Digital cameras: Want a full size digital camera to replace my 35mm camera.
Re: I think I prefer a D-SLR.
by Big Steve - 6/29/06 12:21 AM In reply to: I Think I Prefer a D-SLR by tonyny77Tonyny77:
Thanks for your post. My present camera which no longer works but has served me well for more than 15 years is a Minolta Freedom Zoom 90 35mm auto focus point and shoot camera which was my second 35mm camera ever.
My first 35mm camera was a model by Kodak; it was so old that you had to manually advance the film as you took the pictures. It took pretty decent pictures but when I received the Minolta camera from my brother as a birthday gift; with it's auto zoom; pop up flash; motorized advance; to me it was the neatest camera I had ever seen at that time.
Someone posted earlier in response to my initial post on this subject that I should just go out and check some cameras out. Well unfortunately I live in a city on the Mississippi Gulf Coast that was almost wiped off the map last year by Hurricane Katrina and right now there are not that many stores to go to since Katrina but we do now have our internet back and we also have our US Mail; our UPS and our Fedex trucks back.
As for what I would like to do with a new digital camera; I primarily would use it to take outdoor shots; in bright sun light; landscape scenes; etc. My father and I spent 29 days in a hotel in Katy, Texas last year after both of us were forced to evacuate north of the Mississippi Gulf Coast last year where both of us rode out the storm approximately 85 miles north of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and 85 miles north wasn't far enough.
We both evacuated so quickly that I didn't even bring my camera with me because I thought we'd be returning home in a day or so but I had no idea that it would be 29 days later before we finally were able to return home to a severly battered Mississippi Gulf Coast; a place I have called home for more than 50 years.
Once my father and I did return home to Mississippi on September 29, 2005; the next day I went to Wal-Mart and bought 10 rolls of 35mm film; Kodak Gold 200 speed 35mm film. As the days went by once we returned home the National Guard was already here in full force; state police departments from several other states were also here to assist in law enforcement and to also keep gawkers off the beach but on weekends the locals which I am one of were permitted to get on the beach road; only at designated checkpoints where we got to see the destruction for the first time and let me say; it's not the same as seeing it on Cable TV.
I managed to take about 100 photographs with that old Minolta camera; all but a few turned out nice so I'm curious. With a modern desktop computer with a scanner; one of those all in one printer; copier units; could I take these storm damage photographs and scan them into the computer for storage and email them to friends and relatives later who still want to see just how bad the destruction was and is here along the Mississippi Gulf coast? Can 35mm photos be scanned into a computer or not? Feedback from anyone in the know.
Big Steve
Biloxi, Mississippi
06/29/06
Anything is possible
by photobuff55 - 6/30/06 7:16 AM In reply to: Re: I think I prefer a D-SLR. by Big SteveIt's really too bad you didn't know to ask for a CD with digital images when you had the film developed. For about an extra $6 (per roll), the camera store could have given you back a CD of all the pictures which you could have then distributed. They typically charge per roll, and you can fit up to about 5 rolls of film on one CD. It's not too late, just more expensive to do it after the fact. The store uses your negatives and any camera store can do it. The reason it's less expensive at time of developing is that their scanner takes the entire roll of negatives (uncut) and scans it thru mechanically. The negatives are cut into groups of 4 so that they can be printed. After the negatives have been cut, it's more labor-intensive to work the scanning machine, so at that point it's usually priced at a per-image cost. Rather than pay for every image to be scanned (that could run $100 or more) I would select the images you want scanned and note the image numbers (usually printed on the back of each print) as they match the negatives, then take the whole thing to your camera store. Yes, you can scan these yourself but it's extremely time consuming and if you bought a scanner, will you ever use it again? I bought one, and the answer is "no" because it's just too slow a process. The faster the scanner, the more expensive it becomes. Ditto for scanning prints - the difference here is quality of the scan. Scanning the negatives gives much better image quality. It's sort of like taking a photocopy of a fax - the image degenerates with each "generation" it goes thru.
Scanning is not worth the time.. if you have a lot of photos
by bestsealer - 6/30/06 7:43 AM In reply to: Anything is possible by photobuff55You can get a scanner to scan both negatives and prints. But, the process can be time consuming.. especially if you need to 'touch-up' your photos afterwards with some photo software. My experience is that I need to do this with nearly every photo I scanned.
Figure on at least a few minutes per photo.. more if you touch them up with software. Then look at how many you want to scan and figure out how long it will take. In my case, my 'project' of scanning all my old 35mm slides to digital, fell apart when I realized I would be long dead before I ever got near the point of scanning in all my thousands of slides!
And How About Filters?
by tonyny77 - 6/29/06 11:06 PM In reply to: I Think I Prefer a D-SLR by tonyny77As if I haven't already shown my strong preference for the SLR-style digital cameras, let me mention my experience with wanting a filter for my camera.
I mentioned earlier that I have two Canon non-SLR digital cameras. The first was primarily for my lovely wife, a point-and-shoot type of photographer. In other words, she wants her photo-shooting experience to be as simple as her seeing is; open her eyelids and her eyes work ... she wants the camera to work just as simply as her eyes do.
When we replaced the first Canon with an S2 IS, this camera was clearly a step up from the first Canon we bought. To my surprise, I was even taking an interest in this camera.
With the big touch and feel this Canon has, it somewhat reminded me of the 35mm SLR film cameras I have. The first question I asked was, ''Where does the filter go?'' I wanted to put a Skylight filter on the S2 IS's ''monster lens'' to protect it, of course.
Well, to make a long story short, we needed to buy a special contraption ... an adapter, basically ... before we could attach a simple filter. I don't regret investing in the adapter and filter because now I don't have to worry quite so much every time I remove the lens cap.
But with the expense for the adapter and a little bit more, I could almost get the SLR type of digitals I've been dreaming about. Well, it won't be too much longer ... just a couple hundred bucks more and I think my focusing problems will be ancient history.
Tony
Same Problem
by millers564 - 6/30/06 3:57 AM In reply to: Want a full size digital camera to replace my 35mm camera. by Big SteveA long time avid photographer, I was faced with the same problem. My first digital, A Nikon Cool Pix, was just too small and too slow. I was used to handling my two Canon T-90's. Being and old guy I never trusted auto focus. Pease to say that I found the answer with a Canon Digital Rebel. You will enjoy the fit and the rapid response, also. Most digitals are incredibly slow and composing a picture on the screen is unacceptable for olde photogs. Note that the current Canon XT is slighly smaller than the original Rebel. These are well worth the additional cost over most digitals. Look around, you may be able to find a used digital SLR. The learning curve is much shallower, too.
Aalchemist
What about S2/S3 IS?
by sandeep108 - 6/30/06 4:46 AM In reply to: Same Problem by millers564I am also torn between the Digital Rebel XT/350D and S3IS. A friend who is a professional photographer actually told me that I as an occasional photographer would be far happier all round with the S2/S3 IS instead. It also takes excellent video clips.
I certainly do not intend to carry a huge array of lenses/filters, etc.
Digital SLR
by PaulM - 6/30/06 4:07 AM In reply to: Want a full size digital camera to replace my 35mm camera. by Big SteveI just bought a Canon EOS 350D,and it's excellent. They're a lot more expensive here in New Zealand, but there in the US it should fit your budget. I too have big hands, and besides the typical little digital with only the built-in lenses simply can't give you the options. I have a standard lense and a zoom, and I've ordered a wide-angle. I've also ordered an external flash. So I've gone a bit over your budget - but it's worth it. I use it for family shots, holiday snaps and also for work.
Budget also
by sandeep108 - 6/30/06 4:48 AM In reply to: Digital SLR by PaulMAnd the S3 IS with 12x zoom is about 30-40% less than XT.
I would still recommend the Digital SLR, despite the cost..
by bestsealer - 6/30/06 5:40 AM In reply to: Want a full size digital camera to replace my 35mm camera. by Big SteveWhile it may be more expensive, I think you will be much happier with a DSLR.. they are bigger and easier to use than the little 'toy' cameras, and can take photos in RAW mode which gives you complete control in post image processing with Photoshop or whatever program you use (and you 'will' want to post-process some of your images, regardless which camera you get.. that is the beauty of working in digital mode!)
Furthermore, you can use different lenses on a DLSR, from wide angle to telephoto, plus filters, etc. And more importantly, you can use a decent external flash - get one that you can angle up to 45 degrees: this virtually eliminates redeye. Redeye is a common and very annoying problem on all the small 'toy' cameras (although you 'can' correct this with image post processing}
Yes, they are somewhat bigger and bulkier than the smaller 'toy' cameras, but you get much better results - if you are serious about photography.
I have an old Nikon D100 (which is now several generations older than their current models, but still an excellent camera, and you should be able to pick one up for at least half the original cost) and I love it! I also have their external Speedlite flash, which is hands down better than their buiilt-in flash. I also have a Sony T5 'toy' camera, albeit, an expensive toy. The nice thing about this camera is that it easily fits in my shirt pocket so I can take it anywhere.. however, the photos are no comparison to the D100.
Don't be fooled by megapixels.. this seems to be the selling point of nearly all cameras now.. 12 megapixels.. oouu.. wow! You don't need the big megapixels unless you want to print high quality posters. Two to 3 megapixels is more than enough for quality 6x4 prints. That said, this only applies to the smaller cameras.. if you buy a quality DSLR, you will get the big megapixels.. the good thing is that you can set it to select smaller sizes if you wish.
Pay attention to the media card the camera uses.. if possible, get the largest and fastest you can afford, although that is becoming a moot point, as prices keep falling. One good investment is an external (USB 2.0) media card reader.. much more convenient and faster than hooking up the camera-supplied cables to your camera/computer.
I could go on and on, but one final suggestion before making your buying decision: check out http://www.steves-digicams.com/ - he has great, detailed reviews on virtually all digital cameras, and more importantly, he has sample photos from each of these cameras, so you can actually see the quality of the camera output before you buy. Not all cameras produce quality results!! Also, take a look at the photo-of-the-day on this site.. you can see some great shots taken with various digital cameras - if you look at the archives for previous months, the photos list what camera what used for each image.
pl
Great, Great Post
by tonyny77 - 6/30/06 8:32 AM In reply to: I would still recommend the Digital SLR, despite the cost.. by bestsealerPL ... Ditto all that you said. The added cost of a D-SLR is definitely worth the expense, as you said, and you even pointed out other reasons to get a D-SLR that I had overlooked.
Thanks for taking the time to write such good advice.
Tony
I can understand your passion, but ...
by ekent - 6/30/06 8:43 AM In reply to: I would still recommend the Digital SLR, despite the cost.. by bestsealerEverything you say that's good about digital SLRs -- except for the interchangability of lenses -- can be said about certain point-and-shoots, such as Fuji's "pro amateur" models, including RAW mode, solid construction and great image quality.
Personally, I feel downright liberated not having to carry around all those lenses anymore. But then, I do a lot of travel on foot for my photos.
But it "feels" like a camera!
by bestsealer - 6/30/06 11:07 AM In reply to: I can understand your passion, but ... by ekentMy Nikon D100 "feels" like a real camera.. pretty much equivalent to a 35mm film camera in weight and size. And I think this was the original question.. ie, what camera will fit my big hands easily?
In my case, I have a Nikkor 28-105mm zoom lens, which is pretty much what I use exclusively.. it can handle most situations. The only down side is that I would prefer a wider angle lens.. 28mm in digital is equivalent to 35mm on a film camera. On the other hand, the 105mm is equivalent to about 130mm, so you gain on the telephoto side. But a good quality 17 or 18 mm low end zoom lens is big bucks - almost as much as the camera.
In the end, it all comes down to the lens.. the better the lens, the better the photos. And generally speaking, you don't get very good lenses on the small point and shoot cameras.. what I call the 'toy' cameras. Even my little Sony T5 (which was over $500) has serious lens flaws, often giving me bad light flares. And lowk light shots are very noisy. So, my advice is if you are buying a good DSLR, invest in a good quality lens.. with DSLRs you have a choice - with the point and shoots, you don't.
pl
Possible Replacement Cameras
by drfrank - 6/30/06 7:14 AM In reply to: Want a full size digital camera to replace my 35mm camera. by Big SteveI went from a Canon 35 mm SLR with various lenses to an unsuitable point and shoot digital to a very satisfactory Fuji Finepix S7000. I have the same ''large hands'' problem as you and the Fuji works well for me. It has the two viewfinders and takes excellent, fine-grained pictures which can be blown up several fold. I bought my son the sucessor camera, the Fuji Finepix S9000. It also seemed to handle well and takes even better pictures. You can buy both of these in your price range online. I never buy extended warranties,especially on electronics.
Point-and-shoot recommendations
by ekent - 6/30/06 8:31 AM In reply to: Want a full size digital camera to replace my 35mm camera. by Big SteveA couple years ago I decided to "augment" my pro 35mm SLR equipment with a good point-and-shoot digital. Well, I only used one more roll of film and never went back to 35mm again (except for the odd, artsy project).
I got the Fuji S7000, a 6-megapixel unit with a zoom equivalent of 210mm. Unfortunately, they don't make these beauties anymore, because you could've picked one up for under $400 if you shopped around.
The new version, the S9000, has lots of improvements, but it's at least $150 over your budget. Without hesitation, I say spend the extra! I think the image quality, the solid construction and the capabilities of this camera make it an irresistible choice.
And more to the point for you: it feels a good deal larger in the hands than the smaller, more delicate point-and-shoots like Nikon and (the former) Konica-Minolta, to name two other brands I've had lots of experience with.
Fuji S9000
by Keldawwg - 6/30/06 9:28 AM In reply to: Point-and-shoot recommendations by ekentButterfly photo has the S9000 for $549, with a $100 rebate. This brings it to around $450 plus shipping. And Butterfly photo is a decently rated merchant...
http://www.butterflyphoto.com/shop/product.aspx?ref=yahoo&sku=FUJIS9000
The other possibility is to buy a used camera on eBay. I have bought three different camera's on eBay, and I love all three. Two were Canon Elph point and shoot camera's (S300 and an S500) that I got for really, really cheap. They are great for taking along to Disney World or lake camping. They are small, but very easy to use because they are so well designed... I have big hands, but I never have a problem with those little camera's.
My latest is a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm zoom lens, nice case, 1GB memory card and all the accesories and manuals... The box even still had the warranty registration card in it! The price tag for the camera and lens was still on the box, $1300... I picked the whole package up for just over $600. The camera looks like it came out of the box yesterday... It's perfect!
The D70 is a really serious Digital SLR that takes some amazing photo's... It's bulky, but it takes pictures that I would never have been able to get with the little point and shoots... When I go to my kids soccer games or swim meets, I can take three shots a second until the card is full if I want to... I tend to take a lot of pictures, and then pull the best ones out for my screensaver and picture collections...
Good luck with your camera quest!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
