Forum: Arts / Photography - Artistic

Page:
Page 1 of 21 2

Photography - Artistic
The camera review post
By Armwarmermember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3108, member since Fri May 20, 2005
On Thu Jul 20, 2006 03:23 PM
Made sticky by Theresa (28613) on 2006-08-11 18:19:03
Edited by pharmadancer (87219) on 2007-02-26 08:31:11

Why not give a review of the camera[s] you own? I think it would be helpful to others buying cameras and it's also fun to see what people think of different products. I plan on buying a camera soon, and I will post a review once I get it.

More reviews:
www.dpreview.com
www.pcworld.com . . .#
www.amazon.com . . . (This site has a review for most camera's)
www.steves-digicams.com

~*~Ashley~*~
Are you new? Click here to get adopted by an older member!

25 Replies to The camera review post

re: The camera review post
By Armwarmermember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3108, member since Fri May 20, 2005
On Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:33 AM
So I have finally gotten a digital camera and I've had some time to play around with it. It's a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7.

It has 12X optical zoom which is really great. I'm having a little bit of trouble focusing on objects. See how the focus is on the rock behind the flower? I still can't figure out how to change the focus to the flower. I want off center pictures with the focus on the object of my choice.

Image hotlink - 'http://imagesocket.com/thumbs/P100015604d.JPG'

This camera has a huge LCD screen. It's 2.5 inches and you can see the screen from all angles. So if you're a little sideways to the camera you can still see the pic without it looking all oily!

The camera also takes movies. It's really cool because the videos I've taken have come out really clear, at a large size view.

I like the pop-up flash feature. Some people prefer to have an auto flash, but I like pressing a button and having it just pop up. You push it back down to shut it. It's easier than having to go under a menu and fiddle around with the flash options.

It's pretty easy to transfer pictures onto your computer. It comes with a USB cable, and you're ready to go!

Overall I really like the camera. It's ok for beginners, but it would be easier if you knew something about using high zoom cameras.

~*~Ashley~*~
Are you new? Click here to get adopted by an older member!
re: The camera review post
By Kathymember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 10713, member since Wed Mar 05, 2003
On Tue Jul 25, 2006 05:42 PM
Good idea, I´m going to add my camera (Canon EOS 350D) and the one of my father soon (not now, I´m too lazy right now and I forgot the exact name of my fathers camera).

For everyone buying a camera: it´s always good to look at google for photography baords. There you start a topic that you´re looking for a camera. You need to tell the people there how much money you´re planning to give away and what kind of photos you´ll mostly take. I did that and ended up with Canon EOS 350D and I´m VERY happy.

Kathy
re: The camera review post
By Armwarmermember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3108, member since Fri May 20, 2005
On Tue Jul 25, 2006 09:35 PM
I went to countless review boards before buying a camera.

Another good bit of advice: Don't buy it without trying it! I looked at a camera online and really wanted it. It looked and sounded great. All the reviewers liked it, and only mentioned a slight problem with image stabilization. I went to Staples to try it out, and was sorely dissapointed. As soon as I zoomed in, the focus was very blurry. So it's a good idea to not buy online if you can't find a store to at least try it out at.

I'm also happy to anounce that I've figured out how to fix the focus on my camera. I'm really having to fiddle around with things, but my pictures are looking better.
Image hotlink - 'http://imagesocket.com/thumbs/P100019491d.JPG'
re: The camera review post
By Kathymember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 10713, member since Wed Mar 05, 2003
On Thu Aug 03, 2006 05:43 AM
okay, now I start with my camera and my fathers camera (both digital):

at first mine:
Canon EOS 350D
^on this website you´ll find A LOT of good information, so I don´t need to repeat all techniqual aspects here

Now my personal review:
I bought this camera, because I became more serious with photography. I wanted a digital camera that doesn´t limit myself. On the other side I wasn´t able to pay THAT much money, which means Canon EOS 20D was too expensive for me.
I never regret my choice to buy this camera. I never felt limited in any way with this camera. I read several serious tests that included this camera and other digital SLR cameras and mine always was one of the best, in several cases even the best one.
I successfully managed several difficult situations with this camera.
This camera is perfect for everyone who wants to be able to take photos in a very high quality. If you only wish to do some nice snapshots this camera is too expensive.
Personally I would always buy this camera again if I had to choose again.





For people who only want to take some good quality snapshoots my fathers camera is very good:

Canon PowerShot A85

Here are some reviews I found online:
www.photobird.com . . .
www.imaging-resource.com . . .

I used this camera before I bought mine. I was able to take some really good photos with it. For my personal use this camera was not good enough, but I have very high standard. For everyone who wants to take some really good snapshoots this camera is perfect.


Kathy
re: The camera review post
By Bleach226 Comments: 511, member since Fri Jul 02, 2004
On Sun Aug 06, 2006 03:08 PM
I have a Canon PowerShot A75 (I will soon be getting a Sony digital camera, but I don't know the specs as it's a prize from a photography contest, I'll review that one after I've had it for awhile).

I really love my camera. I have taken some amazing pictures with it and the delay is next to nothing. There are definitely times when I feel limited by my camera (especially with the zoom), but it was in the right price range which is something I know most of us have to consider. I don't think they actually sell many of these anymore, but the upgrades of the PowerShot are also really good. It's pretty easy to use and has manual options which are great for experimenting. It's also really durable, so bonus there (I accidentally dropped my camera once, I wanted to cry... but it was okay.).
re: The camera review post
By outpour Comments: 20, member since Sun Oct 02, 2005
On Tue Aug 15, 2006 08:48 PM
Edited by outpour (142324) on 2006-08-15 20:51:25
I personally do a lot of artistic photography with a Nikon D50. It's a great DSLR, and it was easy to learn to use. Image quality is great, too.

There are a lot of different lenses out there that fit this camera. You can use autofocus along with the manual focus (depending on the lens). Noise can be a bit high at high ISO (sensitivity to light) levels, but it's much less than most other cameras I've owned. You can use preset modes on the camera, and a manual mode if you want to change the settings yourself. If you're serious about artistic photography, the D50 is a great place to start.
re: The camera review post
By pharmadancermember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3459, member since Tue Mar 16, 2004
On Mon Feb 26, 2007 08:31 AM
Test
re: The camera review post
By TheMidlakeMusemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 11321, member since Sun Nov 23, 2003
On Wed Mar 07, 2007 08:50 AM
I have three cameras--I've worked with two and one's on its way, so I'll review the ones I have now. I'll also review the camera I started out with.

Nikon n70 - This was the first camera I started out with. It's a great beginner film SLR that still gives good prints. It's relatively easy to use. The shutter speed is controlled by a wheel and you have to use the apeture ring on the lens itself to stop down the aperture. It comes with automatic settings--you can shoot fully automatic, fully manual, shutter priority or aperture priority (my preference). The plastic body feels cheap, though, and even though I'm a smaller girl I like my camera to have a little more "heft" in my hands since the extra bulk cuts down on handheld camera shake. I'd reccomend this camera as an inexpensive way for someone who wanted to start experimenting to play around with film SLR cameras.

Nikon f100 - This is a really solid film camera that's the "little brother" to the powerhouses like the f4 and f5. I absolutely love it. The exposures come out consistently excellent--my negatives have more contrast built into them than when I used the n70. Instead of using the aperture ring, it uses a second wheel to adjust the aperture. I love the way it feels in my hands--it has that "heavy" feeling that I need when I'm using my cameras. Along with the regular automatic or semiautomatic settings, the f100 also comes with a custom setting--the ability to set various preferences when shooting. I love this camera. It's a very versatile film SLR that's up to a wide variety of challenges.

Yashica MAT 124 G - This is a medium format TLR (twin lens reflex) that gives square negatives on medium format (120) film. It's a bit counterintuitive since everything's reversed on the ground-glass, and the lens you're actually looking through is not the same lens that takes the picture. Nothing is automatic--everything is manual--and this model is the only Yashica that has a built-in light meter. It's hard to get used to, but if you're an advanced student that wants to try out a different format camera that takes clear prints (not a Holga) without shelling out the big bucks for a Hasselblad, I'd reccomend this one.

Nikon d200 on its way...will review once I get some hands-on experience with it.

Dani
re: The camera review post
By Bleach226 Comments: 511, member since Fri Jul 02, 2004
On Thu Mar 15, 2007 09:44 PM
So, the last time I posted I only had the Canon Powershot, but I've now had my Sony Cybershot (6mp) for nearly 6 months, so I have some things to say about that as well. Now, I can't say much on the cost as it was a prize for a photography contest, but I think it's around $200 or so.

First of all, for a point-and-shoot, it has an amazing macro function!! Secondly, when it's natural light, the quality of the photo is almost always amazing. I love all the detail that the 6mp can capture! It also makes cropping and such easier because you aren't losing the quality because of the size. It's also extremely small, so it fits right in my pocket (front or back), which is awesome for someone like me who pretty much has my camera with me 24/7.

The downsides: the flash is incredibly inconsistent!!! We're talking over-flash (all white photos=no bueno) and under-flash (also no bueno). These are most problematic when shooting live subjects (animals, people, and especially children... especially when you're trying to get a sly shot where they don't notice or even trying to get them to pose because they're impatient and don't want to post for multiple pictures usually). The inconsistency is the most frustrating. The continuous shutter function doesn't allow for flash whatsoever. There are few manual settings and I often get frustrated that I can't set the length of the shutter or adjust the f-stop as I can on my Canon point-and-shoot. It doesn't allow for that experimentation... or any experimentation really.

I think that's about it.


I really really want the money for an slr. Like, seriously. (Okay, so that's been the case for pretty much forever, but yeah...)
re: The camera review post
By hannahcran Comments: 3, member since Thu May 31, 2007
On Thu May 31, 2007 09:58 PM
I have a polaroid digital camera. It takes really good pictures outside...thats about it. The flash is much too bright to take any pictures close up or inside.
But, i know alot of people with those kodak easyshare cameras, they are kinda bulky and ugly but, they work really well.
re: The camera review post
By Chaconnemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 6359, member since Thu Jul 12, 2007
On Mon Aug 06, 2007 01:41 PM
Edited by Chaconne (182529) on 2007-08-06 13:44:29 Added paragraph.
Camera review #1.
The first digital camera I owned was a Canon PowerShot G2. I think they are up to a G5 or a G6 now, but the main difference is more megabits. Mine is 4 megabits. When I got it, I was already considered an expert on film SLRs (I was a pro photographer and an adult education instructor of both photography and darkroom subjects.)
The camera was fun to use and on its default automatic settings quite easy to use. I would say that the automatic settings were satisfactory for 90% of the shots I wished to take. The optical quality is good and I have done some 8 x 10" blow-ups from a few of the photos I took. As long as you use it in this sort of mode things are fine. If you start getting fancy and wish to use it on any but the automatic modes I found things get complicated and are not very intuitive. I did try a number of manual mode shots using my pro light meter for the exposure guidance. The end result was quite good but I found that setting the shutter speed and f-stop was cumbersome. This would likely not affect anyone simply using the camera for snapshots.

My two biggest complaints about this camera really apply to all small digital cameras. Virtually all of them have a built-in flash. This is an open invitation to red-eye. There is an anti-red eye setting for the flash which fires multiple flashes before actually shooting the picture. This is supposed to close the iris of the eye so the red-eye isn't so pronounced. It works pretty well except for infants and small children. I guess there iris reaction time is slower. I also wished to use some of my older non-dedicated flashes with this camera and found that the hot shoe flash mount really only worked with a Canon dedicated flash.

My other criticism, and again this is true for almost all small non-SLR digital cameras, is that there is a delay between pushing the shutter button and actually getting the shot. For an old sports photographer such as me with excellent reflexes and the ability to capture peak action in sports this delay is the height of frustration. I'm capturing the action something like a half to quarter second after it occurs. If you are used to catching an athlete or a dancer at the peak of a jump, it is truely frustrating to find your subject is already earthbound when you view the photo.

I found the instruction book (seemingly the length of "War and Peace" to be confusing, even to an expert. The Quick Start section of the manual was fine and would suffice for most, but the rest of it is a tough read.

Jon (retired pro photographer)
re: The camera review post
By Chaconnemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 6359, member since Thu Jul 12, 2007
On Mon Aug 06, 2007 02:11 PM
Camera review #2.

My latest toy is the Nikon D80 digital SLR. I love this camera. It is not cheap ($1300 in a two lens and case package at Costco.) It handles just like my loved F-series Nikon film cameras I used in my pro days. For someone who already knows how to use a Single Lens Reflex, a quick read of the front section of the instruction book and you are in business. The automatic features outguess the settings I would have used if I were using my $400 flash and exposure meter. I violated every rule I laid down when I once taught a class in travel photography. I always told my student "Never, ever, buy a camera the day before you leave on the 'trip of a lifetime.'" Well I did exactly that one day before I left last fall on my first trip to Europe. I shot a few shots at home to make sure the camera worked (it did) and I literally read the manual on the flight over. I took close to 500 shots in the week I was there using a 2 GB chip. I still had another 300+ shots left on the chip. Unlike the smaller "point and shoot" digital cameras, the screen-type display is not on all the time. You frame and compose your shots through the lens and the optical viewfinder. Once you have shot a photo, the picture will come on the screen to let you know you have succeeded. The fact that the screen is not on (and not needed) means you can get a very long life out of a battery charge. Although I had two spare batteries along with me, I got through the entire week without a recharge.
I specifically got a Nikon camera because I had Nikon film cameras before and consequently I do have an arsenal of special purpose lenses. The two lenses that came with the set were a 18-55 MM (equivalent) zoom and a 55mm to 200mm zoom. If you have exotic older lenses with a Nikon mount, they will work but you have to give up most automatic features. This is a small price to play for the huge sports telephoto I have and some specialized
close up and microscope photography I occasionally like to do.
This camera is essentially the same camera as the far more expensive D200 but has a plastic body rather than a metal one. This is really of minor concern unless you jump out of airplanes and the like.

Every photo I have taken with this camera has met my expectations for it. Although I haven't used it as yet, the even newer Nikon D40 is considerably less expensive (about $400 less) and unless you do a lot of manual photo adjustments, would appear to do everything my D80 does.

Jon (Retired Pro photographer and instructor
re: The camera review post
By Stufumember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 2170, member since Wed Apr 07, 2004
On Sat Nov 03, 2007 02:23 PM
I just got my Nikon D40 2-3 weeks back, and i'm lovin' it!!! It's the best you can ask for a entry-level DSLR at such a low price! i got the D40 kit at only about US$556! But the bag i bought was a tad expensive considering my budget...

My D40 was a very good upgrade from the digital point and shoot Konica Minolta digital camera that i had. I had serious issues with digital cameras which the Nikon D40 solves. It's basically very light, and quite smart too! The LCD screen is very bright. I can also set different settings rather easily with the info button. The little noise it produces when you press on the shutter button is a great plus. Downsides are only that it can only autofocus with Nikkor AF-S and AF-I lenses, and that there is only 1 LCD scree. But these are no biggies for me at all! I don't mind them!

What i like about this camera is basically what Ken Rockwell does! So do check out his website if you're looking on Nikon D40!

Love it!
re: The camera review post
By Balletthamstermember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 26, member since Sun Jun 15, 2008
On Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:26 AM
I´m a Nikonian through out; shooting with my D50, D70s and D200 with grip. Nikkor AF-S 18-200 mm / f3.5-5.6 VR, Tokina AF 14-24 mm / 4.0 and Nikkor AF-S 70-300 mm / 3.5-5.6 VR. I´ll get the D700 soon...

Comment #7421948 deleted
Removed by Odessa (22571) on 2008-07-30 15:34:32 starfarming

re: The camera review post
By redsdancerrr Comments: 69, member since Fri Oct 10, 2008
On Sat Jan 03, 2009 03:48 AM
I just got my first camera, which is also a digital SLR.
It's the Nikon D40, and from what i gather, it's brilliant.
My only problems would be that a) you'd need a bloomin' telephoto lens to get anything that vaguely resembles a zoom, and i can't afford one.
b) you can't use the screen as a viewfinder. which is the only criteria i need when using a camera.. unless you can? does anybody know? pm me haha, i could just be being stupid -_-
x
re: The camera review post
By Dancing_Swan Comments: 63, member since Sat Feb 14, 2009
On Sat Feb 14, 2009 05:09 PM
I like my little red Nikon coolpix S200. It has a 2.5 lcd screen, 7.1 megapixels and a 3x optical zoom. It small enough to fit in my marching band uniform, but it takes excellent pictures. My favorite thing about it is that i've dropped it and it has accidently flown into the air and banged into a concrete drive way and all i got was a tiny dent. and it still works like a dream!!!!
re: The camera review post
By hyehokismember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 2233, member since Tue Jul 30, 2002
On Wed Feb 25, 2009 01:45 PM
I just ordered the "Canon PowerShot A590IS 8MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom" and was wondering if anyone had any luck with it??

Po
re: The camera review post
By molliegymmember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 516, member since Sat Feb 09, 2008
On Thu May 21, 2009 04:25 PM
I have a Casio Exilim EXZ75. It's a point-and-shoot. It has tons of "settings" available- optimizing the camera to take a picture of a person, a still life, or landscape, for example. In light, these are useful, and I have gotten many awesome pictures when there is good light.

However, I have had a hard time getting shots that aren't "fuzzy" when I take pictures in a darker room; I was in the 2nd row at a concert once and took a bunch of pictures- a whole lot of them had a significant degree of noise. It takes a long time to turn on, and (like most point-and-shoots) it takes awhile for it to actually take the picture after you've pressed the shutter (not so convenient for action shots!). It was also difficult to take a good picture of anything behind glass (though I guess that's a problem with all cameras?).

One of the things I used it most for was taking pictures of my artwork (I took IB Visual Arts HL for 2 years, and we were expected to photograph our work several times a week). It worked very well for that. It also is excellent for "snapshots".

The zoom is okay, but once you get beyond a certain point, it's too blurry. Using the "macro" setting, and getting really close, is a good way to get pictures of small things.

The size is great! It's small and thin, and can easily fit in your pocket without bulging out awkwardly, which is very convenient.
re: The camera review post
By Chaconnemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 6359, member since Thu Jul 12, 2007
On Wed May 27, 2009 10:43 AM
molliegym wrote:

I have a Casio Exilim EXZ75. It's a point-and-shoot. It has tons of "settings" available- optimizing the camera to take a picture of a person, a still life, or landscape, for example. In light, these are useful, and I have gotten many awesome pictures when there is good light.


The small point and shoots are in fact quite amazing for their price. Even my 89 year old Mom, for whom I bought one last Christmas, is finally taking some halfway decent pictures.

molliegym wrote:

However, I have had a hard time getting shots that aren't "fuzzy" when I take pictures in a darker room; I was in the 2nd row at a concert once and took a bunch of pictures- a whole lot of them had a significant degree of noise. It takes a long time to turn on, and (like most point-and-shoots) it takes awhile for it to actually take the picture after you've pressed the shutter (not so convenient for action shots!). It was also difficult to take a good picture of anything behind glass (though I guess that's a problem with all cameras?).


All cameras have limitations, even the most expensive ones. Shooting a black cat at midnight in a coal bin is a problem for any camera. You really can't rely on the built-in flash which only has an effective range of about 10 feet. Some of the spectacular pro shots one sees from rock concerts in arenas or sports events at the same places are illuminated by several radio controlled 10,000 watts-second flashes permanently installed in the ceilings of these venues. No casual photographer could ever duplicate that. (I did it once, when a pro sports photographer who lectured at my camera club invited me to go to a hockey game with him and I was able to plug my camera into his radio control device and use the ceiling flashes.)

If the pro rock concert shooter is shooting just available light, he is probably using a huge f 2 or bigger lens on a telephoto. You, at best are shooting at f5.6 or maybe f4. So his camera is able to capture up to 64 times the light your camera can. (Light follows the Inverse Square Law...double the distance from the light source you will get only 1/4 of the light you got at the starting point. Double that distance and you only get 1/16 the light, etc. This law even works for the Sun...sunlight is much dimmer on Jupiter than it is on Earth and even dimmer on Neptune. No I haven't been there :) ) You may have a shutter speed (which stops the action if fast enough) of maybe 1/30 or 1/15th of a second or slower, a setting almost guaranteed to induce blur. I can hold a camera steady at 1/60th of a second and maybe 1/30th of a second because I'm practiced at it, but I couldn't do this if I were in a crowd at a concert. So given the same ISO setting for film or data chip sensitivity, the pro with an f2 camera lens could shoot that same scene at 1/125 of a second which is sufficient to stop most action. f-2 at 1/125th is equivalant to f5.6 at 1/15th of a second. f-5.6 is a typical telephoto maximum f stop on most point and shoot cameras. A shutter speed of 1/125th would stop most action other than fast moving sports. A shutter speed of 1/15 would only work on stationary subjects and would usually require a tripod.

Your automatic settings, when they sense that you are in a low-light situation, will automatically raise your ISO or film sensitivity setting to a much higher value. Usually one will shoot at a film sensitivity setting of 100 to 200 for ordinary daylight shots. Just like f-stops (the size of the hole in the lens) or shutter speed, ISO settings are reciprocal. Increasing a setting from 100 to 200 doubles the sensitivity to lower light and has the same effect as opening up the lens one f-stop OR slowing down the speed of the shutter by one-half e.g., 1/125 to 1/60th. If it thinks it is in a really low light situation, it will increase that setting to something like 800 or 1600 or even greater. My DSLR goes up to ISO 6400. When you get ISO numbers that high, the trade off is graininess which is the usual term for what you are likely calling fuzziness. A rock concert may not be quite a bright as you might think it should be because they use all sorts of lighting for special effects and when you are viewing such an event in a darkened arena your eyes will automatically dilate. In effect, your eyeballs are automatically switching to a lower f-stop number which is the same as a bigger lens opening.

molliegym wrote:

One of the things I used it most for was taking pictures of my artwork (I took IB Visual Arts HL for 2 years, and we were expected to photograph our work several times a week). It worked very well for that. It also is excellent for "snapshots".


For the camera, this is a "no-brainer" type of shot. Ordinary snapshots in non-extreme envirionments are what these cameras are designed to do. I bought a similar camera for my wife for just that reason...something she can always have in her purse for the grandkid shots...and maybe, just maybe, occasionally get a shot of me in it. I'm the least photographed person in our family because I'm always the one taking the pictures.

molliegym wrote:

The zoom is okay, but once you get beyond a certain point, it's too blurry. Using the "macro" setting, and getting really close, is a good way to get pictures of small things.


Here is likely a different phenomonon...depth of field. The Rules of Optics (going back to Sir Isaac Newton who wrote the first major treatis on optics) state that as the size of a hole passing light gets smaller, the greater the distances in front of a camera will become in focus. If you had a pinhole camera, with literally a pinhole as the lens opening, practically everything in front of the camera, from the closest distance to as far as the camera can see, will be in focus, even without any focus adjustments. If you use a small f-stop (bigger number, because an f-stop is actually an inverse ratio) more things in front of you will be in focus. Most cameras nowadays have some sort of focus control, either manual or automatic, so that further enhances a photo's focus. Old box cameras like I used as a kid or that your parents and grandparents used for snapshots were for the most part permanently set on f 11 or f 16, because that setting with the size of film used back then would have everything from about 3 feet in front of you to infinity in focus. We would say that setting provided "great depth of field."

The reverse of that is also true. If you open up the lens as all automatic and adjustable cameras do, your depth of field decreases. I use this sort of thing all the time when I do outdoor portraits. I want my subject to be in focus of course, but for a background, I only want a suggestion of color...usually green foliage for outdoor shots. So I use a large opening in the camera, focus on the subject and thereby throw the background out of focus. I don't want the detail of every leaf or pine needle in the background...it would be too distracting.

So at your concert, your camera will automatically go to a large opening because the light is rather dim (even spotlights are not as bright in measurable units such as lumens or footcandles as one might think) so the automatic camera is going to focus on the first thing it sees. This might be a microphone stand, a speaker or amplifier; or, more likely, the back of the head of the person standing in front of you. Everything else will be out of focus because a wide open setting gives you a very narrow "depth of field." Pro photographers know how to override this and will focus manually in this setting. Until I got my digital cameras I had to focus the lens manually for every shot that I took. You eyeballs do the very same thing which is why people can see things sharper in daylight than at night. When people age, and the focusing ability in low light diminishes, they are forced to get bifocals or reading glasses. I'm well past that stage and among the reasons I gave up pro photography (which was just a sideline occupation for me) was that I could no longer focus accurately in dim hotel reception halls.

molliegym wrote:

The size is great! It's small and thin, and can easily fit in your pocket without bulging out awkwardly, which is very convenient.


Exactly the reason my wife and I use them for casual travel. Carrying my arsenal of pro camera is not a trivial pursuit. When I did this for money, I hired people to carry my camera gear for me other than the camera I was actually using at the moment since I did not wish to appear sweaty and disheveled in my suit when photographing a ritzy social event such as a wedding. Unfortunately, when I go on vacations I can't afford to hire an assistant to do this for me :) and my wife won't do it either. The point and shoots let me travel light.

Jon
re: The camera review post
By little_katymember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 341, member since Mon Jan 03, 2005
On Mon Jun 07, 2010 08:16 AM
I had a Nikon CoolPix S220 that I got for Christmas (2009) and now baring in mind it is now only June 2010, my camera has already broke. It took lovely pictures and the thing was I hadn't even dropped it. It kept coming up saying something like 'Lens Error' when you turned it on and wouldn't let me take pictures. Looking for some answers on how to possibly fix my camera I typed 'lens error' into google and right underneath it in the suggestions drop down it said 'lens error nikon coolpix'. I was not amused. This is clearly a common problem with Coolpix's and they aren't exactly the cheapest of cameras. I definatly not recommend this camera.

Katy x
re: The camera review post
By stormshadow Comments: 52, member since Wed Dec 02, 2009
On Sat Jun 19, 2010 02:20 AM
I guess I'm going to be the odd one here. I have a Canon Vixia HFS 21 with a 10x optical zoom, 8.59 mp CMOS sensor. It has a big 58mm lens. It can shoot at 60i, 30p, 24p, and 24f frame rates. It's full 1920x1080 high definition. It's got a mini shoe to attach an external light or a mic to. It's got 64 gigs of internal flash storage as well as 2 SDHC card ports. It can also take 8mp still photos and uses a built in flash. Yeah it's a camcorder. he he he, but I love my camcorder. The photos it takes are amazing. Since I like to shoot a lot of video, it just made more sense to me to buy a really nice camcorder that also took really nice photos. I love it, and it goes everywhere with me. just figured I'd throw it out there for anyone that's actually considered buying something like that.

Also, does anyone have any reviews on the Nikon D5000? I'm considering getting that one as a starter DSLR.
re: The camera review post
By Tiggerpants Comments: 933, member since Fri Jan 05, 2007
On Sat Jun 19, 2010 06:15 AM
I started with a fuji finepix bridge camera (I'm thinking something like the S6500) and honestly would not recommend it at all. A lot of people have good thing to say about it but for the 2 years I was using it I did nothing but struggle to get photographs to turn out the way I wanted them to. Honestly, if you're looking to move from a point-n-shoot to an SLR I'd just go ahead and do it rather than using this as a stepping stone.

Nikon D40 - Brilliant brilliant starter SLR. I recently upgraded but I'm keeping this body because it is really useful. It's easy to get to grips with, it has a lot of preset modes but I found setting it on manual from the start was no big deal either. It's a little fiddlier than some of the semi-pro cameras ie. you have to flick through the menus to adjust things like white balanace and ISO but if you've got time it works just fine. The quality of the images is great too.

Nikon D300s - I just upgraded to this and it's my baby. For shooting things like weddings it's perfect for me because all of the functions are on the camera body so for instance, changing the ISO there's a button for that instead of menu surfing for 5 minutes. Same with white balance etc. It works really well in low lighting where it's not possible to use a flash (again, say the inside of a church) with very little loss of quality with higher ISOs. I'm still using the starter lenses from my D40 kit but it makes them look a lot higher quality. It does a heck of a lot more things than the D40 so it does take quite a bit of getting used to.
re: The camera review post
By Iddancer1 Comments: 28, member since Sat Nov 20, 2010
On Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:36 PM
Removed by hummingbird (128773) on 2010-12-29 10:30:56 This should be posted as a thread, not an answer to a sticky.
I'm trying to find a camera because I'm a beginner photographer is a coolpix a good camera for photography?
Page:
Page 1 of 21 2

ReplySendWatchDraw