Top 10 Digital Cameras for Serious Amateurs

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi all

Here's an interesting article I found about the best digital cameras
for serious amateurs.

Check it out at:
http://www.basic-digital-photograp [...] teurs.html
Regards
Chris

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, somewhat out of date, Nikon D70, Pentax *ist DS, Canon 20D, the new
Minolta's, Fuji S2 Pro?? Sony's ?????


"Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:3268s5F3fr9vkU1@individual.net...
> when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is wrong... And
> the 10D is not available anymore.
>
> <gary_hendricks@digital-music-guide.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1102965580.693763.33970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi all
>>
>> Here's an interesting article I found about the best digital cameras
>> for serious amateurs.
>>
>> Check it out at:
>>
> http://www.basic-digital-photograp [...] teurs.html
>> Regards
>> Chris
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And it doesn't list the Nikon D70 at all...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:3268s5F3fr9vkU1@individual.net...
> when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is wrong... And
> the 10D is not available anymore.
>
> <gary_hendricks@digital-music-guide.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1102965580.693763.33970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi all
>>
>> Here's an interesting article I found about the best digital cameras
>> for serious amateurs.
>>
>> Check it out at:
>>
> http://www.basic-digital-photograp [...] teurs.html
>> Regards
>> Chris
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:3268s5F3fr9vkU1@individual.net...
> when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is wrong... And
> the 10D is not available anymore.

Did you ever shoot with one?

>
> <gary_hendricks@digital-music-guide.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1102965580.693763.33970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi all
>>
>> Here's an interesting article I found about the best digital cameras
>> for serious amateurs.
>>
>> Check it out at:
>>
> http://www.basic-digital-photograp [...] teurs.html
>> Regards
>> Chris
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:YQuvd.501145$nl.172738@pd7tw3no...
> gary_hendricks@digital-music-guide.com wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > Here's an interesting article I found about the best digital cameras
> > for serious amateurs.
> >
> > Check it out at:
> >
http://www.basic-digital-photograp [...] teurs.html
> > Regards
> > Chris
>
> Interesting, the only Nikons were CoolPix ZLRs - not one Nikon dSLR in
> the bunch.

I'm a Canon guy, but that is just silly.
No Nikon D70, or D100, and yet there are all these point-and-shoots???

Ridiculous.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:XJvvd.4802$2r.2269@fed1read02...
>
> "Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
> news:YQuvd.501145$nl.172738@pd7tw3no...
>> gary_hendricks@digital-music-guide.com wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all
>> >
>> > Here's an interesting article I found about the best digital cameras
>> > for serious amateurs.
>> >
>> > Check it out at:
>> >
> http://www.basic-digital-photograp [...] teurs.html
>> > Regards
>> > Chris
>>
>> Interesting, the only Nikons were CoolPix ZLRs - not one Nikon dSLR in
>> the bunch.
>
> I'm a Canon guy, but that is just silly.
> No Nikon D70, or D100, and yet there are all these point-and-shoots???
>
> Ridiculous.
>
>

It was after all the amateurs lists guys.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
newszzvd.72438$K7.60409@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I reckon that it's an old list, the fact that the D70 and 20D were missing
> tells me that this list is out of date.
>
The list is over a year old, I suspect just about the time the Drebel was
released. The site is for a small time retail store, so hardly an
influential site.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bLvvd.4803$2r.520@fed1read02>, "Mark²" says...
> > > when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is wrong....
> And
> > > the 10D is not available anymore.
> >
> > Did you ever shoot with one?
>
> Have you looked at images taken with it?
> It doesn't have a lot to like in terms of noise.
>

There is nothing wrong with the Sony 828 at ISO 64 and ISO 100, but it IS un-
useably noisy at higher ISO settings.

I've shot over 7000 (7,820 to be exact) pictures with an 828, and I just know
better than to use the higher ISO levels with it. Limiting??? Yes, very, but
it still does very well for some uses.

It is a list of cameras for AMATEURS, not PROS.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1. : Canon 20D

2.- 10. : Who cares?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:kTHvd.3$mz3.2@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:bLvvd.4803$2r.520@fed1read02...
> >
> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> > news:Iwpvd.231801$HA.25765@attbi_s01...
> >>
> >> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3268s5F3fr9vkU1@individual.net...
> >> > when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is
wrong...
> > And
> >> > the 10D is not available anymore.
> >>
> >> Did you ever shoot with one?
> >
> > Have you looked at images taken with it?
> > It doesn't have a lot to like in terms of noise.
>
> I own one, and the noise issue is way overstated. Noise at 64 and 100 is
> low, and the camera is more than usable up to 400. 800 is for those times
> when a bad image is preferable to no image. But the Sony is an excellent
> cam, and anyone who's actually used one for more than a few simple test
> shots would probably agree.

With the 10D, 3200 is what I would call emergency use, but surprisingly
decent...
....1600 is VERY usable,
and 800 is spectacular for the ISO.
400 is nearly noiseless.
200 is incredible.
100 is the cleanest image you'll find anywhere.
The Sony just doesn't compare at all well when taken within context of the
competition.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:k2Pvd.5677$2r.5182@fed1read02...
>
> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> news:kTHvd.3$mz3.2@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:bLvvd.4803$2r.520@fed1read02...
>> >
>> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
>> > news:Iwpvd.231801$HA.25765@attbi_s01...
>> >>
>> >> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3268s5F3fr9vkU1@individual.net...
>> >> > when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is
> wrong...
>> > And
>> >> > the 10D is not available anymore.
>> >>
>> >> Did you ever shoot with one?
>> >
>> > Have you looked at images taken with it?
>> > It doesn't have a lot to like in terms of noise.
>>
>> I own one, and the noise issue is way overstated. Noise at 64 and 100 is
>> low, and the camera is more than usable up to 400. 800 is for those times
>> when a bad image is preferable to no image. But the Sony is an excellent
>> cam, and anyone who's actually used one for more than a few simple test
>> shots would probably agree.
>
> With the 10D, 3200 is what I would call emergency use, but surprisingly
> decent...
> ...1600 is VERY usable,
> and 800 is spectacular for the ISO.
> 400 is nearly noiseless.
> 200 is incredible.
> 100 is the cleanest image you'll find anywhere.
> The Sony just doesn't compare at all well when taken within context of the
> competition.

Uh, when did the 10D become competition for a fixed-lens EVF ZLR? I don't
see them as competitors at all since they're totally different beasts and go
after different markets. To me, this is like comparing the 828 with a Canon
A85. Agreed that the 10D has lower noise, but if you routinely shoot at high
ISOs, then you buy a different cam. And just to put this price issue to
rest, which may be your basis for comparison, price the 10D with zooms that
cover the 28-200 range with speeds from f2 to f2.8. Once you buy the lenses
in that range and at those speeds for the Canon, if you can, then the price
difference will be huge.

BTW, does the 10D have an infrared mode? ;-)

>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:qSYvd.6770$2r.2298@fed1read02...
>
> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> news:AQXvd.1$gj5.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:k2Pvd.5677$2r.5182@fed1read02...
>> >
>> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
>> > news:kTHvd.3$mz3.2@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> >> news:bLvvd.4803$2r.520@fed1read02...
>> >> >
>> >> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
>> >> > news:Iwpvd.231801$HA.25765@attbi_s01...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:3268s5F3fr9vkU1@individual.net...
>> >> >> > when you see the Sony 828 in a top ten, you know something is
>> > wrong...
>> >> > And
>> >> >> > the 10D is not available anymore.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did you ever shoot with one?
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you looked at images taken with it?
>> >> > It doesn't have a lot to like in terms of noise.
>> >>
>> >> I own one, and the noise issue is way overstated. Noise at 64 and 100
> is
>> >> low, and the camera is more than usable up to 400. 800 is for those
> times
>> >> when a bad image is preferable to no image. But the Sony is an
> excellent
>> >> cam, and anyone who's actually used one for more than a few simple
>> >> test
>> >> shots would probably agree.
>> >
>> > With the 10D, 3200 is what I would call emergency use, but surprisingly
>> > decent...
>> > ...1600 is VERY usable,
>> > and 800 is spectacular for the ISO.
>> > 400 is nearly noiseless.
>> > 200 is incredible.
>> > 100 is the cleanest image you'll find anywhere.
>> > The Sony just doesn't compare at all well when taken within context of
> the
>> > competition.
>>
>> Uh, when did the 10D become competition for a fixed-lens EVF ZLR? I don't
>> see them as competitors at all since they're totally different beasts and
> go
>> after different markets. To me, this is like comparing the 828 with a
> Canon
>> A85. Agreed that the 10D has lower noise, but if you routinely shoot at
> high
>> ISOs, then you buy a different cam. And just to put this price issue to
>> rest, which may be your basis for comparison, price the 10D with zooms
> that
>> cover the 28-200 range with speeds from f2 to f2.8. Once you buy the
> lenses
>> in that range and at those speeds for the Canon, if you can, then the
> price
>> difference will be huge.
>>
>> BTW, does the 10D have an infrared mode? ;-)
>
> OK. Then replace the DRebel in my comparison, and you've got just as
> noise-free an imager as the 10D (and just as poor a comparative showing by
> the Sony), for roughly the same price range as the Sony.
> And yes...these two ARE going after the same market.
> The subject here was the top 10 list, which is what placed the cameras in
> the same consideration.

Oh, OK. I thought the basis for comparison was something different. Even so,
that list is, well, ridiculous, given the inclusion of that Kodak Easyshare.
Compare that with the D-Reb. Anyway, I don't see the direct marketplace
relationship between many of those cams, let alone the Sony and the Canon.
But hey, that's just me. In the meantime, I'll just keep shooting.

>
>