Camera recommendations...

[pop-girl]

So, I have some money set aside to buy a new camera. In 2004 I bought a Kadak, EasyShare DX6490 with a 10x optical zoom. At the time this was a great camera and it still takes fantastic pictures. It's light weight (not too bulky) and easy to use. I also love that it has a PC sync port so it works great with my studio lighting set. The issue I have is the amount of time it takes to turn on and the amount of time I have to wait between taking pictures. Not a problem when photographing ponies but a big problem when it comes to photographing my children and pets.

For Christmas my husband bought me a Kodak, EasyShare Max Z990 - I don't think he did much research, just kind of assumed that since I had been so happy with the DX6490 that I'd be equally as happy with the Z990. This is not the case. I find the Z990 to be a paint in butt. It really bulky and the modes aren't real easy to access. I'm not very impressed with the picture quality and the camera refuses to capture at the most critical moments. I was about ready to throw it across the room at my daughter's elementary school "move up" ceremony and was equally as frustrated at my younger daughter's dance recital. To make matters even worse there is no PC sync port so I can't figure out how to take pictures with my studio lights short of using the actual camera flash to trigger the lights.

I am more than ready to put this camera up for sale and replace it with something a bit nicer.

At first my heart was set on the Nikon 1. I had every intention of buying the white camera with the zoom lens package which includes the 10 - 30mm and the 30 - 110mm. I am still totally in love with the design and the idea of being able to shoot video and take snap shots at the same time - I can tell you how many times we've had trouble deciding between photos or video and this would certainly solve the problem. So what stopped me? I came across several reviews stating that the Nikon 1 takes grainy indoor pictures. I am not happy with the idea of spending that much on a camera if it can't take good indoor pictures.

I don't really want to spend over $500 and I don't think I'm ready for a DLSR so I've been looking at "bridge" cameras.
I'm currently leaning toward buying the Nikon Coolpix P510. Does anyone here own one and would you recommend it? I've read several reviews and this seems like the best camera for me but I'm still indecisive.

Also, in my search for a new camera I haven't found any with the PC sync port. Is this feature outdated? And if so does anyone have ideas on how to sync a camera to studio lighting without firing the camera's flash? None of the cameras I'm looking at have a hot shoe so I don't think that's an option.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[kaoskat]

Good luck pop!

[Eviecorn]

I know naught of cameras, so hopefully some shutterbugs will make their way in. 

[pop-girl]

Thanks you ladies. Hopefully someone with a little knowledge will happen upon my thread.

[Knibitz]

If you're looking for a point and shoot, then definitely go with Canon. Nikon is severely lacking in the P&S department *says die-hard nikon dslr owner*

And do you mean the nikon J1?

I don't honestly find them worth the money.
At the moment they're really gimicky, and you get a lot less of a camera (quality wise) for that gimick, lenses are also extremely expensive at the moment.  If you were to wait a few years, and let mirrorless cameras develop some, then I'd probably suggest one, but, for the moment if you want to go that route, just go ahead and get a DSLR.  You can start with a cheap Nikon D3000 or Canon XS, the entry level DSLRs (I would not suggest a sony as their lenses are fewer and more expensive)
You can buy them factory refurbished at places like Adorama.com and get them for a fraction of the price! And they come with a Nikon/Canon warranty.

There's no such thing as "ready for a dslr" You can take your dslr and shoot in auto/no-flash/ or pre-programmed modes and it will do just fine. I know many people who do, but it's a simple turn of a dial when you're ready to learn your camera.  Don't waist your money on a bridge camera to "test yourself" for a dslr, there's no point. The only reason i'd push you away from a DSLR is size. If you want a camera that will fit in your pocket, then a dslr is a no-go. Go with a highly rated Canon point and shoot if you want a pocket camera

If video is very important then look at the Nikon D3100 or Canon T1i(yes? Canon people, help me out xD)  They have top quality HD video.
Canon is your more powerful video camera. Much better stabilizing and quieter focusing. Nikon is pretty much useless for capturing anything moving. Auto focus is noisy and slow.

But you can get a dslr for under 500$, just search for older models and factory refurbished.
If you want to go super cheap, look for the D40, D40x, D50, or D60
Those are the previous generation (ranging from beginner to mid range consumer dslr)

They're tougher to find because they're becoming extremely old at this point, but they can be found if you're patient.


Edit:
(I purchased my first camera, a nikon d40, from adorama - they're a great place to shop)
Refurbished nikon d3000 body for 250$ http://www.adorama.com/INKD3000R.html
Refurbished 18-55mm standard issue VR (vibration reductoin) kit lens for 100$: http://www.adorama.com/NK1855VRR.html

Total cost: 350$


you can easily buy another lens for that.

For portraits I'd suggest the cheap Nikkon 50mm f/1.8  - Has a LOVELY soft focus, and wil only cost you about 150-200$, (check amazon)
This is my go to lens. It's perfect for portraits, flowers, ponies, and just every day shooting, FANTASTIC for low light.


Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 AF-S - pretty much the same thing, new for 199.99 on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1343682072&sr=8-3&keywords=nikkor+50mm+1.8
(50mm is 20$ more if you decide you really want the 50)

and then with the little you have left over, you can buy a case (I just use a walmart case-logic backpack - 30$) infrared filters (for about 8-15$ each - basically they'll protect the glass on the front of the lens), and  the rest you can spend on ponies

[Diamond]

Knibitz some interesting info, I know several folks who swear by there cannons, I have heard though that some are only good for x amount of shots but have not been able to find out if this is true.

Poppers, I have a feeling you are going to have a hard time finding a camera today with out going crazy that will support your lights.  You might be able to find an adapter or slave to use on it but I have seen very few with that feature of late.  Is the company you got your lights from still around?  If so might want to contact them and see what they have to offer.

Thoth has a Nikon Cool Pix, not my choice which is great for outdoor and travel but bad in low light and the batteries seem to get over heated with a lot of flash and then the flash does not always go off.

I happen to be a Sony person, they have awesome low light albity and the mirco on them rock.  I need to do some looking round too as a new camera is to be Thoth's 16th Birthday present so I shall be sure to share things with you and keep an eye on this thread as well.

[Knibitz]

Knibitz some interesting info, I know several folks who swear by there cannons, I have heard though that some are only good for x amount of shots but have not been able to find out if this is true.

Poppers, I have a feeling you are going to have a hard time finding a camera today with out going crazy that will support your lights.  You might be able to find an adapter or slave to use on it but I have seen very few with that feature of late.  Is the company you got your lights from still around?  If so might want to contact them and see what they have to offer.

Thoth has a Nikon Cool Pix, not my choice which is great for outdoor and travel but bad in low light and the batteries seem to get over heated with a lot of flash and then the flash does not always go off.

I happen to be a Sony person, they have awesome low light albity and the mirco on them rock.  I need to do some looking round too as a new camera is to be Thoth's 16th Birthday present so I shall be sure to share things with you and keep an eye on this thread as well.

Yes, camera's lives are rated in basically shutter actuations (how many times the shutter opens and closes)
For the normal consumer photographer, even hardcore hobbyist, shutter count is not going to be a problem   Your camera, even if refurbished, will last you a life time, and you are more likely to drop your DSLR and smash it, than have it die from too many photos.
(the d3000 is tested up to 100,000 shutter actuations)

you can download a software called Opanda to read the exif data off of a photo and tell you how many shutter actuations your camera has had
there are also a few places online that allow you to upload and check it



My Nikon D7000 that I got refurbished from wolf camera right after Christmas 2011 currently has a shutter count 8,554  its life expectancy is 150,000 I think I've got a while to go!
edit: just checked the first photo I ever took with my D7000, and the shutter count was 1411. Meaning that whoever had my camera before, only took ~1400 photos.
Which means it was most likely a floor model at someplace like best buy (many refurbished cameras are floor models that are returned)

*math*
roughly 1000 photos a month.
150 months?
/12 months a year
12-13 years?

Pretty good for a consumer electronic
I can't think of anything that's lasted me that long!


*crawls back in the hole I came from and noms on my camera strap*
._. sorry for like BLAHOFINFORMATION  cameras make me excited .u.

[ashes]

We have the Sony Alpha SLT-A33, and we love it.  We've had it for a little over a year, and it has made a world of difference in capturing our kids and all their activities.

But it's the model that they discontinued around summer of last year, before they unveiled the updated models.  We tried both, and like the older model better.  It had features on it that we liked that they didn't carry over (but that they put on the camera in the next price bracket).  The downfall is that the battery overheats, but we've never had an issue with that.  And I use it all the time to photograph my artwork.

Since we bought the "discontinued" model, we got it for more than 50% off at the Sony store.  So we were also happy with the price.

Post Merge: July 30, 2012, 05:11:57 PM

My husband could probably tell you more, since he's the one that spent nearly a year researching cameras and testing them out.

[banditpony]

Camera shopping can be rough, because at the end of the day it comes down to what the person shoots often and etc. People can sit there and spit out technical stuff, but sometimes it isn't always about that. (I say this because my fiance often goes on and on about technical camera stuff WEEKLY, and I'm like "I just don't caaaaare")

Take for instance, my fiance who is VERY much into cameras. He will do camera reviews and has had his hands on just about everything. He recently sold his high end DSLR for something called a Ricoh GRDIII. It's a point and shoot. I imagine it's because he has his analogue camera is pretty amazing atm... and he just wanted something he light he could carry around in addition to the other one, and take really great shots. (For him, the Ricoh has essence of film to it, yet the thing preforms great, so that was what was important to him).

But my camera of choice (after I accidentally broke my trusty P&S) is a Sony NEX. I learned to love to shoot manual, so I knew I had to get a camera I could adjust settings to, and I wanted something I could change lenses on... I don't like the size of DSLRs... and if I wanted to use one, then I could borrow one... I mean, eh.. I ran into the Sony NEX, and since I was so comfortable with Sony cameras, and my fiance did a tooon of research on it, it really seemed to fit my needs.

It's better than a point and shoot, it's not as clunky as a DSLR. And as far as I'm concerned it takes just as good pictures as a DSLR because it's got a nice sensor. It's got a sensor that is larger than a P&S and comparable to some DSLR cameras.

I have two digi-lenses for it, which work out fine for what I do. BUT! I can put my manual lenses on it (OMG this makes me drool). I do macro, indoors and out, and etc. I recently had a photoshoot and I was dreading fixing the pictures because it was in a forest, and the sunlight was shining but there were dark shadows... so I had a real big issue with highlights and shadows... and to be honest, my little camera did well above what I was expecting it to. <3My fiance even shot a wedding with the NEX-7 and that thing is freaking amazing, and did really well with low lighting. (It was an interim camera for him as he was switching from Nikon to Canon). >__< And that little guy was impressive, but had a hefty price tag on it.

But for me, my Sony NEX is perfect for my needs. ;3 And if I had to look for another camera.... than I'd get a Leica M9. I just don't want a DSLR... or need one.

Oh, and just as a general thing. Research is a pain ~ There is a youtube thing called DigitalRev, and I the reviews are really good. http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom ^_^; They are pretty easy to watch.

I know this is a good place for reviews too  : http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm (but too complicated for me!)

[Knibitz]

Be careful with RevCom - Kai's hilarious, and great to watch, but tends to be a biased and sarcastic, so it can be a bit confusing if you're using him as a reviewer to shop by.
Just make sure you've got back up resources and don't live off RevCom.

[banditpony]

Or not.
*shrug*
It was helpful for me when I chose a camera. It wasn't my only source of information, as no one should look at one source of info. I find some of the things he says easy to understand.

[DoctorMowinckel]

Buy a used DSLR, they're cheap, and you'll love the lens options. The technical side of photography is easy. It comes down to three things; aperture, exposure, and ISO. And focal length. Let's start with focal length.

Focal length refers to how much 'zoom' your camera will have. The lower the focal length, the less 'zoom' it has. Something like a 14mm lens is really wide, whereas a 300mm lens will let you zoom in really close. Here's a good example of different focal lengths and how they effect perspective;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


As you can see, with an 18mm lens, it's not 'zoomed' at all, whereas with a 300mm lens, you're right there. I like shooting with low focal lengths, 28-50, they'll let you get close to your subject while keeping a lot of the image in frame. Notice how the perspective changes each time the focal length goes up. The size of the image stays the same, but less and less of what's around the barn is in frame. If you walked right up to the barn with the 18mm lens to get it as big as it is with the 300mm lens, the perspective would be totally different. Think about what you're going to be shooting. Sports photography requires a long lens, 150mm, at least, and if you're going to be far away from the action, think 300mm and longer. If you're going to be taking pictures of friends in candid situations, a lower focal length will do you well, that way you won't have to back up as far to get what you want in frame before you take the picture.

Aperture refers to how wide the opening is at the end of your lens. A larger aperture will allow more light in, however this will also result in a lower depth of field. Depth of field refers to how much of the image is in focus. The advantage of a low depth of field (something like 1.8) is that you'll be letting in a lot of light, so you'll be able to make a shorter exposure. A disadvantage is that your depth of field can get really, really narrow, so you either need to have a lot of trust in your autofocus, or your ability to manually focus. One of the effects of shooting with you aperture wide open (wide open is the colloquialism for shooting with your aperture opened as large as it can be by having it on it's lowest setting) is that the background gets 'bokehed out'. Bokeh is the blurring of things in the image that aren't in focus. Here's an example of my G3 styling Rainbow Dash shot with an aperture of f1.8, which is as wide as my lens will go.

50mm, f1.8, 100 ISO, 1/4 second
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Notice how blurred the background is, also notice how not even all of her mane is in focus! Even her ears are starting to blur out of frame. I listed the ISO, but we'll talk about that later. Depth of field is dependent on three things; Aperture, focal length, and distance from subject. Here's the formula for calculating depth of field;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Easy, right?! No, not at all. It's the opposite of easy. Here's the bottom line; The closer you are to your subject, the shallower the depth of field. The longer the focal length, the shallower the depth of field. The larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. The contrary applies as well. Higher aperture, larger depth of field. Lower focal length, larger depth of field. Farther from your subject, larger depth of field.

Now, here's Dash shot at f5.6;

50mm, f5.6, 100 ISO, 2 seconds
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Two things to notice about this, the depth of field has improved, hooray! Also, notice the exposure time! Going from f1.8 to f5.6 moved the aperture up four 'stops'. In photography, raising the stop by one will double the exposure time. Going from f1.8 is four (four and a third if you want to get technical) stops away from f5.6. Each time you move the aperture a whole stop up, the exposure time will double. For each stop you drop it down, the exposure time will half. Another way to adjust the amount of stops is with ISO, but again, we'll talk about ISO soon, I promise! F stops work on a logarithmic scale, not an absolute scale. Going from f11 to f22 is not one stop, it's two. Two get a run down on the stop scale, give this guide a looksee; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Standard_full-stop_f-number_scale

All right, and finally, Dash shot at f22;

50mm, f22, 100 ISO, 30 seconds
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Everything is in focus! F22 is a very high aperture, at that point the opening at the end of your lens is very, very narrow, so pretty much everything from the foreground to background is going to be in focus. Also notice the exposure time. Another four stops up, 2 seconds at f5.6, 4 seconds at f8, 8 seconds at f11, 16 seconds at f16, and 30 seconds for f22! Shouldn't it be 32? Yes, but without manually keeping the mirror up on my digital camera, the exposure caps off at 30 seconds.

So, keeping the aperture wide open, shallow depth of field, short exposure! Keeping it closed as far as it will go, very wide depth of field, but very long exposure times!

Okay, now, ISO. I saved ISO for last because it's the only thing that will be camera dependent. ISO refers to how light sensitive a cameras digital censor, or film is to light. If I were shooting Dash with the same lens, same aperture, same light conditions, same focal length, and same ISO settings, but with using a different camera, the exposure times would be the same, but depending on the type of camera I'm using, the shots will look different. That's because of the quality of the censor in the camera. The censors get their light sensitivity based on how many light sensitive particles are going to store data when you release the shutter. The fewer light sensitive particles that store data, the faster the exposure time, but it comes with the downside of lower image quality. With film, this manifests itself in film grain.

Here's a gallery from my portoflio that was shot with 100 ISO film; http://www.photo.doctormowinckel.com/?portfolio=bridge-ii
And here's one that was shot with 6400 ISO film; http://www.photo.doctormowinckel.com/?portfolio=carvan-of-thieves

Notice how the shot with 100 ISO film has no visible grain, whereas the one with the 6400 ISO film is super grainy! That's because the 100 ISO film has more light sensitive grains in it than the 6400 ISO film. Since it has more grain, you'll get a finer picture, but more grains means more things to light to hit, which means longer exposure time. The 6400 ISO film has six times less film grain (approximately), so the exposure times adjust accordingly.

Now, with digital cameras, ISO behaves the same way. Lower ISO means finer images, and higher ISO means less fine, though since digital cameras are, you know, digital, they don't have film grain, they suffer from 'noise'. Better sensors have more light sensitive bits available at every ISO, so a really boss digital camera at 3200 (or even 6400) will look really good, a cheap camera won't look as good at higher ISOs.

Now, here's a crop of Dash at 1600 ISO;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


And a crop taken at 100 ISO;

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Notice the 'noise' on the 1600 ISO shot. You lose the super smooth images when you shoot at a higer ISO, but it's not insurmountable, with some post production you can make 1600 ISO shots look pretty good. Here's a band I shot at 1600 ISO with this same camea; http://www.photo.doctormowinckel.com/?portfolio=larkin-poe

I never mentioned exposure, because I think it was sort of explained as I went along. How long your shutter open equates to how much light you let in. How much light you should let in is based on aperture, and ISO!

Hopefully this will take some mystery out of DSLRs! My advice;

Buy an older DSLR; http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DC029990954940?r=FE
An 18-55mm lens; http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DC0799907852205?r=FE
A 50mm lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=GREY&sku=12142&Q=&O=&A=details
And a 75-300mm lens; http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-CE07999007068N?r=FE

That'll set you back about about $450, and get you a really good package for the price, and you can omit the 50mm 1.8 if you don't need to an aperture that low. I own everything I linked you to, and can vouch for all of it. If you want to see what the camera and lenses can do, let me know, and I can link you to some full size shots I've taken with the lenses.

ONE LAST THING; Be aware of 'crop factors' on digital cameras. The Rebel XTi I linked you to has a crop factor of 1.6, which means lenses you put on it will be magnified 1.6 times. This is due to the size of the censor on the camera. 95% of lenses are designed for full frame digital cameras. A full frame digital camera has a digital censor that's the same size as 35mm film. If the censor is smaller, the image will be 'cropped off', making the focal length appear longer. So, if you put a 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera body, it will behave like an 80mm lens. Put a 300mm lens on a 1.6x crop body, and it will behave like a 480mm lens. The caveat to this (for Canon, at least) are EFS lenses, which were designed for Canon cameras with a 1.6x crop factor. So, that 18-55mm lens I linked you to will be 18-55mm when used on the body I linked you to.

This post is long. If you have any questions, holla at a brotha.

[Marigold]

Panasonic lumix.  love it. Love the wide angle. Love the fast burst function.

[Diamond]

Knibitz some interesting info, I know several folks who swear by there cannons, I have heard though that some are only good for x amount of shots but have not been able to find out if this is true.

Poppers, I have a feeling you are going to have a hard time finding a camera today with out going crazy that will support your lights.  You might be able to find an adapter or slave to use on it but I have seen very few with that feature of late.  Is the company you got your lights from still around?  If so might want to contact them and see what they have to offer.

Thoth has a Nikon Cool Pix, not my choice which is great for outdoor and travel but bad in low light and the batteries seem to get over heated with a lot of flash and then the flash does not always go off.

I happen to be a Sony person, they have awesome low light albity and the mirco on them rock.  I need to do some looking round too as a new camera is to be Thoth's 16th Birthday present so I shall be sure to share things with you and keep an eye on this thread as well.

Yes, camera's lives are rated in basically shutter actuations (how many times the shutter opens and closes)
For the normal consumer photographer, even hardcore hobbyist, shutter count is not going to be a problem   Your camera, even if refurbished, will last you a life time, and you are more likely to drop your DSLR and smash it, than have it die from too many photos.
(the d3000 is tested up to 100,000 shutter actuations)

you can download a software called Opanda to read the exif data off of a photo and tell you how many shutter actuations your camera has had
there are also a few places online that allow you to upload and check it



My Nikon D7000 that I got refurbished from wolf camera right after Christmas 2011 currently has a shutter count 8,554  its life expectancy is 150,000 I think I've got a while to go!
edit: just checked the first photo I ever took with my D7000, and the shutter count was 1411. Meaning that whoever had my camera before, only took ~1400 photos.
Which means it was most likely a floor model at someplace like best buy (many refurbished cameras are floor models that are returned)

*math*
roughly 1000 photos a month.
150 months?
/12 months a year
12-13 years?

Pretty good for a consumer electronic
I can't think of anything that's lasted me that long!


*crawls back in the hole I came from and noms on my camera strap*
._. sorry for like BLAHOFINFORMATION  cameras make me excited .u.

Thanks for that information, I can shot a lot at times.   If I go to a carousel I have not been to before I can shot say 100 to 200 shots just on that carousel, never mind the trip getting there and back.  I also so a lot of ebay sales and on a single crock for my hubby to sell can take up to a dozen shots so I think I shall be annoying and ask that question just to see how good the salesman are. 

Fascinating reading all, keep it coming.

[pop-girl]

Wow, a lot a great information and a bit overwhelming.
You've given me a lot to think about.


Knibitz, thank you for the links. I will definitely look into your recommendation.

DoctorMowinckel, thank you for the rundown - the information was very useful and does bring back some memories.... When I was in school for graphic design we were required to take one semester of black and white photography. Looking back I have no idea why were limited to black and white but it was fun. I actually own a Minolta X-370 film camera which I used for a few years - nothing automatic about it. Unfortunately, I've forgotten most of what I learned and my girls have helped to turn my brain into swiss cheese.

I wasn't considering a DSLR before but now...  I just don't know.

banditpony,  your camera sounds exactly like what I want so I went to the Sony site. I love the look of the Sony NEX but not the price tag. Unfortunately, it's out of my price range.