Virgil
Relatively low cost (around $300)
Good quality
Answer
"Which one is a good camera to buy?" gets asked many times every single day here on YA.
A quick search would have given you thousands of instant replies (without having to wait for answers), but once again here is my 10 cents on the subject:
I don't really like to give recommendations for particular cameras because there are too many choices and too many variables in what people are looking for. I find it much more useful to help you think this over, then make up your own mind.
Point & Shoot cameras are wonderfully handy because of their small size.
When light conditions are ideal, they even take really nice photos - all of them do.
However, they all DO have limitations - they don't do very well in low light situations (i.e. noisy photos, hard to avoid blur, etc). The little onboard flash is very harsh at close range, and doesn't reach very far.
Many of them have no manual functions, so you are limited to only very basic photos, you can't compensate for unusual situations, or do many fun "tricks" and special effects.
P&S's also suffer from frustrating shutterlag and many of them chew through batteries rather quickly.
If you're ok with all those limitations, then go ahead and pick one, most of them (the same type and same price range) are rather similar. Personally I would pick either a Canon or a Nikon, and would certainly stay away from Kodak and Vivitar.
A higher end P&S will give you more manual options and better quality. Many of those even give you the option of adding a proper flash (which makes a big difference to your flash photos).
Don't worry too much about megapixels - all modern cameras have plenty enough, plus there is a limit to how many pixels you can squash into a tiny P&S sensor before you actually LOSE quality rather than gain it. 6 megapixels is about the upper limit for those little sensors.
Don't worry about digital zoom, in fact, don't EVER use it. It simply crops away pixels, i.e. destroys information. The only real zoom is optical.
Some people ask for a camera that "doesn't take blurry photos". Blur is the photographer's problem, NOT the camera's. Even the most expensive camera will take blurry photos if the person behind it doesn't know what they're doing.
Some words about special effect features such as color accent, or even just b/w or sepia:
About applying any sort of effect in camera: DON'T DO IT !
Imagine if you just happen to take the best photo you ever took - surely you would want to have it in all its glory, right?
Always set your camera to biggest size, best quality (and to color).
That way, you start with the best possible photo as your original.
Then you make a copy and edit it to your heart's content.
You have much better control over any editing on your computer, even something as simple as b&w will look MUCH better when it was processed properly instead of in camera.
You can do all sorts of things to it PLUS you get to keep your original.
Decide which features are important to you, and look for cameras that have that feature.
Then go compare a few models on www.dpreview.com .
The very best thing you can do for your success is to borrow some books and learn about photography. A bit of knowledge will make a much bigger difference to your photos than your choice of P&S camera can.
For what it's worth - if I was in the market for a P&S camera right now, my choice would be a Canon Powershot SX50 HS http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx50_hs
If tiny size is attractive and important in your opinion (but you still want a camera that gives you some decent options), I'd suggest looking at cameras like the Canon Powershot SX210IS or perhaps the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10. However, do keep in mind that small cameras have tiny sensors and tiny lenses, so don't ever expect miracles from any of them.
"Which one is a good camera to buy?" gets asked many times every single day here on YA.
A quick search would have given you thousands of instant replies (without having to wait for answers), but once again here is my 10 cents on the subject:
I don't really like to give recommendations for particular cameras because there are too many choices and too many variables in what people are looking for. I find it much more useful to help you think this over, then make up your own mind.
Point & Shoot cameras are wonderfully handy because of their small size.
When light conditions are ideal, they even take really nice photos - all of them do.
However, they all DO have limitations - they don't do very well in low light situations (i.e. noisy photos, hard to avoid blur, etc). The little onboard flash is very harsh at close range, and doesn't reach very far.
Many of them have no manual functions, so you are limited to only very basic photos, you can't compensate for unusual situations, or do many fun "tricks" and special effects.
P&S's also suffer from frustrating shutterlag and many of them chew through batteries rather quickly.
If you're ok with all those limitations, then go ahead and pick one, most of them (the same type and same price range) are rather similar. Personally I would pick either a Canon or a Nikon, and would certainly stay away from Kodak and Vivitar.
A higher end P&S will give you more manual options and better quality. Many of those even give you the option of adding a proper flash (which makes a big difference to your flash photos).
Don't worry too much about megapixels - all modern cameras have plenty enough, plus there is a limit to how many pixels you can squash into a tiny P&S sensor before you actually LOSE quality rather than gain it. 6 megapixels is about the upper limit for those little sensors.
Don't worry about digital zoom, in fact, don't EVER use it. It simply crops away pixels, i.e. destroys information. The only real zoom is optical.
Some people ask for a camera that "doesn't take blurry photos". Blur is the photographer's problem, NOT the camera's. Even the most expensive camera will take blurry photos if the person behind it doesn't know what they're doing.
Some words about special effect features such as color accent, or even just b/w or sepia:
About applying any sort of effect in camera: DON'T DO IT !
Imagine if you just happen to take the best photo you ever took - surely you would want to have it in all its glory, right?
Always set your camera to biggest size, best quality (and to color).
That way, you start with the best possible photo as your original.
Then you make a copy and edit it to your heart's content.
You have much better control over any editing on your computer, even something as simple as b&w will look MUCH better when it was processed properly instead of in camera.
You can do all sorts of things to it PLUS you get to keep your original.
Decide which features are important to you, and look for cameras that have that feature.
Then go compare a few models on www.dpreview.com .
The very best thing you can do for your success is to borrow some books and learn about photography. A bit of knowledge will make a much bigger difference to your photos than your choice of P&S camera can.
For what it's worth - if I was in the market for a P&S camera right now, my choice would be a Canon Powershot SX50 HS http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx50_hs
If tiny size is attractive and important in your opinion (but you still want a camera that gives you some decent options), I'd suggest looking at cameras like the Canon Powershot SX210IS or perhaps the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10. However, do keep in mind that small cameras have tiny sensors and tiny lenses, so don't ever expect miracles from any of them.
lumix G1 Dslr or Canon 1000d?
Jon dubble
I am going to buy one of these cameras in a bundle with a telephoto lens; the Canon with a 55-250mm is lens and the lumix with a 45-200mm lens.
What is the better camera to buy for a beginner into SLR photography?
inlcluding a bag and a card, the Canon bundle would be £645 and the Lumix bundle would be slightly more than this price.
Answer
First I should point out that the G1 is not really a dSLR in the strictest sense. It does have interchangeable lenses and a relatively large sensor, but the difference is that there is no mirror or optical viewfinder... which is what the "Reflex" in Single Lens Reflex refers to. Instead the viewfinder is electronic, similar to digital compacts.
Now the G1 has several advantages and disadvantages compared to a true DSLR (such as the 1000D)...
+ Whereas an SLR viewfinder only helps you in framing the shot, the G1 can also show you a preview of your current exposure, white balance, and color settings.
+ The viewfinder can also automatically compensate for a reduction in the amount of light.
+ A side effect of removing the optical viewfinder is that both the camera body and lenses can be made noticeable smaller.
+ You can compose through the LCD without any limitations. (though the Canon has a "live view" function... ie. using the LCD in place of the optical viewfinder... using it severely cripples the camera's autofocus)
+ As there is no mirror to flip up, less noise is made while shooting.
+ The short mounting distance makes it possible, with adapters, to use many lenses from other camera mounts. Including legacy ones such as Canon FD, notable because the lenses for this otherwise abandoned system can be found for rather cheap these days.
- While shooting in continuous mode there is a noticeable lag in the viewfinder.
- Electronic viewfinders consume a lot of power, so battery life is noticeably reduced compared to an DSLR (using the optical VF).
- Because the G1's "µ4:3" system is still practically brand new there are hardly any native lenses available for it yet.
- Though the autofocus is surprisingly fast for a camera without a dedicated AF sensor (ala SLRs), it still shows some limitations when tracking a moving subject.
Also, although the G1's sensor is the same size as in regular 4:3 DSLRs, this in itself is slightly smaller than the ones Canon uses. Enough so that these cameras perform comparatively a little worse at high ISO sensitivities. (though still much better than any P&S)
Anyways, because it carries over the whole "What You See Is What You Get" aspect from point and shoots, in a sense the G1 would probably be better for a beginner. But then again the advantages of a true DSLR are certainly worth considering.
First I should point out that the G1 is not really a dSLR in the strictest sense. It does have interchangeable lenses and a relatively large sensor, but the difference is that there is no mirror or optical viewfinder... which is what the "Reflex" in Single Lens Reflex refers to. Instead the viewfinder is electronic, similar to digital compacts.
Now the G1 has several advantages and disadvantages compared to a true DSLR (such as the 1000D)...
+ Whereas an SLR viewfinder only helps you in framing the shot, the G1 can also show you a preview of your current exposure, white balance, and color settings.
+ The viewfinder can also automatically compensate for a reduction in the amount of light.
+ A side effect of removing the optical viewfinder is that both the camera body and lenses can be made noticeable smaller.
+ You can compose through the LCD without any limitations. (though the Canon has a "live view" function... ie. using the LCD in place of the optical viewfinder... using it severely cripples the camera's autofocus)
+ As there is no mirror to flip up, less noise is made while shooting.
+ The short mounting distance makes it possible, with adapters, to use many lenses from other camera mounts. Including legacy ones such as Canon FD, notable because the lenses for this otherwise abandoned system can be found for rather cheap these days.
- While shooting in continuous mode there is a noticeable lag in the viewfinder.
- Electronic viewfinders consume a lot of power, so battery life is noticeably reduced compared to an DSLR (using the optical VF).
- Because the G1's "µ4:3" system is still practically brand new there are hardly any native lenses available for it yet.
- Though the autofocus is surprisingly fast for a camera without a dedicated AF sensor (ala SLRs), it still shows some limitations when tracking a moving subject.
Also, although the G1's sensor is the same size as in regular 4:3 DSLRs, this in itself is slightly smaller than the ones Canon uses. Enough so that these cameras perform comparatively a little worse at high ISO sensitivities. (though still much better than any P&S)
Anyways, because it carries over the whole "What You See Is What You Get" aspect from point and shoots, in a sense the G1 would probably be better for a beginner. But then again the advantages of a true DSLR are certainly worth considering.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar