File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I want to start taking pictures, but first I need a good camera, something in the 300-400 dollar range. I've been looking at the canon powershot S3 IS, yet I am still undecided, any help would be appreciated.
>> Anonymous
Either get a DSLR or a small P&S. Those powerzooms aren't worth it - sensors aren't any bigger and the body isn't "pocketable," either.

Oh and good camera =/= good pictures. If you don't want to get an SLR yet, get a P&S you can fit in your pocket and when you get better and advance to an SLR, you can still use the P&S when you don't want to lug around the other around.
>> Anonymous
>>61671
aight, thanks. I think I'll look into a DSLR now. Have any suggestions?
>> Anonymous
>>61683
There really aren't any horrible or even bad dSLRs out there right now. Just do some research into what you'll be using it for, but most of all go somewhere to use the camera and get a feel for its grip, and if you're "compatible" with its menu layout.

There's also about 2 threads a day on /p/ about what dSLR is better, just scroll through the pages to read it (personal choice still reigns supreme, however)
>> Anonymous
>>I want to start taking pictures

If you know absolute shit about cameras, do get the S3 IS. If you know anything, feel free to buy a Rebel XT (both Canon, I'm assuming you're a Canon whore, not a Nikon bitch).

Also - it depends what you're doing. I love my S3 IS for taking street shots and people watching. But if you want to do artsy shit, get a POS 100usd and work your way up. If you go right in and buy a DSLR, you'll get confused and give up.

Trust me.
>> Anonymous
I disagree, you can use something like a rebel or D40 in program mode and it will be just as simple as the S3, but you'll have more room to expand later. There's no reason to buy two cameras when one will do just fine.
>> Anonymous
>>61685
thanks for the advice. To be honest, I just kinda figured out that there was a /p/ like a day ago.
>> Anonymous
>>61671
I strongly disagree. If the options are between a DSLR and a point and shoot, a superzoom is the best photographic tool out of the latter category. They handle better because of their SLR-like body, have EVFs in addition to huge LCDs in the back, are insanely versatile, and some models can indeed be put in a jacket pocket.

OP, here are the comparisons between something like the S3IS (a superzoom) and a DSLR.

-Sensor Size: Superzooms have much smaller sensors than DSLRs. This gives DSLRs an advantage in image quality, in keeping noise levels down, and if one wants to have a shallow depth of field, it's easier to do. Conversely, it is easier to have a large depth of field with a superzoom, which is useful for street photography and documentary photography and so on. The advantage here depends on what you intend to do: if you're going to be doing pretty much exclusively street photography, it goes to the superzoom; if you want something versatile, it goes to the DSLR. So probably the DSLR.

-Viewfinder: A SLR by definition uses a mirror to send light from the lens up to the viewfinder. It shows you exactly what the lens sees, minus some parts at the edge in almost every model. (This is called "viewfinder coverage.) Superzooms have an electronic viewfinder, which just sends up to the viewfinder what the sensor is seeing. The whole frame can be seen and one can see exactly how the photograph will turn out, not just where things are in the scene and whether it's in focus. In addition, EVFs alter the magnification to make it easier to manually focus when one is doing this, because they're just a little computer display. SLRs have to adopt a fixed magnification that is a compromise between magnification and coverage. Almost everyone here will disagree with me, but the advantage definately goes to the full-coverage, high-magnification when needed, exposure-showing, live-histogram showing, variable display EVF-equipped superzoom.
>> Anonymous
Loudness: SLR cameras have a very loud shutter. Superzooms make almost no noise. The advantage is to the latter, but it depends on what you'll be doing as to whether this actually matters.


Versatility: There's two ways to look at this. In terms of absolute versatility, the DSLR wins, hands-down. It'll take external flashes and lenses galore. If you don't plan on buying more lenses like you should, the 36-432mm equivalent range of a superzoom is more versatile.

RAW capability: This doesn't apply to every superzoom, but the S3IS does not shoot RAW and all DSLRs do. You want it to shoot RAW, otherwise it's throwing away a huge amount of image information and saving it as a compressed JPEG. There are superzooms that do shoot RAW, like the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, which is better than the S3IS in almost every regard.

And, of course, the superzoom will be cheaper. Your choice, then, is essentially between:

Image quality, ultimate versatility, and ease of getting a small depth of field (DSLR).

Size, cost, viewfinder, loudness, and economy (Superzoom).

And if you do opt for a superzoom, I would strongly advise the DMC-FZ8 I mentioned earlier. It handles better than any of the others I've handled (S3IS owning, Sony and Kodak in the store), has a great if over-hyped lens, shoots RAW, and is generally of better build than the others I've held.

http://www.adorama.com/IPCDMCFZ8K.html
http://www.adorama.com/IPCDMCFZ8S.html

(Ignore the big thing on the front in the first one. That's just an accessory that they screwed on. It's the same as the silver except black.)

If you opt for a DSLR, I advise the Pentax K100D.

http://www.adorama.com/IPXK100DK.html

(Price includes lens here.)

Also, shop around. I just went to Adorama; somewhere else might have better prices. And ultimately, whichever class of camera you decide, pick the one that feels the best in your hand. That's the most important thing viz. getting good photographs.
>> Anonymous
>>61706
>>61707
wow, that was really helpful. Thanks a lot man.
>> Anonymous
you do not need a good camera to take great pictures. people have done a lot more with a lot less.
>> Anonymous
>>61706
Not every camera with an electronic viewfinder can magnify image and show live histogram; in addition, most EVFs are grainy (sometimes the resolution is lower than the main LCD, wtf?) and kinda slow at updating the image.
I'm not too fond of optical viewfinders either, but EVFs are far from being "definitely" better in their current state...

>>61707
There are 10-12x zoom lenses for DSLRs too, which give comparable range to a superzoom. Of course, they're much bulkier and can be expensive.
>> Anonymous
I dunno what the hell some of you are smoking, but EVFs suck ass for the most part. I'll be sticking to my optical viewfinder thank you very much.
>> Anonymous
>>61724
>Not every camera with an electronic viewfinder can magnify image and show live histogram
The two I've shot with (the S3IS and the FZ8) could. I'm not 100% on the live histogram with the S3IS- I didn't use the histogram, live or not, back when I used the S3IS- but I think it had it.

>in addition, most EVFs are grainy
Not in my experience. The S3IS's was just fine and the FZ-8 is crystal clear.

>and kinda slow at updating the image.
Luckily, these cameras are small enough that one eye can be kept in the viewfinder and one on the scene.

>There are 10-12x zoom lenses for DSLRs too, which give comparable range to a superzoom. Of course, they're much bulkier and can be expensive.

see

>if you don't plan on buying more lenses like you should

Those lenses aren't kit lenses, and using a literally 36-432mm lens (or something slightly smaller if it's a crop sensor) as my only lens is not something I would want to do,
>> Anonymous
>>61726
>Those lenses aren't kit lenses
To be fair, they can be. Some camera shops make their own discounted kits with superzoom lenses, and Olympus bundles 10x zoom lenses with their DSLRs sometimes. (I've seen a $600 Olympus E-500 kit with a 36-360 equivalent lens in the shop nearby. And the lens isn't too big, about the size of Nikon 18-70 kit lens)
>> Anonymous
>>61725
Most things in any category suck ass for the most part. Most cars suck, most restaurants suck, most pens suck, and you know what? Most DSLR viewfinders suck ass, too.

A good EVF is better than a good DSLR viewfinder, and certainly better than the bad ones which predominante overwhelmingly. Full coverage and great magnification for manual focusing, plus live histogram, a visual preview of the exposure, and the ability to switch how the viewfinder is set up without having to physically replace the screen.
>> Anonymous
>>61732
>A good EVF is better than a good DSLR viewfinder

The only really good, sharp EVF I've seen was on one of the Minolta superzooms, with 0.8MP resolution or something like that. It was still slow, though.
Most other EVFs I've seen qualify as "grainy" or "zomg grainy". That's even with my far-from-perfect eyesight.
>> Anonymous
>>61733
I haven't seen any of the Minoltas.

The FZ-8's works just fine. And besides, graininess of the display doesn't really matter. It's used for composing and manual focusing. So long as those can be accomplished, it's fine.

On the other hand, most DSLR viewfinders aren't full coverage (points against composition) and have shitty magnification (points against manual focusing) and bad focusing snap (points against manual focusing).
>> Anonymous
>>61739
>points against manual focusing
If you had a little more experience with manual focusing on an actual SLR, you'd probably know that optical viewfinder can be used to compose image and manually focus it *at the same time*, something you can't do with a low-resolution EVF. Plus, motorized focusing lag on a superzoom combined with EVF lag won't let you focus quickly anyway.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>61718
Do keep in mind that this is the only person in the world who prefers an EVF to a real optical TTL viewfinder.

Also, he glossed over some of the biggest dSLR advantages:

1. Speed. Most digital SLRs come on instantly. The way it works with my Digital Rebel (and other Canons) is that I pretty much leave the camera switched "on" all the time. It shuts off automatically after half a minute, but comes on *immediately* when I half-press the shutter button. With the optical viewfinder, that means I can frame the shot before it comes on and then just press the button. It boots up and fires so quickly that it might as well have been fully on.
2. Speed (yes, again). There is *no* shutter lag on current dSLRs. If you've ever used a lesser digital camera, you know there's a little wait between hitting the shutter button and the actual picture being taken. The latest superzooms have shortened this dramatically from when I last had one, but I just tested on my girlfriend's S5IS and there's still noticeable lag.
3. Speed (yes, *again*). My Digital Rebel XTi can pump out jpegs at a rate of three per second basically for as long as I want. I think it hits its buffer limit around 20-30 frames, depending on CF card speed. Try that with a superzoom.
4. Speed (Seeing a pattern?). Even with low-end digital SLRs like the ones that'll be in your price range, you can get clear shots at ISO400. On every superzoom I've seen, ISO400 gives you a noisy mess that looks like it came out of a cell phone. If you don't know what that means, it means that, all other things being equal, you can use quadruple the shutter speed on an SLR as you can on a superzoom. This means less risk of motion blur, especially when you couple it with being able to attach faster lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>61743
>If you had a little more experience with manual focusing on an actual SLR, you'd probably know that optical viewfinder can be used to compose image and manually focus it *at the same time*, something you can't do with a low-resolution EVF. Plus, motorized focusing lag on a superzoom combined with EVF lag won't let you focus quickly anyway.

I have manually focused with SLRs.

The first point is true; the second is subjective but I almost always manually focus when shooting with my superzoom, and the motor moves about as quickly as one can precisely move a focusing ring. Not as quickly period, but the difference is minor and the greater depth of field of the smaller sensor eases the process.

>>61743
>Do keep in mind that this is the only person in the world who prefers an EVF to a real optical TTL viewfinder
I doubt I'm the only person. The advantages seem clear to me- full coverage, greater magnification, a visual display of the exposure as opposed to just a reading, and the ability to quickly switch between displays. All the SLR mechanism itself has as an advantage is no lag and a higher resolution, of course, but the former will be fixed by technology and the latter isn't really needed for either of the functions of a viewfinder.

>1
You're right; I should've mentioned this. The rapid on capability of a DSLR versus the slower time of a superzoom just doesn't come up for me as part of normal shooting, so I forgot about it.

I'm also going to point out, in the broader conceptual debate, that this isn't an inherent property of DSLRs over EVFs. It's the way they're built. Mainly, it's that the lens has to extend on the superzoom.
>> Anonymous
>2
The shutter lag on the FZ-8 isn't noticable. I don't remember from the S3IS, and I can't speak about any others. There is a noticable shot-to-shot lag, but it hasn't affected the way I personally use the camera, at least.

And again on the conceptual level, that's an issue of how the cameras are built, not an inherent difference. If anything, doing away with having to move the mirror would (assuming the two cameras were build to the same level) speed things up.

>3
I've never found an actual use for continuous shooting, with a DSLR or a point and shoot or anything. The only people I can see really using it are people like sports photographers. I just don't think it's a useful feature.

>4
I mentioned noise, and pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of large and small sensors: image quality, noise, and shallow depth of field in the former, and portability and large depth of field in the latter.

I do think, however, that noise is an overwrought issue. It's not that big of a deal if a photograph is noisy.

>>61706

Looking back over my original post, I phrased this sentence in a fairly unclear way, so I'm rephrasing it:

>If the options are between a DSLR and a point and shoot, a superzoom is the best photographic tool out of the latter category

Should've read something like: "If you're trying to decide between a DSLR and a point and shoot, a superzoom is the sort of point and shoot your alternative should be, since they are better photographic tools than all other point-and-shoots."
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>61751
>It's not that big of a deal if a photograph is noisy.
<-- This is a 100% crop from a random shot taken at ISO 1600 with my Olympus E-500, which is FAR from the best SLR in terms of noise. Now try the same with any superzoom and you'll see why noise IS a big deal.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern654Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:11 17:03:27Exposure Time1/40 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>61756
And how often does anyone actually use 100% crops?
>> Anonymous
>>61707
>>61726
>>61732
>>61739
>>61750
>>61751
Oh, I have a deja vu here. It's another one of these people who bought a panasuck because they didn't have money for a proper camera, and now are trying to pass it as the holy grail and decree all the features it doesn't have as useless.
>> Anonymous
>>61758
Well, duh, an ISO 1600 shot from the aforemented Panasonic FZ8 will most likely be a mess even when shrunk to one or two megapixels.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>61758
>>61760
Here's the same shot with some noise reduction and resized to 2 megapixels.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern654Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:11 17:31:51Exposure Time1/40 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>61751
>"If you're trying to decide between a DSLR and a point and shoot, a superzoom is the sort of point and shoot your alternative should be, since they are better photographic tools than all other point-and-shoots."
I still disagree with this. A superzoom won't give you appreciably better image quality than a pocketable P&S (and I don't count "Barely fits in a large jacket pocket with a huge and visible lump" as pocketable) and if you ever do want to bump up to the next level in image quality and get yourself an SLR, the superzoom will be basically useless to you. I know when I got my SLR, one of the first things I did was sell my Minolta DiMAGE A200 superzoom (at a ~50% loss). My little Canon PowerShot A95, on the other hand, is still a valued member of my photographic arsenal because I can bring it places my dSLR fears to tread.

The only real argument for a superzoom over a pocketable camera are the zoom range and ergonomics. Ergonomics are *highly* subjective--I personally think the weight advantage of smaller cameras outweighs (so to speak) any potential advantages that a larger grip gives.

As for zoom range... Meh. You've probably got a pair of legs. Use 'em. I've heard that something like 70% of the prizewinning photographs of all time were taken with a normal prime.
>> Anonymous
>>61763
Same here. After experimenting with various cameras, I found out that it's the best to have a small (and I mean jeans-pocket small) P&S to carry around all the time, and a SLR for the occasions where quality pictures are needed.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>61759
>It's another one of these people who bought a...
should be
>It's that one guy who bought a...

It's just one guy. In all the time I've been posting here, there's only this one guy who keeps espousing the EVF > TTL glass viewfinder argument. I can recognize him from his writing style and camera choices even though he posts anonymous.

The fact that every other person who's ever gone from a superzoom to a dSLR is on the other side of the argument doesn't seem to affect his belief that his advice is true for everyone...
>> Anonymous
>>61759
No, it's not the holy grail at all, and it lacks a lot of features I would like. The only feature I've said is useless is continuous shooting.

My points are these:

1. Depending on what sort of shooting the OP is planning on doing and how much he's willing to invest in lenses down the line, either a superzoom or a DSLR is his best choice. DSLRs are better built and faster; I'm not denying that. But different people have different needs and different applications have different cameras best suited to them. I explained some differences- forgetting to mention speed, yes- between the two to help the OP. A DSLR isn't the best thing for everyone, and I was presenting the other side of the coin to the reflexive "get a DSLR" response.

I'm also saying that, if one is going to buy more lenses (and I tell the OP he should), they're more versatile than a superzoom, but if he isn't going to buy more lenses, the superzoom's range makes it more versatile.

2. EVFs are better than an SLR viewfinder. I know I'm in the minority on this, but I'm standing by my position. Obviously, all the cameras they have been applied to suffer from limitations because of their sensor size and lack of interchangeable lenses. But the EVF mechanism is superior to the SLR.

3. A superzoom is a better camera than a non-superzoom point and shoot.

>>61763
I disagree on the ergonomic thing, but like you said, that's subjective.

My point about the zoom range is that the zoom range of the camera stands in for lenses of other focal lengths the OP might not want to buy. The kit lens on a DSLR will get him from wide angle to a medium telephoto. If he wants to do photography at focal lengths past that, and doesn't want to spend the money, he might want to go with a superzoom. When I'm using any camera, a superzoom or a DSLR or whatever, I typically stay at one focal length for a set of shooting conditions, zoom lens or otherwise. I fully agree about "zooming with one's feet."
>> Anonymous
>>61765
Yeah, I am probably the same guy because I know I've debated this with you before.

I haven't "gone from" a superzoom to a DSLR, but I have shot pratically with a 20D and played around in a store with a Rebel and a D40. I maintain the EVF is better for the reasons stated.

But really, it's whatever works. You shoot good photographs, so, yeah.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>61766
>The only feature I've said is useless is continuous shooting.
I was actually talking more about just the extremely short refractory period between shots than continuous shooting as such. I always have my camera in single-shot mode, but I fire off little bursts of three shots very, very frequently. It's a great way to deal with things like camera shake and people's tendency to blink right when they're getting their picture taken. Take three frames in one second, then choose the best one. And it's something that superzooms can't generally do except in a special mode that then requires them to spend the next twenty minutes writing those three frames out to the card.

I'll agree that an EVF has the theoretical potential to be better than a glass viewfinder for the reasons you've mentioned. However, that won't happen until they get 'em so high resolution that they look like glass and so fast that they respond like glass. Until then... no.

The argument isn't really so much "Is a superzoom a good photographic tool" as it is "Does a superzoom offer enough advantages over a smaller non-SLR to justify the extra cost and size/weight disadvantages." I'll agree that a superzoom will be a better camera than a point & shoot, but I don't think it's better *enough* to justify getting it when a hundred bucks more will get you an entry-level, used SLR and a hundred bucks less will get you a really nice camera that will still be useful if you ever move up to SLR level.
>> Anonymous
>>61774
>that won't happen until they get 'em so high resolution that they look like glass and so fast that they respond like glass.
I disagree. The resolution on the ones I've used or just looked through (with the exception of a Sony model I just looked through, which was just horrible) has been enough. And as far as the response, I'd like it faster, but it's insanely easy to compensate for with these small bodies: one eye in the viewfinder to maintain composition, one eye on the scene to see when a moving object is where one wants it to be, a little like an off-center rangefinder view.

>I'll agree that a superzoom will be a better camera than a point & shoot, but I don't think it's better *enough* to justify getting it when a hundred bucks more will get you an entry-level, used SLR and a hundred bucks less will get you a really nice camera that will still be useful if you ever move up to SLR level.

Again, I disagree, but I see your point. Fair enough. I've not found it hard to carry around and I think a superzoom would still be useful at a DSLR level. There's plenty of situations where the added noise-in-a-non-photographic-sense of a DSLR would prove problematic- in places intended to be quiet (libraries, churches, etc.), candid photography, etcetera- and where a very long telephoto would be useful but it would be hard to lug a DSLR with a 432mm lens on the front.
>> Anonymous
>>61780
>one eye in the viewfinder to maintain composition, one eye on the scene to see when a moving object is where one wants it to be
Now try that with your prized 432mm equivalent lens.
>> Anonymous
>>61792
I don't use the far end too much, except to zoom really far in for extremely precise manual focusing. I use it sometimes for portaiture, but I'll usually use a medium telephoto length for that.
>> Anonymous
so would a dslr be better for more artier photos? Like a cool tree, or a building, or even the boat i started the thread with.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>61888
As the saying goes, it's the photographer, not the camera. It depends entirely on what sort of arty photos you want to take. If you're taking pictures of static subjects like trees and the boat in your thread-starting picture, a point & shoot would be fine. If you need to catch action, especially in less-than-spectacular lighting, you really want to have an SLR.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>61686
just think of the S3 IS as a sub-machine gun with auto/semi shot with weaker firepower than a dslr.
>> Anonymous
Excuse me, an EVF previews exposure which a TTL sight does not. I'm sorry but a light meter does not even compare to this. You are seeing what the sensor will record. Most dslr users i see take their shots and then have to bring the camera away from their eye to check how well the photo was exposed (for crucial details like highlight and shadow blow outs). The only con of EVFs you state, the graininess is mainly due to the shitty sensors in the cameras themselves and not the EVF system itself.

Although I do agree a dslr shits all over a superzoom for people interested in moving beyond happy snaps but they are great learning tools. I have a superzoom (cause i paid a third of the retail price) but for my good shots i use a 35mm.

Cheers
>> Anonymous
>>62237
>the graininess is mainly due to the shitty sensors in the cameras themselves and not the EVF system itself.

Sensor on a 5-year-old superzoom = 4 megapixels
EVF on any current camera = 0.3 megapixels or less
Lol wut?