Digital Cameras

[flyingcheesehead]

Pulling the camera discussion out of the hijacked hobby thread...

I've been thinking about what ticks me off about my current digital, and I'm wondering what my next one should be.

Specifically, I hate the delay that's common among many digital cameras. "Point and Shoot" has become "point, wait and shoot." I'm assuming this has something to do with charging the CCD, but would it really waste that much power to pre-charge it and allow quick shots?

Also, my current camera is terrible for night work without a flash. It always wants the flash on, and if you manually turn the flash on, the exposure time is so long that you'd best be shooting from a tripod, and be really careful not to breathe too.

Any ideas?

 

[mikea]

http://www.suntimes.com/technology/ihnatko/171890,CST-FIN-Andy14.article
www.dcresource.com

 

[Earthroamer]

For point and shoot...I have been happy with Canon Digital Elph series. Start up time is very quick. (with in a second or two I would guess) Also the fash is pretty strong but that is just my opinion.

 

[silver-eagle]

I've been pleased with the NIKON COOLPIX. The delay I notice is writing to the flashcard. I think what you might look for is a faster write speed. Mine goes as high as a 12x no matter the speed of the card itself (some of mine go up to 80x). Some cameras must get better speed because they can take multiple pix per minute.
On your current camera, check the write speed. Maybe the card you're using isn't fast enough.

 

[jesse]

Specifically, I hate the delay that's common among many digital cameras. "Point and Shoot" has become "point, wait and shoot." I'm assuming this has something to do with charging the CCD, but would it really waste that much power to pre-charge it and allow quick shots?

Typically the delay is the camera focusing. There are a number of ways around this from just learning how your camera focuses and working with it. Many cameras also feature a continuous focus mode that is constantly focusing on everything. It will drain the battery dead faster but reduces the time to take the picture. Your last choice is just going to be manual focus which is pretty difficult without a digital SLR. I noticed you had an older Nikon Coolpix. Just getting a newer camera will make a huge difference as the focus times have reduced (based on my observations). Perhaps you should consider something in the like SLR class. I used to have a Fuji S5000 which I loved to death. It was built solid and did an amazing job once you mastered it. I now have a Sony DSC-H5 which I'm also very happy with. When you step up into the like SLR class you get IMO a better camera as size is less of a concern and the feel and lens quality seems much greater. Plus a huge optical zoom is another benefit of this category of cameras.

Also, my current camera is terrible for night work without a flash. It always wants the flash on, and if you manually turn the flash on, the exposure time is so long that you'd best be shooting from a tripod, and be really careful not to breathe too.

That is pretty much the nature of taking pictures at night. Reduced light means increased shutter time so the CCD can be exposed with the proper amount of light to provide a usable picture. You are always trading between exposure time, depth of field, and noise. Getting a camera with a better lens will make a big difference. Also something with a high ISO will produce pictures at night with a lower shutter speed thus decreasing blurriness. Of course there is no stealing light from nowhere so you are going to have increased noise.

 

[woodstock]

definitely get a DSLR. I have had two elphs which are great as far as it goes but the damn lag time/focus time makes me want to throw it on the floor and stomp on it until it's just bits and pieces.

oh wait, did I say that out loud?

 

[jason]

I agree with Jesse. Just updating your camera will make a huge difference. I had a 4 MP Canon Elph that I loved when I first bought it. As time wore on I had a huge issue with two things. One was the delay, the other was the flash. You couldn't take a picture without the flash, and if you took one with the flash it would be totally blown out.

I recently bought a 6 MP Casio Exilim and I love it. I can take a picture within 1.5 seconds of hitting the power button and the recycle time is MUCH faster than anything I was used to. The best part is that it cost me less than $200.

 

[astanley]

Go SLR. Digital or film, a good SLR won't have this problem.

I get upset when the ultrasonic motor in my AF lenses take more than 1/10th of a second to grab focus, and upset when the light meter occasionally takes more than .05 second to register the light. When I hit the shutter, I mean NOW.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[SCCutler]

Go SLR. Digital or film, a good SLR won't have this problem.

I get upset when the ultrasonic motor in my AF lenses take more than 1/10th of a second to grab focus, and upset when the light meter occasionally takes more than .05 second to register the light. When I hit the shutter, I mean NOW.

Cheers,

-Andrew

The thing I have missed since I started using digital.

 

[cwyckham]

Specifically, I hate the delay that's common among many digital cameras. "Point and Shoot" has become "point, wait and shoot." I'm assuming this has something to do with charging the CCD, but would it really waste that much power to pre-charge it and allow quick shots?

I'm with you 100%. They do fine for posed shots but are hopeless for candid or action shots. My wife does dog agillity. I have deleted more digital photos of dog's tails than I can remember. The rest of the dog is long gone out of frame by the time the camera gets around to taking the photo.

I'm in the market for a new digital point and shoot (the last one's about 4 years old), and I really hope you guys are right about the newer generation being faster. Ease and compactness are too important for me to go SLR. I have a lot of amazing photos that never would have been taken if I'd had to carry an SLR around (like one handed wearing mittens while hanging from a frozen waterfall a few hundred feet off the ground).

Chris

 

[Ghery]

The thing I have missed since I started using digital.

Me too. That's why a digital SLR is on my Christmas wish list. That, and certain things like manual focus are much easier on an SLR than a point and shoot. But, I can't complain about the 10X optical zoom lens on my Olympus C-740.

 

[Joe B]

I'm with you 100%. They do fine for posed shots but are hopeless for candid or action shots. My wife does dog agillity. I have deleted more digital photos of dog's tails than I can remember. The rest of the dog is long gone out of frame by the time the camera gets around to taking the photo.

I'm in the market for a new digital point and shoot (the last one's about 4 years old), and I really hope you guys are right about the newer generation being faster. Ease and compactness are too important for me to go SLR. I have a lot of amazing photos that never would have been taken if I'd had to carry an SLR around (like one handed wearing mittens while hanging from a frozen waterfall a few hundred feet off the ground).

I have a Pentax Optio WPi. It's small, waterproof, and takes decent pictures. Like other cameras of the genre its fully automatic mode has a delay while it figures out focus. However it also has a dozen other modes which pre-set various aspects of focus and exposure and do away with the delay. "Landscape", for example, makes sure it focuses on the mountain not the fencepost in the foreground. "Sport" gives you fast response. One of the modes even has a picture of a dog on it. "Underwater" corrects focus for really wet scenes (we take it snorkeling with us). I suspect a lot of the newer point & shoots have similar modes.

Regards,
Joe

 

[jesse]

Digital SLR is not always the answer. You won't have movie capabilities. This has always been a deal breaker to me. Like-SLR class gives a nice balance between the two.

 

[Steve]

Olympus Stylus 720 SW

 

[wbarnhill]

Digital SLR is not always the answer. You won't have movie capabilities. This has always been a deal breaker to me. Like-SLR class gives a nice balance between the two.

A couple of things to note here... Like-SLR is a misnomer. If you're viewing through any electronic viewfinder, you are nowhere NEAR SLR. If you want to claim it's a high zoom point and shoot, that's fine. Secondly, the CCD in a point and shoot is small and crap compared to the CCD in a professional dSLR. Your image quality WILL suffer. Third, you will never find a dSLR that will do movies, mainly because of the mirror which is standard on all SLRs.

Point and shoots are HORRID with night shots. The small CCD just can't handle gathering enough light without introducing massive amounts of noise. That's why your camera is demanding to use flash, and you'd best hope that there's something to reflect off of. I had an S5000 like Jesse and on the highest ISO setting possible (400 or 800, can't remember at the moment) there were red and green specks ALL over my nighttime airport shots. Horrible.

And if you see a point and shoot 6MP camera and a DSLR 6MP, don't even try to compare the two as far as image quality. It'd be like seeing two 8x10s, one printed from a 35mm negative and one from a 120 negative. The amount of detail in the digital "negatives" are far different, regardless of the stated megapixel rating.

 

[gismo]

Pulling the camera discussion out of the hijacked hobby thread...

I've been thinking about what ticks me off about my current digital, and I'm wondering what my next one should be.

Specifically, I hate the delay that's common among many digital cameras. "Point and Shoot" has become "point, wait and shoot." I'm assuming this has something to do with charging the CCD, but would it really waste that much power to pre-charge it and allow quick shots?

Kent, the photosensitive pixels on a CCD "leak" charge, and that charge must be "cleared" from the CCD before an exposure or the result will be noisy and or saturated. But this can be accomplished rapidly in some CCDs by the application of a "reset" signal to the imager. For imagers without this capability, the only way to clear the photosites is to "read" a dummy image out of the array. This can be done continuously though at the expense of some wasted power.

But I don't think that's the real source of the delay you experience with your camera as it can be accomplished in 20-90 ms (the max time will be the inverse of whatever rate the camera can acquire multiple images). What does take a while is focusing the lens, something that many cameras can be made to do that in preparation for taking a shot by pressing the shutter button part way down.[/quote]

Also, my current camera is terrible for night work without a flash. It always wants the flash on, and if you manually turn the flash on, the exposure time is so long that you'd best be shooting from a tripod, and be really careful not to breathe too.

Any ideas?

The built in flash in most compact cameras simply doesn't have enough output to illuminate a scene more than 5-10 ft from the camera. In addition, solid state imagers are less sensitive to light than the fast films. On many cases you can increase the imager's sensitivity at the expense of more noise in the picture. But the best solution (if there's no fast motion in the scene) is a camera with optical image stabilization (don't go for the gimicky "digital" or electronic kind though). You might also be able to get a slave flash with substantially more output.

 

[Iceman]

You already have a p of s you can use if you want a small compact camera to take with you. My suggestion would be buy a dslr like a nikon d50/40 or canon xt or xti. These cameras are WAY better than anything you have ever used before. Great low light performance and fast operation. You can use the 18-55 lens to get you started and add a 50 1.8 II if you want a great lightweight performer. Most of the P and S cameras have sensors about the size of your fingernail. They then cut this little chip into waaay too many pixels so they are forced to turn the gain (read iso/film speed) just to get a normal image. These does not leave any room for adjustment if you want to increase your ISO (go to 200 and you gain noise, go to 4 or 800 and your pic is crap). A canon XT will have a cleaner image at ISO 1600 than a lot of p&s do at 100. (for every change of iso 100 to 200, 200 to 400, 400 to 800, 800 to 1600 you gain twice the light gathering capability). Add that to the fast lenses you can buy...lets take for instance the $70 50mm lens I talked about earlier and stop it down to 2.8. Most P&S cameras at 80mm (same focal length as the 50 on the xt) will be at 5.6 or higher. What does this mean? For every F stop you move down you will gain twice the amount of light (5.6 to 4.0, 4.0 to 2.8).

Also multiple image drive on a P & S is worthless because the auto focus/ exposure stops working on the first image and the frame rate is measured in seconds not frames per second.

A p & s is a great thing to have but to cure the problems your having it will take a DSLR.

 

[Brian Austin]

Ditto for the D-SLRs. I have a two year old Canon 20D that will still outperform any P&S on the market, along with a variety of lenses filling everything from 10mm to 400mm for any situation. You just can't do that in a P&S digital.

I just picked up a Rebel XTi for my company's marketing guy, along with a Tamron 18-200 zoom. He doesn't want to change lenses and won't need anything outside that range but required the higher quality and faster response times of the D-SLR cameras. Nice camera.

 

[cwyckham]

Well, this thread inspired me to go get a camera. I haven't had one for about a month now. I'm now the proud owner of a Canon powershot A540. So far, I'm pretty pleased with it. I wanted:

- compact size
- at least a 3x optical zoom
- AA batteries (for travel and outdoorsie stuff where I can't recharge a proprietary battery easily)
- a viewfinder instead of just the LCD
- movies

It has all that and a bunch more. For a point and shoot, it seems to have a lot of manual modes. You can even clip other lenses on it (though not standard lenses, I don't think). The claimed shutter lag is 0.7s which isn't great, but is better than my old one. It has a special mode for shooting subjects that move around on you. I'm hoping that will cut down the lag time as it claims.

Anybody have experience with this camera? Anything I should know?

 

[wbarnhill]

Ditto for the D-SLRs. I have a two year old Canon 20D that will still outperform any P&S on the market, along with a variety of lenses filling everything from 10mm to 400mm for any situation. You just can't do that in a P&S digital.

Quick note on the DSLR zoom lenses. Most sensors do not cover the same space as a 35mm negative, so they have an inherent "magnification" which in most cases is 1.5 - 1.6x the mm focal lengths of the lenses. There are full frame sensors, but the cameras they come on are typically a tad bit more expensive

 

[SkykingC310]

I'm in the market for a new cam and thought I wanted the Fuji F20, but now my dad-in-law says don't buy Fuji. He suggested the Cannon SD600. I know nothing about cams, but the reviews I've seen are good on both these cameras. Which would you choose?

 

[Speed]

Well, this thread inspired me to go get a camera. I haven't had one for about a month now. I'm now the proud owner of a Canon powershot A540. So far, I'm pretty pleased with it.

Anybody have experience with this camera? Anything I should know?

I recently got the powershot A630... Much better than the older Coolpix I had. Takes pictures so much quicker! The only complaint I have is it eats batteries. Though it seems to just be rechargables by enegizer. RadioShack brand does fine, though Lithiums will let me get the advertised 500 shots or more. The energizer batteries will hardly do 50 shots.

anybody else have a favorite brand of battery?

 

[Ghery]

I recently got the powershot A630... Much better than the older Coolpix I had. Takes pictures so much quicker! The only complaint I have is it eats batteries. Though it seems to just be rechargables by enegizer. RadioShack brand does fine, though Lithiums will let me get the advertised 500 shots or more. The energizer batteries will hardly do 50 shots.

anybody else have a favorite brand of battery?

My Olympus C-740 will eat alkaline batteries for lunch. The Lithium batteries do much better. I use rechargables on a regular basis with non-rechargables available for backup. My new Sony A100 DSLR has two rechargeable LiIon batteries, so I shouldn't have any issues any given day.

 

[jshawley]

What about that new Nikon dSLR that just came out, less than $600?

What are you guys' thoughts about it? I have a four y/o Fuji FinePix 3800, which I like, but I do acknowledge its limitations. My elder son is advocating me buying that new Nikon. Wish it had split lens focusing, like my old Minolta X370, though.

Happy New Year!

Jim

 

[TMetzinger]

My Mom got the Canon EOS30D for Christmas, and I played with it for several days. It's really hard to go back to my Olympus C-750, even though it's a "nice" point and shoot.

The 30D cost around $1200 with a single lens, but Mom can use her EF lenses from her Canon film camera as well. It takes beautiful shots, and takes them RIGHT NOW, even in low light. I think that (or whatever the current model is) will be my next camera.

If you've got two grand, it's hard to beat the Canon EOS5D, which has a full frame sensor and works with all EF lenses. One potential drawback to full frame sensors is that you have to have good lenses - the APS sized sensors only capture the image through the center "best" portion of your current lenses, so you might be surprised at distortions when you take an old lens and move it to a full frame sensor body.

 

[Lawreston]

My new Sony A100 DSLR has two rechargeable LiIon batteries, so I shouldn't have any issues any given day.

I'm with you. Having been in the camera retail business for 27 years(still doing it from home --on-the-side) I've been waiting for the right choice to come along.
With my Minolta Maxxum 9-xi and a large collection of Maxxum lenses there became the logical choice: Sony A100. All my lenses are fully-compatible, each one becomes a stabilized lens. I bought the body with 18-200 lens because with its 35mm equivalent of 27mm to 300mm, and only 4+" long, it should be ideal for aerial shooting. I'm barely into the owner's manual, but I like what I've imaged/viewed thus far.

HR

 

[gismo]

My Mom got the Canon EOS30D for Christmas, and I played with it for several days. It's really hard to go back to my Olympus C-750, even though it's a "nice" point and shoot.

The 30D cost around $1200 with a single lens, but Mom can use her EF lenses from her Canon film camera as well. It takes beautiful shots, and takes them RIGHT NOW, even in low light. I think that (or whatever the current model is) will be my next camera.

If you've got two grand, it's hard to beat the Canon EOS5D, which has a full frame sensor and works with all EF lenses. One potential drawback to full frame sensors is that you have to have good lenses - the APS sized sensors only capture the image through the center "best" portion of your current lenses, so you might be surprised at distortions when you take an old lens and move it to a full frame sensor body.

Tim, that doesn't sound right. The F-Stop determines which portion of your lens is used for imaging regardless of the size of the imager. And FWIW, a "full frame" imager doesn't imply anything about the active area size of the imager, it simply means that almost all of the imager die is used for image capture. The (CCD) alternatives are frame transfer and interline transfer, the former having half the die occupied with a "storage array" that the exposed image can be shifted into and the latter having storage cells located in rows located between the photosensitive cells.

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim, that doesn't sound right. The F-Stop determines which portion of your lens is used for imaging regardless of the size of the imager. And FWIW, a "full frame" imager doesn't imply anything about the active area size of the imager, it simply means that almost all of the imager die is used for image capture. The (CCD) alternatives are frame transfer and interline transfer, the former having half the die occupied with a "storage array" that the exposed image can be shifted into and the latter having storage cells located in rows located between the photosensitive cells.

Lance, I'm quoting Digital Photography Review, talking about the difference between the EOS 5D and 20D.

The 5D has a sensor the size of a 35mm frame, and the 30D is APS sized.
Link at... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/

If one uses the EF-S lenses (designed for the APS sensor), then what I said doesn't matter. However, when using EF (full sized) lenses, there is a difference between what's captured on the 5D and 20D...

Here's the relevant text:
By 'full frame' we mean that the EOS 5D's sensor is the same size as a 35 mm negative, this means that lenses used on the camera will produce the exact same field of view as they would on a 35 mm film camera (as they were designed). This is especially advantageous when shooting wide angle as we will get a much wider field of view than we would on a digital SLR which 'crops' (such a the EOS 20D). The diagram below demonstrates the difference in field of view between the EOS 5D and the EOS 20D using the same lens with a focal length of 17 mm. The EOS 20D would only be able to capture a portion of the center of the field of view produced by the lens, the EOS 5D captures the entire view.
On the downside a full frame sensor puts a higher requirement on the quality of the lens (as you are now also capture the 'less good' edge and corner of the view), with certain lenses this may lead to softness, chromatic aberrations and light fall-off near the edges of the image. Lastly many current digital photographers who don't shoot wide angle may appreciate the effective 'multiplication factor' produced with telephoto lenses (although obviously you can always crop an EOS 5D image in post processing).

 

[Iceman]

Tim, that doesn't sound right. The F-Stop determines which portion of your lens is used for imaging regardless of the size of the imager. And FWIW, a "full frame" imager doesn't imply anything about the active area size of the imager, it simply means that almost all of the imager die is used for image capture. The (CCD) alternatives are frame transfer and interline transfer, the former having half the die occupied with a "storage array" that the exposed image can be shifted into and the latter having storage cells located in rows located between the photosensitive cells.

Lance Tim was correct on both of the statements. The full frame sensor means that it is the same size as normal 35mm film. It is a lot larger than the smaller 1.6 crop sensors that are used in cheaper cameras. When using a normal (film) lens on a 1.6 crop sensor the captured image with only use the information / image from the middle of the lens, it crops the rest of the information out. Think of it like a shotgun dispersion pattern. The target will get hit with the middle of the spray but the rest will be lost into thin air.

This link will show the different sensor sizes...p&s sensors are like 8x smaller then the smallest sensor shown.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/Images/canonsensors.jpg

 

[gismo]

Lance, I'm quoting Digital Photography Review, talking about the difference between the EOS 5D and 20D.

The 5D has a sensor the size of a 35mm frame, and the 30D is APS sized.
Link at... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/

If one uses the EF-S lenses (designed for the APS sensor), then what I said doesn't matter. However, when using EF (full sized) lenses, there is a difference between what's captured on the 5D and 20D...

OK. I was referring to the different sensor architectures (something I work with all the time) and apparently the photography industry has chosen to use the same term ("full frame") for a different purpose. I certainly agree that with a larger imager area you will get a wider FOV through the same lens, and if it's the typical compound camera lens a greater portion of some of the lens components will be processing the image.

For some relatively useless info on CCD imagers (and there are CMOS imagers as well with different architectures):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

 

[Ghery]

I'm with you. Having been in the camera retail business for 27 years(still doing it from home --on-the-side) I've been waiting for the right choice to come along.
With my Minolta Maxxum 9-xi and a large collection of Maxxum lenses there became the logical choice: Sony A100. All my lenses are fully-compatible, each one becomes a stabilized lens. I bought the body with 18-200 lens because with its 35mm equivalent of 27mm to 300mm, and only 4+" long, it should be ideal for aerial shooting. I'm barely into the owner's manual, but I like what I've imaged/viewed thus far.

HR

My old 35mm SLR is a Minolta SRT-102. Unfortunately I can't use its lenses. The one thing I miss from it is the split image focus (and the multiprism focus around that). Otherwise I'm quite happy with the A100. The body came with the 18-70 mm zoom and my wife added the 75-300 mm telephoto. 4 GByte memory stick and a spare battery.

I'll take it and my Olympus C-740 with me when I head for Paris on Friday. The C-740 will be fine in meetings and places I want to be a bit less conspicuous, but I'll dodge the rain showers with the A100 for the most part.

 

[Lawreston]

The C-740 will be fine in meetings and places I want to be a bit less conspicuous, but I'll dodge the rain showers with the A100 for the most part.

Following Maine's first snow(of any consequence) of the winter, in late December, yesterday we had freezing rain -changing to rain. So, I went to my next door, airline pilot-neighbor's house, the A100/18-200 protected under my jacket. He thought I had the new kitten under the jacket, as happened recently. "Nope, kitten's in here; I'm no longer the last 35mm user to -- notice I'm not saying switch, but transition, to digital."

HR

 

[Anthony]

After using Bob Bruneau's Canon D-SLR from his helicopter, I am sold on them. That's my next camera purchase, but I'll get a Nikon so I can use my other Nikon lenses.

 

[Brian Austin]

I'm a big Canon fan but have plenty of respect for the Nikon line. For me, it was what I knew prior in film cameras that made me continue using them into the digital side.

The dog opening her Christmas present this year...

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I got a Nikon D50 about 6 months ago, with two (28-80 and 70-300) zoom lenses. I've been very happy with the camera, and my wife likes it a lot as well, and she isn't a gadget nut like I am. I think it is a very easy camera to use. I can go several weeks without using it and pick it up and intuitively remember most of the more complex operations. My too big complaints on my old P&S Nikon Coolpix 3200 were how slow it was and that it produced junk in low light. The D50 isn't remotely in the same league. Lightning fast shots, very fast focussing, and great low-light performance with either manual or auto ISO selection. I was surprised how little graininess there was in the high ISO ranges. If you want video, get a separate video camera. The video quality on P&S cameras is only good enough for the internet anyway. Another plus with the D50 is the battery lasts a long time. I don't know the specs, but it seems like many hundreds of shots if you're not using the flash, and maybe even still hundreds with the flash.

Jeff