Digital camera advice please! Search used!

DwainDibley

Don't worry! Digital noise is the 'graininess' you see often in low light pictures, it's where the camera increases it's sensor's light sensitivity (The ISO) to capture more light. A trade-off is that graininess. Most cameras have a noise reduction system for reducing this noise, the problem with my TZ3 is that it goes over the top - when you reduce the noise you lose a bit of detail, in my opinion it overdoes it and you lose some detail along with that noise. It's only really noticeable when you zoom in a bit though, probably won't be too noticeable when being viewed on a PC screen.

Hope that helps, probably not the most scientific explanation!

darich

When an photo is taken in low light, the scene is quite obviously dark. To compensate for this, the camera increases the sensitivity of the sensor so that the dark scene is captured properly.
However, the trade off is that the increased sensitivity also increases the noise. Noise is like tiny speckles that reduce the sharpness of a picture. So a camera that handles noise better, is better at increasing the sensitivity of the sensor but not increasing the amount of noise.
Smaller sensors in cheaper cameras produce more noise in low light. That's why your camera phone often has grainy pictures - it has a tiny sensor.

Someone mentioned image stabalisation in an earlier post. Many cameras claim this but it's not strictly true. What they often do is increase the ISO setting which also helps to reduce camera shake. The higher ISO means the sensor os more sensitive. That means the exposure time is shorter. Shorter exposure time means less chance for the camera to shake. But claiming it is "image stabalisation" is a bit naughty. Image stabalisation involves moving parts almost like a car suspension. I think a very few compacts may have image stabalisation but most simply increase the ISO and produce more grainy images.

EDIT - think of increasing ISO like turning up the volume on a radio that's just off tune - you'll increase the sound of the broadcast but you'll also increase the sound of the hiss.

darich

I also noticed that a few posters have recommended the Nikon D40 DSLR. If you're only looking for a few shots of the kids and holiday snaps, then a decent compact will be more than enough. Many of them have full manual settings and some even record in RAW format.
DSLRs produce the best images but require the most technical knowledge to get the best out of them.
If you're not interested in learning about apertures, exposures, depth of field etc etc then I'd advise against a DSLR - they're too complicated.

And before anyone tells me you can go full auto - i know all that and I've had a DSLR for about 5 years now (i'm on my 3rd). Try handing a DSLR to your your technophobe relative who has a compact. Even though the DSLR is on full auto, they'll be so nervous and unsure about it.

DSLRs can scare some people!!!!

Marty_J

stmidwife wrote: »

Hiya, I bought the Sony but as it was "unused" I was able to return it and get my money back. I hadn't thought about classes but to be honest with my midwifery degree, 2 kids and all the other stuff, I probably wouldn't have time.

Ah, I see. Well, the D40 is aimed at people new to the dSLR world, and it's designed accordingly. It has a pretty comprehensive help system, which is probably the most helpful thing for a beginner. When you go to change a setting, you can press the help button, and it'll tell you what it does, why you might need to change it, and even in some cases show you pictures of what the result will be. The help sign will even flash up when you're shooting sometimes and make recommendations. So for instance, if you're shooting in low light, it'll suggest using the flash or a tripod.

IMHO, the Nikon D40 pretty much makes bridge cameras obsolete.

darich wrote: »

If you're not interested in learning about apertures, exposures, depth of field etc etc then I'd advise against a DSLR - they're too complicated.

And before anyone tells me you can go full auto - i know all that and I've had a DSLR for about 5 years now (i'm on my 3rd). Try handing a DSLR to your your technophobe relative who has a compact. Even though the DSLR is on full auto, they'll be so nervous and unsure about it.

DSLRs can scare some people!!!!

They can, but they don't need to and the D40 is friendlier than most.

A dSLR on auto isn't really any harder to use than a compact, and it gives you room to grow as your skills improve.

Ice_2

I have a Kodak C533 which has 5.0 mps this has the viewfinder on it also has a range of different shots that you can apply...
this is scan:
sport: use when subject is in motion
children: use for action photo's of children in bright light
party: use for photot's of people in indoor settings
beach: use for bright beach scenes
snow: use for bright snow scenes
fireworks: use for photo's with fireworks steady camera foe best results
self portrait: use for close up of self
backlight: use for photo's where light is behind the subject
night portrait: use to capture subject and background steady camera
portrait: use for full frame photo's of people and other subjects
then we have auto: use for general photo taking
then there's Landscape: use for distant scenery
then there's close up: use for subjects closer than 28 inches or 70cm
then there's video: use for sound and motion
then there's your favourites
then you can also put in an SD card of up to 8gbs which are very cheap now...
what more could you wish for...
and you can get a 12.0 mps camera for £129.00 and it has HD pictures

what more could you want for the price...
http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/urg00737toc.jhtml?chapsec=urg00737c2s7&pq-path=11648#BABJEJFH

darich

Marty_J wrote: »

A dSLR on auto isn't really any harder to use than a compact, and it gives you room to grow as your skills improve.

Completely agree but to someone not familiar with cameras and perfectly happy with a compact it's quite scary.

I've also seen this a few times on the forum - someone asks which compact should i get and there is always someone who suggests a DSLR. It's like saying which estate cart should i get and someone suggests getting a van because it'll carry more.

If someone wants a compact then that's the advice that should be given, not "don't get one, buy a DSLR".

PS this is not meant as a dig at Marty J - it's just an observation on the thread.

ZootHornRollo

ii would go with a bridge camera over a budget DSLR. The quality of optic you get with these kits is relatively poor.

with a bridge camera you generally get a very good optic. Its one piece. And you can get a zoom up to and beyond 300mm.

Something like the fuji s9600 is an extremely capable camera and would leave you plenty of change to get a decent case, rechargeable batteries and any other bits n bobs you may want.

this is a good site for advice on bridge cameras http://bridgecamerausers.co.uk/webpage/index.php/Forum.html

Marty_J

darich wrote: »

Completely agree but to someone not familiar with cameras and perfectly happy with a compact it's quite scary.

I've also seen this a few times on the forum - someone asks which compact should i get and there is always someone who suggests a DSLR. It's like saying which estate cart should i get and someone suggests getting a van because it'll carry more.

If someone wants a compact then that's the advice that should be given, not "don't get one, buy a DSLR".

PS this is not meant as a dig at Marty J - it's just an observation on the thread.

Well, you might be right. I had just assumed that as the OP was prepared to spring for a Sony dSLR, they had more than a passing interest in photography. I agree that if they just wanted a compact and nothing else, it wouldn't make much sense to buy a dSLR.

ZootHornRollo wrote: »

ii would go with a bridge camera over a budget DSLR. The quality of optic you get with these kits is relatively poor.

with a bridge camera you generally get a very good optic. Its one piece. And you can get a zoom up to and beyond 300mm.

Something like the fuji s9600 is an extremely capable camera and would leave you plenty of change to get a decent case, rechargeable batteries and any other bits n bobs you may want.

this is a good site for advice on bridge cameras http://bridgecamerausers.co.uk/webpage/index.php/Forum.html

The lens that comes with the lower priced Canons isn't very good, and I've heard it said that if you buy one you should budget for a new lens, but Nikon have shipped a rather nice lens with the D40. For low light/indoor photography, you can't beat a dSLR. I upgraded from a Fujifilm Finepix S6500fd, and it was a really good camera, but in my personal experience, the D40's image quality is much better. It so nice to be able to take pictures at a high ISO without it being excessively noisy (and the Fujifilm was one of the best bridge cameras in that regard). The auto ISO feature is really nice too, as I don't even have to worry about setting it myself.

I actually find the D40 to be easier to use than the S6500fd was.

darich

Marty_J wrote: »

The lens that comes with the lower priced Canons isn't very good, and I've heard it said that if you buy one you should budget for a new lens, but Nikon have shipped a rather nice lens with the D40.

I bought a Canon Digital Rebel a few years ago and it came with the standard 18-55mm lens. I used it for a quite a while until i upgraded and it did quite well for me. I sold a holiday photo to a German calender for around £85 which is a similar price to that of the lens itself.

It's not as bad as is made out and better than any lens you'll get in a compact or most bridge cameras. The 18-55 sells for around £100 - more than many compacts. And i doubt that a bridge camera has half of its price tied into the lens.

EDIT : I've never used Nikon gear so can't comment on the quality of their equipment or how it compares to Canon. I believe them to be similar though.

Marty_J

Well, I haven't used them myself, so I can only repeat what I've heard. I do have a friend who shoots Canon, but she doesn't use any kit lenses.

I definitely agree that it's likely to be better than any bridge camera though.