How to Buy a Digital Camera
Posted 10 September 2006 - 11:42 PM
Posted 11 December 2006 - 11:10 AM
Posted 19 December 2006 - 09:38 AM
Posted 08 July 2007 - 12:49 PM
Posted 03 February 2008 - 08:18 AM
plus try finding yourself in the jungle with used-up batteries: most local jungle shops will sell AAs but not your $60 expensive proprietary batteries.
A quick search found AA NiMH (recharchable) at 2300 mAh and Nikon Lithium and 1500 mAh. So research the power draw and your power sources: Everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion, not an opinion.
Posted 20 June 2008 - 08:06 AM
Posted 20 June 2008 - 09:25 AM
One thing about magapixels that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article... Yes, more megapixels, in theory, mean higher resolution, but there's no mention of sensor size. Too many megapixels on the smallest APS sensors (which describes most small pocket sized point and shoot units) will cause more noise on the images, even at low ASA (ISO) levels of 100 to 200. For relatively noiseless images at those ASA (ISO) levels, you have to look for a camera with a larger sensor, which generally means buying a bigger camera. That's one of the advantages of digital SLR units.
Posted 20 June 2008 - 10:13 AM
Posted 20 June 2008 - 12:25 PM
500mm lenses are not cheap, and never have been, unless you're talking about 500mm mirror lenses, which display all out-of-focus objects as little donuts or hexagons. With lenses, you generally get what you pay for. An image from a professional grade lens, say a Nikkor f/2.8 80-200mm Zoom costing around $1600 will produce noticeably sharper clearer images than a Vivitar f/5.6 70-200mm lens costing around $250.
Digital SLRs are no more expensive than their film counterparts any more. One advantage on most cheaper and mid priced units is the 1.5X magnification factor caused by the sensor size. A 400mm lens which isn't designed specifically for a digital camera, will become a 600mm lens on such a camera. It took me a long time to make the jump from film to digital, but honestly, I'd never go back to film now. The technology enables image resolution to be as good, and sometimes better than that of film... and there's always the fact that you can see your results instantly. No more disappointments when you pick up your prints or slides.
Posted 13 July 2008 - 06:51 AM
Posted 13 July 2008 - 01:33 PM
Your friend isn't going to have a lot of luck shooting long range pictures using a digital P&S (Point and Shoot) camera in low light. Most P&S units start to show noticeable noise in images at an ISO of around 400. This is a difficult situation even for digital and non digital SLRs with fast telephoto lenses. Unfortunately, even with image stabilization technology, shooting such images often produces disappointing results because of motion blur. That's why professional sports and wildlife photographers spend many thousands of dollars on their equipment, and almost always use a tripod to get sharp images when the situation allows it.
By the way... For anyone going on a safari... Make sure that you know how to use all of the features on your camera that you'll need, without having to look at the manual. Animals won't hang around while you look up "Changing the ISO", or "White Balance adjustment". Don't buy a camera a week or two before going on such a trip, and hope that you can learn how to use it in time... You will probably be somewhat disappointed with the resulting photos if you do.
Posted 19 April 2010 - 03:52 PM
"SLRs offer a focus ring on their lenses, as do most advanced point-and-shoot models."
Yet, as far as I can see, NONE of the five "advanced point-amd-shoot" cameras linked to this article offer this feature...
I'm particularly aware of this because I've been shopping for an upgrade to my Lumix FZ-30 megazoom for some time now. But Panasonic seems to have abandoned the concept of a megazoom with full manual controls, and I don't see any other brand taking it up.