, but you can do the exact same thing with a less expensive model and do it just as well.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 24, 2008)

Ditto above. I just wasn't going to be the first to disagree ;^)
And you have to remember, a printed photo is only going to be as good as the printer and paper quality. I don't even shoot max file size and have gotten _very_ printable photos.


----------



## jabbur (Oct 24, 2008)

GB said:


> There is ZERO point in someone who is only going to be shooting in automatic mode to buy an SLR. It is too much camera for zero additional benefit. it would be like someone buying a high end sports car to only drive 1 mile down the road to the supermarket. Sure it will get the job done, but you can do the exact same thing with a less expensive model and do it just as well.


 
Well said GB!  My dad, a former professional photographer, has a high end digital that he uses.  He had a point and shoot to start to get used to the digital format and eventually upgraded to what he has now with multiple lenses etc.  He got it because he likes to "control" his shots.  Me, I just want to take a nice picture of my kids doing their thing or opening gifts christmas morning etc.  I don't want to have to take time to "set the shot".  I must say that Dad has like some of the pics I've taken with my little point and shoot which is saying alot coming from a professional (even though he is my dad!)


----------



## smoke king (Oct 24, 2008)

GB said:


> There is ZERO point in someone who is only going to be shooting in automatic mode to buy an SLR. It is too much camera for zero additional benefit. it would be like someone buying a high end sports car to only drive 1 mile down the road to the supermarket. Sure it will get the job done, but you can do the exact same thing with a less expensive model and do it just as well.



Let me start off by saying all that I know, to this point, is what I've learned from y'all since yesterday.

That being said, GB's analogy about the high end car makes perfect sense to me. Additionally, Its been my experience that the more complicated a piece of equipment is to use, the less likely I (personally) am to use it.

Like I said at the onset of the thread, Mrs is no Ansell Adams and has no aspirations to be. We will be using it for holidays, vacations, family gatherings and such. I think its safe to say that if the camera _requires_ its own bag, then its likely more camera than she will need/use. 

But the response to this has been amazing-all I had hoped for and more!! I've learned a ton so far, and thanks to everyone here my I'm confident that I'll be able to make an informed decision!!!

Well-back to shopping-I'll keep ya' posted! Thanks!


----------



## YT2095 (Oct 24, 2008)

the new Fujifilm Finepix Z20fd sounds like it would be about right for the wife.
it even has a little belt clip case for it, 10 mega pixels, even available in Pink! and gets a 4 out of 5 star rating in Septembers edition of Practical Photography.

might be worth a look


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

I got my wife the Nikon S550 Coolpix this year. It is an excellent camera. It is the smallest camera Nikon offers. One of the features I really like is it can recognize when someone is smiling and automatically take a picture. You do not even need to hit the button. It is a setting that can be turned on or off so if you don't want to use it then you do not have to. It is very handy with young kids because they may only smile for a quick second. This way the camera recognizes it and captures the picture before you have a chance to think about it.

The quality of the pictures is amazing. The colors are very true and stunning. The LCD display is nice and large. The menus are easy to use. It has a 5x optical zoom as opposed to the usual 3x. It has image stabilization. There is nothing about this camera that I do not like for what it is.


----------



## GrillingFool (Oct 24, 2008)

I don't have a lot of advice to offer, other than to stress the "handle before you buy" suggestion.
My camera is a dinosaur, but a good one. Sony Mavica Fd92. I can store images on a memory stick OR a 3.5 inch disk. Anyone remember those? LOL! (But at the time, it was teh most convenient way to get the pics to your computer.)


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 24, 2008)

I recently bought this camera for my daughter.  She loves it.  It is now available at $199.


----------



## Wart (Oct 24, 2008)

A taste:

Clicking the following pictures will open a larger version in a new window or tab, the new graphic MAY be resized to fit the browser window. AND the following thumbnails have been seriously compressed to keep total file size for all 6 thumbnails under 25k.

A killdeer protecting her eggs:




Part one of a self port project:




Part 2 of a self portrait project:




Kozmo, the Cat: (I can't find the full sized version of this)




Reflections on the Deck:




Hidden Oil:




Nothing earth shaking but not all that bad. And I'm not so sure these could have been taken with a point and shoot. Well, except for the oil tank.


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> And I'm not so sure these could have been taken with a point and shoot.


These absolutely could have been taken with a P&H. There is no reason they could not have been. A P&H can do everything required to get these shots. Now, if you were taking a shot where you were zooming in or out while pushing the shutter button down or something like that then I would agree with you that you would not be able to get the shot, but for standard shots like this, if you know what you are doing, there is no reason you could not get these, or better shots.


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

There were all taken with a P&H and sized down to fit this website...






















The originals of each of these are much larger and show much more detail. If anyone is interested, just let me know and I can send you a link to the originals. These were taken with a Nikon Coolpix990 quite a few years ago.


----------



## roadfix (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> And I'm not so sure these could have been taken with a point and shoot.



Most definitely can be done with a P & S.


----------



## Wart (Oct 24, 2008)

Aw, Heck, I may as well come out and say it, I come from the land of Film, took a years worth of Photography classes at a Universities School of Art in the early 80's, had/have a dark room, so I know a little bit about photography. That's one point of view for my opinion.

Another point of view is from the time I spent on Flickrs critique groups. Often enough the only advice able to be given is to get a better camera because they want something their P&S camera just ... cant ... do ... which brings me to:

I agree that the most important part of taking pictures is the person operating the camera, but that assertion falls apart when what is needed done to make a good exposure falls outside the operating parameters of the camera, and point and shoots have a narrow envelope of operation.

(Witness the current trend of people striving for no dept of field. I believe this trend is due to people moving to more capable cameras from cell phone and point and shoots which have ALL depth of field.)

OTOH I have looked through the photographs of people giving advice, and these photographs have been taken with advanced equipment, and all I see are snapshots. I wonder if these people have ever taken their camera out of Auto Mode.


I guess what I'm getting at here is, if someone gets a P&S and likes taking pictures and wants to grow they have already hurt themselves by getting the P&S.


----------



## Wart (Oct 24, 2008)

GB said:


> These absolutely could have been taken with a P&H. There is no reason they could not have been.




Of course you would have a different opinion if you were privy to the EXIF.

I was there, I know better.


----------



## roadfix (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> I guess what I'm getting at here is, if someone gets a P&S and likes taking pictures and wants to grow they have already hurt themselves by getting the P&S.



I understand what you're saying.  But even with a good DSLR, without a basic knowledge in photography, the person operating it won't be able to use it to its fullest potential.

My tiny little P & S camera, like most, has manual over ride and I use the manual mode quite frequently.  I'm able to somewhat control depth of field, shutter speed, etc, to a certain extent.  Sure, I don't have lens interchangeability, but I sacrifice that for the compactness of my camera.
What most P & S cameras lack is image quality in extreme low level lighting.  They produce too much noise with extended exposure times, for instance.  That's one area where larger chips in high end cameras do make a big diff.


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> Aw, Heck, I may as well come out and say it, I come from the land of Film, took a years worth of Photography classes at a Universities School of Art in the early 80's, had/have a dark room, so I know a little bit about photography. That's one point of view for my opinion.
> 
> Another point of view is from the time I spent on Flickrs critique groups. Often enough the only advice able to be given is to get a better camera because they want something their P&S camera just ... cant ... do ... which brings me to:
> 
> ...



I come from a film background as well. My father and two uncles started me in photography when I was old enough to hold a camera. Once of those uncles was a professional photographer for many years. I have taken photography classes and also taught photography classes. I have taught darkroom developing classes as well. 

I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said. Any professional photographer will tell you that you can take an amazing photo with a crappy camera if you know what you are doing. A good photo is more a function of the photographer than the equipment. That is not to say that great equipment can not make a difference because it absolutely can, but if you know how to take photos then you can use a lousy camera and get great shots.

In a lot of P&S you CAN adjust the DOF (depth of field). You just need to know which menu to go into. This is not just for SLR's. An SLR will let you change lenses. It will easily let you manually focus, change aperture, and change shutter speed. Aside from changing lenses, most P&S CAN do these other things. An SLR will let you add flash options, which I agree will let you do some great things and be a great benefit. If you have a P&S you just have to learn how to use available light, other light sources, or the on board flash the right way (a hint with that is placing a piece of paper towel over the flash to diffuse it so you do not get that washed out harsh light).  

If someone is interested in growing then at some point they probably will want an SLR, but you have to crawl before you walk. SLR's are not the type of camera you tote around to take candids just for the heck of it, well for most people at least. I have a DSLR with one lens (can't afford another just yet) as well as some filters, flash, remote shutter release, tripod, and other accessories. My camera bag is a backpack style bag. It is not the type of setup you can just grab if you are running out of the house to hang out with friends somewhere. If I go on a quick hike and want to take photos then I have either have to take the whole backpack, which is a pain when hiking (but I do it) or I can take a P&S that easily fits in my pocket and does not weigh me down. Someone who is not looking to be Ansel Adams is going to value ease of use over the added control they may get from something bigger. If someone uses a P&S for a while and decides they want more then they can always upgrade to an SLR later on, but if they start out with an SLR which is big and bulky and complicated then they may never use it because it is too big to just grab on the spur of the moment and it is intimidating, even though you can throw it in full auto mode just like a P&S.


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> Of course you would have a different opinion if you were privy to the EXIF.
> 
> I was there, I know better.


I could care less about the EXIF. I am going solely on visual appearance. If you can not _see_ the difference then who cares what the specs say? Looking at your photos, I can say that someone with a P&S could take a photo that looks close enough that anyone, but a professional would be able to tell the difference.


----------



## Wart (Oct 24, 2008)

GB said:


> I could care less about the EXIF. I am going solely on visual appearance. If you can not _see_ the difference then who cares what the specs say?



Because the specs would indicate why most of these couldn't be taken with a P&S.

Thats just the way it is.

Like I say, I was there, I know better.


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 24, 2008)

To sum it all up.  More expensive cameras (DSLRs) have more versatility than less expensive cameras (P&S).  Not a revealtion. 

Got it.  No arguement.

Getting back to the OP's requirements.  He said, "_Shes not Ansell Adams, nor does she aspire to be, but I'm sure she would appreciate nice, usable features_.".

Smoke King also said: "_We will be using it for holidays, vacations, family gatherings and such. I think its safe to say that if the camera *requires* its own bag, then its likely more camera than she will need/use_."

Responses should address these requirements to keep this thread on track.


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

Wart said:


> Because the specs would indicate why most of these couldn't be taken with a P&S.
> 
> Thats just the way it is.
> 
> Like I say, I was there, I know better.


I do not know too many people (read none) who would look at a picture framed on a wall and then go back to the photographers original file to access the EFIX info to find out exactly what went on so your point really is just silly.

As I said before, visually only a professional _might_ be able to tell. Your average person would have no idea at all which photo came from an SLR and which came from a P&S so again, no matter where you have been or what you think you know, it really does not matter for what the OP is looking for.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 24, 2008)

GB said:


> I do not know too many people (read none) who would look at a picture framed on a wall and then go back to the photographers original file to access the EFIX info to find out exactly what went on so your point really is just silly.
> 
> As I said before, visually only a professional _might_ be able to tell. Your average person would have no idea at all which photo came from an SLR and which came from a P&S so again, no matter where you have been or what you think you know, it really does not matter for what the OP is looking for.


 
Gawd I hate to say it but...... I kinda see his point now after that comment you quoted, GB 
Maybe it's the way I am reading it, but Wart is saying the pics would not even exist if all he had was the point and shoot to take those particular pics..... That he went to needed features, that only a DSLR would have or is capable of, to even attempt to take these pics.

You are right, GB. Looking at them no one could tell what they were taken with, but we would not be looking at them if he did not have a DSLR to take them with. They would not exist.

I think 

edited to add: That doesn't mean someone else couldn't have taken them with a hundred dollar camera (lol)


----------



## GB (Oct 24, 2008)

pacanis said:


> Wart is saying the pics would not even exist if all he had was the point and shoot to take those particular pics..... That he went to needed features, that only a DSLR would have or is capable of, to even attempt to take these pics.


This is simply not true in most cases though. You can do most things that you need with a P&H. You can not change lenses, but you can compensate for that by other techniques (moving closer or further from the subject, changing the DOF, etc.) You can get the exact same end result by doing different things. Much like you can get the same result in cooking by doing different techniques. You can steam veggies using a bamboo steamer or you can place a dish in a stockpot and steam them that way. The end result is the same. You just took different paths to get to the same end result. Warts pictures could exist by taking them with a P&H. He may not know how to do it, but it can be done.


----------



## roadfix (Oct 24, 2008)

One feature that I look for in  P & S camera is a 28mm equiv wide angle lens.  Most cameras don't go wide enough.  This may not be important to some but the few extra degrees makes a difference to me, especially with landscapes, building interiors, group of people within close quarters, etc....
Just until a couple of years ago it was almost impossible to find a model with a wide angle lens.  Now, they are becoming more popular.  I personally would rather have a short optical zoom with wide, short focal length than a longer zoom ratio with no wide angle.  Ideally for me, I can live with a fixed wide lens, no zoom.


----------



## Wart (Oct 24, 2008)

GB said:


> I do not know too many people (read none) who would look at a picture framed on a wall and then go back to the photographers original file to access the EFIX info to find out exactly what went on so your point really is just silly.



It would be silly if thats what I was saying.

Or implying in any manner.

Its that if you knew or could see the conditions shot under you would know why a P&S couldn't have taken these. Seriously.

I'm going to do as Andy requests and drop this so the thread can get back to the original topic.


----------



## smoke king (Oct 25, 2008)

I just wanted to say that I appreciate *everybodys* input on this, from lo-tech to hi-tech to everything in-between.

Its been tremendously helpful if for no other reason than that I now have a new found appreciation for pro, and semi-pro photographers and what it takes to execute their craft at that level. No wonder good photographers charge so much!!

Besides, Now I can drop some of these terms and acronyms (probably write them in my palm like I did in school) and floor the kid waiting on me at Circuit City!!

My sincerest thanks to all who contributed.


----------



## Barbara L (Oct 25, 2008)

If we have thoroughly confused you enough, is it safe to assume you will be buying Mrs. SK a sketchpad and pencils for Christmas? 

Or you could get her a "Polarock" camera (remember the Flintstones' camera with the bird that chiseled out a picture on a little stone tablet?)!

Barbara


----------



## smoke king (Oct 25, 2008)

Barbara L said:


> If we have thoroughly confused you enough, is it safe to assume you will be buying Mrs. SK a sketchpad and pencils for Christmas?
> 
> Or you could get her a "Polarock" camera (remember the Flintstones' camera with the bird that chiseled out a picture on a little stone tablet?)!
> 
> Barbara




Not so much confused as "enlightend" , Barb. Its better to be over informed than under informed!!

And the Polarock! Do I remember it? I remember when that episode _premiered_!!


----------



## Barbara L (Oct 25, 2008)

smoke king said:


> ...And the Polarock! Do I remember it? I remember when that episode _premiered_!!


Unfortunately, so do I!  I was still young at that point (around 8), but I do remember when the Flintstones started.  A lot of people now don't realize that it was the first prime-time cartoon, for adults!  Hmmmm, a clean cartoon for adults!  What a concept! 

Barbara


----------



## pacanis (Oct 25, 2008)

GB said:


> This is simply not true in most cases though. You can do most things that you need with a P&H. You can not change lenses, but you can compensate for that by other techniques (moving closer or further from the subject, changing the DOF, etc.) You can get the exact same end result by doing different things. Much like you can get the same result in cooking by doing different techniques. You can steam veggies using a bamboo steamer or you can place a dish in a stockpot and steam them that way. The end result is the same. You just took different paths to get to the same end result. Warts pictures could exist by taking them with a P&H. *He may not know how to do it, but it can be done*.


 
And that's why I added that edit 
It almost looked like that orangish deck pic had been taken with a filter though. I don't know of any P & Ss that accept filters (doesn't mean they don't exist). but I'm sure there are tricks around this.
I stand down. I haven't been "into" cameras since I used to strap 8 lbs of them to a helmet and jump out of airplanes , but I kind of understand where Wart was coming from.

Too bad he can't get a pic posted over on the guess that photo game,  since he was the last correct answer if I'm not mistaken


----------



## phinz (Oct 25, 2008)

I shoot Canon for my DSLR and Nikon for my P&S.

My Canon 20D:
Surf's up

Havana

My Nikon Coolpix P4 VR:

Nor'easter damage


----------



## GB (Oct 25, 2008)

pacanis said:


> I don't know of any P & Ss that accept filters (doesn't mean they don't exist).


They exist. My old Nikon Coolpix990 took filters. 





pacanis said:


> but I'm sure there are tricks around this.


Actually, most filters can now be added after the photo is taken with Photoshop or some other photo editing software. This makes your camera bag a bit lighter and gives you more room for other toys


----------



## phinz (Oct 25, 2008)

I still have my Coolpix 990. Neat, durable little camera.

Then again, I also still have my Sony Mavica FD91.


----------



## Fisher's Mom (Oct 25, 2008)

smoke king said:


> I just wanted to say that I appreciate *everybodys* input on this, from lo-tech to hi-tech to everything in-between.
> 
> Its been tremendously helpful if for no other reason than that I now have a new found appreciation for pro, and semi-pro photographers and what it takes to execute their craft at that level. No wonder good photographers charge so much!!
> 
> ...


Here's a link for a Canon Powershot 590IS.
Amazon.com: Canon PowerShot A590IS 8MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom: Camera & Photo
Right now it's $120 at Amazon! I have a friend who has one of these and took fabulous pics on her trips to Greece, Italy, China and an Alaskan cruise. Lots of the pics were taken on a moving bus or boat and the Image Stabilization (IS) did an amazing job of producing crisp, sharp pics. I know because I made photo dvd's for her and her family so I got to see all of them closely. Anyway, it's an entry level digital camera that does amazing things. You can also buy a converter ring so that you can use telephoto and wide angle lenses.

I have a Canon A650IS, one son has an A710IS, another an A720IS and another has an SD1000 so obviously I like Canons. But as others have pointed out - there are _lots_ of really good digital cameras out there. I just wanted to share that you might not have to spend nearly as much as you thought to get the missus a very nice camera.


----------



## GB (Oct 26, 2008)

phinz said:


> I still have my Coolpix 990. Neat, durable little camera.


I loved that camera. The only thing I did not like about it was the lag time from the time you hit the shutter release to the time it took the picture. That is going to be an issue with any P&S. SLR's do not have that issue. When you hit the button it takes the picture right away which is nice. With a P&H there is going to be a delay from the time you hit the button to the time it snaps the picture. That is just something you have to learn to live with. You need to learn to anticipate so that you can hit the button before you need to. With still shots this is not an issue, but with action shots to can be a little tricky sometimes. It can be done well, but it takes some practice.


----------



## Wart (Oct 28, 2008)

phinz said:


> Then again, I also still have my Sony Mavica FD91.







I would probably still be using it if floppies were still cheap and computers still came with floppy drives (without a special order).

I'll admit it, I'm happy for the near death of the floppy.

The 91 was one heck of a camera in its day, I loved the lens (35-500 or there abouts) which would focus from the lens cap to infinity, transfer of files was blistering fast (compared to one hour photo), and at the time 640x480 was all the Web and eBay needed (as monitors grew I could use 1024).

OTOH, manual mode was more trouble than it was worth (except for manual focus which works so much better than the Nikon kit lens), auto focus worked wherever it wanted to, no external flash (I know, I could use the Honeywell of Metz with a trigger ... No), and the blistering fast file transfer became a labor. LOL

Overall I'm _really_ glad I'm using a basic DSLR that accepts my old manual lenses for my Nikon, accepts a basic hot shoe flash, has a remote (cable release), and manual mode isn't more trouble than its worth.


----------



## Wart (Oct 28, 2008)

About the only way I've found to get the "shutter" to release immediately is to shoot with the lens set to manual focus/ with a manual lens, or to have the camera 'pre focus' by having pressed the release half way (which presets the camera). Otherwise your looking at a 1/2 to one second delay. And if the camera starts cycling looking for focus the picture may never be taken.

If your looking at converter rings and telephoto converters and specialty filters your no longer in the land of point and shoot, and wife has drug some of these things home from Goodwill .... Aargh!!! ... Honey, unless it has Contax, Cannon, Nikon ... Hasselblad ... PLEASE leave it there. LOL!!


----------



## kleenex (Oct 28, 2008)

If you got a whole lot of cash

Phase One Dealer of the Year, Capture Integration

Or you can go for a Canon G10 for 499 bucks.


----------



## roadfix (Oct 28, 2008)

Just short of SLRs I've been thinking about the Canon G series for my next camera purchase for quite some time now.... Who knows, by the time I make up my mind & decide to buy they're be out with a G11 or G12...


----------



## Wart (Oct 29, 2008)

As has been said before, and not by me, don't get caught up in the mega pixel thing. The Megapixel Myth from Ken Rockwell. Rockwell needs taken with a grain of salt but I think he's close enough here.

To sum the article, an image with an inferior lens and lots of pixels isn't as good as an image with a better lens and fewer pixels.

So if your buying a point and shoot you want a better lens than more pixels.

I looked at the PowerShot G10. Wow, what they'll do to sell cameras these days. Granted it has a bunch of nifty doo dads but from a pure photographic standpoint it's (way) lacking.

If your spending that kind of money your in the D$LR range.

Does the G10 fit the not needing its own bag requirement? I think its on the verge.

The camera strap thing .. Boy, I understand that. I put this camera on a strap and the strap didn't make it one day before it was gone. 



I guess I should say I'm not a Gear Chaser. If I were I wouldn't be this happy with the D40.


----------

