This is the one I have:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...u=438940&is=REG

They gave me a 1gig card with it.

You can get pretty good package deals on eBay for camera kits. That's where I got my D200. I chose J & K Camera because they had, at the time, 100% positive feedback on thousands of sales. (It's still 99.9%, which is darned good.) I did have a service issue that wasn't exactly anyone's fault, but they worked with me to make me happy.

They've got some REALLY good deals now.

J & K Camera store at eBay

J & K deals on Cristina's camera

I actually knew that, and I thought about it as i was posting (there are famous pictures of Weegee with his Speed Graphic), but I thought he might have used a Rollei as his "small" camera. I wonder who it is you were remembering?

I had a Speed Graphic, in its original case, with all the extras, until I lost it in in a flood at our warehouse a few years ago. Now I am without it, the Rollei, the Brownie Starflash that was my first camera, the Kodak Retina Reflex that preceded my love affair with Nikon. I have all my Nikons, though. Even though I don't use them anymore, I'll never let them go, nor my Hasselblads.

of all the things you have ever uttered, these words are the most cruel...

its always sad to lose to the devil.

eta: fyi, my canon g1 is still functional(went twice to MACK for servicing) and sometimes i'd rather go back to it's hefty comfort than all the nifty new cameras they sell these days...

I had that Canon G1 Powershot. Loved it, loved it—it really became an extension of me, which is a point I'm not yet at with my Nikon D200, and which I never reached with the Powershot Pro1. I gave the G1 to an amazing young woman (a girl, actually, a junior in high school) thatl I met at the farmers market, in hopes of making her own dreams come true.

She wants to be a doctor (or maybe vet) and maybe a photographer, too.

It felt good to give it to her—the return on my investment is far greater than what I would have gotten (a pittance) had I sold it on Craig's List.

We still own an A85 and my semi-functional Powershot Pro1, which I also couldn't sell because of its multiple defects. The guy at the camera store enlightened me: "The Pro1 was Canon's Edsel." If only I knew that before I shelled out over a thousand dollars for it.

This is the young lady who got the G1. Isn't she great?

[quote name='Melonious Thunk' date='Feb 4 2007, 09:28 PM' post='774409']
[quote name='Robert Schonfeld' post='774401' date='Feb 6 2007, 05:51 PM']

According to Wikipedia "Most of his notable photographs were taken with very basic press photographer equipment and methods of the era, a 4x5 Speed Graphic camera preset at f/16, @ 1/200 of a second with flashbulbs and a set focal length of ten feet."

I'll keep the Capa image. After all, he was making it with Ingrid Bergman.
[/quote]

I think they meant a set focus distance of ten feet. A ten foot lens would be a big telescope.

Popular Photography today reviews the new Nikon D40

It lists at PopPhoto for about $600, but I see kits on eBay for that: lots of value for the dollar, it looks like.

After much to and fro and hither and yon, I finally bought a DSLR today. I chose the Nikon D200 with two lenses: The mid-range 30-300 digital zoom and and 18-70 digital. Both are among the sharpest of the Nikon lenses below the pro-range. I expect it to arrive Monday or Tueday.

Lots of learning to do.

Remember to run your practice shots past us so we can boo or hiss! (Yeah, right. Having seen your "lesser works" I just WISH I could hold your camera bag.) Any nice gardens in your neck of the woods?

Just got the D40 with the 18-55 bog standard lens. My first dip into the DSLR pond. I will of course post first photos here to receive the general opprobrium.

Is Adobe Photoshop Essentials a decent programme for the Mac, or should I go for Aperture?

ta v much

They're two completely different beasts.

Apple's Aperture & Adobe's Photoshop Lightroom are both designed as workflow tools for professional photographers, allowing them to alter exposure, white balance, contrast, etc., etc. (call them photographic tools) to any number of images whether singly or an entire folder at a time.

Since there is no "Photoshop Essentials", I believe that you meant Adobe Photoshop Elements. It can do those things only to one photo at a time. However, it's also the little brother of Adobe Photoshop, as such, it has the capabilities to do much more creatively, but at a lower cost and with greater ease-of-use (than the full-fledged Photoshop) since it's designed for non-professionals. It'll even make red-eye correction a snap. Check out the demo on its' website at "Show me".

Photoshop Elements is also inexpensive. Aperture & Lightroom have 30 day trial versions for download.



If your curious about some of the things that can be done with Photoshop (full version), a brief overview can be seen at one of my galleries, even though it needs updating. It's "just the tip of the iceberg".

mcj, sorry I meant Elements. I've downloaded it, I reckon it will more than suffice for me. Cheers

The free program, Picasa, offers the same kind of editing and organizing. I found it easier to use than photoshop elements and I think it offers more options.

Anthony, Here is what I PMed you on the other site...

Scott Kelby's books are terrific. I've gotten very proficient at retouching photos, thanks to his Photoshop CS for Digital Photographers.

Would it be really stupid to buy a Canon 30D now, what with all the rumors that th 40D is coming out in a few months?

The 40D probably won't be readily available until February. How long can you wait?

Rocky

I've read that the Canon 40D is shipping next month. I see prices on the net for 30D bodies as low as $500 -- below the Rebel XTi. Although the XTi has 2 more megapixels, I think that is irrelevant considering the higher functions of the 30D. I'm not sure what features the 40D will have, but I'm sure I couldn't afford them even if I understood them.

The 40D was first rumoured to ship last fall, then this spring, there are two dates floating around right now, 2 Sept and 25 Sept. Canon still has nothing official on the camera. Though if it were officially announced Sept 25 it would be well positioned for the holiday season, with real availability in November. Frankly though I would be surprised to see it readily available until after CES in January.

Full list price according to the rumours for the 40D will $1600, though no one actually sells one for list price.

Rocky

So the official word is out, the 40D is scheduled to go on sale this month. $1300 for the body only, here's more info on it.

Rocky

Please tell me that a hobbyist would be more than satisified with a 30D and has no need to buy the 40D.

In my opnion, a hobbyist would be more than satisified with a 30D and has no need to buy the 40D.
Is that what you want?

Yes. Now I have an extra $400 to buy locally grown beans and quinoa (the Incans called it "the mother grain").

Or more lenses. The mirror clearing system on the 40D does look nice though. Maybe it's time to upgrade from the Rebel XTi.

Rocky

You know, my Kodak Brownie takes pretty darn good pictures. You fellows should look into one before spending good money on all these fancy cameras.

does no one make etchings anymore?

My Sony broke, my Cannon was stolen, and now I will only spend $250 or preferable less. What pocket digital should I buy now. Something that was $400 last year should be cheap now.

Latest issue of Consumer Reports - or maybe it's no longer the latest - ranked the latest models, for whatever that's worth.

Amazon is pre-ordering for the Canon 40D at $1300. Selling the 30D at $960. Hmm. The Nikon D80 is down to about $880 -- does that mean Nikon is coming out with a replacement model?

Irregardless of which model I buy, what lens do I get? I was told Image Stabilization is a waste of money?

It only helps with slow lenses at long lengths. What type of shooting are you looking to do?

Rocky

Just amatuer stuff. Walking around taking pictures.

have you considered a point and shoot? decent ones start at about $100.

Nikon 18-200 VR.

i like this amazon review for the Outdoor Photography magazine:
"Outdoor photography is difficult from an artistic standpoint, but from a technique standpoint there's just not all that much to know. Put your camera on a tripod when you can. Worry about Lens flare. Autofocus is good for rapidly moving animals. Wait for the light. Experiment with fill flash until you find a level that you like. Ho hum."

Now my question - what would be the appropriate camera - no SLR needed?

Help!

I'm starting to shop for a digital camera and I've been reading through this thread to educate myself. My needs are not that great: A few years ago out of desperation/disgust that I was still using disposable cameras, my Uncle Phil bought me a (film) point and shoot - which is what I currently use. My skill level is one step up from knowing to not cover up the lens with my thumb (trial and error) but I'm hoping to get better. I'm mostly taking pictures of my cats (crazy cat lady), vacation, friends, family, etc. You get the idea.

A friend of mine loves the Canon SD750 Powershot ELPH 7 Megapixel Digital Camera and has recomended that and it seems like Canon is a good brand but I'm wondering about the 7 megapixels (too much, not necessary?). What else do I need to know?

A, Look at the Sony Cybershot cameras with the Carl Zeiss lens. Very highly rated. And, we have been very happy with ours.

On the megapixel question, it is hard to find/buy fewer MPs than is the current norm.

So 7 is the current norm? I guess when this thread was started in 2005, 2 or 3 was the norm.

7MP is fine for a beginner. It's not too much (or too little) if you think you might EVER print any of your photos. (As in, uploading them to Shutterfly or some other online photo print service.)

Things that are really nice to have—and the Canon has them—are variable white balance modes: the Sony has fewer options in this regard, and that would be a deal breaker for me. (Why you would need three variations of fluorescent lighting is beyond me: who wants to do photography inside office buildings, really?)

But this Canon has a MAJOR disadvantage, in my opinion, though your mileage may vary. It has no optical viewfinder. (The little hole you look into, as opposed to composing all of your shots on the 3" screen on the back of the camera.) That can be a real pain in the butt when it comes to taking photos in bright light: you might be shooting blind, unable to see the screen because of glare.

I did a little research and found a camera that I think is superior, and it's well-priced. It's the Canon PowerShot SD850 IS. It has the optical viewfinder. The "IS" refers to Canon's technology of "Image Stabilization," which helps with low light situations to reduce blur from a slower shutter speed or a jiggly camera. These are both great advantages.

Since Canons share a host of features, your friend can probably show you the ropes to get you over the hurdle of being new to digital photography.

Here is a review at CNET that explains a little more.

Here is Canon's list of special features that a lot of their cameras share, and which, honestly, are awesome.

Here is an example of "Color Accent":



One example of the special shooting modes: "foliage":



God knows I hate recommending any Canon cameras to anyone, given my hellish experience with their customer service with my lemon of a Powershot. But objectively speaking, for the reasons I've stated above, I think this is a great camera for you—or anyone. I think you will benefit from having the friend with a Canon, especially. Manuals made it so hard for me to learn the language: it's much easier to have someone just show me.

And right now, the camera's about $200 at Amazon.

I hope this helps.

Very, very helpful. Thank you!

I look forward to seeing your kitties (we've got three) in the Pets thread, and other photos of note in the Photo Gallery thread.

I'm glad I could help.

I have the Canon SD850 and I love, love, love it. It's easy to use and ever so compact. I highly recommend it.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...x3&show=all

There is some overlap between this thread and the small digital cameras thread. There is some possibly useful info on that thread too.

That's a good link, Omni.

Starting with the stars each camera earned, I'd omit the 3-star one right now. And then I'd omit the Panasonic, because her friend has a Canon and can show her around a little, as models and features are so similar from one Canon to the next.

That leaves the SD850, which I recommended, and the SD950.

The macro is better on the 850 (2cm) vs. 5cm for the 950. (This may not be a big deal to some, but some of the most fun of having a digital camera is having a good macro mode.)

The aperture (pupil) range for the 850 is good enough: F2.8 - F5.5. The 950 (I assume there is a typo: 2.0-2.8 doesn't seem likely), but that extra bit on the 950 MIGHT make it worth the extra $75. (Abby, I don't know how much of the language you speak, and am not trying to talk down, so let me just tell what I learned. I don't know or care what "F" means in "F-stop", but I think of it as the pupil of an eye. The bigger it can get, the more light can come in, so you can get better shots in low light. This is particularly useful in restaurants, and f/2.0 is pretty darned good.) When you have your pupils wide open and focused on something close, like the face of your kitty or your beloved, it makes the background blurrier, which also is something I enjoy. The larger f-stops are for landscape shots, or things far away, when you want everything in focus. 5.8 isn't the bee's knees, but it's decent.

The other advantage the 950 has is shutter and aperture priority. Why is this a good thing? Once again, back to the pupil. I almost always choose aperture priority, since the subject matter dictates how I want to see it. The larger the opening (the lower the number, go figure), the more "intimate" a shot it is. So flowers, food, and faces always get the lowest aperture setting I have. I think, if you aspire to be a good photographer, you would really prize this feature, in the short and long runs.

Another great feature for them both is that they have a battery charger.

The 950 is not considered "ultra compact," though. That would be something you'd want to go into a real store and test for yourself. It's a good idea to feel the camera you're thinking of buying.

Anyway, I'm sure MJordan can chime in here—I'm not addressing every single technical issue, since I know you really just want a camera that you can start up with and be happy with. I feel like I went from a Vespa to a Harley when I got my Nikon D200, and it has features I can't BEGIN to use without an immersion class in the language of photography.

I did a search for the SD950, and came up with a price just over $200. I used an NYC zip code to calculate shipping. Techon Digital, with over 4000 ratings, gets 5 stars, so I'd probably be willing to go with them.

Abby, see if you can get your paws on either or both of those cameras. See how they feel.

Hope this helps, too.

You need to hold them to see which seems best - they're all pretty similar (the Canons). The slight variation in zoom is really negligible although the 890 has a bit more telephoto, none of them go to 28mm and the flash on the 950 seems a bit stronger.

I am trying to make a similar decision, but have yet to go into a store to try each of them.

Zoom means nothing in real terms. It only compromises photo quality, in my experience, and has never been a factor from my second digital camera and on.

It's the oddest selling factor, because most review sites I see ignore it.

Flash, also. I never use it. Well, I avoid it 99.9% of the time. Flash photos look horrid, unless you have some kind of fill-in flash.

Flash + food =the very worst.

There's a lot of good information in that post, but as Abby professed to her lack of camera skill, it's probably making her head spin until she can better understand the terminology... so I'll forgo the technical stuff for now.

Abby:
You're hoping to get better. That will come with practice & experimenting and since there's no more developing & printing costs AND you can see your results immediately, you can't help but get better.

The two Canon's that Tana compared are very similar, but I did notice 2 things that might be of interest to you:
1) both models have Face detection, which may help with the friends & family shots;
2) the SD950 has more resolution available for video clips = bigger & clearer videos of those kittens.

An optical viewfinder is a very nice feature on an ultra compact camera, for the reasons Tana mentioned. IF the camera were larger, I'd recommend one with an electronic viewfinder (in addition to the LCD panel) - giving you the desired glare reduction, etc. while maintaining the ability to see the shooting info AND actual image taken. [Optical viewfinders introduce parallax error when taking close-up shots. "Parallax error" is simply the discrepancy between what you see through the viewfinder and the image that the camera sensor (of film) sees. At about 10 ft, any discrepancy is negligible. At 5 ft, you might notice it, but getting much closer will reveal the differing viewpoints. Okay, so much for forgoing the technical stuff. ]

7MP is fine, but the more the better. Here's why: I set my camera to shoot the highest resolution with the largest image size (super-fine, L). If I want a smaller image later for e-mailing or posting, I can always reduce it myself on the computer, but you just can't get good results by shooting small and trying to enlarge it later.

Of course, as has been said before, go into a store with a knowledgeable friend and get a feel for the cameras that you're considering.

M, Others may often disagree with you. As the number of pixels increases there is less power per pixel which can cause a lessening of the quality of the image(s).

Thanks mcj. You're right, my head is totally spinning with all this terminology.
Regarding the video clips, right now I don't think this is going to be important to me but who knows what the future will bring.

Tana - Stupid question: how do you take photos in the evening if you don't use a flash?

You open the lens (set the aperture) to its widest setting, i.e. the lowest number, 2.0, 2.8, whatever the camera has and hope for the best. Or, you can use a tripod or improvised tripod, and the shutter speed priority setting and keep the aperture open longer to let in more light. With a moving subject, you bracket the exposure, i.e., use settings on either side of what you think might work best. If the subject is still, because it's a digital camera, you can immerdiately check the picture you took and see if it needs more or less time. This all sounds far more complicated than it really is and there is a lot of information right on-line, especially for beginners. There are also many books on the subject, beginning with the literature that comes with the camera.

This is one of the reasons to try to pick a camera with some manual control. It's important to remember, too, that there is no one camera that does everything. Think of what you'd like to start photographing and make your choice accordingly. As you become more experienced, you may find that your needs change and you will move on from that point. This won't be your last camera.

The digital age has made the learning curve much, much faster than it was in the film era. You can afford to make as many mistakes as you need to without additional expense. It's one reason, I think, that the general level of photograhy has improved over the past few years.

This is a very individual thing, again, depending on what you want to photograph and how much stuff you want to carry around. You are never going to get the image quality of a dedicated telephoto lens and a single-lens reflex camera with a digital point and shoot, which is what you are asking about. But, if you think you might want to take a picture of an architectural detail, or a bird in a tree, believe me, the zoom is invaluable. It also has a postive side effect, depending on the distance, the distance you are zooming and the subject, of pleaantly blurring the background, an effect that is otherwise difficult to achieve with a point and shoot.

On older cameras, and maybe still on some new ones, there is an additional "zoom" not the "optical" zoom, that is truly worthless and should be ignored both in making your decision and in use.