Which Camera?

[That Ruddy Squirrel]

if your just looking for a point and shoot cheapish camera i have allways found fuji to be excellent. quick start up time and not much shutter lag

I agree, I have a fuji for quick snaps, a camera in my mobile and a big fat Sigma SD9 slr

[onlynik]

Sounds like a magazine,Iknow, but I posted some pics of my surf and I've seen all your posts, and your photo's are sooooo much better quality than mine.

Mine were taken with my phone, coz I don't own a digital camera,so I think it's time I looked into getting one.

So, question is............What camera do you own, and give us a review!


BTW I do have a couple of Nikon film camera's, but I think the new Digital technology is now making these obselete from a cost and convenience point of view.

All these were taken with the same camera Canon Ixus 2 Megapixel jobbie

http://s168.photobucket.com/albums/u183/abznik/

works well and the batteries lasts for ages. Should be cheap as chips on ebay now.

[Gizmo]

i'm dumb... don't they just take pics??... (serious, i don't get what you mean.)


i did invent a phone with a fag lighter on it though!

Its a case of what do you want to achieve at the end...good quality photos, landscape, sports images, portraits, do you need to manually alter shutter speeds, light contrasts etc....will all define the functions needed on the camera.

some of the cheap 2-5mb small cameras may suffice for being able to fit in the pocket and take reasonable shots but may suffer from shutter-lag and hence you may miss some of the action shots but stills will be fine



I started off with an Olympus OM-10 (still got in near perfect condition) for 35mm film, bought a Fuji MX500 for digital (point and shoot stuff) - now knackered so went and bought a reasonable priced Digital SLR. Would have loved some of the Nikon D20 I think it is but at 800 quid just for the SLR body..other above this were >£1000

[CaptainBeaky]

Have a look at www.dpreview.com for reviews of all currently available digital cameras (and most of the now obsolete ones). They have techie reviews and user reviews and ratings. It's a bit 'merkin in placecs, but quite informative.

I'm now looking for another compact, as my Minolta Z2 has broken a vital bit (the catch that holds the SD card in!). Still using my Olympus 1400, which is ancient as digitals go, but still takes a decent picture within it's limitations.

Bought the management a Nikon D80 for Christmas, and that is brilliant (when I'm allowed to use it )

[da SLUG man]

so, when you've taken pics with your expensive camera... do you just take them down boots or run them off on your inkjet??

to put them on the internet you generally have to reduce them anyway to JPEG.

[That Ruddy Squirrel]

so, when you've taken pics with your expensive camera... do you just take them down boots or run them off on your inkjet??

to put them on the internet you generally have to reduce them anyway to JPEG.

I gave in with inkjet, had a thermal wax printer, and I replaced it with a laser

[Gizmo]

so, when you've taken pics with your expensive camera... do you just take them down boots or run them off on your inkjet??

to put them on the internet you generally have to reduce them anyway to JPEG.

these days you can do both, take the card down to your store and print off, or print of on high-quality photo gloss paper. Some sights will take quite a high resolution and hence larger file sizes. Other like the forums generally try to minimise the size due to costs of storage, download costs for some hosting companies

[da SLUG man]

these days you can do both, take the card down to your store and print off, or print of on high-quality photo gloss paper. Some sights will take quite a high resolution and hence larger file sizes. Other like the forums generally try to minimise the size due to costs of storage, download costs for some hosting companies

so, if a phone camera can take nice clear pictures that look nice on computer screen, print clearly up to A4 size from inkjet and you can print them at boots... what does the extra £800 go on an SLR that doesn't even have a lens?

[That Ruddy Squirrel]

so, if a phone camera can take nice clear pictures that look nice on computer screen, print clearly up to A4 size from inkjet and you can print them at boots... what does the extra £800 go on an SLR that doesn't even have a lens?

I got my digital SLR because it uses the lenses from my old SLR, but, from the States £=$

[plumb bob]

so, when you've taken pics with your expensive camera... do you just take them down boots or run them off on your inkjet??

to put them on the internet you generally have to reduce them anyway to JPEG.

The Nikon D40 takes pics in J-Peg anyway and RAW(whatever that is) it cost about £450.00 with two lenses, 18-55mm and 55-200mm auto focus zoom.

I like the Nikons coz I already have two 35mm film camera's, and the lenses are all compatable, so I can use my old lenses on ew body, but probably won't.
With the new SLR's you can just plug into the PC or laptop and download, or take the SD card to boots and print them off.(or both)

There is a good web site www.kenrockwell.com he owns a load of different camera's and gives good reviews and advice, including "why your camera does not matter" but I take a lot of photo's of my dog and mrs's Plumb bobs horse and some friends horses, so I need one that will do action shots, so 3 frames /second is very uesful and also the digital SLR's wil take about 100-140 continuous shots before the the memoy buffer can't cope, but I would never need that much.

When using film I can shoot a 36 exposure film in about 12 seconds and only get about 10% useable images, so it can get expensive on film which is why I am finally looking at digital.A while back I shot 12 rolls of 36 exp film i one saturday morning, and it cost me about £75.00 in developing, Thats about 400 pictures and I get about 10% that I'm happy with.

I know that whatever I buy it will be obselete in 2-3 years but so will my PC and laptop but I've learned to live with that, so I guess I'll learn to live wit replacing my SLR every 2-3 years, funds permitting of course.

[Gizmo]

so, if a phone camera can take nice clear pictures that look nice on computer screen, print clearly up to A4 size from inkjet and you can print them at boots... what does the extra £800 go on an SLR that doesn't even have a lens?

Things such as:

-The optical (NOT Digital) zoom as digital crops and adjusts the picture by filling in pixels where a high optical lense gives you better quality
- High Shutter speeds and burst rates
- ability to adjust gamma or hue correction
- Some have covers that rotate/flick to keep dust of the internal mirrors
- Higher Megapixels - so images can go up above A4 (as most cameras for publishing need to do this otherwise the image when cropped/edited will be pixelated)
- Auto white balance features for images against a white background
- Interchangeable lenses, flash-guns, ring-flash.
- Motorised lenses can be used
- Quality of components used
- multiple point autofocus
- E-TTL II Flash system (can buy falsh-guns that calculate the ranges needed)
-One Shot AF, or switch to AI Servo AF for predictive tracking of moving subjects - great for wildlife and sports photography.
- Macro lenses for close up shots of wildlife (like bees on plants etc)
- Auto Flash
- Able to choose different size and quality of images

and so on

generally its a case of you pay for what you get...

[nero279]

Plumb Bob, if you're in Canterbury anytime soon, take a peek in curry's or dixon's can't remember which one. The new(ish) one on Burgate. They had a load of lenses in there they were selling off dirt cheap, might still have some. Also X-electrical, directly opposite has some nice second hand stuff sometimes that they are prepared to warranty.

[plumb bob]

I'll check that out next time I'm in Canterbury, I get in every week or so, cheers.

[mack]

I took pics of my surf with my samsung D900 with 3 megapixel camera, and they are grainy and horrible

i had the same probs with my sonyericsonn a quick wipe of the lens sorted it out.

[Apache]

I took pics of my surf with my samsung D900 with 3 megapixel camera, and they are grainy and horrible

Could well be the tiny lenses requirement for lots of light leading to what looks like film camera grain, but which is actually the altogether more horrible digital noise.