Cameras?

Hi Cindy. Just wanted to thank you for this question. I've been wondering the same thing.

A couple of years ago, I went from a Nikon 35mm (N80) to one of their digital SLRs (D50). All of the equipment from the older Nikon (lenses, speed light, etc.) work with the newer model. I've been very pleased with the investment, having saved thousands by not buying film anymore nor paying for picture development. Also, I can upload photos very quickly and send them to editors at no cost.

A couple of things I'd recommend:

Choose an SLR model. You won't notice the transition from your current 35mm model, and you can change lenses to suit your needs.

Buy a good memory card, one that holds at least a couple of thousand shots.

Also, get the best rechargeable batteries you can find, three or four, and you'll never be caught without power when you need it most.

Good luck!

I absolutely love my Canon Rebel. It's a few years old now and there's been a couple newer version that I've heard are better, but the Rebel has been great for me. It has the body that will allow you to use any Canon lenses, which makes it really flexible. And it's got plenty of power, as I shoot professional sports pictures with it which requires high speed action shots (they come out great). The photos are top quality, too, but that's because I use a good lab to print them (which won't matter if you're submitting them with writing).

And as Silver King mentioned-- be sure you don't skimp on batteries. They wear out FAST if you're taking many pictures.

My husband has the Nikon D80 and loves it. I don't take the pix, but I do a lot of digital imaging and I love having that high quality "raw" product to play with.

jeffo said:

...And it's got plenty of power, as I shoot professional sports pictures with it which requires high speed action shots (they come out great)....

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point, one that cannot be over-emphasized. The better quality cameras will process images instantly, without any blurring.

You can't tell from the size of my avatar, but that photo froze the fish in mid-flight, so well that the spray of water and light available worked in such a way that you can see through the drops of water spraying outward.

One other point that's worth mentioning is that if you expect quality photos, avoid cameras that look more like boxy cell phones, where you hold your arms out and stare at a screen you can't possibly see well enough to line up a good shot. Those are fun for personal stuff but are far removed from cameras that offer professional grade results.

Good points again, Silver King. I guess the question to be asked is for what purpose is the camera going to be used? If you're just generating still shots to be put on the web, it doesn't take much camera to do that. Pictures I take with my camera are just crushed to no end to get them small enough for web pictures. But pictures that are going in a full-color glossy magazine are going to need a bit more power behind them.

Jeffo makes a good point. I write for a fine crafts magazine and have to get super-high quality/res images from the artists. I'm amazed at how hard that is - you would think that artists would understand the importance of great images of their work!

I've got a Sony 100a and love it. Sony bought up Minolta/Konica, so it has a similar feel to my old Minolta SLR film cameras (and can use the lens from my automatic Minolta SLR). Of course, my dad had to one up me by getting a Nikon... which takes even BETTER pictures. Go digital SLR, the best you can afford. (You can't go wrong with the biggies: Nikon, Canon, Sony/Minolta...)

Maybe it's all in my head, but when I take my new digital SLR out on assignment, I feel like a pro. My pocket camera (Sony Cybershot) takes great pictures too, but it just doesn't feel professional. I still use it to tuck into my pocket for trips to the park with my kid, or for days where I'm taking web only photos for my blog.

On a side note, I took the DSLR to a birthday party at a rock climbing place, because I knew the crappy lighting would overwhelm my pocket camera. I let a kid (4th grader) take pictures of my son while I held the climbing rope...the kid asked "does it take movies?" - No. "Where's the view screen?" - You have to look through the hole. Geez. $800 camera and he thought it was lame because it doesn't have a through the lens monitor!

I have a DSLR, but it doesn't matter what it is. My advice is to try some out in the shop. I was all set to buy one from the reviews online and based on its specs, but when I tried it out before buying, I discovered that the button wasn't where my finger naturally rested. Then I tried a different brand with similar specs, and my finger sat where the button was first go.

I have a Canon Rebel XTi and I love it. For DSLRs, these are really quite affordable right now. It gives you a lot more flexibility than a point-and-shoot...changing lenses, adjusting everything...etc.

However, I am tempted to buy a Canon PowerShot one of these days. I find myself leaving the SLR behind some days because I don't want to lug it around. Especially if your picture-taking is going to be secondary to whatever it is you're doing (i.e. hiking, swimming), you may want something more portable.

Canon or Nikon. Get as much megapixels and optical--not digital--zoom as you can afford. Buy extra memory. Consider extra battery. Buy Photo-shop. Get a good book and/or take an intro to digital photography course. You're going to love it. I predict you will never go back to film after grasping digital.

Article in today's WSJ about how sales of digital cameras have stalled and that prices are expected to drop, some drastically.

Might be time for that purchase. Biz expense and all that, right?

Consider this, zoo. You don't have to buy film. You can shoot 100 shots, and keep one, for free. Heck, if you have enough memory, you can take 1000 shots, keep one, and let everyone tell you what a good photographer you are. That's what I do.

Here's a shopping hint: When good camera stores are done with the display models, they sell them cheap. Just ask one.

Greetings!

I used to be a professional wedding photographer and invested in my Nikon D70. Love it, love it, love it. I now use it mostly for travel and to take shots to accompany my articles. It cost me about $1100 when I bought the whole package (lens, case, etc.) in 2004, but you can find it second hand for far less. Newer models in the Nikon family with higher pixels are cheaper and offer excellent quality.

I would recommend the cheaper, $100-200 models of any maker if you're not especially concerned about high quality, say, for local newspaper shots or for online jobs that pay you $40 an article+photo. However, for pubs asking for good quality -- or if you simply want high quality for your own portfolio -- definitely go for the SLR cameras from Nikon or Canon. They're relatively simple to use once you get the basics, and unless you're going into full-time professional photography, you don't even necessarily need to know all the bells and whistles that come with the equipment. As someone mentioned, though, it's always a good idea to take at least a basic digital photography class so you can learn how to make the most of your purchase.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend getting a huge memory card. I limit myself to 2GB cards, mostly because I'm concerned that if the card is corrupted for whatever reason, I lose a relatively small amount of shots vs. if I had, say, a 16GB card. That was a bigger problem when I was doing a wedding, of course, where I might have 500-700 shots in one night. If you back up your cards regularly, that might not be a problem.

And yes, definitely get the rechargeable batteries. Worth the expense!

Cheers,
Marjorie

I went from a Canon Elan $800-plus film camera to a little digital Nikon Coolpix (not SLR). I use the Coolpix for everything, ranging from magazine pix to web pix. I love it that I can slip it in my pocket and take it travelling overseas so easily as well.

I don't personally think you need a SLR any more, unless you are taking high-quality art photos or freeze-frames for sports.

Ali
http://alisonbate.ca

Thornby said:

...I don't personally think you need a SLR any more, unless you are taking high-quality art photos or freeze-frames for sports.

Click to expand...

That may be true for some people and their assignments, as there are decent quality point and shoot cameras available. However, they limit your range of options, since you can't change lenses or add speed lights or adjust shooting speeds and so on. But for me the main difference, even when using a camera for pleasure, is that unless it's an SLR, I can't see well enough to take good pictures. The view screen is either too far away, or the surroundings too dark, or the sun is washing out the image. I need to hold the camera up to my face and peer through the view finder, where every aspect of the subject is clear and in focus, and every detail I see through the lens is exactly what will appear in the final product.

ETA: Totally off-subject, but something I just thought of is how difficult it can be to change from one eye to the other when taking pictures. Some years ago, an injury to my right eye forced me to use my left. At first it was so awkward that I nearly gave up photography altogether. But I (very slowly) learned to use the left one, and after countless shots, it's almost second nature now. For some reason, though, the right eye seemed to work much better and faster than its brother in communicating signals to the shutter release button.