Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

purchasing a higher end digital - SLR or P&S?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:01:51 PM

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

I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital camera
for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current model is an
older Epson 850Z if that helps.

The models I am considering so far are the Nikon D100 or D70, the
coolpix 8800, the Pentax *istDS, or the Sony DSCF828. Personally I'm
leaning towards one of the SLR's, and since I already own a slew of
Pentax SLR's I have a bias that direction. Having said that from what I
have read so far the Nikon models are looking pretty good, and I have to
keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this camera as
well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot may be the
best solution. However, like my MZ-7 pentax in full auto mode, I'm sure
the digital SLR offerings are similar and they are more or less point &
shoot's in any case, but since I am the de-facto photog of the group I
want a lot of control over the camera for things like depth of field,
exposure etc.. without having to jump through a dozen hoops.

I am still not 100% comfortable in the digital realm here, and I am
trying out a Minolta Dimage 7i to get a feel for it. After reading the
manual and seeing how you set exposures, DOF, etc. on this unit I was in
a fog (it was late however:-) I like controlling these things by just
picking a shutter speed on a dial and adjusting the exposure
accordingly, without having to press button x while holding button y
down and turning dial z to the right etc..

Talking to the others in the group, the most common single feature they
want is that the camera takes the picture when the shutter is pressed,
not 1-2 or 3 seconds later when the camera desides the time is right.
This is important to me as well as I like to take a lot of sports pic's
and to date have found the digital P&S's far from adequate, although I
have heard that the higher end ones are better in this regard.

So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for the
best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter
to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?

tia
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:01:52 PM

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

> I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital camera
> for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current model is an
> older Epson 850Z if that helps.

Even with a P&S camera of equivalent resolution, once you see the
high-quality, low-noise images produced from dSLRs (which have much larger
sensors), it'll be tough to go back to using a P&S.

steve
January 21, 2005 7:01:52 PM

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

Glen S wrote:
> I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital camera
> for our dept.


What are the photography needs for this department? Documenting
construction sites, macros of detailed machinery, interior architectural
documenting? Promotional material? You might need more wide angle for
some of those, you might need a lot of detail or not at all & no need
for the huge files. DSLR's force you to buy a different lens for each
application so a high end digicam is probably more suitable for office
use but some really lack wide angle range.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:01:52 PM

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

unStoppable wrote:

> Yep, 2 million pixels is A LOT.

Difference betwean 6MP and 8MP is not as big as you seem to believe.
Everything else being equal 4:3 8MP will give you the same quality at
10.88 x 8.16 print size as 3:2 6MP will at 10.02 x 6.67 (print at 300
DPI, one input pixel = one output pixel). But everything else is not
equal, DSLRs have at least 2 times larger sensors, and a lot better
optics.

> You can't go against numbers (numbers
> are objective unlike opinions), no matter how many more bells and
> whistles D70 has.

Ok let's talk numbers. F828 has a tiny 8.8 x 6.6 mm sensor, that makes
very noisy pictures at anything but the lowest ISO settings. D70 has
23.7 x 15.6 mm sensor, and the fact that it has less MP than F828 makes
the sensor's size even larger per pixel count. Put some quality glass
on D70 and it'll mop the floor with any point and shoot camera as far
as picture quality goes.
January 21, 2005 7:21:34 PM

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

Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in news:p H9Id.133624$KO5.8652@clgrps13:

> best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
> ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter
> to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?
>
>

SLR.

"dumbed down" menas it can pick the exposure and focus. The SLR can handle
these tasks.

The manual controls are even more obtuse on the P&S than the SLR,
especially the manual focus options on most P&S, which require menu
navigation.

Shutter lag: SLR is the clear winner.

The areas where the P&S has an advantage are areas you did not mention:
Price, portability, and, to some extent, versatility (movie mode, VR/IS,
bigger zoom factors, night mode, etc.)

Bob
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:49:16 PM

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

Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote:
: So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for the
: best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
: ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter
: to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?

P&S cameras are toys. They have the big advantage of being smaller and less
expensive (with a smaller sensor than DSLRs). Aside from the compact and convenient
nature of them (long zooms, small sizes, etc), they have very little photographic
benefit over an SLR. One possible exception is repositioning the LCD screen while
taking the picture (think self-portrait here). A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
LCD until the shot is taken.


--

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:49:17 PM

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

Developwebsites wrote:

> >A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
> >LCD until the shot is taken.
>
> huh? you are kidding me?
> you mean I cant view the scene thru the LCD on a DSLR and I have to
use the
> tiny eye viewer?
> Aint good for people with bad vision.

I don't know if you ever used a DSLR or not, but viewfinders on DSLRs
are light years away compared to those found on point and shoot
cameras.

Point and shooters often have a tiny low resolution LCD inside the
viewfinder that I find pain in the ass to look at when composing,
whereas when you're using DSLR you are viewing the actual light that
comes through the lens, that's being reflected from the pentaprism
mirror.

Many consider viewfinder to be one of DSLRs stronger points when
compared to point and shoot cameras, because the image never freezes,
jumps or lags since it's live.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:18:17 PM

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

"Glen S" <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:p H9Id.133624$KO5.8652@clgrps13...
> and I have to keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this
> camera as well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot may be
> the best solution.

You need two cameras. Maybe buy a nice little P&S model for about $200 on
ebay and then buy your DSLR. May I suggest a Olympus D-40 or 4040 if you
need more options?
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:18:18 PM

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

Dave R knows who wrote:
> "Glen S" <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:p H9Id.133624$KO5.8652@clgrps13...
>> and I have to keep in mind that others besides myself will be using
>> this camera as well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point &
>> shoot may be the best solution.
>
> You need two cameras. Maybe buy a nice little P&S model for about
> $200 on ebay and then buy your DSLR. May I suggest a Olympus D-40 or
> 4040 if you need more options?

Dave R knows may be right. Horses for courses, you know.

You may want to factor in this observation, gleaned from my recent
experience in transforming from long-time upper-end P&S user (Nikon CP
5000, 5700, 8700) to dSLR lover (Canon 20D):

Because of their many automatic features, any of the parenthesized
cameras is easy to take pretty good pictures with. It is infinitely
easier to take much better pictures with the dSLR.

It seems to me now that getting better product out of the earlier
cameras was a struggle: you had to fight the developers plans to get to
the instrument's capabilities.

Getting improved product out of dSLRs seems to me to be a matter of
giving the machine permission to do what it can do. The controls are
much more easily manipulated, the capabilities much more accessible.


--
Frank ess

Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
—Deepak Gupta
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:21:20 PM

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

Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> writes:

> I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital
> camera for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current
> model is an older Epson 850Z if that helps.

Ah, so *you're* the other person in the universe who bought one of
those! (Still have it, but now my wife is using it as a snapshot
camera).

> The models I am considering so far are the Nikon D100 or D70, the
> coolpix 8800, the Pentax *istDS, or the Sony DSCF828. Personally I'm
> leaning towards one of the SLR's, and since I already own a slew of
> Pentax SLR's I have a bias that direction. Having said that from what
> I have read so far the Nikon models are looking pretty good, and I
> have to keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this
> camera as well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot may
> be the best solution. However, like my MZ-7 pentax in full auto mode,
> I'm sure the digital SLR offerings are similar and they are more or
> less point & shoot's in any case, but since I am the de-facto photog
> of the group I want a lot of control over the camera for things like
> depth of field, exposure etc.. without having to jump through a dozen
> hoops.

You don't say much about the uses that will be made of the camera, and
how the other users might feel. But generally the DSLR is a LOT more
flexible, and a lot heavier and a lot more expensive (especially if
you start buying a lot of lenses, too). In program mode it's no
harder to use, though; and people who know anything can use it other
ways.

Personally I chose the Fuji S2 over the D100; the D70 wasn't available
when I did it.

If you're seeing multiple seconds of "shutter lag", then you're not
pre-focusing. And you may see multiple seconds including focus time
even with one of the DSLRs depending on lighting, lens, and camera.
So you should all learn to pre-focus when there's a timing issue.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:27:40 PM

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

You really don't say what your "department" needs the camera to do.
You may not need a camera of the complexity of either the 828 or the D70.
These cameras can be used in P&S mode but why spend that much money when
true P&S cameras will yield images that may be adequate for your use.
As one who owns and uses a Sony828 and a NikonD70 I think I understand the
differences between these two better than most people who post here.
The 828 has shutter lag but on fully automatic produces better jpeg images
out of the camera, images that require less adjustment in Photoshop, than
the D70. You have to learn the menus and accomodate to the electronic
viewfinder however. The 828 is far too slow for general use in its RAW mode.
It may be heresy on this group to say it but the color accuracy and detail
of images coming out of the 828 unmanpiulated are actually better than the
D70: the 2 million pixels really do make a difference.
The D70 handles like an SLR. In my opinion the default jpeg settings on this
camera render images that are essentially worthless (no better than average
P&S quality) but if you are willing to learn how to process RAW files the
D70 becomes an awesome camera. The D70 has a bewildering array of electronic
menu options that you have to learn to use to get quality images out of the
camera.
I think that Kodak produces a line of digital cameras that yield images that
require vey little post camera processing for most people's uses, but Kodak
squandered their brand name with all the low end cameras they cranked out
over the years. You might want to look into them if you need a camera with
good automatic settings that non-photographers can use.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:28:34 PM

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

papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu wrote:
> Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote:
> : So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for the
> : best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
> : ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter
> : to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?
>
> P&S cameras are toys. They have the big advantage of being smaller and less
> expensive (with a smaller sensor than DSLRs). Aside from the compact and convenient
> nature of them (long zooms, small sizes, etc), they have very little photographic
> benefit over an SLR. One possible exception is repositioning the LCD screen while
> taking the picture (think self-portrait here). A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
> LCD until the shot is taken.
>
>

Well, the P&S's I was looking at are only marginally less expensive, and
some of the "goodies" they offer are appealing to some in our group,
mainly the ability to shoot small amounts of video, time lapse etc.. (I
find these kinda cool too)

I am leaning towards DSLR's though, and shutter lag will likely be the
deciding factor here. My next step will be to stop by one of the better
camera shops next trip to the city and do some serious hands on
looking/testing and find a knowledgeable salesperson experienced in both
types of photography (digital and film)
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:49:19 PM

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

bmoag wrote:
> You really don't say what your "department" needs the camera to do.
> You may not need a camera of the complexity of either the 828 or the D70.
> These cameras can be used in P&S mode but why spend that much money when
> true P&S cameras will yield images that may be adequate for your use.
> As one who owns and uses a Sony828 and a NikonD70 I think I understand the
> differences between these two better than most people who post here.
> The 828 has shutter lag but on fully automatic produces better jpeg images
> out of the camera, images that require less adjustment in Photoshop, than
> the D70. You have to learn the menus and accomodate to the electronic
> viewfinder however. The 828 is far too slow for general use in its RAW mode.
> It may be heresy on this group to say it but the color accuracy and detail
> of images coming out of the 828 unmanpiulated are actually better than the
> D70: the 2 million pixels really do make a difference.
> The D70 handles like an SLR. In my opinion the default jpeg settings on this
> camera render images that are essentially worthless (no better than average
> P&S quality) but if you are willing to learn how to process RAW files the
> D70 becomes an awesome camera. The D70 has a bewildering array of electronic
> menu options that you have to learn to use to get quality images out of the
> camera.
> I think that Kodak produces a line of digital cameras that yield images that
> require vey little post camera processing for most people's uses, but Kodak
> squandered their brand name with all the low end cameras they cranked out
> over the years. You might want to look into them if you need a camera with
> good automatic settings that non-photographers can use.
>
>
In a nutshell we need a camera that will suffice for taking *good*
pictures at work related events etc... and is not to hard to use, and
being the main photog of the group I also want something that will give
me lab quality prints and not be limited to taking pictures of
relatively "still" subjects, as has been my experience with most digital
cameras.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:01:34 PM

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

>A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
>LCD until the shot is taken.

huh? you are kidding me?
you mean I cant view the scene thru the LCD on a DSLR and I have to use the
tiny eye viewer?
Aint good for people with bad vision.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:01:35 PM

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

Developwebsites wrote:
>
> >A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
> >LCD until the shot is taken.
>
> huh? you are kidding me?
> you mean I cant view the scene thru the LCD on a DSLR and I have to use the
> tiny eye viewer?
> Aint good for people with bad vision.

sure it is.

how do you think film cameras work?
I have never seen a film camera with a live lcd screen.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:26:20 PM

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

Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote:
> In a nutshell we need a camera that will suffice for taking *good*
> pictures at work related events etc... and is not to hard to use, and
> being the main photog of the group I also want something that will give
> me lab quality prints and not be limited to taking pictures of
> relatively "still" subjects, as has been my experience with most digital
> cameras.

I had a KM Dimage A2 (8MP, about $800-$900) and returned it. I now have a
Canon 300D (with the kit lens--6MP, about $900) and am much happier.

The Canon's easier to use and leaves me with far fewer unpleasant
surprises. It was common with the A2 for me to think I had a reasonably
sharp image when viewing the LCD, only to discover after uploading it to
the computer that the image was blurry thanks to being out of focus or
having significant motion blur.

If portability, live preview and movie modes are important, than a
high-end P&S is the way to go. If high-quality images and ease of use are
most important, then I'd recommend a dSLR.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:31:03 PM

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:21:34 GMT, bob wrote:

> SLR.
>
> "dumbed down" menas it can pick the exposure and focus. The SLR can handle
> these tasks.
>
> The manual controls are even more obtuse on the P&S than the SLR,
> especially the manual focus options on most P&S, which require menu
> navigation.
>
> Shutter lag: SLR is the clear winner.
>
> The areas where the P&S has an advantage are areas you did not mention:
> Price, portability, and, to some extent, versatility (movie mode, VR/IS,
> bigger zoom factors, night mode, etc.)

Night mode? As far as I know dSLRs are much better for taking pictures
under low light conditions because they have less noise at higher ISO.
It's not uncommon that a dSLR has less noise at ISO 1600 than P&S cam has
at ISO 200.

Also I'd put interchangeable lenses under versatility section, with P&S you
are stuck with whatever lense the cam comes with.
January 21, 2005 9:31:04 PM

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

Lars Coleman <lcoleman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1v0gwosc9ugbg$.m7ddt8v3xswm.dlg@40tude.net:

> Night mode? As far as I know dSLRs are much better for taking pictures

Like those Sony cameras with the built in infrared emitters that can take
pictures in pitch black.

>
> Also I'd put interchangeable lenses under versatility section, with
> P&S you are stuck with whatever lense the cam comes with.

Kind of, yes. But if you consider, for instance, that Panasonic with the
35 to 400+ f/2.8 (or whatever) lens, it is a more versaitle lens than any
single SLR lens; since the OP specifies novice, casual users, my
assumption is they might not understand the concept (or details) of
changing lenses.

Bob
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:45:46 PM

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

So, on a point and shoot you have a 1.8" or so LCD that you need to look at.
With bad eyesight this can be a real pain. Indeed, the DSLR has an even
smaller viewfinder, however most DSLRs have the ability built in for
dioptric adjustment of the image in the viewfinder. This means that they
can compensate for your bad eyesight to some extent. This can not be said
for the point and shoot crowd.

I find the use of an LCD MUCH more limiting than viewing the scene in a
viewfinder. Often in outside bright light the LCD tells you little of use.
Always in a viewfinder what you see is what you see. There is one time I
like an LCD over a viewfinder, when taking images with the camera held above
my head or down low. Being able to twist the LCD down, and then hold the
camera over peoples heads, and still frame to get a shot is very usefull.
The same can be said when holding the camera low, such as at ground level,
to get an odd angle / purspective.

C

"Developwebsites" <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20050121130134.11735.00000160@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
>>LCD until the shot is taken.
>
> huh? you are kidding me?
> you mean I cant view the scene thru the LCD on a DSLR and I have to use
> the
> tiny eye viewer?
> Aint good for people with bad vision.
>
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:10:48 PM

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

In article <gYaId.4221$8Z1.1108@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
apquilts@pacbell.net says...

> It may be heresy on this group to say it but the color accuracy and detail
> of images coming out of the 828 unmanpiulated are actually better than the
> D70: the 2 million pixels really do make a difference.

Yep, 2 million pixels is A LOT. You can't go against numbers (numbers
are objective unlike opinions), no matter how many more bells and
whistles D70 has.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:29:28 PM

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

Glen S wrote:
> I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital
> camera for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current
> model is an older Epson 850Z if that helps.
>
> The models I am considering so far are the Nikon D100 or D70, the
> coolpix 8800, the Pentax *istDS, or the Sony DSCF828.

I would suggest adding the equivalent Canon dSLR's to your mix. I don't
suggest they are better, but they are as good, with slightly different
features here and there.

Personally I'm
> leaning towards one of the SLR's, and since I already own a slew of
> Pentax SLR's I have a bias that direction. Having said that from what
> I have read so far the Nikon models are looking pretty good, and I
> have to keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this
> camera as well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot
> may be the best solution. However, like my MZ-7 pentax in full auto
> mode, I'm sure the digital SLR offerings are similar and they are
> more or less point & shoot's in any case, but since I am the de-facto
> photog of the group I want a lot of control over the camera for
> things like depth of field, exposure etc.. without having to jump
> through a dozen hoops.
> I am still not 100% comfortable in the digital realm here, and I am
> trying out a Minolta Dimage 7i to get a feel for it. After reading the
> manual and seeing how you set exposures, DOF, etc. on this unit I was
> in a fog (it was late however:-) I like controlling these things by
> just picking a shutter speed on a dial and adjusting the exposure
> accordingly, without having to press button x while holding button y
> down and turning dial z to the right etc..
>
> Talking to the others in the group, the most common single feature
> they want is that the camera takes the picture when the shutter is
> pressed, not 1-2 or 3 seconds later when the camera desides the time
> is right. This is important to me as well as I like to take a lot of
> sports pic's and to date have found the digital P&S's far from
> adequate, although I have heard that the higher end ones are better
> in this regard.

Canon 20D = 1/5 second delay from turn on. I believe the new Nikon
dSLR's are also good in this department.

>
> So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for
> the best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
> ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least
> "shutter to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?
>
> tia

I agree with those who have indicated that you have not really provided
enough information about the actual needs for us to be much more specific.
I might also suggest that two cameras may be in order.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
January 21, 2005 10:39:21 PM

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

Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in news:zgbId.13216$Qb.12861@edtnps89:

> In a nutshell we need a camera that will suffice for taking *good*
> pictures at work related events etc...

That makes a difference. Based on your user base, it sounds like you might
need built in flash.

Bob
January 21, 2005 10:43:01 PM

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

"Colic" <why.fret@the.small.stuff> wrote in
news:u5cId.19681$OF5.10480@attbi_s52:

> most DSLRs have the ability built in for
> dioptric adjustment of the image in the viewfinder. This means that
> they can compensate for your bad eyesight to some extent. This can
> not be said for the point and shoot crowd.

My (now dated) coolpix 5000 has a diopter adjustment

> I find the use of an LCD MUCH more limiting than viewing the scene in
> a viewfinder. Often in outside bright light the LCD tells you little
> of use.

Even in pretty bright sunlight, I find I can usually use the LCD for
framing. I, like you, find it particularly useful for up high, and down
low shooting. I use it all the time though, because it indicates framing
more accurately than the viewfinder (not as much a problem with SLR).

Bob
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:46:46 PM

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

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>> I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital
>> camera for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current
>> model is an older Epson 850Z if that helps.
>
> Even with a P&S camera of equivalent resolution, once you see the
> high-quality, low-noise images produced from dSLRs (which have much
> larger sensors), it'll be tough to go back to using a P&S.

Not if the point and shoot gives you a picture-taking ability which you
otherwise might not have - e.g. the f/2.8 36 - 432mm lens on the Panasonic
FZ20 or the ability to take small movies etc. You choose the most
appropriate tools for your own particular needs and budget.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:48:55 PM

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

paul wrote:
[]
> What are the photography needs for this department? Documenting
> construction sites, macros of detailed machinery, interior
> architectural documenting? Promotional material? You might need more
> wide angle for some of those, you might need a lot of detail or not
> at all & no need for the huge files. DSLR's force you to buy a
> different lens for each application so a high end digicam is probably
> more suitable for office use but some really lack wide angle range.

I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
wide-angle.

David
January 21, 2005 10:48:56 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> paul wrote:
> DSLR's force you to buy a
>>different lens for each application so a high end digicam is probably
>>more suitable for office use but some really lack wide angle range.
>
>
> I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
> wide-angle.


Yeah my wife's boss insisted they choose this one for that reason. It's
no fun flipping through panorama series for documenting some work
conditions.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:48:57 PM

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

paul <paul@not.net> writes:

> David J Taylor wrote:
> > paul wrote:
> > DSLR's force you to buy a
> >>different lens for each application so a high end digicam is probably more
> >>suitable for office use but some really lack wide angle range. I bought
> >>the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum wide-angle.
>
>
> Yeah my wife's boss insisted they choose this one for that reason. It's no
> fun flipping through panorama series for documenting some work conditions.

Of course if you are willing to pay for it, there are SLRs with an even wider
view. Lets see, Olympus has announced a 7-14mm lens that gives you the
equivalent of 14-28mm on a 35mm camera (though the price is quite high if
memory serves). And Canon has the 10-22mm EF-S lens for the 20D and 300D which
is equivalent to 16-35mm on a 35mm camera.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:56:24 PM

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

bob wrote:
> "Colic" <why.fret@the.small.stuff> wrote in
> news:u5cId.19681$OF5.10480@attbi_s52:
>
>> most DSLRs have the ability built in for
>> dioptric adjustment of the image in the viewfinder. This means that
>> they can compensate for your bad eyesight to some extent. This can
>> not be said for the point and shoot crowd.
>
> My (now dated) coolpix 5000 has a diopter adjustment

As do the Nikon 990, 5700, 8400 etc. etc.

David
January 21, 2005 11:10:22 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in news:35d4l7F4gtsggU1
@individual.net:

>
> I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
> wide-angle.
>

Do you have the wide angle adapter for it?

I've got the (wc-e68) wide adapter with my 5000, and it's pretty amazing.
One of the cameras I'm considering (in the future) is the 8400. I expect
that if I got it I would buy the adapter for it, too.

Bob
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 11:29:06 PM

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

In article <20050121130134.11735.00000160@mb-m03.aol.com>,
Developwebsites <developwebsites@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote:
>>A DSLR doesn't show an image on the
>>LCD until the shot is taken.
>
>huh? you are kidding me?
>you mean I cant view the scene thru the LCD on a DSLR and I have to use the
>tiny eye viewer?
>Aint good for people with bad vision.

It's probably considerably better for such people, as the SLR viewfinders
tend to have an adjustable correction lens in front of them.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 11:29:59 PM

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

bob wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in
> news:35d4l7F4gtsggU1 @individual.net:
>
>>
>> I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
>> wide-angle.
>>
>
> Do you have the wide angle adapter for it?
>
> I've got the (wc-e68) wide adapter with my 5000, and it's pretty
> amazing. One of the cameras I'm considering (in the future) is the
> 8400. I expect that if I got it I would buy the adapter for it, too.

No, just the basic 8400. I try and carry the absolute minimum these days,
but to carry it everywhere.

Cheers,
David
January 21, 2005 11:35:11 PM

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

Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in news:p H9Id.133624$KO5.8652@clgrps13:

> I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital camera
> for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current model is an
> older Epson 850Z if that helps.
>
> The models I am considering so far are the Nikon D100 or D70, the
> coolpix 8800, the Pentax *istDS, or the Sony DSCF828. Personally I'm
> leaning towards one of the SLR's, and since I already own a slew of
> Pentax SLR's I have a bias that direction. Having said that from what I
> have read so far the Nikon models are looking pretty good, and I have to
> keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this camera as
> well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot may be the
> best solution. However, like my MZ-7 pentax in full auto mode, I'm sure
> the digital SLR offerings are similar and they are more or less point &
> shoot's in any case, but since I am the de-facto photog of the group I
> want a lot of control over the camera for things like depth of field,
> exposure etc.. without having to jump through a dozen hoops.

I would suggest either the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D. The Canon is better
(faster frame rate of 5 fps, 8MPix, better high ISO images), the Nikon is
cheaper. Either of these cameras has a VERY large range of lenses available
to match any needs your dept. may have. Both of these cameras are very
capable and offer simple point and shoot modes for novices.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 11:43:38 PM

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

Good to know, the last Coolpix I used was the 950.

C

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:35d538F4j13vqU1@individual.net...
> bob wrote:
>> "Colic" <why.fret@the.small.stuff> wrote in
>> news:u5cId.19681$OF5.10480@attbi_s52:
>>
>>> most DSLRs have the ability built in for
>>> dioptric adjustment of the image in the viewfinder. This means that
>>> they can compensate for your bad eyesight to some extent. This can
>>> not be said for the point and shoot crowd.
>>
>> My (now dated) coolpix 5000 has a diopter adjustment
>
> As do the Nikon 990, 5700, 8400 etc. etc.
>
> David
>
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 12:23:35 AM

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

MarkH wrote:
> Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in news:p H9Id.133624$KO5.8652@clgrps13:
>
>
>>I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital camera
>>for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current model is an
>>older Epson 850Z if that helps.
>>
>>The models I am considering so far are the Nikon D100 or D70, the
>>coolpix 8800, the Pentax *istDS, or the Sony DSCF828. Personally I'm
>>leaning towards one of the SLR's, and since I already own a slew of
>>Pentax SLR's I have a bias that direction. Having said that from what I
>>have read so far the Nikon models are looking pretty good, and I have to
>>keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this camera as
>>well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot may be the
>>best solution. However, like my MZ-7 pentax in full auto mode, I'm sure
>>the digital SLR offerings are similar and they are more or less point &
>>shoot's in any case, but since I am the de-facto photog of the group I
>>want a lot of control over the camera for things like depth of field,
>>exposure etc.. without having to jump through a dozen hoops.
>
>
> I would suggest either the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D. The Canon is better
> (faster frame rate of 5 fps, 8MPix, better high ISO images), the Nikon is
> cheaper. Either of these cameras has a VERY large range of lenses available
> to match any needs your dept. may have. Both of these cameras are very
> capable and offer simple point and shoot modes for novices.
>
>
>
I also plan on looking at the Canon models, the shop I have in mind is a
camera shop, not a big box store and they carry most, if not all of the
better known names, both in digital and film. The fast fps rate is
appealing to me, but to the other users probably not as important. The
Pentax *ist may have a possible edge if the lenses are interchangeable
with my film slr's as I also use those on occasion for work related
photographs.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 12:44:02 AM

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

In terms of versatility, a camera's usefulness in many cases will be
limited by its flash. It depends entirely on your application, which
you've been vague about, but if you need anything beyond 12 feet in low
light, you'll need external flash. That really limits your choices, and
steers toward the DSLR.
>
> So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for the
> best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
> ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter
> to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?
>
> tia
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 12:44:03 AM

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

Robert Barr <not@for.harvest> writes:

> In terms of versatility, a camera's usefulness in many cases will be limited
> by its flash. It depends entirely on your application, which you've been
> vague about, but if you need anything beyond 12 feet in low light, you'll
> need external flash. That really limits your choices, and steers toward the
> DSLR.

I've taken pictures with my C-2100UZ hand held at ISO 400, 1/10 second at about
30 feet or so. So it can be doable, and noise is certainly an issue, and you
have to time things right so there is minimal subject movement. Though I
recently took pictures in the same sort of lighting with my DSLR (E1) at ISO
3200 1/50 that also came out nicely, once the noise was dealt with. Note, if
you are going to be doing that a lot though, a Minolta 7D or Canon 20D might be
the better answer.

> > So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for the
> > best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the ability
> > to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter to
> > picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S? tia

If you want the least shutter to picture lag, go with DSLR.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:34:13 AM

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

Not sure abou the 8400, 8700 or the 8800 but the rest of the Nikon line have
major shutter delays. Lost a contract with my 995 a couple of years back
because of the focus delay. Even an older SLR like a D60 is much superior.
Positive focusing, low noise and no shutter delay definitly put me in the SLR
camp. Get a good wide lens and hold the camera over your head and even a
cropped pic will be better than a P&S picture in overall quality.

Tom


In article <_PdId.20482$EG1.13019@attbi_s53>, no_spam@no.spam.com says...
>
>Good to know, the last Coolpix I used was the 950.
>
>C
>
>"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:35d538F4j13vqU1@individual.net...
>> bob wrote:
>>> "Colic" <why.fret@the.small.stuff> wrote in
>>> news:u5cId.19681$OF5.10480@attbi_s52:
>>>
>>>> most DSLRs have the ability built in for
>>>> dioptric adjustment of the image in the viewfinder. This means that
>>>> they can compensate for your bad eyesight to some extent. This can
>>>> not be said for the point and shoot crowd.
>>>
>>> My (now dated) coolpix 5000 has a diopter adjustment
>>
>> As do the Nikon 990, 5700, 8400 etc. etc.
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
January 22, 2005 4:34:14 AM

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

tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote in
news:cssail3208j@enews4.newsguy.com:

> Not sure abou the 8400, 8700 or the 8800 but the rest of the Nikon
> line have major shutter delays.

I hate the shutter lag on my 5000.

But it does have a diopter adjustment!

And with the wc-e68 (19mm equiv) lens, it is really fun. It's great at
documenting things that aren't moving. Especially big things, close up.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:50:57 AM

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

The 8400 is a good choice if you are not necessarily going to publication. But
you are limited to a max of ISO 200 (according to the reviews I've read) and a
pittiful flash (most P&S camera have a pittiful flash, too close to the lens
and too small). Most DSLRs will give you ISO 800 at least. But it comes at a
cost, a good WA lens (and other good lenses) and an external flash. What I hope
is your boss is not trying to make a profsessional photo department with folk
who don't know what they are doing.

Tom

In article <35d728F4ifndeU1@individual.net>, david-taylor@invalid.com says...
>
>bob wrote:
>> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in
>> news:35d4l7F4gtsggU1 @individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
>>> wide-angle.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have the wide angle adapter for it?
>>
>> I've got the (wc-e68) wide adapter with my 5000, and it's pretty
>> amazing. One of the cameras I'm considering (in the future) is the
>> 8400. I expect that if I got it I would buy the adapter for it, too.
>
>No, just the basic 8400. I try and carry the absolute minimum these days,
>but to carry it everywhere.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:39:28 AM

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

unStoppable wrote:
> In article <gYaId.4221$8Z1.1108@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> apquilts@pacbell.net says...
>
>
>>It may be heresy on this group to say it but the color accuracy and detail
>>of images coming out of the 828 unmanpiulated are actually better than the
>>D70: the 2 million pixels really do make a difference.
>
>
> Yep, 2 million pixels is A LOT. You can't go against numbers (numbers
> are objective unlike opinions), no matter how many more bells and
> whistles D70 has.
Hi,
Then in this case you gain 33% increase in image quality?
Tony
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 7:52:19 AM

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

"Tom Monego" <tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com> wrote in message
news:cssail3208j@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Not sure abou the 8400, 8700 or the 8800 but the rest of the Nikon line
> have
> major shutter delays. Lost a contract with my 995 a couple of years back
> because of the focus delay. Even an older SLR like a D60 is much superior.
> Positive focusing, low noise and no shutter delay definitly put me in the
> SLR
> camp. Get a good wide lens and hold the camera over your head and even a
> cropped pic will be better than a P&S picture in overall quality.
>
> Tom

Every point and shoot I have tried has NOTICABLE shutter lag. It is true
that you can often get around this a bit by half pressing the shutter button
to preset a lot of it. This works well if you are taking a shot that you
know will be coming. But to me it is reason enough to opt for a DSLR, even
without the ohter factors in favor of the DSLR.

C
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 2:37:24 PM

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

Tom Monego wrote:
> Not sure abou the 8400, 8700 or the 8800 but the rest of the Nikon
> line have major shutter delays. Lost a contract with my 995 a couple
> of years back because of the focus delay. Even an older SLR like a
> D60 is much superior. Positive focusing, low noise and no shutter
> delay definitly put me in the SLR camp. Get a good wide lens and hold
> the camera over your head and even a cropped pic will be better than
> a P&S picture in overall quality.

No camera is perfect, but you can often work round the imperfections.
Auto-focus is a major contributor to the taking time delay, but you can
work round that with pre-focussing or a half-press on the shutter. The
Coolpix 8400 has a dual focus-sensing system making it faster than
contrast detection alone. The depth of field is typically much greater
making focus less critical.

Of course, for some circumstances the lower taking delay (not zero,
though) of the DSLR may be essential, but at the price of greater cost,
bulk and weight.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 2:39:46 PM

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

Michael Meissner wrote:
[]
> Of course if you are willing to pay for it, there are SLRs with an
> even wider view. Lets see, Olympus has announced a 7-14mm lens that
> gives you the equivalent of 14-28mm on a 35mm camera (though the
> price is quite high if memory serves). And Canon has the 10-22mm
> EF-S lens for the 20D and 300D which is equivalent to 16-35mm on a
> 35mm camera.

And the comparitive size, weight and cost of these solutions is?

David
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 2:42:00 PM

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

paul wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> paul wrote:
>> DSLR's force you to buy a
>>> different lens for each application so a high end digicam is
>>> probably more suitable for office use but some really lack wide
>>> angle range.
>>
>>
>> I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
>> wide-angle.
>
>
> Yeah my wife's boss insisted they choose this one for that reason.
> It's no fun flipping through panorama series for documenting some work
> conditions.

A simple easy-to-carry solution that does the job adequately, I hope. By
the way:

http://www.autostitch.net/

does a remarkable job of stitching a set of JPG photos into a panorama
automatically....

Cheers,
David
January 22, 2005 2:42:01 PM

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

This whole thing is getting pretty complicated. From my long university
experience I would get something durable and simple that anyone can use
-- these cameras do get passed around at social events, etc.. Unless
doing really demanding photography I would highly recommend the setup I
have -- an Oly 5060 with a wide-angle conversion lens and add on Oly
flash that gives me lots of coverage and beautiful photos in a very
tough and well made package. And right now the price is right. About 50%
of what you would have to pay for a low end dslr. That would make your
department chair or dean very happy....

David J Taylor wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>paul wrote:
>>>DSLR's force you to buy a
>>>
>>>>different lens for each application so a high end digicam is
>>>>probably more suitable for office use but some really lack wide
>>>>angle range.
>>>
>>>
>>>I bought the Nikon 8400 specifically because it has a 24mm maximum
>>>wide-angle.
>>
>>
>>Yeah my wife's boss insisted they choose this one for that reason.
>>It's no fun flipping through panorama series for documenting some work
>>conditions.
>
>
> A simple easy-to-carry solution that does the job adequately, I hope. By
> the way:
>
> http://www.autostitch.net/
>
> does a remarkable job of stitching a set of JPG photos into a panorama
> automatically....
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:17:52 PM

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:01:51 GMT, Glen S <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote:

>I've been given the task of purchasing a "better" quality digital camera
>for our dept. "Better" is a relative term, but our current model is an
>older Epson 850Z if that helps.
>
>The models I am considering so far are the Nikon D100 or D70, the
>coolpix 8800, the Pentax *istDS, or the Sony DSCF828. Personally I'm
>leaning towards one of the SLR's, and since I already own a slew of
>Pentax SLR's I have a bias that direction. Having said that from what I
>have read so far the Nikon models are looking pretty good, and I have to
>keep in mind that others besides myself will be using this camera as
>well so I was thinking the simplicity of a point & shoot may be the
>best solution. However, like my MZ-7 pentax in full auto mode, I'm sure
>the digital SLR offerings are similar and they are more or less point &
>shoot's in any case, but since I am the de-facto photog of the group I
>want a lot of control over the camera for things like depth of field,
>exposure etc.. without having to jump through a dozen hoops.
>
>I am still not 100% comfortable in the digital realm here, and I am
>trying out a Minolta Dimage 7i to get a feel for it. After reading the
>manual and seeing how you set exposures, DOF, etc. on this unit I was in
>a fog (it was late however:-) I like controlling these things by just
>picking a shutter speed on a dial and adjusting the exposure
>accordingly, without having to press button x while holding button y
>down and turning dial z to the right etc..
>
>Talking to the others in the group, the most common single feature they
>want is that the camera takes the picture when the shutter is pressed,
>not 1-2 or 3 seconds later when the camera desides the time is right.
>This is important to me as well as I like to take a lot of sports pic's
>and to date have found the digital P&S's far from adequate, although I
>have heard that the higher end ones are better in this regard.
>
>So, to all those with a lot more experience than I in this area, for the
>best quality shots and easiest manual controls, and still have the
>ability to be a good "dumbed down" point & shoot, and the least "shutter
>to picture" lag should I go SLR or high end P&S?
>
>tia
I think that as you have a group of people having access to your next
purchase you should look at the lowest common denominator ,that is
there is at least one in the group that has little regard for taking
care of anything that is not their own.
.. Should you buy a dslr then is there a designated person that
changes the lens ,cleans oily fingerprints ,cleans the sensor of dust
that will surely appear with so many users.?
I am an dslr man who graduated from a p & s but I suggest that you
check out all the contestants in your price - range and plump for a p
& s.
eric phillips
January 22, 2005 5:17:53 PM

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

eric phillips <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in
news:eh33v0d99qf9fcqrmrbrmeb47q7pl385a5@4ax.com:

> I think that as you have a group of people having access to your next
> purchase you should look at the lowest common denominator ,that is
>

Nah. Fire the LCD (or make him/her carry his/her own weight). Get something
that works for the majority.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:57:19 AM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
> []
> > Of course if you are willing to pay for it, there are SLRs with an
> > even wider view. Lets see, Olympus has announced a 7-14mm lens that
> > gives you the equivalent of 14-28mm on a 35mm camera (though the
> > price is quite high if memory serves). And Canon has the 10-22mm
> > EF-S lens for the 20D and 300D which is equivalent to 16-35mm on a
> > 35mm camera.
>
> And the comparitive size, weight and cost of these solutions is?

Of course the DSLR is going to be heavier and more costly than the 8400.
However, if you really need the wide angle in one shot, then you might need to
investigate using it as a solution.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:37:49 AM

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

To a guy who has caried arounf Canon F1s with 12 battery motor and a Metz
potato masher any DSLR I have used is light, even with the Metz a credible
strobe attacheed, not as light as the 8400, but more functional. I have fiddled
with a D20 and the 10-22, it is lighter than a D60 with a 16-35L Canon.
Compared to what I'm used to it is very light.

Tom

In article <35esc3F4j1igaU1@individual.net>, david-taylor@invalid.com says...
>
>Michael Meissner wrote:
>[]
>> Of course if you are willing to pay for it, there are SLRs with an
>> even wider view. Lets see, Olympus has announced a 7-14mm lens that
>> gives you the equivalent of 14-28mm on a 35mm camera (though the
>> price is quite high if memory serves). And Canon has the 10-22mm
>> EF-S lens for the 20D and 300D which is equivalent to 16-35mm on a
>> 35mm camera.
>
>And the comparitive size, weight and cost of these solutions is?
>
>David
>
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:34:26 AM

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:35:11 GMT, MarkH wrote:

> I would suggest either the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D. The Canon is better
> (faster frame rate of 5 fps, 8MPix, better high ISO images), the Nikon is
> cheaper.

Nikon has a couple of advantages as well besides being cheaper. It has a
lot better flash, 20d is 1/250, Nikon 1/500, better controls (D70 has
direct adjustments for pretty much everything, whereas 20D occasionally
sometimes requires you to get into a menu, when fine tuning white balance
for example), better and brighter viewfinder, and less audible shutter.

Canon 20D on the other hand has slightly higher resolution, better
autofocus, higher shooting rate, and greater ISO range, 3600 is useful if
you shoot in the dark.

While on the paper Canon has better image quality I didn't find the
difference to be significant in prints, regardless of the print size.
!