Migrating to a good digital camera

jeanniefaethecarse

I am NOT a photographer, however I do like being able to take good photographs that I feel satisfied with when the mood takes me.

I've had a couple of digital cameras, both around the £100 mark, but have always been dissatisfied with the prints in the end, particularly with landscapes or close up photographs of flowers/birds, that type of thing, with the result that I've gone back to my trusty Pentax, MZ30, it's 35-80 lens with a polarising filter on it, plus, of course traditional film.

Processing and film are getting a tad too dear for me now, and I wondered if anyone could recommend a digital camera that would give me similar, or better results to the Pentax.
I've a budget of up to £500 as I don't envisage buying another camera in the next few years. Can anyone help as I have no idea of what I ought to be looking for in a digital camera.

m5rcc

Try a Nikon Coolpix S9100: Great performance, great image quality, a huge zoom and an intuitive interface make this the king of point-and-shoot compacts

gonzo127

what size camera are you looking at?

compact, bridge or full DSLR?

bridge camera something like the panisonic FZ150
DSLR something like the Canon EOS 1100D

m5rcc

gonzo127 wrote: »

what size camera are you looking at?

compact, bridge or full DSLR?

bridge camera something like the panisonic FZ150
DSLR something like the Canon EOS 1100D

Why recommend a DSLR if the OP claims NOT to be a good photographer?

jeanniefaethecarse

I'm really just looking for something that gives me a similar quality of photograph to the Pentax I've used for years.
I had a fujifilm finepix for a while, but was so disappointed with the photos I took with it (it was good for "party" photos, and photos of people, but not much else)

I tend to take a lot of wildlife/landscapes that type of thing, as I do a lot of hillwalking, but don't know which- compact/bridge/DSLR would fit the bill.

Many thanks for your replies so far, I really appreciate it.

gonzo127

m5rcc wrote: »

Why recommend a DSLR if the OP claims NOT to be a good photographer?

because the Pentax MZ30 which they are used to using and which they will be comparing the quality of photos to is actually a SLR its self

m5rcc

gonzo127 wrote: »

because the Pentax MZ30 which they are used to using and which they will be comparing the quality of photos to is actually a SLR its self

Today's DSLR's are far too complex for what the OP requires compared to a 35mm SLR. A good compact will be more than sufficient, surely?

chippy2u

m5rcc wrote: »

Today's DSLR's are far too complex for what the OP requires compared to a 35mm SLR.

DSLR's are as complex or as easy as you want them. I have a Fuji Finepix S4000 'bridge' camera (14 mega pixels, 30 times optical zoom) and I can set this to fully auto or fully manual at the flick of a switch.

m5rcc

chippy2u wrote: »

DSLR's are as complex or as easy as you want them. I have a Fuji Finepix S4000 'bridge' camera (14 mega pixels, 30 times optical zoom) and I can set this to fully auto or fully manual at the flick of a switch.

Why bother spending that much if you are going to leave it on auto?

chippy2u

I didn't say I leave it on auto, I said that I can if I want to, which I often do at parties where I can't be bothered to faff about with manual settings as it wastes good drinking time!!!
Expensive to buy? All things are relative but I don't think that £150/170ish ( unless you go to Jessops, £299!!!) is expensive for this type of camera.

photodgm

Try looking here. http://www.dpreview.com
Try to think about the features that are most important to you. Ease of use, quality of photo, (do you want to blow up to A3 or is a 6x4 fine? Do you 'process' photos on a computer in which case a camera that shoots RAW format could be an advantage? Weight, low light ability, lack of shutter lag, speed of auto focus and a whole host of other things.