[tanabutler]

My ex just gave me an intense education in cameras and lenses, and effectively dissuaded me from getting the EOS with this Sigma lens I was looking at.

I went for the Nikon D200 (10MP) with an 18-200mm Vibration Reduction lens, which gives a full four f-stops lower (or higher, I forget how they word it), making it an incredibly fast lens. It's also very lightweight, and he says is the only lens I will ever need. This is very good: not having to change lenses means only having one set of filters, and not getting dust in the body from swapping them off and on.

It's the camera my wedding photographer friend uses, and she raves about it.

I had thought I really wanted a good macro lens, and the Sigma was tempting (and cheaper)...but in the end, am keeping my Canon Powershot Pro 1, and its macro is great.

I wonder how hard it's going to be to learn Nikon. I've had Canons since 2001.

I'm sort of in shock, but good tools pay for themselves, and I really need to be able to photograph food in low-lighting situations.

Whoa, though, I wasn't expecting to do this today.

[porkwah]

by all accounts that i've heard, the nikon d200 is a great camera. congratulations!

[Melonious Thunk]

I want to report that I have not yet bought the DSLR. I decided to wait until the fall. Other new toys to play with at the moment.

[pim]

Itching to get a new pocket camera. Thinking about a new Panasonic (Panasonic DMC-LX2S).

It's 10 mp, but what I *really* like about it is that it has ISO settings all the way up to 1,200, which theoretically means that it could do very well in low light situation (i.e. dark restaurants.) The previous incarnation of this camera also had a twin re-skinned and sold by Leica, who also makes the lens.

I've never had any experience with Panasonic cameras before. Has anyone? What's your impression?

[beachfan]

As much as I loved my Sony, it died on me, telescoping lens stopped opening 2 months after warranty went out. Thank goodness for Amex double warranty, otherwise I'd be out $330.

So I'm looking again, 10 mp is damn exciting, although $500 is a touch much (we already have a Canon EOS, need a pocket backup). I want to blow up my best shots poster size now and again, and 10mp is getting there (although maybe not quite there yet).

[tanabutler]

beachfan, on Aug 12 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

As much as I loved my Sony, it died on me, telescoping lens stopped opening 2 months after warranty went out. Thank goodness for Amex double warranty, otherwise I'd be out $330.

So I'm looking again, 10 mp is damn exciting, although $500 is a touch much (we already have a Canon EOS, need a pocket backup). I want to blow up my best shots poster size now and again, and 10mp is getting there (although maybe not quite there yet).

Take my word for it, from my recent research. When it comes to blowing up a photo to print. there is NOT a discernible difference between eight and twelve megapixels. I read this over and OVER recently, in photo sites galore.

If you are going for an all-in-one package, what is your budget? And what are your desires? I have a new understanding of lenses, especially ones that let light in with low light.

Your needs may vary. Are you indoorsy or outdoorsy? Close or far?

Lots of questions!

[FaustianBargain]

pim, on Aug 13 2006, 04:24 AM, said:

Itching to get a new pocket camera. Thinking about a new Panasonic (Panasonic DMC-LX2S).

It's 10 mp, but what I *really* like about it is that it has ISO settings all the way up to 1,200, which theoretically means that it could do very well in low light situation (i.e. dark restaurants.) The previous incarnation of this camera also had a twin re-skinned and sold by Leica, who also makes the lens.

I've never had any experience with Panasonic cameras before. Has anyone? What's your impression?

at 1200 iso, the image will be too grainy...esp in low light situations.

eta for tana: 18-200mm is ridiculous. considering that there is focal length magnifier is above 1.xx, the wide angle is virutally useless for you in dslr..unless of course, your nikon comes without a focal length magnifier. the general rule, in my book only, that is, is that anything over 3x wideangle for it's zoom will result in inferior quality images. the image stabiliser or whatever it is that it is called for nikon helps..but only in AF mode. i cannot believe you bailed on canon!!! bleh to nikon!!

can you exchange your 18-200 for a couple of primes. it sucks that you changed to nikon as all of your canon lenses will be incompatible. seriously tho'..good luck.

[beachfan]

tanabutler, on Aug 13 2006, 12:38 AM, said:

beachfan, on Aug 12 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

As much as I loved my Sony, it died on me, telescoping lens stopped opening 2 months after warranty went out. Thank goodness for Amex double warranty, otherwise I'd be out $330.

So I'm looking again, 10 mp is damn exciting, although $500 is a touch much (we already have a Canon EOS, need a pocket backup). I want to blow up my best shots poster size now and again, and 10mp is getting there (although maybe not quite there yet).

Take my word for it, from my recent research. When it comes to blowing up a photo to print. there is NOT a discernible difference between eight and twelve megapixels. I read this over and OVER recently, in photo sites galore.

If you are going for an all-in-one package, what is your budget? And what are your desires? I have a new understanding of lenses, especially ones that let light in with low light.

Your needs may vary. Are you indoorsy or outdoorsy? Close or far?

Lots of questions!

Thanks for the questions!

Not really a budget, but a target, of around $350 or less. Could afford more, but I look at it as a short shelf life, in 3 years, something else will just blow it away.

When I talk about blowing up, I'm talking poster size. 2 feet by 3 feet. Surprised that 8 mp does the trick.
The desire is travel pictures, so the ability to zoom is important, and there are often wider angle shots. But portraits too. Close up, like food shots, is the least important.

Portability is key. I loved the shape of my Sony, it was sort of oblong and fit into my pants pocket like a cell phone. It was better than a thinner but wider/longer camera for "pocketing".

Are there any sites that discuss the reliability of the moving parts? VERY DISAPPOINTED in my Sony giving up the ghost after 15 months of use. It didn't get that much use.

Thanks again for the help; the research I did 18months ago is like last millenium's info now.

[Lippy]

I wouldn't buy a digital camera without checking the reviews on dPreview.
In addition to extensive reviews, there are forums for discussion by users of all the popular cameras. You can get a very good idea of any potential problems as well as strengths of various camera models. It helps narrow your choices considerably.

[pim]

FaustianBargain, on Aug 11 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

at 1200 iso, the image will be too grainy...esp in low light situations.

My currnt pocket camera goes up to 400, and is extremely sensitive to hand movement (I couldn't be arsed to do table tripod -and it wouldn't fit in my itty bitty evening bag so there. ) With lots of doctoring I get images like these..



This one has gone through lots and lots of Photoshop doctoring to get here. The original image was just too dark to see hardly anything. This shot was taken at Roellinger in Bretagne, a moderately well lit restaurant by US standards.

Here's another one.


The shot is from the Fat Duck, a brilliantly lit dining room by US standard. It also went through a bit of Photoshop to increase the brightness, it's still a little yellow I know, but this was done before I learned what White Balance is )

These two images were taken with my Sony DSC T1, with a tiny Zeiss lens -not a particularly good camera, nor lens, in low light situation. I'm trying to find a new one that will at least give me more in the raw images that I could work on with Photoshop later. I thought that the higher ISO, like at 800, and with some stabilizing help from the camera (which the Panasonic I am eyeing claims to do) I could get the raw images to have a bit more details, and at 10mp, even if they came out grainy I could likely reduce the size to 400-500 px wide and get better images for the blog than I currently could with my Sony.

Yes? No?

I care less about what the camera will cost, am more interested in finding the best (and smallest) one for the job.

What say you Your Souless One? (And other experts please feel free to jump in.)

[rancho_gordo]

I'm kind of stealing the mo' of this but I had to jump in and say as a consumer, on the verge of "prosumer", I love my Canon A620. It's easy to use and I love the results. When I'm taking nighttime food shots in my kitchen, the results without a flash are even better than I could have imagined. Memory is so cheap now I always use the highest res and this has been good. I just made a big poster of a beanfield and there are no telltale digital signs. The real interesting thing is I'm a mostly point and shoot kind of fellow but this is inspiring me to learn more about photography.
Thanks to Lippy, Tana, Mongo and the rest of you for steering me in this direction and finally giving me the final push!
Now back to your other conversation...

[pim]

rancho_gordo, on Aug 11 2006, 04:35 PM, said:

I'm kind of stealing the mo' of this but I had to jump in and say as a consumer, on the verge of "prosumer", I love my Canon A620.

That won't fit in my tiny evening bag either. I have sort of a weird requirement, since I have a DSLR that I use for practically everything else. Basically the most important -only, even- use of my small camera is to take shots of food inside a restaurant, often at dinner time and in US restaurants which seem to believe fanciness = darkness.) So the camera for me has to be as little as possible (to fit in the aforementioned itty bags) while giving me the best shots at the lowest light possible. (And by giving me the best shots I only mean picking up the most details, I can do other stuff in Photoshop to make the shots nice.)

The A6xx series are far too big.

[mongo_jones]

have you considered getting a bigger bag?

[rancho_gordo]

pim, on Aug 13 2006, 11:43 AM, said:

The A6xx series are far too big.

I know that, hence my apology for derailing the thread a bit. I also think it would be too basic for you, athough I don't know. But it brings home the trickiness of recommending a camera for someone else. It really depends on what you're going to be using it for. I really love closeups and nightshots of food but I can use a tripod as I'm normally at home. Beachfan says portablility and travel shots are key. You need something for your itty bitty bags that won't smash your Certs and cherry Chapstick.

I will say I've become addicted to the flip out LCD on the a620

and don't know what I'll do without it if I upgrade.

[mongo_jones]

from what i can tell, small size and low-noise high iso photographs are somewhat exclusive. it seems to be the case that small size is coveted by point&shoot'ers who aren't as big on picture quality. that said, cnet seems to suggest that the olympus stylus 810 does well with low light and macro:

Quote

The Olympus Stylus 810 can hit some incredibly high sensitivity settings for its class: ISO 1,600 and ISO 3,200 for extreme low-light or high-speed shots. It does so via Bright Capture, which uses clusters of sensor pixels to capture a each single image pixel, rather than individual ones (a process known as supersampling), effectively creating bigger pixels, each of which is more sensitive to light. Unfortunately, this results in fewer pixels in the final image; the Stylus 810 can take ISO 3,200 shots at only 3-megapixel resolution. Olympus uses Bright Capture in a similar way--clustering pixels to increase the amount of light emitted--to boost the brightness of the LCD.