I checked your gallery and it looks like you're using an Olympus C2500 which was actually announced in '99, so it may have gone on sale in '99 or early 2000. In any case, it's going on 6 years old now. Digital imaging technology has advanced a lot since then. The quality issues you're seeing are a function of the camera's age, not something that you're doing inherently wrong with the settings.

From DPreview it said in '99, that camera sold for $1200 (for 2.3 MP ). It just goes to show you how far things have come that now for that same money you'd be sitting pretty with a nice Nikon D70 or Canon XT D-SLR.

 

this is all very interesting to me as tonight (well in a half hour) I start my second job for the first time... and it is at ritz camera, lol. no I'm not hurting for money or anything, but I'm saving for a house, ring and wedding so any extra can't hurt right

I've been told that I can get many of the really good cameras direct from the mfg. for less than what the dealers pay. if that really is the case I'll probably build up a decent collection of digital cameras to go with my canon elan 7 35mm. As for simple, small and nice I've only heard good things about the lumix line by panasonic... and the image stabilization is amazing considering the closest canon that has it is a few bucks more

hopefully after a few days/weeks working I'll be able to give better comparisons on all different cameras that you guys are asking about and then once my MINI arrives I can take all kinds of excellent photos!

well, off to work (again) :P

 

Yea that's about what my dad paid for it new! So your saying that a 5-7MP would be alot better? I want something thats high quality but not extremely expensive (I budgeting in mods for my car too!) Anything other than whats listed that you'd recommend?

Thanks

Chili

 

Also how could you tell what camera I was using just by the pics? Is it a well trained eye?

 

Unless you use photoshop and choose "save for web" each jpeg image that comes off of a digital camera is also stamped with what's called EXIF data. Basically it includes when the photo was shot, what camera was used, and what settings or modes were selected. I took a look at this photo in your gallery scrolled down below the image and read the EXIF data (which NAM is friendly enough to read and display).

Let's start here: what's your realistic budget? Pretty much any "modern" digital camera will be taking clearer photos than your current camera.

 

Hi there. I've always been old fashioned w/ cameras but recently picked up a digital Canon Rebel XT. I'm lovin it!!!! I'm not sure what's in your range...i'm not very techy but this camera was easy to navigate through....


Hope you find one you like soon
:smile: :smile:

 

$0-800

 

I'm totally satisfied with my Fuji 5000 except for the shutter lag. Specically, I can't capture my fast moving pup (see avitar) like when he's in midair going for his tennis ball.

So if I upgrade, with no brand prejudice on my part, what does anyone recommend?

 

Someone looking for a Steal on a DSLR with everything ready to go, this guy is selling a package on Nikonians that is unbeatable:

Selling the following, because although this camera does everything certain things I need for my work, like 100iso. I am not selling b/c of the D200, just bad timing, at 10 mp I'll stick to film. The camera has not been heavily used and when I find out how to determine actuations I will post the number but I would guess 1500. It was bought almost exactly one year ago.


D70 body and all accessories that came in package = 600 plus postage
plus any of the following but prices are only for the person buying the D70:
50mm 1.4D auto focus prime lens with uv filter and hood = 75
105mm 2.8 micro with uv filter and hood = 100
SB800 = 200 (I have two of these in pristine condition because I never did the location work I thought I would, used maybe five times) If you really want pictures I will post them but everything is spotless.

All of the prices are if you buy everything and it is a steal, body, two lenses (very nice one) and a top of the line Canon flash for $975! WOW!

Here is the direct link to the forum page: http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID23/3557.html

Jason

 

I'm in total agreement with Chris on the Panasonic Lumix series. I think the FZ5 will serve you well. I've recommended it to a bunch of peopel who have all been satisfied. The FZ20 is a great camera as well. Its a bit more feature rich than the FZ5 for not a lot more money but its a bit bulky to lug around sometimes if you're not a shutterbug. The FZ5 isnt tiny but it may be too small for some hands. Definately pick them both up and really think about what you're going to do with it before purchasing.



Hugh,
The easiest way to eliminate shutter lag is to get a dSLR. Everyone has a preference but I dont think there is a bad choice.

 

There are as many suggestions about cameras as there are noses!! I use a Canon DigiReb, others like Nikon, others Minolta. They ALL make good pictures. I was just never happy until I got an SLR in my hands again. The point and shoots are OK, I still use them. But even the prosumer point and shoots are not DSLRs. The prices keep going down too!!!

 

In that price range *I* would get either the Nikon D50 or the Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D). Both are $800 (NOTE: the 350D is $880 but there is a $75 rebate).

Either of those cameras would get you into a D-SLR and then you can start making investments in glass so you have something of value to take on to the next camera you get, instead of replacing one expensive P&S with another.

 

The only real solution to shutter lag is to get an SLR. Sounds like you need one with good auto-focus tracking and a fast frames-per-second rate, which only an SLR will get you. So...

I agree. If your (Hugh's) budget allows for a more expensive model, you will probably make use of it's added features. I'm not sure how fast the entry-level models are in terms of auto-focus and frames per second.

 

Which one do you think of the two are better? I'm leaning towards the Rebel.

Chili

 

Leaning towards the Canon Digital Rebel XT myself.

 

They are both very good cameras (certainly not "pro" but still just by being a D-SLR they are very good).

As a Nikon D70 owner, I'm going to try to be as unbiased as possible here. Of the two cameras, based on what you get for the price alone, I would get a Rebel XT. Canon makes an excellent product and in recent memory they have always been at least 6 months ahead of Nikon in terms of product releases. That said, you're not buying a camera, you're buying into a camera system. I would get my hands on both and try out the ergonomics of it. The camera that is easiest for you to operate and feels best in your hand is the one most likely to get you the shot when it counts. It's no good if you have to fumble with the camera because it doesn't feel like second nature to you. Try both, then decide. I would also recommend taking a look at the camera's next up in the pecking order: the D70 and the 20D, just to see the differences and again check the ergonomics/operation to see which brand you're most comfortable with.

My two copper pennies anyway.

 

I'll now agree with DiD :smile: XT is a nice piece of technology so is the Nikon but definately hold them both before purchasing. I bought the Pentax *istDS because I like preferred the ergonomics and the viewfinder but you couldnt be faulted for picking any of them. The pentax definately has the smallest lens assortment (new) but some of the older used stuff is great quality and works with their newer cameras. Nikon and Canon range is pretty broad. Like DiD said, its a system so keep in mind what you're interested in and whats available in your system. Sometimes there is one great lens or one missing feature that seals the deal.

Good luck!

 

It was not me, I swear
Sorry, I clearly skipped that part


Back to what you were asking…
I would say for a 700$ total budget;
- Canon PowerShot A620 $399
- 7.1mega pixle so you can print huge 13x19 or more
* bhphotovideo.com has a great deal , the Canon A620 and 1GIG memory for $424.95

good deal

Canon A620

- This leaves you with room to spend, you can now buy a tripod for long exposure night photography or for day framing shots. These can range from $50 to 4,000 find the one best for you...

- Also get a good bag to protect your camera from Lowepro (These bags can take a beating)

- And if you want the 5year warranty is $50


-------------------------

This is a good camera for point and shoot and if you want to get into photography it has the room to let you wonder around. This camera is small and its very portable, my friend bough it when he was shipped to the army and the pics he's able to are great.

Even if you won't spend hours learning your camera, you should because this way you know how to get what you want out of your pictures.


Good luck, sorry for before that was a blunder

 

For those that might be wanting a Canon XT...the Rebel is a bigger camera. I have large hands and the XT is SMALL. You are buying into a system and I've always liked the Canon lenses better. L glass is SOOOOO nice, even if it is expensive.

 

BattleCattle - dpreview.com has a review of the new Canon S80, and gave it a rating of Highly Recommended. It has an 8mp sensor, 28-100mm wide-angle zoom, and costs about $500 online.

Review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80/

 

Both are excellent. If you shot the same scene with both cameras at the same time, all things being equal, you'd have a hard/impossible time telling the two pictures apart. (so much for brand snob appeal)

The reason I'd lean towards Nikon is because of what imo is the larger amounts of recently owned equipment such as Nikon lenses available on the market today.

If you're not looking to build a huge system, either Nikon or Canon should satisfy your needs.

 

My $0.02 worth to the OP....

While Nikon and Canon are excellent cameras, remember, Like DiD mentioned, a SLR is a camera system. They are money pits..... There is always a better lens, a better tripod, some filters, better bags, a poweful flash....PHEW!! the list goes on.

The point I want to make is, if your budget is around $700, then a SLR is not an option, because with atleast one additional lens (other than the kit lens), the cost be would closer to $1000. Add in a card, card reader, a bag for the camera and lens, you are into the $1200-$1300 range.

This is a decision you have to make..go above your budget, get a system, learn to use the camera (incase you already don't), learn about post-processing (and get totally lost in all the available options...and spend more on cool tools!!), and finally end up taking GREAT shots after 3-4 months...OR......get a decent point and shoot/semi-SLR (good ones were mentioned in previous posts) and then start taking GREAT shots or not-so-GREAT pictures (only because your point and shoot lacks some of the features available in a SLR - this is getting rarer coz most of the high-end prosumer cameras have almost all the features available in a SLR).

If you are opting for a SLR, I would suggest Canon, only because their entry level lenses are very reasonably priced!

Whatever camera you choose, it's you as a photographer who creates the photo, the camera is just a tool!!

 

Wow, very nice camera for the price! It's really amazing how quickly the technology is advancing and the prices are dropping. You see camera cellphones now that take better photos than bulky cameras that cost $500+ maybe 5 years ago.

I also want to second the recommendation of the Lowepro camera bags. When I was looking for a camera bag, this was the first (and only brand) I seriously considered. I've had a Lowe internal frame pack that I've backpacked with for over ten years and at least 1000 miles, and it's held up remarkably - all the zippers work, all the seams are perfect, all the straps still do their job perfectly.

 

You know . . . film is still sold in this country.

Fuji Velvia is kinda nice for shooting cars.
Kodak's Porta VC is also cool for automobile shots.

You can also experiment with expired cheap films such as Lucky.

 

Film schmilm! I only buy film for my Holga.

Seriously, I take 1000s more photos now that I have a digital SLR compared to when I used film. With film, I used to buy it when I had some sort of plan to use it. With digital, I go out all the time just to shoot away. That alone makes it worthwhile to switch. When you add the instant feedback, and the accompanying opportunity to correct mistakes that digital offers, plus the ease of post-processing in Photoshop, I think it's a no-brainer for any amateur photographer to go digital.