why bother
Feb. 10th, 2007 09:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gfrancieI have been casually looking at various digital cameras for awhile and the one thing that stands out is how every single camera brings out some fairly extreme opinions. The Reformation seems like a mellow conversation in comparison to how people feel about the quality/features of a camera. The thing is I am not attempting to be Diane Arbus. Like a lot of people I would use the camera to take pictures of family/friends, things I see when I am on holiday and maybe random pictures of this and that. My brother inlaw is a professional photographer so it makes sense that the cameras he uses be of a particular quality, so the reviews of a camera should be important and have some weight. Of course the cameras he uses aren't usually the ones the rest of us are using. Yet a lot of the reviews for the cameras a good portion of the population uses have the kind of attitude you expect for the 3,000 dollar camera.
What gives?
It is either "Oh sweet Mary this is an amazing camera, I love it. The screen is great, the pictures are clear and you can get good focus and these features are nifty." Or it is "I wouldn't even show this camera in the presence of my enemy's dog. It is worthless. You are better off using a pinhole camera. Blah-blah-blah obscure jargon that won't make a lot of sense if you don't read a lot of camera magazines."
Now to write a grocery list. And maybe a few other lists.
What gives?
It is either "Oh sweet Mary this is an amazing camera, I love it. The screen is great, the pictures are clear and you can get good focus and these features are nifty." Or it is "I wouldn't even show this camera in the presence of my enemy's dog. It is worthless. You are better off using a pinhole camera. Blah-blah-blah obscure jargon that won't make a lot of sense if you don't read a lot of camera magazines."
Now to write a grocery list. And maybe a few other lists.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 01:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 06:03 pm (UTC)I'll be the first to tell you as a spoiled film SLR photographer that the Nikon S4 disappoints. Perhaps I expect too much from a 300 dollar point and shoot, but because of my experience, here's why I don't like it: The zoom on it is comparatively huge in focal length. This means, that unless you're gonna be up in someone's shit all close, you're doing fine. If you want to use the zoom on that thing, you need a few conditions for success (aka non blurry photos):
1. A tripod, and cooperative, non moving subjects.
2. A bright sunny day where ever you're shooting, since the more light you've got, the faster the shutter, and then the zoom won't have the same risk of shake that it would in light that is indoor, or overcast like our standard northwest fare.
The shutter lag on Nikon P&S digitals is apparently not a secret topic. For a 6mp camera, you're going to have time to blink or breath in/out before the shutter fires and the image is captured, so if you thought you were doing some rapid shooting at high res (and low zoom) think again! You will be patient, or you will fail.
But, hey, it's not all bad. Those factors above stick out to me, and make it a really big hinderance. It's loaded with a lot of options for lighting/white balance, pre-programmed modes, 'film' speeds, exposure control, and got a damned fine swivel lens thing for tricky angles and stuff like those kids on myspace use. Then again, if you're not half a camera geek, many of those options will simply be fluff you don't need or want to use. Just give me a camera that you hold up at a second's notice, click the shutter, and by golly, get a perfectly serviceable and respectable clear and well balanced photo from! Sounds simple and cheap! But now all the 'cheap' cameras (I'm considering cheap in the 200-300 dollar range) are overloaded with features and gadgets trying to keep up with their big brother hybrids, and if I could find a digital that perhaps just mimicked a 'disposable 35mm film camera' with a couple extra items, for 1 or 200 bucks, I'D BE IN PHOTOGRAPHY HEAVEN!
But I don't think they're out there. Not anymore.
For what it's worth, I meet a lot of people who do find the Canon Powershot series of cameras to be very happy with them, and the photos I've seen them spit out under normal and abnormal conditions appear to be pretty respectable for the calibre of camera or the level of use.
But unless you know *why* you want a Nikon S4 camera, I'd ask you to be cautious in your decision.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 12:55 am (UTC)I am mostly looking for something that won't break the bank, offer a video feature, is fairly easy to navigate and won't suck the life out of a battery too quickly. Plus it doesn't require too much thought to take a half-way decent picture.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 03:14 am (UTC)Details to consider will be optical zoom (vs. digital zoom.) and unless you're going to go nuts photographing stuff halfway across the football field, 3x zoom is plenty for handheld snapshots with versatility.
Anything over 3megapixels will give you plenty good photos for snapshots and small portraits. Most of the cameras out now are probably around 5-8pm in consmer point & shoot.
A lot of cameras have a video feature (the Nikon S4 I mentioned does - and can do tv broadcast quality with sound!) Consider that new p&s cameras without crazy internet sale prices for what you want can often be in the 3 to 500 dollar range.
Memory cards: Let's take a brief diversion around one of the topics I had to bone up on before I jumped into digital. The card's speed and access time will have an impact on higher megapixel cameras or video - to allow for fast buffering and minimize or prevent shutter lag. Mem cards can be competitively priced - but look for the largest and fastest you can afford. I will unofficially recommend giving Costco the eyeball on some very nice prices for cards. I think I bought a fast 1 gig card there a year or so ago for about 60 bucks, which was about 40 off regular retail, and competitive (sometimes) with internet pricing.
As for batteries, consider this:
Most of the cameras now expect or demand that the LCD screen be 'on' while in use. (older cams had a screen on/off feature because it was the single biggest battery suck and could render a fresh set to zip in 30 minutes if left on) The S4 gets many hours and hundreds of shots, from a set of AA batteries, but let me give you something to ponder:
On my camera, it'll take standard AA, rechargeable, and lithium AA batteries. The lithiums give the longest life (doubling or tripling even standard batteries) but average 9 to 12 bucks per pair. Based on the rechargeable lifetime rating, you'd have to have 2 or 3 sets of rechargeables to duplicate the lifespan of the lithiums. This means you can pay now, or pay later, but you're going to pay. A few sets and charger for rechargeables will set you back a pretty penny, but assumedly save money over the long run as long as you're prepared with fully charged sets on the way to the photo safari. Lithiums will cost more per pair, but you'll honestly go through them less, which might even balance it all out. Do check and see which batteries your camera will accept, and lifetime expectation per set. Batteries and memory cards are where you'll spend any/all money for it as time goes by.
Most navigation systems on the cameras are painfully simple so that you can intuitively navigate them with about 5 clicks to get to anywhere, max. And by default, the point and shoots are all 'auto-everything' which means you really don't have to tinker with 'em to just whip it out and go. Things like the white balance, flash control and sensitivity/ISO settings are the most likely adjustments, to compensate for the quality, intensity, or source of light. The rest is either optional fluff or high geek tweaking.
I haven't shopped for digitals for a couple years. I do know that almost every simple to middle-road consumer point&shoot or hybrid will do many of the same things now, with the caveat of each brand's tweaks or personalities. And price is super competitive, so my earlier 3 to 500 buck estimate may be toward the lower end if you shop around a lot. Some places like B&H photo, and Camera World have good reputations and lots of sales and stuff. If you want to prowl locally and touch/try cameras, Kenmore Camera and Glazers camera are the two shops I'd steer you to.
oops. I typed too much. con't next post. hahaha
thank you photogeek
Date: 2007-02-11 09:45 pm (UTC)Like the whole optical vs. digital zoom. The only real reason I might want something that would allow me to take a picture from far off but allow me to capture the detail is when I am on vacation. I think of a few instances where I wanted to capture something I saw but it often seemed slightly less than impressive when caught on camera because of the distance. (like bunnies at stonehenge or hot air balloon festivals)
I know I want a video feature (this is to take films of Alex to send to Grandparents who don't get to see him everyday)
I figure rechargable batteries make sense.
Most navigation systems on the cameras are painfully simple so that you can intuitively navigate them with about 5 clicks to get to anywhere, max. And by default, the point and shoots are all 'auto-everything' which means you really don't have to tinker with 'em to just whip it out and go. Things like the white balance, flash control and sensitivity/ISO settings are the most likely adjustments, to compensate for the quality, intensity, or source of light. The rest is either optional fluff or high geek tweaking.
This is what I wanted to know. I haven't had a genuinely straight answer about that sort of thing. This is what I figured.
Re: thank you photogeek
Date: 2007-02-11 10:10 pm (UTC)The pros and cons of zoom, as discussed earlier, are that if you do have a camera with big zoom, you really will need to consider a tripod or a place to lean upon and breathe like a sniper, OR, some of the cameras with extreme zoom now have image stabilization built in, since when zooming far, the tinyest vibration shows as a HUGE shake when you've got your image in its sights.
Keep in mind, though, if you're not going to zoom far (more than maybe 3x-5x)frequently, check the focal length of the lens at the low end. What this means is, if your camera reports it can zoom from 35mm to 300mm, see how it does from 35mm (sorta wide angle) to maybe 100mm. That's the range you'll probably be zooming between most of the time, and you'll want to be able to see close portraits as well as stuff 50 feet away. Human eyesight - what you see right now, is considered to be 50mm on a camera lens. So 35mm gives you a wider field of view (and toward 20mm it begins to distort visibly) and anything over 50mm is going towards a tighter, flatter view.
Lens speed is another consideration, but one you'll likely never have to worry about and probably a geek thing here. But I'll do a quick discussion of it. If you see specs like the lens is F2.0 - F5.6 on a zoom lens, That discusses how 'fast' or how much light it's capable to let in. Most digital camera lenses are fast by default. No need to worry there. Just if you see a camera where the first number is 2.0 or higher (3.5 etc...) that's an indication that you'll need more light (and faster shutter speeds, which equals higher ISO capability on the camera) to get the same shot everyone else does. So if you see a camera with a price too good to be true, it may be because they skipped on the optics. That's all I'll say on this topic unless you want more info.
Incidentally, the replier somewhere in this post that said if they were going to get a camera tomorrow and had a link to the canon powershot a640 (I'm guessing from memory) knows a damned fine camera and deal when they see one. I agree with that camera's capability and price, although I've never touched it. Worth touching at a store for a test spin if you can find it local. It's not too fancy, but plenty capable, and at 300 bucks, a steal.
last blurb: for video features, keep in mind it's all going to be low-res until you cave in and buy a video camera, sans still camera features. But do look for the resolution and formats it'll work in, so you can be assured that grainy/slow video, and freaky proprietary formats aren't what it does for the price. Most video features won't be too weird on a p&s camera - but it is something to check on for compatability and ease of viewing.
And now I gotta do laundry. Pick my brain further if anything up there is unclear or you have further questions.
Re: thank you photogeek
Date: 2007-02-12 03:00 am (UTC)Re: thank you photogeek
Date: 2007-02-12 03:08 am (UTC)When I shopped for a digital p&s, I wanted exactly that result, too - the "these are great for taking snapshots." from non-photo geeks. I wanted something that was a polar opposite from the big sexy film SLR. Compact, simple, and results that don't disappoint me for a goof-off camera that I carry around and take random snapshots with. Not high art - that's what the SLR is for. But just to capture reliable snapshots on a whim.
The Nikon S4 wasn't that camera, for me. I'm still trying to find one that fits.
Re: thank you photogeek
Date: 2007-02-14 06:13 pm (UTC)The thing I want to look at with this camera is how quickly it can snap a picture. The thing with babies is they have a knack for stopping the cute the second you click a button and then the camera delays too much.
It is kind of like taking a picture of a celebrity.
Re: thank you photogeek
Date: 2007-02-15 05:49 am (UTC)If you've narrowed down a few cameras that look very promising - as far as price, features, and the final test is fast snapping, consider this: Buy one (1) card of common media (whether it be SD card, flash, etc.) as fast as you can afford. (those sandisk ultra II cards are what I have) and keep the reciept. Many cameras now will take Full or mini SD cards for media, universally.
Take it with you to the camera store. Ask the sales goons if you can insert it in the camera for the tests. This will accomplish 2 things.
1) it'll give you real time feedback on what a high megapixel photo in 'low' (indoor non-photo light is low. Retail, etc. Not very picture bright) light is like on shutter lag, as well as photos with flash which you'll probably need indoors (and this will show you how well the flash functions. Redeye is inevitable on a on-camera built in flash.)
2) take the photos home and consider an average of 10 bucks for a memory card reader, so your camera is not even involved in the equasion of picture transfer (saves on battery life, and portability!) and look at those photos you got at the camera store up close on a good computer monitor. That little LCD will hide things like subtle blur, pixelization, contrast, etc.
Then test all of your favorite brands like that. And if you find one you like, you have a memory card ready to go. If you find they all suck, go back to the store and say "oops! silly me! I bought the wrong card for my camera! can I get my money back?" and you haven't spent anything.
testing the cameras without a memory card at high megapixel (or even standard photo detail, at less than max resolution) will show you really how fast the camera performs, as well as the huge data dump via the card bus to the card - where all of the shutter lag happens. Some cameras are simply slow. Others will add lag for 'slow' card speed, which is the rating or capability of the memory card itself.
If the sales people want your money, they will be patient and supportive of you wandering around the store to take random test/action shots for a while.
part 2. more of my babble.
Date: 2007-02-11 03:15 am (UTC)Fuji makes good cameras too. Olympus makes ok cameras but they try to over pack them with so much stuff, it might be more than you'll ever use for the money. Nikon makes decent digitals, my pissy review of the S4 doesn't mean they're all bad. A few of their previous models were and are some of the best digitals out there. Each manufacturer has some lemons (in design) and some winners.
After a bit of homework, the coolest thing is you can get one and usually try it for a month and return it if it's not what you want. Or relentlessly make a salesman earn his keep at a store by giving you an in-depth tour of the camera and letting you play in the store. Glazers is very good for that.
Oops. I typed a lot. Hope it's helpful. My brain is yours for the picking.
Re: part 2. more of my babble.
Date: 2007-02-11 09:50 pm (UTC)Whenever I think about any kind of toy (like mp3 players, cameras and so on) it always takes me forever to narrow it down because I want to think long and hard about it. I want something that doesn't require a ton of work or tinkering.
Re: part 2. more of my babble.
Date: 2007-02-11 10:18 pm (UTC)Re: part 2. more of my babble.
Date: 2007-02-12 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 06:34 pm (UTC)And software sucks.
Ignore the whining masses. Check DPReview, and know that if it has the features you want, it's probably fine. You can only pick nits at the high end. And about the lenses. That's it.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 07:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 12:58 am (UTC)I need a retard camera that is light-weight and doesn't take up much space. I don't need a penis lense or anything.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 10:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 12:35 am (UTC)For what it's worth
Date: 2007-02-11 01:00 am (UTC)Re: For what it's worth
Date: 2007-02-12 02:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 02:46 pm (UTC)I wanted something that was a bit bigger in size, because with the kids, things often take tumbles. Also, my husband is 6'3" and the bigger cameras are easier for him to use. I also needed something quick as my old one wasn't fast enough to catch the baby who rarely sits still even for a second. With my old camera I realized I was missing a lot of the faces.
I chose a Kodak Z710. It has a large LCD screen that you can turn off and look the the viewfinder which is also digitalized. It has all the various options all the others had and then some. It does movies with sound which is fun with the kids and not all of them do. It's 7.1 mega pixel which really prints beautiful pictures even enlarged to the larger sizes. I have a 10 x 13 here that everyone loves! They always ask who did it. (I too have professional photographers in my family.) The software it comes with is useful and the Kodak systems have lovely features such as the one touch printers that print 4x6 prints. They're reasonably priced. I am super super thrilled with mine.
Good luck with which ever one you choose though!