Want to get a digital camera, don't know much, please help

[Redneck Socialist]

Hi all,

I'm looking to get a digital camera. It will mainly be for outdoor use while hiking, hunting and fishing so ruggedness, weather resistance and compact size are important features as is battery life, especially at cold temperatures.

I'd like to keep it in the three to four hundred dollar range (or less)so any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks ahead of time.

[RagingInMiami]

1. If I were you

I would buy the Canon S70. It has 7 MP, 28-100 focal length and it is a very compact and sturdy camera. It's like a little tank.

It's going for $399 at BH and Canon is offering some kind of $50 rebate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=347909&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

When you're not using it, a steel lid covers the lens. It has good battery life but I would recommend getting another battery because every digital photographer should carry an extra battery, especially if you're going hunting, fishing and hiking. Also carry extra memory cards.

I have the S50, one of it's predecessors and it takes amazing photos.

[Xithras]

2. For snapshots or are you wanting keepsake landscape photos?

I do a lot of backcountry photography, and my pack digital is a lowly Canon A75. It's good for snapshots and, as long as I keep it safely tucked away in my pack, it's relatively reliable.

The reason I asked about use is that for backcountry landscape photography, you're still better off going with a film camera. While digital is great for some uses, film cameras tend to be a lot lighter, less susceptible to temperature swings, and (IMO) still deliver better results for the type of high-contrast photography you typically encounter when taking pictures in the forest. Just make sure you're shooting quality film (hint: you can buy pro-quality film on EBay for about a buck and a half a roll). Oh, and spare film rolls are lighter than spare batteries :)

You'll also end up with a nicer camera for the money. $400 will buy you a decent quality digital. Just over half that will buy you a high quality SLR that will take far better pictures. You have to spend at least $1000 to buy a digital that can match the results of a decent 35mm paired with good film. For less than half, you could pick up an Olympus IS-50, which gives you the lenses and focal length of an SLR paired with the compact size of a point and shoot.

Whether you decide to go digital or not, I recommend heading over to PhotoSig.Com and signing up for a free account before buying ANYTHING. You can search for photo's by camera (or lens, or film, or any of a dozen other options) and see what other people have done with the exact equipment you're thinking about buying. If a camera is "soft" or cranks out bad pictures, you can see the results for yourself.

[Redneck Socialist]

4. Snapshots mainly I guess

I want the convenience of deleting "photos" that I don't want and being able to download and print my own pictures. I had a basic point and shoot 35mm for years that served my needs well, but alas, it finally shit the bed, so I thought I'd make the leap to digital.

Thanks for the tips.

[Deja Q]

3. The Fuji F11 looks a winner...

Like the F10 only it's got REAL controls.

Both are the successors to the E550, which is a most admirable digital camera for its price.

(I still prefer film for many things, but digital isn't half bad at times...)

Whatever model you buy, get the extended warranty. I've yet to feel up a digital camera that doesn't feel like a piece of cheap, shoddily built plastic toy.

Also keep in mind, if you want prints larger than 8x10, be cautious on cameras with severe fringing (chromatic aberration) or excessive JPG artifacting. All of these digicams hype up "7 megapixels" or whatever, but it isn't worth 2 megapixels if they use too much jpg compression. I prefer using RAW when possible and I **NEVER** use anything less than JPG FINE resolution.

www.dpreview.com has a lot of in-depth reviews for many models. And many cameras surprised me; I even returned a nikon 7900 because of its excess use of compression. For I like to make 13x19" gallery prints and prefer keeping artifacting to a minimum. And the Konica Minolta Z6 looked awesome until I noted HORRIBLE purple and green fringing when extending the zoom out. No camera is worth two CENTS if the lens is such crap that it's going to introduce that much fringing. (unless you're happy with 4x6" prints, in which case stick to a 3mp camera and save the dough.)

[Redneck Socialist]

5. Fringing?

Ack, it looks like I have a lot to learn. Oh well, a new hobby will help keep me out of trouble.

Thanks for the help.

[Deja Q]

6. Fringing is where

edges of contrasting objects (e.g. dark lamppost against light concrete) look purple or green. Usually purple but green can be seen.

It's a defect of the lens.

Also note your eyeglasses. If you loolk straight ahead, it's perfect. Use your peripheral vision or move your eyeballs to look from the side. You'll see fringing. It's due to how the lens refracts light. It's a physics thang.

And for a $500 camera, I'd be expecting none of this. A slightly larger lens would do wonders. Except, for digital, it's way too prevalent and they stick to puny lenses unworthy of quality.

I nearly bought the Konica Minolta DiMage Z6... 12x optical zoom looked great. But then I looked through the viewfinder and saw fringing get worse and worswe as I started zooming in. That's BAD if you can see it in the viewfinder, and the sample photos I saw 'round the net just show what an overpriced P.O.S. it truly is. (color saturation was perfect and the softness, as with scanned film, can be fixed with unsharp masking, but that's all meaningless if the lens puts in fringing all over the place and it's a bugger (and often impossible) to get rid of.)

[F.Gordon]

9. Fringing (chromatic aberration)

You can google it to learn all the techno-mumbo-jumbo... but as they say... "a picture is worth..."

Original



Close crop showing purple fringing (chromatic aberration)



What causes it? It's not the camera.... it is the glass, the lens, the thingee attached to the camera that lets the light in. This snapshot was taken with a fairly good lens and I could have helped avoid this problem if I had a decent filter attached to it. That day.. that lens... I was only using a "blank filter". Just something to protect the glass if I bumped it into a tree or rock.

I could have reduced the purple stuff by using Paint Shop Pro... I was just too lazy when I posted the snap.

[lutefisk]

7. Consider a camera that takes aa batteries

AA rechargeables are inexpensive in the long run, and good (not as bad as disposables)for the environment. Also, if you are away from power outlets, it's easy to bring extra batteries or buy some non-rechargeables while traveling.

Read camera reviews to see which cameras have long battery life. Canons all seem to be pretty easy on batteries, in my experience.

[noamnety]

8. I was just going to recommend the same thing

AA batteries, yep.

Also, manual controls - you can always use the auto settings if you want, but you should have the option to manually set the shutter and aperture.

Also, consider whether either of these is important to you - a camera that fits easily in your pocket, or one where you can attach a wide angle or telephoto lens.