Another Digital Camera Thread - Point and Shoot

[mubs]

After almost a day of looking, I think we will pass on the F10 / F11; in forums, there are complaints that outdoor shots aren't very good. The lady also wants a really compact camera. The new 1/2.5" sensor in the SD600 and above models is supposed to be quite good. We're going to try for that.

Thanks everybody.

 

[Deadwood]

I bought an F10

A month ago I was shopping at Walmart when I noticed an F10 on clearance for US$225. After making sure that I could return it if it didn't work, I bought it. I was getting really frustrated with my el-cheapo camera, and was debating whether or not to wait for the F30, when this find caused me to decide to go with the F10. After getting it home, all the accessories were in original packaging, although the camera was not. This makes me think it was a display unit. However, I doubt it was powered while on display, due to the funky power adapter required. There may be one benefit of having such a weird adapter setup, I suppose.

In any case, let me say that I think the F10 is way better than my previous camera, which was an easy feat. Having said that, allow me to opine on the F10's failures. One, I was hoping for beyond-believable quality on indoor shots. When in full auto mode, the F10 uses ISO 800 for all indoor flash shots. Strange, I thought. Why use a slightly noisy ISO setting when you don't need extreme flash range? So, I tried lower ISO settings. Mixed results. It seems the flash doesn't do to well at short range. The pictures tend to get slightly over-exposed at short range (6 ft or less, the normal ideal range for other P&S cameras). Part of my issue is that I have to do things totally opposite from my previous camera: don't get too close to the subject, and/or use the zoom. Following those two rules gives me better results.

Another issue I have with the camera, which would be a feature were I the sole user of the camera, is that manually setting the ISO doesn't get reset when power is cycled. This means that I have to remember to change the ISO setting back to AUTO whenever I'm done with the camera, or my wife may end up with poor photos.

I have very fair-skinned kids, and I would agree that the outdoor shots are not perfect. Of course, bright sun is one of the more difficult lighting conditions for any camera. Again, I find that using the zoom helps. For some reason the camera adjusts for the light differently, and my kids' faces have more identifiable skin tones. The downside to this is it usually results in a wider aperture, and narrower field of focus. I usually like to take pictures of my kids' in context, with something of interest visible in the background, and with the wider aperture, the background gets blurred more.

I guess I could just try compensating for these failures by playing with the exposure value/compensation, or whatever they call it, but I haven't gone there yet.

On the whole, I am very happy with my purchase. It far surpasses my previous camera in some very important areas: it's very fast to turn on and use, and the images are much higher quality. A less important benefit is the higher compression that results from the reduced noise. My old camera produced 3 megapixel images that used more than 1MB of space, even at moderate compression. The F10 produces 6 megapixel images that take between 1 and 1.4 megapixel using normal compression.

After mastering this camera, I would be interested in trying a Canon P&S, to see how it compares. Canon seems to be the king in the P&S mass market.

Modest additional items: the battery really does last a long time; the power adapter setup is insane, a two-prong wall outlet plug connects to an ac-adapter which connects to the breakout box which is connect to the camera; my wife and my six-year-old are able to take photographs without much trouble (though the six-year-old needs reminding to keep his finger out of the way of the flash); I really like having a focus-assist lamp; the video quality is very good, and appears very steady at the widest zoom setting.

I was out about $300, including the $40 512MB xdpicture card from another store, and lovely local sales tax.

 

[time]

Thanks for sharing your experience, Deadwood. That's a great review.

 

[Mercutio]

I bought a Casio Exilim EX-Z120 over the weekend, something cheap, light and easy to deal with for taking pictures at the big Chicago comic book convention coming up in a couple weeks.

I found it, in all places, at a resale shop in Aurora, Illinois (Fushigi's neighborhood). $125, including a crappy little 128MB SD card and a blank warranty card. No software or USB cable. I can't say I care about those things.

It's more-or-less the 180-degree-opposite of using an SLR. At first I tried messing around with flash, white balance and apeture controls, but the Exilim has several "Best Shot" options that works just fine for the sorts of things a Point and Shoot camera is good for, and after an hour's experimentation I gave up and just let the camera handle the settings.

The camera has a kind of crummy 3x optical zoom, but given the size, shape and intended use, it's entirely forgivable. It's roughly the size of a pack of cigarettes, weighs about 6 ounces with two AA batteries (I put in some Kodak 2800mA rechargeables, which more or less lasted a whole day of picture-taking, around 400 shots all told). The viewfinder is tiny, just about worthless. I tried to go without the Exilim's LCD for a while and quickly realized that was a mistake, so essentially all the pictures I shot were taken with the LCD on.

I took my Exilim to a party at my ex's home the next day, where I took pictures on and off throughout the day. Power-up time on the Exilim is ~2 seconds, and cycle time between shots is also very quick, so I was able to pull the camera out on a whim and snap one or two shots. It did a respectable job on "action" photos especially. I took some shots of a water balloon fight that, with no prep or fuss, managed to clearly capture bursting balloons and water droplets.

I'm pretty happy with it, especially for the price.

 

[timwhit]

That is amazing, considering the price and the size. I will definitely recommend that camera if someone is looking for something under $150.

 

[e_dawg]

Just thought I'd chime in with two new cameras that represent the leading edge of digital consumer P&S technology, at least from the perspective of natural / ambient and low-light performance:

The Canon SD700 IS
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonSD700IS/

Fujifilm FinePix F30
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_f30-review/index.shtml

The Fuji F30 continues Fuji's tradition of super-sensitive, low-noise CCD sensors, allowing you to use 800-1600 ISO with no more noise than most cameras at 200-400 ISO.

The Canon has optical image stabilization, which allows you to shoot at slow shutter speeds with much less blur from camera shake.

Low-light or ambient (no-flash) performance has always been an Achilles heel for P&S digicams. Kudos to Canon and Fuji for taking the initiative to address it.

Now if only someone can address the quality of photos taken WITH the flash (better flash metering, throttling down, and manual control over flash exposure compensation)...

 

[Gilbo]

The just announced F20 is a smaller, slimmer version of the F30. Should be great.

 

[Gilbo]

Forgot the linky.

Lower resolution LCD is the biggest drawback I can see. I don't personally care about that too much though. The battery might be a little worse too which would be unfortunate (it could also be better). The predecessor to the F30 was legendary for its battery life.

 

[LunarMist]

I would buy a F30 in a minute if only it had a viewfinder...

 

[mubs]

Since 'tis the season to tell, so will I. About the Canon SD600 and A620.

The SD600 takes fab pics for its size. Downsides: flash is weak; red-eye is a problem. Both are inherent traits of a small camera. It's a great choice for a shirt-pocket camera.

The A620 is superb. Very happy with it's speed (power-off to ready), quality of pics, features, powerful flash, etc.

Canon is the Toyota of cameras. Very happy with them.

 

[timwhit]

What are people's opinions of the Casio Exilim EX-Z850?

I have a friend that currently owns it and is happy with it. Another friend is looking to buy the same model. Is there anything else out there that can compete on price (less than $300), size, and features? I just don't know enough about this stuff to tell him either yes, good choice, or maybe not so good of a choice.

Here is the review for reference: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioz850/

 

[adriel]

Hello. My splash-proof digi compact broke while I was taking it on a swimming tour in an Oman oasis. I was upset to miss the best shots of the cave, but relieved that it was time for an upgrade. One thing that has bothered me about consumer digital cameras was their limited field of view and 4/3 aspect ratio. I felt at times, at the Australian Wallaman falls waterfall or the KLCC twin towers building in Kuala Lampur, that the Olympus Stylus Digital 400 was only taking in 30% of what was really needed. I want to capture the whole building, from the ground entrace to the top, not just 1/5th of it!

I started looking at wider angle digital cameas. Although I was considering the Sony DSC-R1, I held it in my hands at a Sony store in Malaysia and compared the viewfinder view with the current compact I had in my pocket. It looked like the R1 was only taking in about 30% more field of view, and I didn't like the low resolution of the eyepiecer viewfinder--reminded me of looking through a VCR camcorder of years past. About this time the decision came to either get a full frame SLR or the compact Panasonic DMC-LX1 with native 16:9 wide-angle CCD 28mm. I went with the LX1 due to cost.

I am very happy with the LX1: I always shoot raw, the images come out in 16:9 aspect ratio, and will be very easy to integrate into any widescreen videos I might make. To me, the aesthetics of 16:9 are much more pleasing... I used to even block 4/3 images into 16:9, even though it meant a crop rather than true 16:9. Anyways I don't have that problem any more.

One thing I don't like about the LX1 is its logarithmic manual focus joystick. Usually I want to manually focus right around the point where the focus starts going really fast. There is a break there, and once you pass it it takes a long time to get back to where you were previously. I wish I could just turn the lens to focus--I tried that with the Sony R1 but I guess it wasn't in the right mode because it didn't make a difference in the focus at all.

 

[Gilbo]

I have an LX1 as well Adriel, and it's been a terrific camera. The noise sensitivity of the sensor is terrible. I have to keep it <=ISO 100, but if you shoot RAW, noise isn't nearly as much of an issue as people make it out to be. There are excfellent tools for dealing with the problem.

I'm considering a Fuji F30 for social / indoor use though. The Panasonic has been an excellent hiking campanion but it is lacking in low light.

 

[adriel]

Do you use a lens correction software for the 16:9 angle shots? I never noticed how bad the distortion was until I took a picture of something I am used to seeing--my vehicle. It was grossly distorted, exaggerating one end and shrinking the other end.

I got the new version of PTLens plugin for Photoshop. It has the coefficients for LX1, makes things look much better. Not 100% perfect, but much closer to real life now. I just paid $15 for the full version license to get more than 10 trial uses, awaiting their email.

Still could use a weatherproof camera with sealed lens element. There's a tremendous amount of pulverized water mist at the base of a waterfall, I've found... beads up a lens with water in no time.

 

[Gilbo]

You're actually observing the effect of two things:
1) the perceptual distortion of a larger than normal field of vision
2) barrel distortion

The latter you can correct in software. It is a characteristic of the specific lens you're using. And it is definitely distortion. The former, however, is a consequence of using a wide angle lens, i.e. one that has a lower than ~40mm, 35mm focal length equivalence. It is not, technically, distortion, and can't be corrected in software easily. Wide angle lens provide fields of view that are wider than those produced by our normal vision (excluding peripheral vision, of course --but this doesn't count in the perception of distance, which is what is actually at issue here as you'll soon see). This greatly exaggerates the parallax effect that we use to judge distance --close objects seem unusually big while objects only slightly farther seem farther and smaller than they should. Conversely, telephoto lenses --narrower than our normal field of view-- artificially flatten, rather than seperate, the perception of distances, which, incidentally, is why they are favoured for portraits.

The effect can be very dynamic and engaging but in some situations it is only distracting. PTLens will remove the barrel distortion but the barrel distortion --while noticeable-- isn't that bad for a 24mm, 35mm equivalent zoom (thanks Leica), and, more importantly, what you are mostly noticing is, in fact, the perspective seperation of a wider than normal field of view. It will have a noticeable affect at 24mm if you're shooting the length of your car, close at one edge and receding into the distance.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll give you one (well four). The framing is identical in each version, but observe the perspective exaggeration below 50mm & and the compression beyond:
1000 words.

Remarkable. People often think wide angles are for landscapes and telephotos are for portraits, but it's important to think about the effect of the focal length on the frame you're shooting. Telephotos can produce terrific landscapes if you know how to use the compression effect to your advantage. Wide angles are traditionally favoured simply because the perspective exaggeration emphasizes the foreground and draws the view in, enhancing the dynamism of a scene which might need it if lacks a sense of motion or an obvious subject. In a landscape framing that already possesses these characteristics the perspective exaggeration is likely only to be distracting --it will confuse the viewer's attention and interfere with their appreciation of the subject.

Another good example of the effect can be found here.

 

[Buck]

Gilbo, good explanation and nice examples.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks Gilbo, that is the most interesting thing I've learned today. Those examples are fantastic.

 

[adriel]

...what you are mostly noticing is, in fact, the perspective seperation of a wider than normal field of view. It will have a noticeable affect at 24mm if you're shooting the length of your car, close at one edge and receding into the distance.

Looks like I need to reduce perspective distortion for vehicle photography then. I guess that means I can either:

1. zoom in the lens and shoot from further away

2. reduce to 3/2 or 4/3 field of view

 

[Gilbo]

Looks like I need to reduce perspective distortion for vehicle photography then. I guess that means I can either:

1. zoom in the lens and shoot from further away

2. reduce to 3/2 or 4/3 field of view

Exactly.

And those examples really are pretty cool eh.

 

[Pradeep]

Got a Nikon S7c for the wife for Christmas, pretty nifty, big 3" screen, and built-in wifi. Comes with a free 1 year T-mobile hotspot account, so you can send pics out as an email from any Starbucks etc. Will mostly be used for indoors shots at birthday parties etc, small enough to put in the purse, for when we don't want to haul around the D70. Bought it from Abes of Maine, about $275+shipping. Cheap prices, they did call me and try and get me to order a bunch of crap like cases, extra battery etc, but I told them I only want the camera. Ordered Monday, received on Wednesday. Got a 3 pack of 1 GB SD cards for $55 from BestBuy, all set.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CPS7C/CPS7CA.HTM

 

[Clocker]

I have a 1GB MiniSD card with an adapter to standard SD size I am considering using my my new camera. Should I expect any speed or compatability problems using the mini-sd card (with adapter)? Should I just get a standard SD card?

Thanks,
C

 

[Mercutio]

The media is super-cheap these days. the adapter probably costs as much as the 1GB card.

Can I just say that I hate, hate, HATE the eleventy billion different flash card formats? What's wrong with just CF? What's wrong with SD? Why do we need to reinvent the wheel thrice annually?

 

[Clocker]

Merc- The adapter came with the mini-SD card. Anyway, I think I want 2GB rather than 1GB so I'll end up buying a new card anyway....

 

[e_dawg]

Just wanted to chime in with a couple updates on the compact P&S digicams that I was so excited about last year.

As you may recall, I bought the Fuji F10 a while back, and didn't have a chance to report back on it when asked about it. It's a little late, but better late than never, I guess! Like Deadwood, I find the flash performance a little disappointing. It really doesn't know how to throttle-down for close subjects (not that it's alone in this matter, as this problem plagues many a compact P&S digicam... it just seems a bit worse due to the F10's ability to run at high sensitivities). Like most compact P&S, it is likely the camera isn't intelligent enough to use less flash power when the sensitivity is increased.

Otherwise, nothing stands out in my mind as a notable flaw. Results are relatively good considering the lackluster performance from compact P&S digicams in general.

I recently bought my parents a Canon SD700IS. In limited use, I can report back that the pics are generally good quality, although it too has flash power control problems. More than a few times, I "roasted" my subjects with the flash.

One of the reasons I got the SD700IS was because the SD800IS (despite being more desirable on paper due to the wide-angle capability and face-detection feature) was tested to have enough image problems with its lens that it produces pictures of inferior quality to the SD700IS, especially at the wide-angle focal length. What's the point of being able to capture wide-angle shots if they look a little blurry? And since the camera does not have enough manual control, it's not like you can stop down the lens (i.e., make the aperture smaller) to minimize said problems with the lens.

 

[e_dawg]

Finally, to cap it off, I have been frustrated enough with the poor quality of pics from compact P&S digicams (esp. with flash) that I have decided to purchase a dSLR to use wherever it's convenient to carry it with me (as opposed to a compact digicam which is much more pocketable and doesn't have that limitation).

Specifically, I wanted to sing the praises of the Nikon D40 dSLR that I recently purchased. Despite its lowest place on the Nikon dSLR pecking order, and a price near the bottom of all dSLRs, I find it to be a truly fine camera. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, all things considered, this $500 (as of Jan 2007) D40 is the best dSLR + kit lens combo you can buy for under $750 (i.e., this side of a Rebel XTi / EOS 400D).

Don't have time right now to do a full review, so here is a summary:

Pros: Fantastic high sensitivity + low noise performance, cool auto ISO / min. preferred shutter speed feature in P/S/A/M modes, excellent metering and flash metering (i-TTL), RGB histogram analysis, in-camera colour balance and shadow detail recovery retouching, one of the best kit lenses in its class (very good when stopped down), light and compact, large hi-res (230 k pixels) 2.5" LCD

Cons: RAW + JPEG basic only, not compatible with old Nikkor lenses, "only" 6 MP

It may only have 6 MP, but IMO that's all you need unless you're making enlargements larger than 8.5 x 11". It's a good tradeoff to keep noise levels down at high sensitivity, unlike its competitor, the Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 (which has anti-shake and a noisy 10 MP sensor, which defeats the purpose of anti-shake).

For the same price, I would take the D40 + SB-400 flash (total price $600) over the Rebel XTi or Sony Alpha A100. With the money I save, I could get other useful goodies like:

• Stofen Omni-bounce (flash diffuser) ($20)
• Gels for your flash (e.g., daylight --> tungsten) for mixed lighting ($0-20)
• Lastolite 12" foldable grey/white card (not only for custom WB, but white side doubles as a reflector... if you haven't seen these before, you have to check them out -- very cool) ($30)
• 2 GB SD card ($25)
• PTLens (lens correction software) ($15)
• Nikon Capture NX (RAW image editor for those who don't have PS CS2) ($110)

No question for someone starting out with their first dSLR or has been frustrated with the poor quality of compact P&S digicam pics (esp. while using flash), this bundle would give you the greatest picture quality for the buck, especially if you do any flash / indoor photography.

Softening / diffusing your flash and colouring your flash to work with mixed lighting gets you to that next level where you can actually create natural looking indoor / flash pics, instead of the typical bluish washed-out subjects in an dark, orangy room.

 

[e_dawg]

Sorry, prices were a little off in my conversion to USD.

The D40 is ~$550-600 US
The Rebel XTi ~$750-800
SB-400 is ~$120-135 US

 

[mubs]

Thanks for the infor on the D40, e_dawg! I'll keep it in mind....

 

[Tannin]

Hey, cool! Why didn't somebody tell me you had finally sprung for an SLR eDawg? An excellent choice, IMO, though in your shoes I'd have gone the extra mile and bought the Pentax.

All three of the leading SLR makers have great products. I'd avoid Sony because I wouldn't buy bootlaces from those scumbags, and in any case, Canon, Nikon and Pentax have the Sony product beaten on several counts. I'd hesitate before buying into Olympus too: the one outstanding camera in the Oly lineup is ancient, the other, cheaper ones lacking too many features (such as a decent viewfinder), and Olympus use a half-size sensor which is a crazy design decision doomed to failure - no matter what else you do, you can't get the same quality image out of half as many photon captures.

Canon have by far the best range of lenses: if you can't find the lens you want in the Canon range, you ain't looked at it yet. If you need specialised lenses - tilt-shift for perspective control of buildings or food on plates; super-telephoto for birds, sport, wildlife, and sneaky topless shots of minor royalty sunbathing from afar; super-macro for truly tiny things - only Canon can offer all this. In bodies, only Canon can take you all the way from the 400D (aka "Rebel XTi") to the full frame professional monsters that Lunar spends his ill-gotten gains on.

Nikon also offer a wide selection, but nothing like the range that Canon does, especially when you factor in the various restrictions and compatibility gotchas and some very elderly designs that really need updating. Nevertheless, some of the Nikon lenses are as good as it ever gets - I have in mind the superb 80-400 f/4 VR that a friend of mine owns, and which I covert unreservedly. In bodies, although Nikon have nothing to compare with the Canon professional models, they are more than competitive in the entry-level through to midrange stakes. If I didn't need the big telephotos that only Canon make, I'd be more than happy with a Nikon.

And then there is the dark horse: Pentax. After coming late to the party with the stupidly-named *ist series, neat, well-executed, but a little lack-lustre, Pentax have really pinned their ears back with the new K10D - on balance, pretty clearly the best, most innovative, and all-round generally desirable camera on the market today (if we ignore Canon's full-frame and professional models, which are in a different price range anyway). And if you want ordinary, everyday general-purpose sort of lenses (i.e., not the sort of mega-heavy super-telephoto exotica that Lunar Mist and I spend far too much money on), then Pentax is as good as anyone. If I wasn't doing long-lens wildlife stuff and I was starting from scratch tommorow, I'd probably buy a K10D. The first refresh of the design, maybe 12 months or so away, will knock the few remaining rough edges off and be even better.

 

[Buck]

Great information guys, thanks for sharing.

 

[e_dawg]

Admittedly, I did not look at the new Pentax K10D because it was out of my price range.

As a direct competitor to the D40, however, I did look at the K110D (6 MP) and K100D (6 MP + anti-shake). But I passed on them due to their limited RAW output options (non-compressed RAW only -- no compressed RAW or RAW + JPEG option), auto ISO limitations (can't use w/ exposure comp), and approach to sharpening and noise reduction (JPEGs not as sharp as I would like, not enough NR for me -- chroma noise esp. too high).

As for the deluxe K10D model, I just read-up on it due to Tannin's recommendation. Wow, it is a bit revolutionary as far as its overall feature set goes. 10 MP, anti-shake, auto ISO, in-camera RAW processing, water-tight seals, big, bright viewfinder... All that goodness for only $900! If you only need RAW, it could well be the best option in its class. But like Tannin alluded to, I might wait for Pentax's next generation image processor so they can work out their kinks (JPEG sharpening and NR algorithms come to mind).

 

[udaman]

Sorry, prices were a little off in my conversion to USD.

The D40 is ~$550-600 US
The Rebel XTi ~$750-800
SB-400 is ~$120-135 US

Hmm, I would pass on the D40, and spend more money for the older D50...read the comparisons and you'll see why (if you know your photography). Too lazy to check the 3 big comparison sites, but the Fuji F30/F31 (face recognition on the F31) will take ISO 800 pix almost as well as the D50, and unlike the F10, you get semi-manual exposure control ie. aperature/speed (but not both together). There's now a newly announce F40 that kind of continues that line, with higher ISO 2000 rating (but the highest ISO is usually only good for very small pictures at best...way too much noise and lack of sharpness.

You can now get an internal 7x optical lens P&S, but of course and internal lens design is going to be even more of a compromise than the ones that extend out of the camera body.

All P&S digicams are a compromise, you can't get SLR level quality from such tiny camera/lens combos.


I would still recommend that wider angle Canon 800is (you can look at sample images for the sites that have done the reviews, and decide for yourself), many people will find those slightly less sharp images 'accepatable'...just not e_dawg or me- casualty of knowing what an SLR lens is capable of. For P&S or dSLR which allow manual custom white balance setting, I would recommend the smaller WhiBal cards to set the WB whenever you can take the time to do it.
http://www.rawworkflow.com/

Then again, for e_dawg & me, when we look at reviews of a comparison of the standard fixed lenght prime 50mm F1.8 v. much more expensive 1.4 (and now just annouced 1.2) we starting thinking the F1.8 is such a piece of crap , but that better performing F1.4 costs 3 times as much.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Heh, only MRSP of $1600 on the F1.2
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082415canon50f12lens.asp

wide angle zooms are a compromise as e_dawg well knows, even for a dSLR. If you need best sharpness, you go for a dedicated prime lens.


I'm looking at the Canon A710is. 50% thicker, as well as taller than the Canon 800is, it takes AA batteries, and allows for an expensive adapter/screw on converter where you can add accessory wider angle/telephoto lens..but only while the camera is in current production. Offering full manual control, but unlike some dSLR lens, you only get motorized manual shifting of focus (you cannot grab the lens barrel with your hand and manually focus with a mechanical/precise shift of focus), and that low res 2.5in LCD doesn't help in determining optimum focus sharpness. Also annoying, it the limited 'stepping' in the 6x zoom range, it zooms too fast to allow you to find tune the optimum zoom target focal lenght. I'm sure a year after I plunk down $300+ for this, something much better/less flawed, more feature laden, slimmer (more pocketable) version will replace it. And 2-5yrs later, something closer to what I really wanted today, will finally become available.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A710/A710A.HTM

I'm a fan of the old 35mm 1970's Olympus OM1 & OM2, because of their smaller size compared to the average SLR of the time. Only camera smaller with quality level of SLR, would be the very high-end Leica rangerfinder line, which now includes the digital M8 at MSRP of $5k for the body only . The D40 is smaller, but all dSLR's are way too large considering they don't have to hold film in their bodies.
A unique & innovative dSLR comes from Olympus in their Evolt 330

But it too is a compromise, irritating flaws beside just the higher price compared to the competition. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e330-review/index.shtml

Let's hope they spearhead a trend to even smaller dSLR's

 

[e_dawg]

Speaking of smaller, high-quality cameras, the Panasonic Lumix line of compact P&S cameras had so much promise with Leica optics. Too bad the sensor is so darn noisy. They should just buy the sensor from Fuji (who IMO makes the best compact P&S sensors in the world) and unleash the power of the Leica optics.

The Pansonic DMC-LX2 is actually a really good camera if you keep it under 200 ISO.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm looking specifically for a P&S that can make the most of low-light/fast motion/no flash shots from about 10 feet away. I was under the impression that the F30 was the one to get. Is it worth waiting for the F40?

 

[e_dawg]

Hmm, I would pass on the D40, and spend more money for the older D50...read the comparisons and you'll see why (if you know your photography).

.

It depends on what you're looking for. The D50's advantages are exposure & WB bracketing, a 5-area AF sensor, and an AF motor that allows compatibility with old Nikkor lenses. The D40's advantages are size & weight, SDHC compatibility, larger viewfinder, auto ISO & min. preferred shutter speed, improved continuous shooting mode (unlimited JPEG, double the # of RAW shots), larger LCD with double the resolution, a better image processor, and in-camera photo retouching.

For most people, I would argue that the D40 is a better choice. To wit:

1. Most people who are in the market for an entry-level dSLR don't need compatibility with old Nikkor lenses. There are plenty of good lens choices from the AF-S and AF-I lens series with silent wave motors, vibration reduction, etc.

2. I would admit that exposure and WB bracketing is something that I would prefer to have, but I usually don't use it, and fortunately, exposure and WB can be dealt with post-processing.

3. The D40's ability to shift the colour balance, shadow detail, (and other retouching) of pics in-camera for JPEGs is very convenient, especially if you're printing direct from the camera or want to use/send the JPEGs without firing up the photo editor on the PC.

4. Definitely prefer the larger, high-res LCD of the D40. You can actually get a decent idea of how the shot turned out from the LCD, as opposed to merely guessing with the D50.

5. The larger viewfinder on the D40 is preferable, as the D50's viewfinder is simply too small!

6. The D40's 3-point AF works great. I haven't had any situations where I feel that I'm missing out on the 5-point AF of the D50.

7. The D40's image processor (same as the D80 & D200) is improved from the previous gen in the D50. It will have the same output RAW, but your JPEGS will be better looking for any given filesize.

8. Last but certainly not least, the very cool auto ISO + min. preferred shutter speed feature. In P/S/A/M modes, you can select a min. preferred shutter speed, at which the camera will raise the ISO (up to your predefined maximum) to prevent lowering the shutter speed any further. This greatly improves low-light performance and prevents camera shake without the use of noise reduction and/or optical image stabilization.

 

[e_dawg]

I'm looking specifically for a P&S that can make the most of low-light/fast motion/no flash shots from about 10 feet away. I was under the impression that the F30 was the one to get. Is it worth waiting for the F40?

No. Even though I don't see any reviews of the F40 yet, I predict it will be an inferior camera to the F30/F31 IMO. It has almost the same sensor size, but it will feature 8.3 MP instead of 6.3. All things equal, it will be more difficult to control noise at high sensitivities. In fact, Fuji lowered the max sensitivity to 2000 ISO from 3200, probably conceding that noise was going to be a problem at high ISOs. Also, shutter and aperture priority modes will not be available on the F40, taking away one of the few manual control elements on an otherwise automatic camera.

You heard it here first (or at least people will say I'm beating a dead horse): we will see a decline in effective picture quality over the next year or two as manufacturers engage in megapixel wars, sacrificing noise control at high sensitivities (and/or using more aggressive noise reduction at the expense of detail) in the name of marketing. 6 MP is enough already. We don't need 8 or 10 MP, especially when the size of the sensors are not getting any bigger, and it's clear that the gain in theoretical resolution is coming at the expense of noise (or detail, if more aggressive NR is used to combat said noise).

A long time ago, when mainstream P&S digital cameras were hitting the 2 MP range, I did a ballpark calculation to see how many megapixels we would need before approaching the effective resolution of a film camera. I worked it out to be something like 6.8 MP for the equivalent of a cheapo SLR + kit lens + 400 ISO film. If my calculations are correct, we have enough megapixels. Focus on the rest of the stuff so that we can take better pictures in more lighting conditions.

 

[LunarMist]

D40 w/kit lens is basically geared for the entry level, P/S crowd, as the Nikon EM and Series E lenses were about 25 years ago. Many current Nikon users are unhappy about the D40 because most of their lenses cannot be used. It will be many years (maybe 5-10) before all AF Nikkors are AF-S lenses, by which time the D40 will be a junkbox item in a garage sale. The main concern now is if there will be a D55 or 65 (D60 is unlikely due to the Canon D60) to fir between the D40 and D80. It may be a moot point if the D80 can drop to <$800.

 

[LunarMist]

You heard it here first (or at least people will say I'm beating a dead horse): we will see a decline in effective picture quality over the next year or two as manufacturers engage in megapixel wars, sacrificing noise control at high sensitivities (and/or using more aggressive noise reduction at the expense of detail) in the name of marketing. 6 MP is enough already. We don't need 8 or 10 MP, especially when the size of the sensors are not getting any bigger, and it's clear that the gain in theoretical resolution is coming at the expense of noise (or detail, if more aggressive NR is used to combat said noise).

Yes, that has been a popular concern especially in the last 3 years.

A long time ago, when mainstream P&S digital cameras were hitting the 2 MP range, I did a ballpark calculation to see how many megapixels we would need before approaching the effective resolution of a film camera. I worked it out to be something like 6.8 MP for the equivalent of a cheapo SLR + kit lens + 400 ISO film. If my calculations are correct, we have enough megapixels.

Everyone was doing the math in the 90s and many predicted that 30-40 megapixels would be needed to equal 35mm film. However the calculations fail to account for some human perceptions of image quality, such as noise vs. resolution vs. dynamic range and linearity. The 11 megapixel 1Ds was the first DSLR that truly approached 35mm overall and 16.7 megapixel 1Ds MK II really pushes past 35mm in many ways. Since then, some "lower" MP bodies like the D2X and 5D are reasonably close. Of course for many purposes 4-6 megapixels and low enough noise are sufficient.

Focus on the rest of the stuff so that we can take better pictures in more lighting conditions.

That is the popular concensus, though I'd rather see more megapixels (within reason) and better performance at ISO 100 than less resolution and decent performance at ISO 1600+. 5-6 µm pixels seem to be about the practical limit for DSLRs. Judging by the internet one would think that everyone was born yesterday and just started shooting in caves. Five years ago many of us were shooting Velvia at ISO 40 and Provia at 100, pushing to 200 when necessary.

 

[Tannin]

Having just got back from 6 weeks shooting in rainforest, LunarMist, I think I just joined the cave-man brigade!

Next time I do a rainforest trip, I am definately going to do some things differently.

1: Fill flash. A 580ex and a Better Beamer.
2: Faster lens. Well, OK, I can't afford a 400 f/2.8, and wouldn't want to carry it if I had one. But the light in our rainforests is terrible! I'm thinking about the 2.8, and also about a 300 f/2.8 - very short, but light and fast. Hmmmm... Probably stick with the 500/4.
3: If the technology is up to it, a body that can produce good detail and good colour at ISO 1600 or 3200. On the whole, I have decided that although landscape stuff works (more or less) at 1600 ISO, especially when you run stuff through Neat Image and then boost the saturation, birds don't. 800 seems to be the sensible limit on the 20D, and 400 is much to be preffered.
4: I've learned that for both hand-holding and tripod work at 500 and 700mm in good light, you always sacrifice ISO to get your shutter speed up. (Yes, even with a tripod.) I basically always use ISO 400 but go to 800 if I drop much below 1000th, or below a 2000th if I'm catching action, and rarely drop to ISO 200 unless I'm running close to maxing out the shutter speed.

But in bad light - light that a few months ago I'd have said was flat-out impossible - I've learned not to go to 1600 or 3200 ISO (again, except where action makes it essential and you are prepared to accept lousy image quality as the trade-off). Nope: tripod, take the extender off, set the aperture to f/4 and glue the knob down, and concentrate on getting decent colour by sticking to ISO 400, no matter how low the shutter speed drops. Yup, 9 out of 10 shots of small birds will be unusable because of subject movement, but if you can track the little critter for five seconds or so, fring in bursts of 4 or 5, you should have 20 or 25 shots in total, of which two might be acceptably sharp, and (if you are lucky) one of those will have it in a decent pose.

Not exactly an efficient method, but everything else I've tried is worse. You can gets lots of half-decent shots at 1600 ISO, but none of them will be real keepers. At least this way you have some chance. (Oh, for those that aren't into wildlife, it varies wildly but on a typical day, those 5 seconds of action for 2 shots that each have a 20% chance of being genuine keepers account for ... oh, it varies, but say an hour or two. Sometimes there are more birds than you can poke a lens at, other times you go all day and get zip. Life is like that.)

 

[e_dawg]

Many current Nikon users are unhappy about the D40 because most of their lenses cannot be used. It will be many years (maybe 5-10) before all AF Nikkors are AF-S lenses, by which time the D40 will be a junkbox item in a garage sale.

I don't understand the griping from the enthusiasts / pros. As you mentioned, the D40 is not designed for them; it's designed for people who are relatively new to the SLR game... people who want to step up from P&S. If you're serious enough to have a large collection of older Nikkor or non-Nikon lenses, then get a D50/D70/D80, etc. Another way to think about the D40 is that it's just a really good bridge camera.

 

[e_dawg]

Everyone was doing the math in the 90s and many predicted that 30-40 megapixels would be needed to equal 35mm film.

What kind of things were they looking at? What type of lens? Film? Were they talking about a good prime lens shooting with low speed slide film or B&W? I would say the resolving power of a 35 mm P&S or a consumer grade SLR with cheapo kit zoom lens and 400 or 800 ISO film couldn't be equivalent to much more than 10 MP.

However the calculations fail to account for some human perceptions of image quality, such as noise vs. resolution vs. dynamic range and linearity.

Yep. Noise, dynamic range, and linearity are big factors.

The 11 megapixel 1Ds was the first DSLR that truly approached 35mm overall and 16.7 megapixel 1Ds MK II really pushes past 35mm in many ways. Since then, some "lower" MP bodies like the D2X and 5D are reasonably close.

Speaking of which, let's not forget that it's much easier for SLR's with large / full-frame sensors to have high megapixel counts without noise problems compared to small sensors found in consumer-grade dSLRs, and especially compact P&S digicams.

I guess we're speaking for different segments of the photographic community here -- I'm focussing on the needs of the more mainstream consumer and the limitation of mainstream consumer-level products, while you're speaking more for the enthusiasts and their products.