Digital Cameras
- Thread starter BillyBeru
- Start date
Buy a Canon Elph, it will fit in your pocket or briefcase, it's built like a tank and will stand up to years of use and abuse. The rechargeable battery is great, it lets you know when you're running low and you can usually get at least another 6 - 8 shots off once the low battery light begins blinking. Don't use a fish eye lens when shooting interiors, it'll look like shit and no one will believe anything else in your ad if the image looks that distorted.
If you opt for a dSLR choose for a Canon over a Nikon as all the Nikon dSLR’s haves smaller then normal sensor arrays. This increases the focal length of all lenses that you attach to your Nikon dSLR. The Canon dSLR’s don’t have this problem. Why pay mega bucks for an 18 MM wide angle lens that performs like a 28 Mm wide angle lens?
The latest Canon XTi has an exclusive EOS integrated Cleaning System featuring a Self Cleaning Sensor. When ever you change the lens on a dSLR, you run the risk of dust particles settling on your sensor, as the sensor has a strong electrostatic charge. This is like having duct particles on your negatives, only worse. These dust particles appear as large black spots on every picture you take. While there are dust particle removers, their use may void your camera’s warranty. Nikon charges $150 to clean your sensor.
I honestly don’t know just how effective the Canon Self Cleaning Sensor is, maybe someone can find a test review on this.
The latest Canon XTi has an exclusive EOS integrated Cleaning System featuring a Self Cleaning Sensor. When ever you change the lens on a dSLR, you run the risk of dust particles settling on your sensor, as the sensor has a strong electrostatic charge. This is like having duct particles on your negatives, only worse. These dust particles appear as large black spots on every picture you take. While there are dust particle removers, their use may void your camera’s warranty. Nikon charges $150 to clean your sensor.
I honestly don’t know just how effective the Canon Self Cleaning Sensor is, maybe someone can find a test review on this.
By the way, the Canon A series point and shoot cameras accept supplementary lenses, which can make your wide angle lens eveny more widw angle. The A series cameras allow you to shoot using manual settings, are very inexpensive, take great pictures and use common AA batteries as well as rechargeable AA batteries, so you never have to get stuck with a digital camera with dead batteries.
Ozzy I will happily tell you you do not know what you are talking about anytime you start talking out of your ass like you have been. You are correct if you are talking about a 16mm lens on a film camera,the problem with that is generally speaking a 16mm lens on a digital camera will not act the same as it will on a film camera and will in no know be a fish-eye. Sorry for any confusion but you were wrong in this instance since we are talking about digital cameras and not film cameras. Also I never mentioned a 16mm lens, if you would take the time to actually read what was written instead of getting your panties in a bunch you would see I recomended an 18mm lens. I sometimes shoot with an 18mm-75mm lens on my DIGITAL SLR and the 18mm side is most definitely in no way a fish-eye. Before you go off and say "you are sorry" for the photogs I work with you read what I wrote, do some research and pull your head out of your ass.
You are right though about that I missed the part about his budget. The body would be the issue since it is the expensive part. An 18mm-75mm lens for the Canon SLR digital camera is only $130 (and you can find them used for half that)
You are right though about that I missed the part about his budget. The body would be the issue since it is the expensive part. An 18mm-75mm lens for the Canon SLR digital camera is only $130 (and you can find them used for half that)
If you opt for a dSLR choose for a Canon over a Nikon as all the Nikon dSLR’s haves smaller then normal sensor arrays. This increases the focal length of all lenses that you attach to your Nikon dSLR. The Canon dSLR’s don’t have this problem. Why pay mega bucks for an 18 MM wide angle lens that performs like a 28 Mm wide angle lens?
You know, you can go back and forth here about which is the better camera, but if you choose either brand, you really can't go wrong. Besides, whatever you buy will be obsolete within 18 months anyway and you'll be looking to upgrade to the next model. Last year I bought the Nikon D50, a great starter DSLR, but already this year, they've introduced the D40 (about 3 bills cheaper and pretty much the same with some new bells and whistles) and the D80 (10 meg resolution with slightly higher cost - looking at that one). The D50 now seems somewhat antiquated.
Go check out some of the review sights (like the one mentioned earlier) and read what the experts say. Don't just listen to the infallible "experts" here thump they thump their chests.
Like I said, you can't go wrong with either brand. Also, check out the Fuji point and shoots; some models have quicker shutters than most which come in handy with kids that can't sit still.
Go check out some of the review sights (like the one mentioned earlier) and read what the experts say. Don't just listen to the infallible "experts" here thump they thump their chests.
Like I said, you can't go wrong with either brand. Also, check out the Fuji point and shoots; some models have quicker shutters than most which come in handy with kids that can't sit still.
get the DSLR
One of the nicest things about digital photography is the ability to easily edit your photos. There is a program (who's name I forget, but it was reviewed about two years ago in PC Mag) that has "profiles" for a large number of lenses and automatically corrects the distortion (NB: (i) all lenses have some sort of distortion; and (ii) interchangable lenses require a DSLR). Just about any photo editing program will allow you to "stitch" together multiple photos into a compound image and most will correct lens distortion to a reasonable degree (without the special-purpose software mentioned above).
My suggestion, spend the bucks to get a DSLR (everyone likes Cannon). While there is not a linear relationship between $ spent and quality of outcome (easily this board's slogan) there is a reasonable correlation. This is your job, after all. This allows you to get new lenses to suit your needs as time goes by. If you get at least six megapixels, it will suit your needs for a long time. If you get one with more, it will allow you to blow up smaller parts of your photos without loosing as much picture quality (notice how the distortion is more pronounced towards the edges of the fisheye photo). Once you buy a SLR "kit" with a lens, you can always upgrade the body and keep your investment in lenses. Also, while it's bigger than a point and shoot, you can detach the lens from the body and put "lenscaps" on the body and each end of the lens so you can fit it easily into a briefcase. Finally, busting out the SLR may impress your clients (sellers) more than some dinky point-and-shoot ("it's important to get the best photographs possible," you tell them).
My $0.02
One of the nicest things about digital photography is the ability to easily edit your photos. There is a program (who's name I forget, but it was reviewed about two years ago in PC Mag) that has "profiles" for a large number of lenses and automatically corrects the distortion (NB: (i) all lenses have some sort of distortion; and (ii) interchangable lenses require a DSLR). Just about any photo editing program will allow you to "stitch" together multiple photos into a compound image and most will correct lens distortion to a reasonable degree (without the special-purpose software mentioned above).
My suggestion, spend the bucks to get a DSLR (everyone likes Cannon). While there is not a linear relationship between $ spent and quality of outcome (easily this board's slogan) there is a reasonable correlation. This is your job, after all. This allows you to get new lenses to suit your needs as time goes by. If you get at least six megapixels, it will suit your needs for a long time. If you get one with more, it will allow you to blow up smaller parts of your photos without loosing as much picture quality (notice how the distortion is more pronounced towards the edges of the fisheye photo). Once you buy a SLR "kit" with a lens, you can always upgrade the body and keep your investment in lenses. Also, while it's bigger than a point and shoot, you can detach the lens from the body and put "lenscaps" on the body and each end of the lens so you can fit it easily into a briefcase. Finally, busting out the SLR may impress your clients (sellers) more than some dinky point-and-shoot ("it's important to get the best photographs possible," you tell them).
My $0.02
Nice post, Rough1. I agree with you 100%. The versatility of a digital SLR is worth the added cost. For RE photos it does not matter but for most other pictures the shorter elapsed time between pressing the shutter and the camera taking a picture really makes an SLR much nicer to use and yields better results.
Ozzy I will happily tell you you do not know what you are talking about anytime you start talking out of your ass like you have been. You are correct if you are talking about a 16mm lens on a film camera,the problem with that is generally speaking a 16mm lens on a digital camera will not act the same as it will on a film camera and will in no know be a fish-eye. Sorry for any confusion but you were wrong in this instance since we are talking about digital cameras and not film cameras. Also I never mentioned a 16mm lens, if you would take the time to actually read what was written instead of getting your panties in a bunch you would see I recomended an 18mm lens.
I know what I'm talking about....
Those sample 16mm pics I posted and the links are all taken with digital cameras (no film)... Canon EOS 10D and the Pentax *ist DS are two that are listed if you click on the pics and see the details (camera, lens, flash, settings etc...).
http://www.pbase.com/image/56491936
I used 16mm because thats what "Larry" said to use. Not much difference bet 16 and 18 as both are fish-eye.
The point is..... shooting with anything under 28mm is overkill for someone who is obviously a novice at this.
Last edited:
Ozzy, the Canon 10D does not mess with the focal length the way my Canon Rebel XT does. As I said I use the 18mm-75mm that came with the body (admittedly a cruddy lens) and the 18mm side in no way behaves as such. As nycresponder said it behaves like a 27mm lens.
I'm sorry for the confusion that arose from this. I was thinking of one thing and you were thinking of another. You are of course 100% correct that a true 16mm lens will take a cruddy interior picture.
I also apologize for my post from the other day, I was having a cruddy week and was half reading things and acting like a dick. I hope there are no hard feelings.
I'm sorry for the confusion that arose from this. I was thinking of one thing and you were thinking of another. You are of course 100% correct that a true 16mm lens will take a cruddy interior picture.
I also apologize for my post from the other day, I was having a cruddy week and was half reading things and acting like a dick. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Anyone know of a reasonably priced digital point and shoot camera with a relatively high-powered zoom lens? I noticed that Panasonix's Lumix line came out with a 10x optical zoom. But the reviews complain of a lot of noise. I don't necessarily need a 10x optical, but somewhere around a 7x optical would be the minimum I'm looking for. Without compromising picture quality too much (if that's possible).
Last edited:
Ozzy, the Canon 10D does not mess with the focal length the way my Canon Rebel XT does. As I said I use the 18mm-75mm that came with the body (admittedly a cruddy lens) and the 18mm side in no way behaves as such. As nycresponder said it behaves like a 27mm lens.
I'm sorry for the confusion that arose from this. I was thinking of one thing and you were thinking of another. You are of course 100% correct that a true 16mm lens will take a cruddy interior picture.
I also apologize for my post from the other day, I was having a cruddy week and was half reading things and acting like a dick. I hope there are no hard feelings.
I'm sorry for the confusion that arose from this. I was thinking of one thing and you were thinking of another. You are of course 100% correct that a true 16mm lens will take a cruddy interior picture.
I also apologize for my post from the other day, I was having a cruddy week and was half reading things and acting like a dick. I hope there are no hard feelings.
1) the Canon 10D and Rebel XT have the same image sensor so they both have the same crop factor.
2) Canon does not make a 18-75mm lens but they do make a 18-55mm which comes with the Digital Rebel.
3) Crop factor has nothing to do with the focal length. You are not gaining more distance on a lens with the crop factor you are seeing a crop of what you would be seeing on a full frame camera.
I don't know why I'm getting involved in this argument, but here goes:
Since it's for work, why don't you buy an digital SLR camera (Canon or Nikon) plus a wide angle lens of your choosing? Whatever it costs, you'll be able to write it off anyway. And you'll get the quality you need. Plus, both cameras have plenty of automatic functions, so you don't need to be a professional photographer to use either of them.
Now, does anyone have any suggestions about my little problem (above)?
Since it's for work, why don't you buy an digital SLR camera (Canon or Nikon) plus a wide angle lens of your choosing? Whatever it costs, you'll be able to write it off anyway. And you'll get the quality you need. Plus, both cameras have plenty of automatic functions, so you don't need to be a professional photographer to use either of them.
Now, does anyone have any suggestions about my little problem (above)?
In Response to Monk
I've always been partial to the Canon digital line, I like the color, and I think the images are clean, more so than Panasonic, even the Lumix/Leica series (same camera, same lens, a higher price on the latter for the name).
The new Canon G7 has been called by some a "mini DSLR" for its extensive controls and solid build. It's been bashed unnecessarily, I think, for its lack of RAW support and being the first camera in the "G" line without an articulated LCD screen, but if those two points aren't deal breakers for you, I'd consider it. The lens is the equiv. of a 35mm 35 - 210.
I've always been partial to the Canon digital line, I like the color, and I think the images are clean, more so than Panasonic, even the Lumix/Leica series (same camera, same lens, a higher price on the latter for the name).
The new Canon G7 has been called by some a "mini DSLR" for its extensive controls and solid build. It's been bashed unnecessarily, I think, for its lack of RAW support and being the first camera in the "G" line without an articulated LCD screen, but if those two points aren't deal breakers for you, I'd consider it. The lens is the equiv. of a 35mm 35 - 210.
Mark:
having been a longtime Canon customer i was set on going with the XTi DSLR- however after having actually played around with them at B&H recently i opted to go with a Nikon D80. The d80 seems to have a lot more bang for your buck with just the right balance of "automatic" and semi pro features that most enthusiasts would ever need.
my advice, go to BH or your local camera shop and hold each one in your hands and compare the features of each on to your needs then decide.
having been a longtime Canon customer i was set on going with the XTi DSLR- however after having actually played around with them at B&H recently i opted to go with a Nikon D80. The d80 seems to have a lot more bang for your buck with just the right balance of "automatic" and semi pro features that most enthusiasts would ever need.
my advice, go to BH or your local camera shop and hold each one in your hands and compare the features of each on to your needs then decide.