Kitz Forum
Computers & Hardware => Other Technologies & Hardware => Topic started by: Floydoid on August 13, 2009, 02:37:56 PM
-
Hi all,
I'm thinking about starting up photography again as a pastime and would appreciate any useful advice you boffins could offer me. The thing is, I last owned a camera about 20 years ago, and apparently quite a lot has changed in that time. So could anyone please explain the basic terminology in idiot language for me, particularly with what too look out for when purchasing a camera. Recommendations for the latter would also be appreciated, i.e. what would be a decent model to start with, on a budget of £100-120 (ish).
-
Hi Floydid,
I'll leave the camera reccommenations to the experts, as for learning the new tech I suggest you check out the local colleges who often run Digital Camera courses, at least they do here in Cheshire.
I did a six week one about five years ago and found it invaluable, you meet some nice people to.btw, I was 66 years yopung when I took the course and I was one of the youngsters!
Peter
-
Bonjour Floydy, nice to see you again ! This might be useful for you to have a browse through ..... this chap's reviews are comprehensive and I've used them several times when considering/buying cameras.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
I'm sure others, particularly TD, will be along to give their advice ..... :) hth. Kate
-
Hi Floydy :)
Nice to see you back again... ;)
Digital Cameras.......Optical zoom is what you can use to make subjects closer,forget digital zoom its a waste of time.
and MP's(mega pixels)the higher the mega pixel,the better quality image,especially on bigger size paper(A4 and above)
Theres plenty of choice out there,names to consider..Canon,Nikon,Panasonic,Sony,Olympus,Samsung,Pentax,Ricoh,Casio,Fuji to name a few.
Also consider what memory card they take,the most common and cheapest is the SD card.
Another good feature and ino a must is O.I.S(optical image stabilisation) which in laymans terms means it counteracts the shake in your hands when taking shots.
The Fuji F60FD camera looks a good spec camera and the price is in your budget.(£119.99)
http://tinyurl.com/psf67c
-
Excuse my ignorance Uncy, but what is an SD card, and what does one do with it?
(keep it polite please)
-
It's a plug-in memory card. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital_card
It holds the pictures which you take as .jpg files (normally). You can transfer these to your PC for tweaking and printing.
-
So, presumably to read them you need to add a bit of kit to the PC?
Dumb questions I know, but I never progressed far beyond a box Brownie!
-
You can get an SD card reader for your computer, but you don't have to. The camera usually comes with a USB connector that allows you to transfer the card contents to a PC, without removing the card from the camera.
Just to throw another parameter into the debate... the size of the LCD varies, and so does it's pixel resolution.
Be aware that some(/most) compact cameras don't have an optical viewfinder at all any more, so you're dependent on the LCD for framing the image. Also, you'll find yourself reviewing pictures on the LCD a few moments after taking them. This gives you the option to re-take an important photo if you decide it's not right, but the better the LCD, the better you're able to judge in that respect.
One of the very nice things about digital cameras is that when you see that 'must have' photo opportunity, you can afford to take a dozen or more near-identical pictures on the hope that one, at least, will be worth keeping. Then you just delete the rest and it's cost you nothing.
-
Personally I'm in favour of using a separate card reader. They are very cheap - http://www.memorybits.co.uk/categories/card-readers/763 - and generally less bother. USB transfer direct from the camera drains the battery power rather quickly, unless you hook up a mains supply while doing it. (I'm open to correction on the last point, but it has been the case with the cameras I've used.)
-
Personally I'm in favour of using a separate card reader. They are very cheap - http://www.memorybits.co.uk/categories/card-readers/763 - and generally less bother. USB transfer direct from the camera drains the battery power rather quickly, unless you hook up a mains supply while doing it. (I'm open to correction on the last point, but it has been the case with the cameras I've used.)
Come to think about it, I've never made the connection, but you may be right about the battery drain.
In any case, a separate card reader allows you to access other SD cards besides the one that's currently in the camera.
-
Just to throw another parameter into the debate... the size of the LCD varies, and so does it's pixel resolution.
Be aware that some(/most) compact cameras don't have an optical viewfinder at all any more, so you're dependent on the LCD for framing the image. Also, you'll find yourself reviewing pictures on the LCD a few moments after taking them. This gives you the option to re-take an important photo if you decide it's not right, but the better the LCD, the better you're able to judge in that respect.
Sorry but I didn't understand a word of that
-
As well as the viewfinder, digital cameras have a small LCD screen on the back, and you can switch between them for taking pictures and viewing the results. A lot of cheaper cameras don't have a true optical viewfinder at all, but when you look through the viewfinder you see the image on the LCD screen. This isn't really as accurate as a proper optical viewfinder, but for everyday amateur purposes is quite adequate (that's my amateur opinion).
-
Depending on your eyesight a good viewfinder can be very useful.
Trying to compose a scene by looking at a small screen too close to focus on isn't easy. :no:
-
Depending on your eyesight a good viewfinder can be very useful.
Trying to compose a scene by looking at a small screen too close to focus on isn't easy. :no:
I agree, but it does depend on your eyesight. If you're short-sighted, like me - that is, you can read a book close up, nut need glasses for distance, then may find you prefer the LCD.
Thanks to Eric for explaining my earlier post, it must be my scottish accent coming through, nobody understands a word I say these days :)
I'm not sure I'd agree with Eric about optical viewfinders being more accurate though. I'd argue that the LCD will exactly replicate the exact image, not a pixel more, and not a pixel less, than has been captured by the camera's electronic detector. An optical viewfinder will only be an approximation to that, and because the viewfinder lens is to one side of the camera lens, the optical viewfinder always sees a slightly shifted image. An SLR viewfinder, of course, overcomes these deficencies, but SLRs (see below) are A LOT more expensive.
If you were a photographer 20 years sgo, you may already know about SLR (Single Lens Reflex). These facilitated an accurate viewfinder by using a single camera lens to generate the image for the negative film, and also on a frosted glass screen that you looked at, via a little glass prism, through the viewfinder. When you looked thorugh the viewfinder, you saw the image on the glass screen then, when you took your photo, a little mirror flipped up inside the camera so the image was focused on the film, rather than the viewfinder. So what you saw in the viewfinder was exactly what you got on the negative.
Now, if compact digital cameras with LCDs don't suffer from the problem (viewfinder distortion) that SLRs fixed, then I've never really understood the point of digital SLRs... or at least that's my excuse for not being able to afford one ;)
-
Well to add my ten cents worth.... I own both a digital SLR and a superzoom digital compact camera (with EVF - electronic viewfinder) as well as a film SLR, and my wife has a digital compact zoom with EVF. Now to answer the point about SLRs the main benefit IMHO is not the lack of parallax error in the viewfinder (which really only affects close-up work) but the option to interchange lenses.
However to get back to digital cameras, I would suggest that if you look for one with a viewfinder make sure it has an adjuster on it to alter it to suit your eyesight as they are notoriously difficult to use with glasses.
As for pixel resolution the digital image is made up of picture elements (pixels) or 'dots' arther like a newspaper picture, the more dots the better the picture so a camera with 6 milliion pixels known as 6 mega pixels is better than one with 2 million and not as good as one with 10 million. In photo size terms say about 5 million pixels will print fine up to about 8in by 6in, if you need larger then get more pixels but that puts the price up.
In zoom terms you need to decide what kind of photos you need this for, if its just family snapshots and landscapes (on holiday) then you dont need a large zoom range, but as someone mentioned earlier make sure it has an optical zoom done by the lens as digital zoom is done by messing with the image electronically inside the camera and when you start enlarging the photo you lose quality.
As to the recording medium known sometimes as digital film most camears in the 'amateur' range use SD cards and are quite affordable, their sizes are measured like PC hard disks in giga bytes (gb). To give you an idea I have a 4gb card for my 10mega pixel camera and it holds about 1400 photos. Dont go mad and buy the largest card your camear will take, they can and do fail although rarely, better to have two 4gb cards than one 8gb card.
As to uploading to your PC (always a good idea to archive the photos) most modern cameras have a USB2 connector and it should work well and quite quickly, although a card reader is also handy.
Having said all that if you search around and find one or two cameras which will fit your requirements its a good idea to go to somewhere like Jessops or a local camera shop and handle it before then buying online if the price is better. The reason I say this is that many cameras look good but when you actually handle them they dont 'feel' right in your hand as many can be quite small and fiddly to handle.
-
Hi Floydoid
This may help.
http://photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/
Not sure what type of photography you intend doing but check out the zoom.
Compact digital cameras may boast a 6 x optical zoom but start at a very distant landscape view.
Using maximum zoom may only bring you up to what the eye normally see's, equivalent to a standard 50mm lens on an SLR camera.
So check out the specs. If you want to zoom in on distant shots you will need an optical zoom that is equivalent to an SLR zoom lens ranging from 28mm to 200mm or 28mm to 300mm. So you will be looking at 10 x optical zoom or greater.
Hope that makes sense, all to do with the optical focal length.
-
Good summary, Broadstairs. I agree with all of it.
However...
Now to answer the point about SLRs the main benefit IMHO is not the lack of parallax error in the viewfinder (which really only affects close-up work) but the option to interchange lenses.
Hmmm. In the 'old' days, non SLR cameras (e.g. Leica rangefinders, or the Russian 'Zorki'clones) also had interchangeable lenses. And these days, I see no reason that a digital compact shouldn't have interchangeable lenses, if a manufacturer chose to provide such a feature. I do accept that SLRs generally provide more advanced technology, and the cheap compacts do tend to have the lens and sensor as an integrated assembly, but surely that needn't always be the case? I still don't really see why a Single Lens Reflex action provides any intrinsic advantage for digital cameras.
And parralax distortion is not the only issue with (non-SLR) optical viewfinders. You'll invariably find that the viewfinder includes a little 'box' superimposed on the scene, which frames the picture. But the position of that box, and the accuracy of it, depends on how close the camera is to your eye, and whether you're looking straight through it or slightly askew. SLRs overcome that (I think all would agree), and in my opinion (but maybe not everybodies) so does the LCD on a compact digital.
But I'm getting away from Floydoid's request for advice One specific recomendation I'd like to make is the current Panasonic 'lumix' series, which I've owned for about a year now. They have a good lens with an optical zoom of up to 10-12 times depending on model, some have optical stabilisation and IMHO are excellent in every respect, including the 'handling' aspects, at least for my hands. Unfortunately they don't have an optical viewfinder, there's no room for one, the LCDs so big, which might be a show-stopper depending on whether you're long or short sighted. And they're closer to £200 than £100, although you do find them discounted.
-
I think the Lumix models are excellent, my eldest son has had two both of which were excellent (he only got a new one for more pixels and bigger zoom not because of any problems).
In the more budget price range the Kodak cameras are good, my wife has one we bought from Ebay which was a Kodak refurbished model with 7 million pixels and a 10x optical zoom and it sits on top of a small printer (Kodak Easyshare G600) which prints 6x4 photos without needing the computer to be on. The camera was just under £100.
-
Hi Floydy,I know you are a bit baffled with all the technology etc,so have a read here.Its a beginners guide to the basics of digital cameras which explains a lot of the terminology that has been quoted in above posts.
http://photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/
-
May I reiterate my reply to Floyd? Sign up for an evening course, all is explained in terms even I can understand :-[
Both my wife and I use the Panasonic/Lumix cameras and find them excellent, although I think they may be out of the price range Floyd stated.
Peter
-
May I offer a small comment on the LCD screen versus optical viewfinder debate? When I bought my old Olympus zoom one of the reasons for choosing it was it had both sorts of viewfinder and I had found in previous cameras that the LCD screes were useless in bright sunshine, you just couldn't see what you were trying to photograph. It may well be that modern LCDs are brighter but it is a factor to consider.
Tony
-
Floydy, are you confused yet ? ;D I too have a Panasonic Lumix and would recommend them highly .... there are several on the Amazon UK page (link below) which fall within your budget ....and may help you decide. One thing I would recommend for the LCD screen is a plastic protective cover, it will stop your screen getting scratched and it actually helps slightly in sunny conditions.
http://foxyurl.com/rDd
protective cover http://foxyurl.com/rDg
-
Floydy, are you confused yet ?
Totally.
I too have a Panasonic Lumix
I'm sure you can get tablets for that.