Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Digital camera recommendations
Mouthfuls > General > Good buys
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
tanabutler
QUOTE(Lippy @ Aug 22 2008, 11:35 AM) *
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.


Lippy, you are right. It's been so long since I've paid attention to zoom that I was only considering "digital" zoom. (I think.)

Anyway, Abby, you really are going to be happy you're moving ahead in this direction. I just know it.

I get all excited when someone gets a new tool that will amaze them. That's what's coming to you. I am so glad for you.
mcj
QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 22 2008, 09:50 AM) *
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 22 2008, 03:00 AM) *
7MP is fine, but the more the better.


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).

"less power per pixel" is a new one on me. I see the idea of photon-density-per-pixel, but that really is more relevant to film design than to currently available digital sensors. An individual pixel, by itself, doesn't have the "power" to determine overall image quality just because there are fewer of them, quite the contrary.*

*We're talking about pixels alone - Not the sensor diameter, the sensor pixel density, the camera's computer algorithms used to adjust the pixels as-per the user settings (colour shift, white balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc.), the lens diameter, lens coatings, etc.

RAW image files available in DSLR's, allow the user to perform the adjustments to their liking instead of relying upon the in-camera software. Point-and-shoots don't offer this capability. Therefore, in order to judge a cameras picture quality, we often turn to sites such as dpreview to see samples of images taken with various cameras and decide for ourselves which one(s) we prefer.

I would have to disagree that (all else being equal) a photo taken with a camera having a top resolution of 640 x 480 pixels (0.3 MegaPixels) would have a better image quality than an identical setup where the top resolution is 2816 x 2112 (6.0 MegaPixels), simply because there is more "power per pixel" with the lower resolution image. While sensor density has improved in recent years, it's not very different at all. The major jump has simply been to make a wider sensor. Light falling upon film is recorded in the chemical reactions within the film. Processing can adjust it to some degree, but can't amplify the light getting to the film. A digital sensor is either connected to an amplifier circuit or has amplifying capability built-in to the chip. This makes the "power per pixel" point moot... and doesn't even get into the various ways that pixels are altered by a computer monitor's colour-profile calibration or how they're re-interpreted by an ink-jet printer, a photo-printer or their driver software.

As a final test of the theory, simply print one image of each of the two above resolutions that I used as examples. Print each image on a 4 x 6 paper. One of two things will happen. Either 1) the lower resolution image is expanded optically to cover a larger area and therefore suffers from the lower light density attributed to a lower "power per pixel" or 2) the lower image will be enlarged digitally with a result of squared-off large pixels (older technology) or a greatly increased fuzziness of the image resulting from the printing algorithm trying to fill a (relatively) large area using interpolated pixels (they're much better than they used to be, but they can't perform miracles).


Having 7MP or greater not only allows one to reduce an image size and resolution on a computer for e-mailing (for example), but the higher resolution also allows one the freedom to crop an image to a more desirable framing, improving the overall composition of the final photo, which may then be printed with a high enough resolution to achieve excellent results. Higher resolution images can be printed on bigger enlargements than a lower resolution image.
mcj
QUOTE(tanabutler @ Aug 22 2008, 11:29 PM) *
QUOTE(Lippy @ Aug 22 2008, 11:35 AM) *
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.


Lippy, you are right. It's been so long since I've paid attention to zoom that I was only considering "digital" zoom. (I think.)

Anyway, Abby, you really are going to be happy you're moving ahead in this direction. I just know it.

I get all excited when someone gets a new tool that will amaze them. That's what's coming to you. I am so glad for you.

Digital zoom is crap. If you have the resolution, you'll want to use it and not let the camera crop it for you with a digital zoom. Optical zoom maintains the image quality & makes the most of your desired resolution.
tanabutler
QUOTE(Abbylovi @ Aug 22 2008, 07:37 AM) *
Tana - Stupid question: how do you take photos in the evening if you don't use a flash?


To add to what Lippy said: I use the lowest aperture and bump up the ISO (but I rarely go above ISO 400, since it results in speckles called "noise" on photos). And often, I'd improvise some kind of a tripod—if I'm in a restaurant, use a wine glass or something. But now I have my own little tabletop tripod, which is about 6" tall, and which is very handy.

Which reminds me, Abby: you might consider getting a kit on eBay. That's where I bought my Nikon D200. I went with a vendor with 100% customer satisfaction, not just Some Guy. Kits includes things you really want to consider, like extra memory, carrying cases, and insurance.

Just AVOID anything refurbished.

omnivorette
Sometimes you need a flash. And then you use the flash. I use the flash when I.....need to use a flash.

Lippy
QUOTE(tanabutler @ Aug 23 2008, 11:01 AM) *
[To add to what Lippy said: I use the lowest aperture and bump up the ISO (but I rarely go above ISO 400, since it results in speckles called "noise" on photos).


[smacks head with heel of hand] Of course! Sometimes, that's enough to do the trick, although the higher the ISO, the lower the image quality, as it was with film. Sometimes you can make a virtue of that flaw for effect, to produce a film noir-ish photo.

Abbylovi, these are all reasons to get a camera that allows for some manual control. You can actually learn about the technical aspects of photography and use that knowlege to improve your photographs. You can always start slowly, by using the Auto or Program settings, and experiment when you are ready, but you won't outgrow your camera nearly as fast as you would if it didn't have the manual controls.
rancho_gordo
QUOTE(omnivorette @ Aug 23 2008, 08:23 AM) *
Sometimes you need a flash. And then you use the flash. I use the flash when I.....need to use a flash.


Hello? There's a war going on! Maybe after the war, sure, but certainly not now. No flash! Loose flashes sink ships, as we all only too well!
Peter Creasey
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) *
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."

"The sensor size is far more important [than the pixel count]. After all, it's undisputed that a 6-megapixel Nikon D40 digital S.L.R. takes better pictures than a 10-megapixel shirt-pocket camera, because its sensor is relatively gigantic. Its individual pixel sensors can be larger and soak in more light, even if there are fewer of them."


Lippy
The thing to remember is that a high pixel count does not guarantee image quality. It is only one factor. If you are interested in blowing up pictures to poster size, then you will need a higher pixel count than if you are only going to post them on-line or print 4 x 6 or 8 x 10. In that case, 7 pixels is perfectly adequate. My camera, the Canon A610, has only 5 pixels and is generally considered by the "pixel-peepers" to have better images than its big sister, the A620, with 7 pixels, although any alleged difference is invisible at normal viewing sizes.
mcj
QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 23 2008, 12:04 PM) *
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) *
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."

"The sensor size is far more important [than the pixel count]. After all, it's undisputed that a 6-megapixel Nikon D40 digital S.L.R. takes better pictures than a 10-megapixel shirt-pocket camera, because its sensor is relatively gigantic. Its individual pixel sensors can be larger and soak in more light, even if there are fewer of them."


I did say "all things being equal". Comparing a "shirt-pocket camera" to the Nikon D40 is somewhat akin to comparing a Chrysler Neon to a Porsche... and why automobile reviews compare vehicles within the same class.

DSLR's don't just get their quality advantages from more light per pixel via a larger sensor, but primarily from a larger diameter lens (and much better optics to begin with). Mathematically, doubling the diameter of a lens increases the area of light falling upon the sensor (at the same distance from the lens) by 4 times. (Think of a lens as a pipe. A narrow pipe limits how much light gets through it much more than a larger diameter pipe. Doubling the diameter of the pipe allows 4 times the amount of light to pass through it.) That exact same principle is applies to all branches of optics. In astronomy, the telescopes are referred to as "light buckets": the bigger the bucket, the more light it can capture and the better an image it can record. Since a change of a single f-stop results in doubling/having the light falling onto film or a sensor, 4 times more light is the equivalent of increasing exposure by 2 f-stops. If that lens is positioned slightly farther away than the smaller one, it could be made to focus upon a smaller diameter sensor, similarly increasing the light that the sensor receives by a factor of 4.

Manufacturers are going to have cut a lot more out of shirt-pocket cameras than just the lens diameter. Number of lens elements, quality & types of lens coatings, weaker, slower processors, etc. all affect the image quality and are sacrificed to cut costs because these small cameras are destined for the average consumer with lower budgets and image standards than those of professionals with high-paying clients.

Would anyone expect a $50 all-in-one camera to perform as well as a $2,000 camera & lens system?

Lippy:
QUOTE
although any alleged difference is invisible at normal viewing sizes.

QUOTE
a high pixel count does not guarantee image quality. It is only one factor.
Bingo, on both counts. (We know that you really meant megapixels instead of just "pixels". wink.gif )
Likewise, a low pixel count does not guarantee image quality either. It's the entire camera working together as an integrated system.
The advantages of more pixels is primarily for producing larger printable images and ease of editing. Since printers normally only print in the 300-400 dpi range, an image of 2.0 - 3.5 MP (1200 x 1600 pixels to 1600 x 2400 pixels) is all that's needed for the typical 4 x 6 print, but will show degradation (fuzziness, loss of contrast, etc.) when printed as an 8 x 10 (or an 8 x 12, coincidentally, 4 times the area of a 4 x 6).
hollywood
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Aug 23 2008, 09:01 AM) *
Hello? There's a war going on! Maybe after the war, sure, but certainly not now. No flash! Loose flashes sink ships, as we all only too well!

Guess we have to cut out eating beans as well. Don't want to bring on any heat seeking missles.
rancho_gordo
QUOTE(hollywood @ Aug 24 2008, 06:52 AM) *
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Aug 23 2008, 09:01 AM) *
Hello? There's a war going on! Maybe after the war, sure, but certainly not now. No flash! Loose flashes sink ships, as we all only too well!

Guess we have to cut out eating beans as well. Don't want to bring on any heat seeking missles.

I hope you don't mind but I've reported your post to the admins. I consider this both a personal attack and a discussion of my religion. Expect to be banned for life, much like the sad tranny biker bar in Pomona you used to visit.
tanabutler
So, Abbylovi, has your camera arrived yet? What'd ya get, huh, huh, huh?

smile.gif
Abbylovi
Busy week last week so I wasn't able to get one yet but I plan to go by J&R this week or next to play with cameras. I will report back as soon as I do, I promise!
g.johnson
QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 23 2008, 12:04 PM) *
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) *
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."


Given the same optical arrangements, the same amount of light will fall on a given square mm, say, of the sensor regardless whether there are 1000 or 10,000 pixels in that square mm. So assuming that the sensor doesn't have some sort of threshhold below which no light is registered*, it should always be possible to simulate the response of the lower density detector by adding adjacent pixels together.

*I would guess that in practice that's a fairly safe assumption.
mcj
QUOTE(g.johnson @ Sep 2 2008, 05:30 PM) *
QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 23 2008, 12:04 PM) *
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) *
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."


Given the same optical arrangements, the same amount of light will fall on a given square mm, say, of the sensor regardless whether there are 1000 or 10,000 pixels in that square mm. So assuming that the sensor doesn't have some sort of threshhold below which no light is registered*, it should always be possible to simulate the response of the lower density detector by adding adjacent pixels together.

*I would guess that in practice that's a fairly safe assumption.

I almost misread your post. Yes, that could be one method used to create lower resolution images and a form of what you've written has already been in common use since the first digital image sensors' inception, as you'll see below. I can see that it would be similar, in principle, to a reflecting solar array in which the array size is fixed, but a greater number of smaller mirrors are used in place of a smaller number of larger mirrors to accomplish the same task of gathering light.

So far, we have only discussed the theoretical light gathering capabilities based upon pixel size* and thus have had to confine the theory to black and white photography. However, since it is the digital realm and the vast majority of photographs are taken in colour, that is what camera image sensors are designed to capture – especially since the quotes were mainly regarding common consumer-grade digital cameras and we are, after all, trying to judge overall image quality.

*As you'll see in the articles linked below, pixel size is relative, since what we have been commonly referring to as pixels are actually photo-sites within the sensors. Within each photo-site are a number of sensor pixels, however, after image processing, they are combined ("demosaiced" [de-mosaic-ed]) into a single image pixel.


To gain a better understanding (or to get even more confused) regarding some of the various technical issues involved with camera sensors, here are some links to broaden horizons:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4276/foveo...o-the-test.html
QUOTE
Traditional CCD and CMOS sensors use a single layer of pixels that are set in a grid, relying on a pattern of microscopic red, green, and blue filters to separate the components of light on each pixel. Interpolation and postprocessing merge the data into the color image we see on screen.

The most widely used sensor grid is the Kodak-developed Bayer pattern, with two green pixels for each red and each blue pixel. This aims to take advantage of the human eye's higher sensitivity to detail in green objects. For improved black-and-white detail, to which the eye is even more sensitive, luminance information from all pixels is combined.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
QUOTE
The Foveon X3 sensor is a CMOS[1] image sensor for digital cameras, designed by Foveon, Inc. and manufactured by National Semiconductor[2] and Dongbu Electronics.[3] It uses an array of photosites, each of which consists of three vertically stacked photodiodes, that are organized in a two-dimensional grid. Each of the three stacked photodiodes responds to different wavelengths of light, i.e., each has a different spectral sensitivity curve. This is due to that fact that different wavelengths of light penetrate silicon to different depths.[4] The signals from the three photodiodes are then processed, resulting in data that provides the three additive primary colors, red, green, and blue.


The Bayer filter
QUOTE
A Bayer filter mosaic is a color filter array (CFA) for arranging RGB color filters on a square grid of photosensors. Its particular arrangement of color filters is used in most single-chip digital image sensors used in digital cameras, camcorders, and scanners to create a color image. The filter pattern is 50% green, 25% red and 25% blue, hence is also called GRGB[1] or other permutation such as RGGB.[2]


Demosaicing
QUOTE
A demosaicing algorithm is a digital image process used to interpolate a complete image from the partial raw data received from the color-filtered image sensor (via a color filter array or CFA) internal to many digital cameras in form of a matrix of colored pixels. Also known as CFA interpolation or color reconstruction, another common spelling is demosaicking.

ghostrider
I just returned from 12 days in Maine, during which I learned to use my new digital camera. I'd bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ 18 back in March. It sat in its box till we got up to Maine. This was my first foray into digital photography.

Killer lens from Leica. Amazing zoom from 28mm - 535mm (35 mm equivalent). Scads of capabilities.

Took a while to figure out all the bells & whistles. The manual, I'd give an 8 / 10. Some annoying absences from the Index.

Many user-friendly design features, as I expected from Panasonic, & they delivered.

I absolutely love the digital TTL viewfinder. No parallax issues, works great in the bright Maine seaside light.

Not a box camera; if you're looking for something to slip into a pocket, this ain't it. If you're like me & want something that feels like a traditional 35mm camera, though a bit smaller & lighter, this one's a keeper.
omnivorette
How's the flash?
ghostrider
QUOTE(omnivorette @ Sep 3 2008, 12:46 PM) *
How's the flash?

I tried it 3 or 4 times to be sure that it was functional but didn't experiment with it beyond that. No time, figuring out all the available-light permutations was daunting enough. It has a point-shoot mode but I like to know more about what the camera is seeing.

One of the handiest things I found is the auto-bracket mode, where it'll take 3 shots with varying EVs. That came in very useful with some high-contrast scenes where the auto-metering didn't get it quite right, at least to my eye.


memesuze
For those of you with the Canon Powershot: load a little bit of software onto an SD card, put it in the
camera, and voila! you've got a RAW-shooting, motion-detection, time-lapse-shooting powerhouse
OTB
QUOTE(memesuze @ Sep 10 2008, 08:40 AM) *
For those of you with the Canon Powershot: load a little bit of software onto an SD card, put it in the
camera, and voila! you've got a RAW-shooting, motion-detection, time-lapse-shooting powerhouse


The downside is it eats up all your battery power.

I have it loaded on all the cards I use on my G7, but only turn the RAW mode on for special occasions. If you boot from the card and run it by default all the time the camera gets very hot and you burn through the charge in like 5 times the speed.
Lippy
Jason, I use a card reader to download my photos to the computer, meaning that I take the SD card out of the camera. Can you do that with this program or do you have to download directly from the camera if you want to keep the card formatted?
rancho_gordo
I'm ready to upgrade to a SLR from my beloved Canon A30 or whatever it is.
I was looking seriously at the Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

I don't need a telephoto lens as much as a MACRO lens and I have a friend who said she'd give me hers.

How much more research should I do? I feel lazy and just want a fabulous camera.
Lippy
I'm looking at this one.
Blondie
I still love my Nikon D80, although it's being phased out now for the D90, which also shoots HD video. Unless I go for one of the high-end Nikons, I don't see needing to upgrade for the foreseeable future. No problems with it at all.
peppyre
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 2 2009, 12:51 PM) *
I'm ready to upgrade to a SLR from my beloved Canon A30 or whatever it is.
I was looking seriously at the Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

I don't need a telephoto lens as much as a MACRO lens and I have a friend who said she'd give me hers.

How much more research should I do? I feel lazy and just want a fabulous camera.


Rancho, I have the Rebel XT and love it. I absolutely love it!! If you have enjoyed your Canon SLR, you will also enjoy the DSLR. I say go for it and you won't look back.


rancho_gordo
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 2 2009, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 2 2009, 12:51 PM) *
I'm ready to upgrade to a SLR from my beloved Canon A30 or whatever it is.
I was looking seriously at the Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

I don't need a telephoto lens as much as a MACRO lens and I have a friend who said she'd give me hers.

How much more research should I do? I feel lazy and just want a fabulous camera.


Rancho, I have the Rebel XT and love it. I absolutely love it!! If you have enjoyed your Canon SLR, you will also enjoy the DSLR. I say go for it and you won't look back.


Actually, it's the XT I'm going for, not the XTi. I saw a comparison chart and it seemed like the extras were not important at all, to me.
cristina
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 2 2009, 04:30 PM) *
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 2 2009, 12:51 PM) *
I'm ready to upgrade to a SLR from my beloved Canon A30 or whatever it is.
I was looking seriously at the Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

I don't need a telephoto lens as much as a MACRO lens and I have a friend who said she'd give me hers.

How much more research should I do? I feel lazy and just want a fabulous camera.


Rancho, I have the Rebel XT and love it. I absolutely love it!! If you have enjoyed your Canon SLR, you will also enjoy the DSLR. I say go for it and you won't look back.

You might want to have a look at this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page17.asp.

I've had the Sony A100 for about two years and love it completely. I recently bought an old but mighty Minolta f4 70-210 "beercan" lens for it on eBay and am ever more pleased. A couple of weeks ago I took this baby squirrel from a distance of about 35 feet, from my (you don't want to know how dirty) office window to the back wall of the property.

rancho_gordo
QUOTE(Lippy @ Feb 2 2009, 01:42 PM) *
I'm looking at this one.


I think this link compares all three.
Now I'm dizzy and can't tell you why I chose the one I did, but it seemed wise.
rancho_gordo
The camera arrived and it feels great but it seems like the LCD panel is a special treat and you "live" in the conventional viewfinder. This will take some getting used to unless I'm not understanding.
peppyre
It will take some time to get used to using the viewfinder and no there isn't a work around. It's just like using your old SLR only better.
Enjoy it!!
rancho_gordo
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 3 2009, 04:00 PM) *
It will take some time to get used to using the viewfinder and no there isn't a work around. It's just like using your old SLR only better.
Enjoy it!!


New question, how do I disable the flash in Macro setting?
Blondie
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 3 2009, 08:06 PM) *
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 3 2009, 04:00 PM) *
It will take some time to get used to using the viewfinder and no there isn't a work around. It's just like using your old SLR only better.
Enjoy it!!


New question, how do I disable the flash in Macro setting?

Don't know if this will help, but on my Nikon you need to pop the flash up when you need it. It doesn't fire when closed.

I just wanted to echo what peppyre said - I'm so happy for you. I adjusted pretty quickly and now prefer the viewfinder to an lcd. My camera goes with me everywhere, and I even know how to use most of the doodads now.
cristina
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 3 2009, 08:02 PM) *
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 3 2009, 08:06 PM) *
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 3 2009, 04:00 PM) *
It will take some time to get used to using the viewfinder and no there isn't a work around. It's just like using your old SLR only better.
Enjoy it!!


New question, how do I disable the flash in Macro setting?

Don't know if this will help, but on my Nikon you need to pop the flash up when you need it. It doesn't fire when closed.

I just wanted to echo what peppyre said - I'm so happy for you. I adjusted pretty quickly and now prefer the viewfinder to an lcd. My camera goes with me everywhere, and I even know how to use most of the doodads now.

Yeah, here too...on the Sony, I have to pop the flash when I use it. And I love knowing that what I see through the viewfinder is what I'll get when I look at the picture on the LCD--after, not before it's taken.
rancho_gordo
OK, i'm loving the camera and not missing the LCD viewer so much.

I borrowed a macro lens that works for about 4 shots and then gets an error. But I really loved the results and it's perfect for what I want to do.

Any suggestions on buying a lens? They seem to go from $200 on up.

cristina
When I was looking first at cameras and then at additional lenses, I often read related forums to gather information. You might check here: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SGMe and at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30845591.

It's always interesting to read what other people have to say about what's good and what's not. That's how I chose the Minolta f4 70/210 beercan; it got stupendous reviews from everybody, everywhere. It works very well as a macro lens, by the way. I've used another specifically macro lens that was a POS, if you know what I mean and I think you do.
Blondie
This site has some good info: Digital Photography School
g.johnson
This is probably a stupid question, but do pre-digital Canon lenses (of which I have a couple) work with current Canon digital SLRs?
rancho_gordo
Thanks blondie and Cristina. I'm going to to those sites right now.
gjohnson, I suspect the lens I have is a non-digital one and that's why I'm getting the error.
Blondie
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 4 2009, 06:49 PM) *
Thanks blondie and Cristina. I'm going to to those sites right now.
gjohnson, I suspect the lens I have is a non-digital one and that's why I'm getting the error.

I know I've seen that some older Canon lenses will work with DSLRs.

Rancho, is your older lens an auto-focus? Try using manual focus and see if it works like that.
peppyre
QUOTE(g.johnson @ Feb 4 2009, 03:42 PM) *
This is probably a stupid question, but do pre-digital Canon lenses (of which I have a couple) work with current Canon digital SLRs?

Some do. A friend of mine has a huge collection of lenses that he had for his SLR that he uses on his DSLR.

eta: Definitely switch to manual focus. I actually use my manual focus more often as I can choose my focal point rather than letter the camera automatically choose what it likes.
rancho_gordo
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 4 2009, 03:54 PM) *
eta: Definitely switch to manual focus. I actually use my manual focus more often as I can choose my focal point rather than letter the camera automatically choose what it likes.


I will but the fabulous thing about this camera is it has nine auto focus points and if you don't like the obvious one, you can select another. (Can you tell I've been reading the manual?)
And if you work in "P" mode, as opposed to full automatic, the flash is off by default (you can turn it on with a button) and you can adjust the ISO settings.
cristina
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 4 2009, 05:34 PM) *
This site has some good info: Digital Photography School

Blondie, thanks for posting this link. It's wonderful--I just subscribed to the newsletter.
Blondie
Beautiful shot, Steve!

I actually use autofocus most of the time, but do try using manual focus with the old lens to see if that solves your problem.

As far as the shooting mode goes, I mostly shoot in Manual, but I know that's not for everybody. I like the control I get, with the downside that I occasionally miss a shot because I wasn't paying close enough attention to the exposure display.

Canon has a 50mm/1.8 lens that you might want to investigate. I have a similar Nikon one which was less than $100. It's a great portrait lens and far more versatile than I thought, considering you give up the ability to zoom.
Blondie
QUOTE(cristina @ Feb 4 2009, 09:07 PM) *
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 4 2009, 05:34 PM) *
This site has some good info: Digital Photography School

Blondie, thanks for posting this link. It's wonderful--I just subscribed to the newsletter.

You're welcome! Be warned though, it can be an enormous time sink if you have a tendency toward camera/photgraphy geekdom.
cristina
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 4 2009, 08:49 PM) *
QUOTE(cristina @ Feb 4 2009, 09:07 PM) *
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 4 2009, 05:34 PM) *
This site has some good info: Digital Photography School

Blondie, thanks for posting this link. It's wonderful--I just subscribed to the newsletter.

You're welcome! Be warned though, it can be an enormous time sink if you have a tendency toward camera/photgraphy geekdom.

When DPS sent the email confirming that I had subscribed, just the email contained so much information that I had to jump up from my chair and go do something else, rather than start reading. I told Judy, "That website is going to be dangerous! You may never see me again." We laughed, but I can see that it is so.
ghostrider
QUOTE(cristina @ Feb 4 2009, 12:39 AM) *
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 3 2009, 08:02 PM) *
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Feb 3 2009, 08:06 PM) *
QUOTE(peppyre @ Feb 3 2009, 04:00 PM) *
It will take some time to get used to using the viewfinder and no there isn't a work around. It's just like using your old SLR only better.
Enjoy it!!


New question, how do I disable the flash in Macro setting?

Don't know if this will help, but on my Nikon you need to pop the flash up when you need it. It doesn't fire when closed.

I just wanted to echo what peppyre said - I'm so happy for you. I adjusted pretty quickly and now prefer the viewfinder to an lcd. My camera goes with me everywhere, and I even know how to use most of the doodads now.

Yeah, here too...on the Sony, I have to pop the flash when I use it. And I love knowing that what I see through the viewfinder is what I'll get when I look at the picture on the LCD--after, not before it's taken.

Another stark reminder of how long I've been on this planet. Adjusting to a vewfinder? I bought my Panasonic DM-FZ 18 precisely because I learned photography in the pre-digital age & can't quite get used to the LCD-as-viewfinder thing. (Though the LCD is nice for reviewing what you've done! Not to mention all those menu choices.)
Eddie L
In the point-and-shoot category, this new camera adds some interesting twists. The extended dynamic range mode could be handy, and I like the ability to trade off megapixels for higher sensitivity and lower noise.

Fuji FinePix F200EXR
mongo_jones
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 4 2009, 08:40 PM) *
As far as the shooting mode goes, I mostly shoot in Manual, but I know that's not for everybody. I like the control I get, with the downside that I occasionally miss a shot because I wasn't paying close enough attention to the exposure display.


i'm confused: aren't you supposed to get a dslr when you want far greater manual control of your shots?
Blondie
QUOTE(mongo_jones @ Feb 5 2009, 12:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Blondie @ Feb 4 2009, 08:40 PM) *
As far as the shooting mode goes, I mostly shoot in Manual, but I know that's not for everybody. I like the control I get, with the downside that I occasionally miss a shot because I wasn't paying close enough attention to the exposure display.


i'm confused: aren't you supposed to get a dslr when you want far greater manual control of your shots?

That's why I got it, but you'd be surprised at how many people never shoot in anything but Auto or Program.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.