Jamal
Hi
I am looking forward to buy a camera costing no more than £200. I have never used or bought D-SLR camera before so I am wondering if I should consider that?? Is there a huge difference between them two? Can I get a good D-SLR with a good lense for £200 or I should just buy a good compact digital?
Any help will be appreciated.
By doing a bit of research myself I found these 2 cameras within my price range:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35
Canon PowerShot SX20IS
Which one of these do you think is better considering im using D-SLR for first time? Do you think I can find a compact cameras to compete these two for a better price??
Answer
The debate between buying a DSLR and a compact or "bridge" digital camera comes down to two things: 1) Sensor size and, 2) The ability to change lenses to suit the conditions.
The DSLR wins both points.
Lets look at two representative cameras, the Sony A230 DSLR and the Canon G11 "bridge" camera. Both cameras have 10mp.
The A230 sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm (373mm squared) while the sensor in the G11 measures 7.6mm x 5.7mm (43mm squared). With a sensor that is 8.7 times larger, the individual pixels of the A230 are vey big compared to the pixels of the G11. A bigger pixel can gather more data, making for a smoother image file and the ability to make larger prints. Larger pixels also perform better in low light situations and at higher ISO settings.
The G11 has a permanently attached lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8 at the wide setting (6.1mm, 28mm equivalent) and f4.5 at the telephoto setting (30.5mm, 140mm equivalent). When shooting outdoors, or indoors using the flash, this lens is sufficient. If, however, you want to shoot indoors without the flash then it becomes a problem. Your only option is to use a high ISO (800 and above) and then use an editing program in post-processing to "clean up" the resultant digital noise that results from using a high ISO with a camera like the G11.
The A230 gives you the option of changing lenses to suit the conditions you're shooting under. Want to shoot in low light without the flash and keep the ISO lower? Just switch to a 50mm f1.4 lens. Unsure as to what this means? Look at this hypothetical chart.
ISO 800
f1.4 @ 1/125 sec.
f2 @ 1/60 sec.
f2.8 @ 1/30 sec. (G11 at 6.1mm/28mm)
f4 @ 1/15 sec.
f4.5 @ 1/10 sec. (G11 at 30.5mm/140mm)
An f1.4 lens is 2 stops faster than an f2.8 lens so to get the same shutter speed with the G11 as the f1.4 lens our ISO would have to be 3200 (ISO 3200 is 2 stops faster than ISO 800). To maintain the same shutter speed with the G11 as we zoom out to 30.5mm and our f-stop drops to f4.5 we'd need an ISO slightly higher than 6400.
Unfortunately, unless you stumble upon a really good sale, you'll need to increase your budget. The A230 and G11 are selling in the States for about $500.00 and with the 1.66 currency conversion factor you're about 100 pounds under-funded.
In my opinion, if you're serious about photography, the DSLR is the only viable option.
****** EDIT ******
Although I sympathize with your budget restrictions, the two cameras you refer to are NOT DSLR cameras. They are "bridge" cameras just like the Canon G11. Both cameras have an even smaller sensor with an additional 2,000,000 pixels stuffed into a smaller space. This will only worsen the low light, high ISO performance.
It is your money to spend as you wish but in my opinion you'd be wise to save a little more and go with a DSLR.
The debate between buying a DSLR and a compact or "bridge" digital camera comes down to two things: 1) Sensor size and, 2) The ability to change lenses to suit the conditions.
The DSLR wins both points.
Lets look at two representative cameras, the Sony A230 DSLR and the Canon G11 "bridge" camera. Both cameras have 10mp.
The A230 sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm (373mm squared) while the sensor in the G11 measures 7.6mm x 5.7mm (43mm squared). With a sensor that is 8.7 times larger, the individual pixels of the A230 are vey big compared to the pixels of the G11. A bigger pixel can gather more data, making for a smoother image file and the ability to make larger prints. Larger pixels also perform better in low light situations and at higher ISO settings.
The G11 has a permanently attached lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8 at the wide setting (6.1mm, 28mm equivalent) and f4.5 at the telephoto setting (30.5mm, 140mm equivalent). When shooting outdoors, or indoors using the flash, this lens is sufficient. If, however, you want to shoot indoors without the flash then it becomes a problem. Your only option is to use a high ISO (800 and above) and then use an editing program in post-processing to "clean up" the resultant digital noise that results from using a high ISO with a camera like the G11.
The A230 gives you the option of changing lenses to suit the conditions you're shooting under. Want to shoot in low light without the flash and keep the ISO lower? Just switch to a 50mm f1.4 lens. Unsure as to what this means? Look at this hypothetical chart.
ISO 800
f1.4 @ 1/125 sec.
f2 @ 1/60 sec.
f2.8 @ 1/30 sec. (G11 at 6.1mm/28mm)
f4 @ 1/15 sec.
f4.5 @ 1/10 sec. (G11 at 30.5mm/140mm)
An f1.4 lens is 2 stops faster than an f2.8 lens so to get the same shutter speed with the G11 as the f1.4 lens our ISO would have to be 3200 (ISO 3200 is 2 stops faster than ISO 800). To maintain the same shutter speed with the G11 as we zoom out to 30.5mm and our f-stop drops to f4.5 we'd need an ISO slightly higher than 6400.
Unfortunately, unless you stumble upon a really good sale, you'll need to increase your budget. The A230 and G11 are selling in the States for about $500.00 and with the 1.66 currency conversion factor you're about 100 pounds under-funded.
In my opinion, if you're serious about photography, the DSLR is the only viable option.
****** EDIT ******
Although I sympathize with your budget restrictions, the two cameras you refer to are NOT DSLR cameras. They are "bridge" cameras just like the Canon G11. Both cameras have an even smaller sensor with an additional 2,000,000 pixels stuffed into a smaller space. This will only worsen the low light, high ISO performance.
It is your money to spend as you wish but in my opinion you'd be wise to save a little more and go with a DSLR.
Canon Digital?
BangkokBob
I have never owned a digital camera, and would like to buy a Canon Digital. I only need it for taking photos so I can put on my computer. I am not a professional so to speak and maybe 5, 6 pixels if ok with me. Can someone recommend a model number and what it might cost ? Thanks
Answer
There are a couple of ways to go. The small and compact way is to get the SD1000, which has replaced the SD600 that someone else recommended. It's a good camera and it sells for about $210, plus another $20-30 for the required memory card.
Canon SD1000 (IXUS 70): http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/sd1000.html
- Also: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd1000.asp Go there and click on "Read Owner Opinions."
The slightly cheaper way to go is the Canon Powershot A560. It costs $170 at B&H and You can use the rest of your budget to buy a decent memory card.
Go here and read an extensive review:
Canon A560: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/a560.html
Check the sample images, too.
If you want to save ten bucks, check for the A550:
A550 review: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/a550.html
I see no reason not to go another ten bucks for the A560, though. You gain one stop in ISO, it is a little faster in continuous mode and the LCD is 2.5" instead of 2".
You will need to add a memory card and I suggest the Sandisk or Lexar brand in any speed. You will spend from about $20 for a 512 KB card, which is perfectly adequate, to about $40 for a Sandisk Ultra II, which is as good as you'd ever want for this or many other cameras.
My brother has the A540 and my mother-in-law has the A530 - on my recommendation - and neither one has stopped speaking to me yet. These are the models that were replaced by the A550 and A560.
If you can go over the $200 mark, look into the A570-IS, which looks like a really nice camera. The camera and card will run you about $230-240 at B&H.
Canon A570-IS: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/a570.html
There are a couple of ways to go. The small and compact way is to get the SD1000, which has replaced the SD600 that someone else recommended. It's a good camera and it sells for about $210, plus another $20-30 for the required memory card.
Canon SD1000 (IXUS 70): http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/sd1000.html
- Also: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd1000.asp Go there and click on "Read Owner Opinions."
The slightly cheaper way to go is the Canon Powershot A560. It costs $170 at B&H and You can use the rest of your budget to buy a decent memory card.
Go here and read an extensive review:
Canon A560: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/a560.html
Check the sample images, too.
If you want to save ten bucks, check for the A550:
A550 review: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/a550.html
I see no reason not to go another ten bucks for the A560, though. You gain one stop in ISO, it is a little faster in continuous mode and the LCD is 2.5" instead of 2".
You will need to add a memory card and I suggest the Sandisk or Lexar brand in any speed. You will spend from about $20 for a 512 KB card, which is perfectly adequate, to about $40 for a Sandisk Ultra II, which is as good as you'd ever want for this or many other cameras.
My brother has the A540 and my mother-in-law has the A530 - on my recommendation - and neither one has stopped speaking to me yet. These are the models that were replaced by the A550 and A560.
If you can go over the $200 mark, look into the A570-IS, which looks like a really nice camera. The camera and card will run you about $230-240 at B&H.
Canon A570-IS: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/a570.html
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
