On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 11:16:33PM +0100, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
*long* post ahead.
It's interesting to read his thoughts, I think they are what I'd expect as it sounds like a "professional" (or at least semi-pro) photographer, so his needs are quite different and far more specific to those of most people who use cameras.
- OS does not matter unless you are using RAW. Otherwise you are using a
card reader, and any OS will manage jpeg. If you are shooting in RAW the program to read it in is very important, and not all programmes come for all OSs. There is something about Macs and Canons - the best RAW software seems to come only for windows.
Not so long ago the best raw converter for Canon cameras was gpl software. I'm not sure what more recent software is up to but there are plenty of gpl tools that can do as much and sometimes more than payware when it is photography related.
- More megapixels are not better, in fact they are probably worse in compact
cameras, because noise rises as the pixel size gets smaller. You will see this particularly in low light conditions.
That is only half the story, image quality depends more on the quality of the sensor and lens than how many megapixels a particular camera has, my 7 megapixel S series canon takes *very* nice photos compared to many 4 megapixel cameras but could well be worse than a 4 megapixel camera with a much better lens.
- There are two reasons why SLRs are better, and a lot better, than anything
else, if quality is what matters. One is size of sensor. They have big sensors, less noise. The other is that they do not use power to deliver the
That's not strictly true either, an slr camera without a lens is useless. When you factor in a lens as good as that on my S series Canon compact on a semi-decent body you'll be paying over a grand just to get where I am in the first place. Of course an slr is more flexible in the capabilities it has but at the same time is damn impractical for many people to carry about and use. A camera that always stays at home is as useful as no camera at all.
like lipstick on a pig. The only thing to use, if you are serious about picture quality, is an SLR. The difference, he says, is huge.
He's over-generalised on a specific point, *technically* a decent slr with the right lens will be better, but when you've not taken the camera down the white water rapids in the raft as you're worried about losing it and have no photos even a photo taken with the worst camera ever will be better. ;)
- When considering SLRs, worry about dust. Every time you do a lens
change, dust will be attracted to the sensor. Cleaning up the dust in photoshop or equivalent will be inredibly time consuming. He uses these special brushes,very expensive, to get the dust off the sensor. There are different ways of getting the dust off automatically now with different makes. Worry about dust. Worry about how you are going to manage, how much its going to cost, whether you have to return for maintenance to get it done.
Dust is easy to deal with, I've done it myself when I was an slr owner. The price of cleaning the sensor is trivial compared to the overall cost of the kit. Doing it digitally can be quite easy too but you are best off not doing anything about it until you notice it or just check every few months if it is affecting your photos by putting the camera on a table facing a light coloured sheet of paper. You then defocus it and set it for a 15 second exposure with the right amount of apeture and wave it around the surface so it won't focus on any points. You will then have a very clear photo of all the dust on the sensor.
Think hard about whether you actually need to change lenses, and if not, get the kind of lens that is flexible enough to leave in place forever.
If you don't need to change the lens don't bother with an slr, you'd almost certainly be wasting money (or need to own more than 1 body). You'd have just ruined the best point of having an slr and that's the flexibility of the damn thing, an slr with a lens that will do everything will be such a compromise you'd be better off with 2 compacts.
- More optical zoom is not better. It is impossible to make 12 x optical
zoom lenses that are as good at any given zoom as a non-zooming lens. So anything more than 4 or 5 x zoom means compromising quality at all zoom levels.
But it is better than digital zoom, if you *need* something that is a 300mm equivalent or better then buying something with stupid amounts of digital zoom will end up with much worse picture quality. I have a Canon S2 which is a 35-400mm equivalient (iirc) and for lots of photography it's perfectly ok at many zoom levels, the only downside is taking photos indoors as the flash isn't up to much and it's quite a slow lens but for the tasks it does and the price I paid it's a very useful camera.
- Image stabilisation is fine, but beware of processing that increases
sharpness. What you want is a stabilised image, with as little processing as possible. If any sharpening is going to be done, do it yourself on the PC. Otherwise you risk ending up with a pre-processed image where further processing will just degrade quality.
Image stabilisation is only really useful if you are taking photos from a stationary vehicle with the engine running or in low light conditions to give you a couple more stops or if you need to take it slower than either 1/60th or 1/30 of a second (depends how much you had to drink the night before).
- He has cameras that cost 5k plus. Nevertheless, the ones that he is
surprised to find give him excellent shots and surprisingly good quality are the 200 pound or so compacts with moderate MP and Zoom count. He particularly mentions a Fuji whose model number I have forgotten. It had quite a high MP count. I can find out if you want.
I thought you were saying that the slr was best for quality? :)
- Some of these, particularly the more expensive ones, have all kinds of
manual controls. He has been surprised to find that they don't appeal to him at all, though in SLRs he is very manual control oriented. He actually prefers simple point and click in compacts, and doesn't quite know why the ones which allow him the freedom he has with his expensive SLRs always seem to get left at home.
I like compacts which have full manual mode available. Most of the photos I take are taken on fully automatic modes, but having that full manual available is crucial for some kinds of work.
My take on this is that the original post doesn't really give me what I'd need to know to suggest a particular camera. The relevant question I'd like to know the answer too would be "what are you going to take photos of? (landscapes, people, sports, wildlife, indoors... etc.)"
Things I would consider are, how much zoom is needed, what kind of memory format you want (although the choice is now pretty much SD and I'd avoid anything that uses either XD or memory stick). How long/far you will be going with the camera for battery choice (good NiMH rechargeable AA batteries with a good charger would be a good thing).
Photography mainly comes down that you are always going to have to compromise on the equipment you use one way or another as no equipment is better than everything else for all situations.
I'd also suggest before buying any camera from any particular manufacturer that you check out what their previous form is like for having to issue updates to fix various issues with their cameras. After a recent bit of fiddling I've had to do for someone I'd never buy (or let anyone buy) an HP camera. I've had to deal with one recently that has had a fair few firmware updates related to it corrupting images on the memory card which even after lots of updates it still does!
Thanks Adam