New Digital Camera

[lordsmurf]

If you've ever used a Canon dSLR, you'll understand. Compare it to a Nikon dSLR (or even a FUJI) and you'll see. Only the Canon pro series (10D, etc) is immune.

As far as the MINOLTA, they're slow, the contrast isn't great, the scan is not the best quality, and the machines tend to break. No ICE, though some have this knock-off of ICE that is pretty poor in comparison. That enough reasons for it to suck?

[Greg12]

My parents dont want an DSLR they want a digicam.

[Capmaster]

The best site on the web, IMO, for evaluating digicams before you buy:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/

Try out the Comparometer. It's a feature that lets you compare several models test pictures side by side. It's a big help and prevented me from making a big mistake by buying a Toshiba digicam. I ended up with a Canon.

[vitualis]

@ thor,

The Canon 300D (aka Rebel) DOES have a shutter lag problem. Which, IMHO, almost single-handedly makes it useless as a DSLR.

DSLR cameras are not supposed to have shutter lag! and for the price you are paying, it shouldn't have any.

That is not to say that the Canon 300D isn't otherwise a very nice camera, but when you move to the class of a DSLR, most people have certain expectations. No shutter lag is one of them.

As for digicams, there are many nice models out. I suggest going for one of the newer Nikon, Canon or Sony digicams in the 3MP to 5MP range. They have no killer flaws and all give 4"x6" prints that are as good as P&S 35mm film cameras. Depending on how good YOU are, they can give more than reasonable enlargements too.

Regards.

[Capmaster]

The Canon 100D (aka Rebel) DOES have a shutter lag problem

I thought the rebel was a 300D

[vitualis]

What are you talking about?

I always incorrectly refer to the Rebel as the 100D...

Regards.

[Capmaster]

What are you talking about?

I always incorrectly refer to the Rebel as the 100D...

Regards.

Everybody just calls it the "Rebel" anyways, AFAIK

[vitualis]

Everybody just calls it the "Rebel" anyways, AFAIK

Only in the US...

It is definitely just known as the EOS-300D elsewhere...

Which brings me to another question which I would very much like the answer to. Why are the camera model numbers different between the US and the rest of the world for both Nikon and Canon cameras

Regards.

[stiltman]

Which brings me to another question which I would very much like the answer to. Why are the camera model numbers different between the US and the rest of the world for both Nikon and Canon cameras

Regards.

So they can charge more and also release new untested products

[Capmaster]

Everybody just calls it the "Rebel" anyways, AFAIK

Only in the US...

It is definitely just known as the EOS-300D elsewhere...

Which brings me to another question which I would very much like the answer to. Why are the camera model numbers different between the US and the rest of the world for both Nikon and Canon cameras

Regards.

Like stilt said - they test-release it in europe and after 2 years of costomer feedback, and if it hasn't burst into flames, they figure it's good enough for Americans.
<ducks for cover>

[Conquest10]

Europe=300D
US=Digital Rebel
Japan=Digital KISS

[Conquest10]

In Japan, they have a black bodied Rebel.

Back on subject, he's looking for a camera that has ISO800. None of the Canons have that. The Nikons I've looked at don't either. It seems to be a rare find.

[lordsmurf]

For NIKON, the tend to use F and X more. For example, the N80 was the F80 in Japan (and elsewhere). Only in the USA was their an N90S. In Japan, F90X. I think they've dumped that in digital.

I used to import "grey market" stuff a lot back in the day. At one point, Japanes Nikon was substancially cheaper this way. Not so much anymore, at least not with non-bodies. Lens are not much different last I shopped.

The Nikon D1 has up to ISO 1600. I'm pretty sure the D100 does too. In fact, on the D1, you can go to ISO 3200 with a +2 ISO setting in custom mode. You get a bit of moire at that level, but it's there. ISO 800 is really pushing it for clear images anyway. Low light on a CCD will look like crap no matter the glass, ISO, etc. CMOS is even worse. Rule to abide: low light says "USE FILM! And push it!". Never

The digital Rebel is the 300-D, at least in the USA (see B&H for info). The worst digital camera I ever used was the Canon D30 and D60. Those had so many problems (lag being the biggest one), that they were little more than paperweights or over-sized point-n-shoots.

====

As far as point-n-shoots with ISO selection, good luck. Call B&H or a pro store near you and ask this simple question. They should have an answer. THey tend to carry better p-n-s stuff.

[vitualis]

With point and shoots, most of the higher end prosumer models should go up to ISO 800, but probably with an image quality that would be unusable without a lot of filtering afterwards (e.g., with NeatImage).

When I was looking to buy a digital camera about two years ago, of the cameras that when up to ISO 800, Sony digicams seemed to do best with keeping down the noise. I don't know if this is still the case (and IMHO, Sony digicams have some other problems).

If you really need ISO 800 speed and don't want to buy a SLR (i.e., you want something small), I would have to suggest that you go with a film camera and then just buy ISO 800 film.

Regards.

[Conquest10]

OK, I finally did some tests. I shot a wall with two cameras. This isn't very scientific, so... but see for yourself. They were both shot at f/2.8.

Sony DSC-F717 ISO800

Canon 10D ISO1600


They're not at the same ISO but this just illustrates what I said earlier.

[Capmaster]

That Sony image looks like crap

[vitualis]

As what has been stated -- ISO 800 on a digicam is unusable. Indeed, even ISO 400 is often pushing it unless you use NeatImage.

D-SLRs have much bigger sensors and this keeps the noise down.

Regards.

[thor300]

Overall i find canons to be the best, Nikons generally are more phrone to overexpose and they had some models with poor saturation. Btw, am not talking SLRs now. Greg12, digital cams have same limitations as normal film cams, to get acceptable quality with 800ASA you need a medium or big format camera. there is no Digital-Magic, yet.

[vitualis]

Which models have been prone to overexpose and which models have poor saturation??

Sorry, but that sounds like bollocks to me. Nikon by design tends to preserve the highlights (i.e., UNDERexpose) and use less aggressive settings for saturation and sharpening. Pictures may not look as flash "out of the camera" but it gives you more scope for editing.

Having said that, most Nikon cameras on the fully automatic P&S setting still gives great photos.

As for digital cameras and limitations with ISO 800, they DO NOT have the same limitations as film cameras. They have very much different limitations. Sorry, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Film cameras depend on FILM. That is the limitation in terms of speed. If someone brings out super low grain ISO 800 film, then every 35 mm film camera (just about) can take advantage of it. Going to medium or large format cameras is not going to help you here.

Digicams depend on the sensor, something that is integral to the camera and cannot be changed. Most digicam sensors are pretty noisy at ISO 800 equivalent -- to the degree that it isn't useful. However, most D-SLRs have excellent quality at ISO 800 -- arguably with less noise than most ISO 800 film.

Regards.

[thor300]

Nikon 3100 has a poor saturation, and also a variable exposure. What you are saying about grains at high ISO, sounds like you confirm that they have similar limitations: Short exposure (high asa) gives grainy pictures. No digital cam can do magic at high iso values. If its so different from film cameras, why even bother to use ISO equivalents for digital cams? The new "superzooms" compact models are just coming about with low grain pictures, the Fujifilm S5000 was early model and it has grains, so they obviously have problems with grains when CCD chips are very small, one way to solve it is by using lower ISO settings, just as you would get a ISO50 film for a 135 camera to get less grain and noise.
I am however aware that digital cams can do better, but it cost too much and they need big CCDs to make it very good. A digital backpiece for 120 film cameras cost how much? $15.000? Still its only like 14 megapixels.
Anyway, set any digital cam to ISO400 instead of 200 and you will get more grains and noise. Not as bad as film cameras, but the difference is there. To avoid grains at ISO800 the solution is the same also, get bigger film (120) or bigger CCD (digital backpiece). How big is the CCD of a Bronica backpiece? 56x42mm? Makes sense that its better, just like 120 is better than 135. There are similarities, i dont know why you would deny that.

[lordsmurf]

I've used digital backs on 120/220 cameras. I'm not all that impressed, nor have I really heard others loving it all that much. Most of those digital backs (and just the concept in and of itself) are quite dated. Bigger is not better. That can be ONE aspect of many to consider, not the only one.

Poor saturation is an affect of underexposure from not having enough light (be it digital or film). My response? Learn to use your light. That's user error, not a camera flaw.

The grain control of digital (DSLR) and film is not so different, in regards to the quality. The biggest issue is moire patterns on low light. A CCD (and CMOS is worse) inherently doesn't do well in low light.

ISO 800 FUJI film is quite good. It's one of the best pushed films you can find (for up to 1600/3200 ISO).

Another thing people fail to realize is these DSLRs have CPUs in them to further control the image quality. Nikon even let's you update the system every so often with their $99 package. Not a bad deal.

Changing white balance is another item I'd never be able to live without (including custom settings).

The camera doesn't make the photographer. It'll help, but nothing more. My only advice is to be sure you get a camera that does not limit your knowledge and growth.

[vitualis]

@ thor,

The reason you would want to use ISO 800 equivalency is SPEED.

You would not go to medium or large format cameras for speed. 35 mm film cameras have faster lenses AND arguably better film at ISO 800. Your analogy breaks down here about "larger" film size.

A larger sensor size / film can and does yield less grain/more detail (i.e., higher S:N ratio) but the benefit to you as the photographer (i.e., speed) only holds if the the speed of everything else remains the same.

The limitations of digicams in terms of speed is first the ISO equivalent setting. Most digicams will not yield usuable images at ISO 800 and are really pushing it even at ISO 400. The other limitations is of course relatively slow lenses.

Most P&S 35 mm film cameras will have the same problem with slow lenses but DO NOT have the same problem with the sensor itself (i.e., film). You can get excellent ISO 800 35mm film.

Which is why I stated before that if you want to use ISO 800 and don't want to get an SLR, then you should ditch the idea of a digicam and get a 35 mm P&S and use ISO 800 film. You'd get much better results.

Regards.

[thor300]

I cant agree that there is any good ISO800 film for 135, not when you compare to 120 film, but i guess greg12 would be satisfied for 4x6". The Bronica with Tamron 75mm is amazing with ISO400 positive film, Nikon F90X is close with good films but not with ISO400 positives, the difference is very big when upsizing to above 18 Inch. I agree with smurfie that Fuji makes the best high ISO films, beats any digital any time in the Bronica.

[Doramius]

What you do, is go out and buy an expensive, high quality film camera from Kodak. Spend the money on an extremely high quality film. Get a full set of filters and Telescopic & Wideangle lenses. A crushed leather shoulder strap with wool padding. And a lightweight hydraulic tripod. After you have all of that, you'll know why major photographers often live in studio apartments.

Reason this point is brought up is what is the camera for. If you're going to the park to take pictures of your kids, then a nice digital camera will do or a high speed film camera. (USE KODAK FILM. FUJI IS okay ) If you're going to be going down the street getting hookers to take their shirts off and then post the pics on your own website, you're going to make a bit of money off that and I say get a higher quality camera.

[lordsmurf]

Kodak is warm film. Okay for flesh tones (orange), but sucks at everything else (especially blue and green).

Fuji is better at this. At least until you jump into the hi-sat Kodaks, which are specialty films.

[vitualis]

I would have to agree. For consumer grade film, Fuji is better than Kodak.

Regards.

[lordsmurf]

Hand-holding a shutter-lag camera is akin to handholding a 1/8th or 1/15th shutter speed. Hard as hell.

I had to borrow a point-n-shoot last week, did not want to lug a $5k rig just for a couple of "of record" shots. Literally, two quick images.

It was dusk, though still quite decently lit. I couldn't get a crisp shot. No matter how hard I stood still (we're talking photographer still here, not Joe-shmoe still) and how hard I tried to brace against a stationary object, the pictures came out slightly blurred and with grain from hell. The on-board flash warning was blinking, but it had to be turned off (reflective surface on object). What a piece of shit.

If it had been a heavier SLR, I could have gotten the camera weight to counter-balance and assist. As it was, this flimsy little thing was like holding a feather still. I can get 1/8th on the SLR if I calm down, breathe right, and brace myself good.

I got the shots, but they only look good (more like "barely acceptable") after some Photoshop sharpening. They've since been placed in a folder, where they'll rot for an unknown amount of time. Again, not important, just for-record stuff.

The grain on this thing was pretty terrible too. Talk about noisy. Made me appreciate f/2.8 even more.

I'd hate to have junk like this on a daily basis. It's a lot like dial-up. If I had to deal with that on a regular basis, I'd just quit.

[Greg12]

I gave up on my parents n decided to get my own

[DVD_Ripper]

Go up to CNET.com and look at user reviews of all the top cameras... I did that a few years back and settled on Canon. They say optics is the most important -- second to the CCD.

[vitualis]

Yep, optics is the most important...

If you already have Canon lenses, go with the 300D.

If you already have Nikon lenses, go with the D70.

If you are a digital SLR neophyte and plan on getting the kit lens, then the one that comes with the Nikon D70 is MUCH better than the one that comes with the 300D.

Regards.