Group: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Other formats, tripods, projectors, bags etc.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?
As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
produde sharp pictures?
Thanks for info
This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
do?
- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
new cameras @ $200 a piece.
- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
assume?
As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
produde sharp pictures?
Thanks for info
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote:
>This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
>camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
>$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>do?
>- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
The latter. But you may have different standards.
Here's a test:
Imagine that you see a beautiful picture just begging to be captured.
You take out your camera and snap away. But when you get home you see
that the picture lacks sharpness and contrast, has poor color, and
is generally disappointing.
Do you shrug and pass it off without any concern?
Did you not even have your camera handy, having left it in a drawer?
Did you not think to take a picture?
If you generally answer yes to those questions then buy the cheaper
camera. If you don't care that much then don't waste money on a
camera that you won't make full use of.
If you want to take really nice pictures, if you're willing to shoot
1000 crappy pictures to geta couple of good ones, if you don't mind
schlepping around a camera all over the place, then spend the money
for a good camera.
>Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
>photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
>loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Yep. But they're big and heavy. I carried a Canon Digital Rebel
along with a tripod and four lenses up to the top of Mount Lassen
(yes, and back down again). Most people aren't that ... whatever.
dSLRs generally last longer than most compacts because they are made
to higher standards and have fewer motors and gadgets to fail. The
people who use them routinely shoot 10,000 pictures every year. I
tend towards landscapes and do a more moderate 2000 to 3000 each year.
>Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
>focus as good as when it is new?
Not an issue.
> In the old days, you have the lens
>and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
>and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
>assume?
Yes, things wear out. The shutter is typically rated to about
100,000 shots. Lenses have motors and moving parts. Batteries
need replacing in time.
Before that happens you'll either get tired of the whole photography
business and/or decide you need some new feature.
>As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
>LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
>better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
>produde sharp pictures?
Probably, yes.
Now then, "sharp" is subjective. There are some people who spend $800
just on a single lens to get the best color and sharpness. Are you
one of those? What did it for me was a trip to the mountains. There
I had a gorgeous shot with snow on the ground, big puffy clouds with
sun rays coming from behind them and a snowy stream in the foreground.
But I was using a cheap $100 lens, and the edges weren't sharp and the
contrast was so-so. A great picture turned into a mediocre one.
That's when I spent $700 for a good lens.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic . net
<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote:
>This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
>camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
>$800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>do?
>- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
The latter. But you may have different standards.
Here's a test:
Imagine that you see a beautiful picture just begging to be captured.
You take out your camera and snap away. But when you get home you see
that the picture lacks sharpness and contrast, has poor color, and
is generally disappointing.
Do you shrug and pass it off without any concern?
Did you not even have your camera handy, having left it in a drawer?
Did you not think to take a picture?
If you generally answer yes to those questions then buy the cheaper
camera. If you don't care that much then don't waste money on a
camera that you won't make full use of.
If you want to take really nice pictures, if you're willing to shoot
1000 crappy pictures to geta couple of good ones, if you don't mind
schlepping around a camera all over the place, then spend the money
for a good camera.
>Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
>photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
>loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Yep. But they're big and heavy. I carried a Canon Digital Rebel
along with a tripod and four lenses up to the top of Mount Lassen
(yes, and back down again). Most people aren't that ... whatever.
dSLRs generally last longer than most compacts because they are made
to higher standards and have fewer motors and gadgets to fail. The
people who use them routinely shoot 10,000 pictures every year. I
tend towards landscapes and do a more moderate 2000 to 3000 each year.
>Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
>focus as good as when it is new?
Not an issue.
> In the old days, you have the lens
>and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
>and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
>assume?
Yes, things wear out. The shutter is typically rated to about
100,000 shots. Lenses have motors and moving parts. Batteries
need replacing in time.
Before that happens you'll either get tired of the whole photography
business and/or decide you need some new feature.
>As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
>LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
>better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
>produde sharp pictures?
Probably, yes.
Now then, "sharp" is subjective. There are some people who spend $800
just on a single lens to get the best color and sharpness. Are you
one of those? What did it for me was a trip to the mountains. There
I had a gorgeous shot with snow on the ground, big puffy clouds with
sun rays coming from behind them and a snowy stream in the foreground.
But I was using a cheap $100 lens, and the edges weren't sharp and the
contrast was so-so. A great picture turned into a mediocre one.
That's when I spent $700 for a good lens.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic . net
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca wrote:
> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> do?
> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
Why would you do that? You could just as easily buy the $200 camera and
pocket the extra $600. It ain't gonna wear out that quick.
> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
Don't know why it shouldn't. I still have my Kodak DC210+ which is now
closing in on ten years old - still works fine - just take decent care of
it.
>
> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Yes - and so will less expensive ones, too.
>
> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
> assume?
>
> As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
> LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
> better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
> produde sharp pictures?
>
> Thanks for info
On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca wrote:
> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> do?
> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
Why would you do that? You could just as easily buy the $200 camera and
pocket the extra $600. It ain't gonna wear out that quick.
> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
Don't know why it shouldn't. I still have my Kodak DC210+ which is now
closing in on ten years old - still works fine - just take decent care of
it.
>
> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Yes - and so will less expensive ones, too.
>
> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
> assume?
>
> As an example, you can buy one Lumix Fz50 or 3 or 4 of the basic Lumix
> LS series (the one using the AA batteries). Is the lens on Fz50 much
> better than the LS series?... or is the LS series lens good enough and
> produde sharp pictures?
>
> Thanks for info
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca@gmail . com said:
> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> do?
> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
>
> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.
>
> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
> assume?
Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
last another 20 years.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca@gmail . com said:
> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> do?
> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
>
> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.
>
> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
> assume?
Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
last another 20 years.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca@gmail . com said:
>
>> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
>> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
>> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>> do?
>> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
>
> Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
your needs, what's the problem?
>
>
>>
>> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
>> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
>> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
>
> Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
> picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
> 100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.
>
>>
>> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
>> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
>> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
>> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
>> assume?
>
> Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
> scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
> to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
> sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
> last another 20 years.
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, aniramca@gmail . com said:
>
>> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
>> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
>> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>> do?
>> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
>
> Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
your needs, what's the problem?
>
>
>>
>> Are high end quality cameras, including DSLR that most avid
>> photographers and pros are using, really last for a long time, without
>> loosing any picture quality with time and usage?
>
> Yes. Also the low end ones will last for years without losing any
> picture quality with time and usage. They all will take more than
> 100,000 pictures before you start to see some wear on the shutter.
>
>>
>> Will the auto focus mechanism worn out and after a while it will not
>> focus as good as when it is new? In the old days, you have the lens
>> and you focus manually. A good lens, as long as you take care of it
>> and no scratches, can last forever. Nothing wears down with time, I
>> assume?
>
> Everything wears down in time. If nothing else, you will eventually
> scratch or break the lens. It can be repaired. Lenses take a long time
> to wear down. I have had lenses that I used for more than 20 years. I
> sold them on eBay, and another guy is using them. They will probably
> last another 20 years.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 21, 10:25 pm, ray <r...@zianet . com > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, anira...@gmail . com said:
>
> >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
> >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
> >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> >> do?
> >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
>
> > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
>
> Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
> your needs, what's the problem?
<snip>
Quite. I have a Canon Powershot A70, 3.2 megapixels, and I still use
it. Apart from a low pixel count, it's a great camera - good lens
(possibly the most important component), great viewfinder, easy to use
and the results are good. A more up-to-date camera isn't necesarily
better, as I found out when I brought a Fuji S5600.
On May 21, 10:25 pm, ray <r...@zianet . com > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, anira...@gmail . com said:
>
> >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long term
> >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say for
> >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> >> do?
> >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
>
> > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
>
> Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still fullfill
> your needs, what's the problem?
<snip>
Quite. I have a Canon Powershot A70, 3.2 megapixels, and I still use
it. Apart from a low pixel count, it's a great camera - good lens
(possibly the most important component), great viewfinder, easy to use
and the results are good. A more up-to-date camera isn't necesarily
better, as I found out when I brought a Fuji S5600.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
"Cats" <ramwater@uk2 . net > wrote in message
news:1179814476.816567.297450@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 21, 10:25 pm, ray <r...@zianet . com > wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> > > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, anira...@gmail . com said:
> >
> > >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long
term
> > >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say
for
> > >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no
action
> > >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what
would you
> > >> do?
> > >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two)
and then
> > >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to
4 brand
> > >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> > >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope
and pray
> > >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
> >
> > > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
> >
> > Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still
fullfill
> > your needs, what's the problem?
> <snip>
>
> Quite. I have a Canon Powershot A70, 3.2 megapixels, and I still
use
> it. Apart from a low pixel count, it's a great camera - good lens
> (possibly the most important component), great viewfinder, easy to
use
> and the results are good. A more up-to-date camera isn't necesarily
> better, as I found out when I brought a Fuji S5600.
>
>
3Mp on a compact at full frame is perfectly good for enlargement to A4
(297x210mm for our friends over the pond,) 5Mp in a compact is as much
as most people need as above that sensor noise (mainly thermal) starts
to become an issue.
The larger pixels and cell on a DSLR mean that a 2Mp DSLR like the
early Nikons will usually knock spots off any picture taken on a
compact under about 5Mp. Get a 6Mp DSLR and you're laughing.
You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
"640K of memory is enough for anyone."
Says it all really....................
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
"Cats" <ramwater@uk2 . net > wrote in message
news:1179814476.816567.297450@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 21, 10:25 pm, ray <r...@zianet . com > wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:56:58 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
> > > On 2007-05-20 22:47:10 -0700, anira...@gmail . com said:
> >
> > >> This question perhaps relates to my other question about long
term
> > >> camera tests. If someone gives you money to buy a camera, say
for
> > >> $800, and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no
action
> > >> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what
would you
> > >> do?
> > >> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two)
and then
> > >> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to
4 brand
> > >> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> > >> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope
and pray
> > >> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
> >
> > > Cameras go obsolete after 18 months.
> >
> > Yeah - so? That does not mean they stop working. If they still
fullfill
> > your needs, what's the problem?
> <snip>
>
> Quite. I have a Canon Powershot A70, 3.2 megapixels, and I still
use
> it. Apart from a low pixel count, it's a great camera - good lens
> (possibly the most important component), great viewfinder, easy to
use
> and the results are good. A more up-to-date camera isn't necesarily
> better, as I found out when I brought a Fuji S5600.
>
>
3Mp on a compact at full frame is perfectly good for enlargement to A4
(297x210mm for our friends over the pond,) 5Mp in a compact is as much
as most people need as above that sensor noise (mainly thermal) starts
to become an issue.
The larger pixels and cell on a DSLR mean that a 2Mp DSLR like the
early Nikons will usually knock spots off any picture taken on a
compact under about 5Mp. Get a 6Mp DSLR and you're laughing.
You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
"640K of memory is enough for anyone."
Says it all really....................
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
"harrogate3" <nospam3@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
news:Xyz4i.1355$sM1.93@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
> You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
> brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
> ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
> "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
>
> Says it all really....................
It was true at the time.
Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.
The same can't be said for digital cameras where there is an existing
technology that does the job.
However many DSLRs and a few P&S cameras will do images as good as most 35mm
film cameras these days.
I treat them like computers myself.. just buy last years model when they are
selling them cheap.
The new ones tend not to have many real improvements.
The current fashion for IS is making all the older ones very cheap at the
moment and we have done without IS for the last 100 years.
"harrogate3" <nospam3@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
news:Xyz4i.1355$sM1.93@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
> You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
> brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
> ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
> "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
>
> Says it all really....................
It was true at the time.
Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.
The same can't be said for digital cameras where there is an existing
technology that does the job.
However many DSLRs and a few P&S cameras will do images as good as most 35mm
film cameras these days.
I treat them like computers myself.. just buy last years model when they are
selling them cheap.
The new ones tend not to have many real improvements.
The current fashion for IS is making all the older ones very cheap at the
moment and we have done without IS for the last 100 years.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass . net > wrote in message
news:f2ukgs$egf$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "harrogate3" <nospam3@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
> news:Xyz4i.1355$sM1.93@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
>
> > You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it
always
> > brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement
years
> > ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
> > "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
> >
> > Says it all really....................
>
> It was true at the time.
> Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.
>
> The same can't be said for digital cameras where there is an
existing
> technology that does the job.
> However many DSLRs and a few P&S cameras will do images as good as
most 35mm
> film cameras these days.
>
> I treat them like computers myself.. just buy last years model when
they are
> selling them cheap.
> The new ones tend not to have many real improvements.
> The current fashion for IS is making all the older ones very cheap
at the
> moment and we have done without IS for the last 100 years.
>
>
>
Ah but the difference is automation.
In our film camera days - especially SLRs - we all knew the
reciprocity rule: never use a long lens at less that the equivalent in
focal length, i,e, a 200mm lens had to be used at 1/200th second or
faster to avoid shake. The modern digicam is made for Mr/Ms/Mrs
average who not only know nothing about shutter speed and aperture,
few know more than switching the beast on and off and pressing the
shutter button. To them IS is a surety of a good picture every time
irrespective of lighting conditions - what is more it also saves the
manufacturer's name making the user more likely to buy the same make
again.
The trouble is nine times out of ten the camera knows better than the
user in terms of exposure and (usually) focus - it frightens me to
think of the number of shots I have lost when I have overridden the
machine!
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass . net > wrote in message
news:f2ukgs$egf$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "harrogate3" <nospam3@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
> news:Xyz4i.1355$sM1.93@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
>
> > You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it
always
> > brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement
years
> > ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
> > "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
> >
> > Says it all really....................
>
> It was true at the time.
> Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.
>
> The same can't be said for digital cameras where there is an
existing
> technology that does the job.
> However many DSLRs and a few P&S cameras will do images as good as
most 35mm
> film cameras these days.
>
> I treat them like computers myself.. just buy last years model when
they are
> selling them cheap.
> The new ones tend not to have many real improvements.
> The current fashion for IS is making all the older ones very cheap
at the
> moment and we have done without IS for the last 100 years.
>
>
>
Ah but the difference is automation.
In our film camera days - especially SLRs - we all knew the
reciprocity rule: never use a long lens at less that the equivalent in
focal length, i,e, a 200mm lens had to be used at 1/200th second or
faster to avoid shake. The modern digicam is made for Mr/Ms/Mrs
average who not only know nothing about shutter speed and aperture,
few know more than switching the beast on and off and pressing the
shutter button. To them IS is a surety of a good picture every time
irrespective of lighting conditions - what is more it also saves the
manufacturer's name making the user more likely to buy the same make
again.
The trouble is nine times out of ten the camera knows better than the
user in terms of exposure and (usually) focus - it frightens me to
think of the number of shots I have lost when I have overridden the
machine!
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 22, 12:34 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass . net >
wrote:
> "harrogate3" <nosp...@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
>
> news:Xyz4i.1355$sM1.93@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
>
> > You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
> > brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
> > ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
> > "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
>
> > Says it all really....................
>
> It was true at the time.
> Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.
<snip>
It's those 'inefficient' languages that have helped up the ante of
what a PC will do, alongside the huge drop in the cost of components.
The usage of resources in modern languages may be poor, but the usage
of resource in programming terms is *very* efficient compared to
assembler languages.
On May 22, 12:34 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass . net >
wrote:
> "harrogate3" <nosp...@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
>
> news:Xyz4i.1355$sM1.93@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
>
> > You know, whenever I see something about the race for pixels it always
> > brings back to mind that famous and similarly related statement years
> > ago by Uncle Bill Gates:-
> > "640K of memory is enough for anyone."
>
> > Says it all really....................
>
> It was true at the time.
> Inefficient languages had yet to be developed.
<snip>
It's those 'inefficient' languages that have helped up the ante of
what a PC will do, alongside the huge drop in the cost of components.
The usage of resources in modern languages may be poor, but the usage
of resource in programming terms is *very* efficient compared to
assembler languages.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:25:59 GMT, harrogate3 wrote:
> 3Mp on a compact at full frame is perfectly good for enlargement to A4
> (297x210mm for our friends over the pond,) 5Mp in a compact is as much
> as most people need as above that sensor noise (mainly thermal) starts
> to become an issue.
Your friends across the pond (not all) may be more familiar with
A4 than metric measurements. :) They realize that A4 is just
slightly taller and narrower than the standard paper size used for
eons in typewriters and printers, i.e., 8½" x 11", which is just a
bit larger than the common 8"x10" photo paper size. As to the rest,
I completely agree. With a bunch of cameras that have sensors
ranging from 3mp to 8mp, all are capable of providing sufficient
resolution for the great majority of my photos, and the one I use is
usually determined by convenience, often the 4mp Fuji P&S. The 3mp
Canon Powershot is just too limited in features (nothing but full
Auto mode, and poor battery life).
> The larger pixels and cell on a DSLR mean that a 2Mp DSLR like the
> early Nikons will usually knock spots off any picture taken on a
> compact under about 5Mp. Get a 6Mp DSLR and you're laughing.
<g> (6mp D50!)
On Tue, 22 May 2007 10:25:59 GMT, harrogate3 wrote:
> 3Mp on a compact at full frame is perfectly good for enlargement to A4
> (297x210mm for our friends over the pond,) 5Mp in a compact is as much
> as most people need as above that sensor noise (mainly thermal) starts
> to become an issue.
Your friends across the pond (not all) may be more familiar with
A4 than metric measurements. :) They realize that A4 is just
slightly taller and narrower than the standard paper size used for
eons in typewriters and printers, i.e., 8½" x 11", which is just a
bit larger than the common 8"x10" photo paper size. As to the rest,
I completely agree. With a bunch of cameras that have sensors
ranging from 3mp to 8mp, all are capable of providing sufficient
resolution for the great majority of my photos, and the one I use is
usually determined by convenience, often the 4mp Fuji P&S. The 3mp
Canon Powershot is just too limited in features (nothing but full
Auto mode, and poor battery life).
> The larger pixels and cell on a DSLR mean that a 2Mp DSLR like the
> early Nikons will usually knock spots off any picture taken on a
> compact under about 5Mp. Get a 6Mp DSLR and you're laughing.
<g> (6mp D50!)
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 22, 2:55 pm, ASAAR <cau...@22 . com > wrote:
<snip>
>The 3mp
> Canon Powershot is just too limited in features (nothing but full
> Auto mode, and poor battery life).
>
My 3mp Powershot (A70) has quite a few shooting modes including a
manual one, and battery life is greatly improved when the LCD on the
back is turned off.
On May 22, 2:55 pm, ASAAR <cau...@22 . com > wrote:
<snip>
>The 3mp
> Canon Powershot is just too limited in features (nothing but full
> Auto mode, and poor battery life).
>
My 3mp Powershot (A70) has quite a few shooting modes including a
manual one, and battery life is greatly improved when the LCD on the
back is turned off.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
snip
> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>do?
>- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
snip
Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
neighbors.
Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
snip
> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>do?
>- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
snip
Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
neighbors.
Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
tnom@mucks . net wrote:
> snip
>> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>> do?
>> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
> snip
>
> Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
> rapidly.
Not really.
> Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
> greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
> a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
> neighbors.
A decent starter DSLR will last a very long time, take better pictures,
and be a better teaching/learning tool for the "average" photographer,
whatever that is. Good quality lenses one might add from time to time
will last virtually forever, and better bodies can be put behind them
when you're rich or famous.
--
john mcwilliams
tnom@mucks . net wrote:
> snip
>> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
>> shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
>> do?
>> - buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
>> keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
>> new cameras @ $200 a piece.
>> - or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
>> that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
> snip
>
> Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
> rapidly.
Not really.
> Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
> greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
> a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
> neighbors.
A decent starter DSLR will last a very long time, take better pictures,
and be a better teaching/learning tool for the "average" photographer,
whatever that is. Good quality lenses one might add from time to time
will last virtually forever, and better bodies can be put behind them
when you're rich or famous.
--
john mcwilliams
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 21, 11:19 am, t...@mucks . net wrote:
> snip> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> >shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> >do?
> >- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> >keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> >new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> >- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> >that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
>
> snip
>
> Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
> rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
> greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
> a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
> neighbors.
>
> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
I don't believe this is true at all. About two and a half years ago
my wife and I bought a Canon 20D, the camera is still a great camera
and in no way obsolete. This camera was mainly for my wife, who had
been trying to use a compact digital and getting justifiably
frustrated.
Not only does a DSLR take way better photos then a compact camera but
it is also way more fun to use. And I would much rather be using a
fairly old DSLR, like say the 10D that came out 4 years ago then any
of the current compact cameras. Sure there are compact camera with
10MP and the 10D only has 6, but the 10D still takes better looking
photos. The point is that even if someone 4 years ago had decided to
go for the DSLR I don't think they would have been at all
disappointed, we certainly where not buying the 20D two and a half
yours ago.
Scott
On May 21, 11:19 am, t...@mucks . net wrote:
> snip> and you are just an average camera user (not a pro), no action
> >shots, just want to get good quality, sharp pictures, what would you
> >do?
> >- buy a regular $200 cameras, and use it for a year (or two) and then
> >keep buying a new one after 3000-5000 shots. You can get up to 4 brand
> >new cameras @ $200 a piece.
> >- or buy a more expensive camera to meet the budget, and hope and pray
> >that it will last for years to come and many thousand pictures.
>
> snip
>
> Don't waste your money. Digital camera technology is still advancing
> rapidly. Unless you are a Pro today and depend on the latest and the
> greatest to fulfill a professional expectation then why bother buying
> a DSLR? That is unless you want to spend the big bucks to impress the
> neighbors.
>
> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
I don't believe this is true at all. About two and a half years ago
my wife and I bought a Canon 20D, the camera is still a great camera
and in no way obsolete. This camera was mainly for my wife, who had
been trying to use a compact digital and getting justifiably
frustrated.
Not only does a DSLR take way better photos then a compact camera but
it is also way more fun to use. And I would much rather be using a
fairly old DSLR, like say the 10D that came out 4 years ago then any
of the current compact cameras. Sure there are compact camera with
10MP and the 10D only has 6, but the 10D still takes better looking
photos. The point is that even if someone 4 years ago had decided to
go for the DSLR I don't think they would have been at all
disappointed, we certainly where not buying the 20D two and a half
yours ago.
Scott
