HELP?? Need advice from Camera Savy people

Sometimes I wonder if anyone other than me can see the posts I make.

 

My apologies. I did not realise that the link you posted on your reply also leads to www.dpreview.com. The text in the link reads "Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ".

I corrected my post and have added you to the list of people that mentioned this link before.

So, be assured: you don't live in a disconnected parallel universe!

 

Well, gee, someone with less than 2 years computer programming experience just happened to express their frustrations with an uncooperative computer. Is it the software? Or the video card? What's the file extension? Maybe the prescribed incantation wasn't precise enough? Who cares?! A mac, a camera, a cable, and you're done.

 

No need to apologize. I just cut and pasted the link from my browser into the post. I don't know where that description came from.

 

Really? Tell that to people trying to use Nikon Capture NX with OSX 10.5. Or people with several types of Sony cybershot DSC trying to import their pictures in iPhoto.

But that's not even the point. If you want to hear it, there you go: it's arrogant, narrow-minded, boring and counterproductive to respond to each thread where someone has an issue with a Windows PC by just telling how much better Mac's are.

 

I agree, and it was not my intent to come across as arrogant. My first response was a suggestion to contact a help line with the equipment at hand. I was genuinely trying to be helpful, no snobbery or smugness involved. The post you're objecting to was a cynical tongue-in-cheek aside suggesting no one should really be surprised at the mention of a mac in a thread on computer problems. Which isn't too much different than you were saying, I thought. I'm sorry I got into this mac/pc debate again, and next time I will wisely ignore it, regardless of which of the two bitter enemies' products I happen to be using at the time.

 

I use both Crapple Computers and Micro$oft Windoze. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and both are better at some things than the other. Let's all live in peace. (but please don't get me started on why MacOS infuriates me for not enforcing the otherwise ubiquitous convention of a file name extension... it really is a major flaw, and teaches poor computing habits to boot! Resource fork? Wth is THAT?!)

Freshmtt, you seem to really want the video capability in a single device. I don't blame you, I had that in my previous camera (Canon G-2) and I liked that camera a lot. I didn't really push DSLR on you because of that, but I say your case is still borderline.

If you have an interest in making a hobby of photography, you'll have to make that transition eventually. Photography is a fun and very rewarding hobby, and fortunately there are many different levels of monetary investment you can make as you explore it. I still haven't made it up to the medium format digital back, but maybe some day when I have the extra cash...

 

Same here - it wasn't clear it was DPReview and I didn't click through the link.

 

With a PC, you can of course dispense with the cable since they come with built in card readers, whereas Macs don't.

Anyway, as vtie mentioned, Macs have their share of camera incompatibilities. I suspect it is hard for the OS developers to maintain compatibility with every device and file format out there, be it with Windows or with OX-X.

 

You lost me a bit in your reconstruction, but nevertheless: lets put this to rest indeed. In don't think the OP is waiting to see this thread degrade in yet another endless Mac vs. PC discussion.

Back to photography and the OP question about camera choice. In my personal opinion, one of the big risks while choosing a camera is to want something that does everything, and ending up with something that does nothing really well. There are plenty of compact digicams around these days that claim to have ultrazoom, high resolution, high ISO capacity, vibration reduction, video capacities, etc... But none of their functions is really satisfactory if you are a critical person and serious about photography. A small ultrazoom lens results in lots of color abberation. A compact camera means a small sensor, which means noise at higher ISO an/or huge digital processing artifacts, and less dynamic range.

On holiday, I usually take two cameras with me: a DSLR and a small compact digicam. The second one is for when I want to pack light and/or want to remain low profile. A DSLR hanging around your neck screams "tourist" and you sometimes don't want that.
For a DSLR, any entry level model from Nikon or Canon would be great. For the compact digicam, I would go for something really compact, without ultrazoom (I personally like the Canon Ixus/Elph series)

 

I agree - I like to bring both a DSLR and a point and shoot. But I disagree that the long zoom point and shoots can't be decent (as I described with the Panasonic TZ5 10x Leica zoom, which has reviewed quite well and I've been happy with). The sensor in this case is the limit, not the lens. So as long as you realize the small sensor size limitations, one should be happy with the performance of the lens on this model, at least.

 

They can be, but they can also be very automatic. If you are serious about wanting to control the look of your shot, learn a bit about how the relationship between aperture and shutter speed and focal length (zoom) affect things like exposure, and depth of field. One of several great things about a Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera is the control it gives you over these aspects of the photo.

Not exactly. The SLR cameras allow you to manually focus, but most of them have an automatic focus as well. It allows you to choose if you want to focus on something in particular, or if you want to trust the camera to focus as it sees fit. They do have interchangeable lenses for telephoto, wide angle, etc, but many people get by with the one lens that comes with the camera for most of their photos. Most of the moderns SLR cameras also have a variety of "auto" settings you can choose from (portrait, landscape, sport) where the camera makes adjustments to ISO speed, shutter speed, focus method, and aperture automatically to attempt to provide a particular benefit (avoid motion blur, avoid flash, maximum depth of field, minimum depth of field, etc). If you turn on autofocus, and choose one of the auto settings, it is essentially a point-and-shoot that is specialized for the type of shot you are trying to take.

Note that in most of the SLR cameras you have to look through the viewfinder to frame your shot. Most of them do not have the ability to use the LCD display on the back to see what you are trying to take a picture of. Once you take the picture you can check it out on the display, but you can't use it to hold the camera away from your face while aiming your shot.

There are a few newer SLR cameras that do have that ability, but in general it isn't common.

 

Autofocus on DSLR cameras is actually usually much faster and better than on point and shoot cameras.

For example, my DSLR, Canon Digital Rebel XTi, has a 9 point autofocus system that can use various parts of the image to focus, and shows you with a red dot in the viewfinder exactly what areas are in focus. It's very fast and easy.

The main difference between your point-and-shoot and a SLR is that the SLR has a viewfinder that uses a mirror to see through the lens, rather than using a parallax viewfinder (which shows you a view that's almost the same as through the lens but not quite). When you hit the shutter release, the mirror flips up out of the way and the film (or digital sensor) is exposed to light. It's a mechanically more complex process, but it makes a nice, satisfying camera-clicking kind of sound!

You also get a bigger sensor, better onboard processing, higher ISO range, and a fantastic range of accessories.

 

I think that all the new (consumer) DSLR cameras that come out these days have the possibility for a "life" preview on the display. That may soften the transition for people who are used to compact digicams. But, one will quickly get over that and start using the viewfinder. In the majority of cases, an optical through-the-lens viewfinder is soooo much better than a preview on an LCD screen.

Another point of advice to the OP: if scenery (landscapes, buildings, ...) is what you shoot most, make sure you have sufficient wideangle capabilities. This is often the weak point of digital cameras. Make sure you have a 35mm format equivalent of 28mm focal distance or even less. On compact digicam, you can directly verify the zoom range written on the lens. On most consumer DSLR's, this means you have to have a (zoom) lens that starts at 18mm, because the sensor only about 66% the size of traditional 35mm film (meaning that there is a 1.5 or 1.6 magnification factor).

 

For the OP, as stated above, the DSLR will allow you much greater flexibility as your skills grow. But also, a great deal of automation to ease your transition. Simply, to sum up a number of advantages of DSLRs over point & shoots:
- wide range of lenses and accessories to grow your system as your skills and interests grow
- extremely responsive (high shutter speeds, little lag time in shooting, fast continuous shooting, fast focus, much, much faster zooming)
- larger sensor which equates to higher quality output (higher sensitivity to light and less "noise" or graininess of the final output)
- viewfinder - as mentioned above - it is so, so much better to use an optical viewfinder than a LCD display. It is more clear and much easier to compose your image.
- "RAW" shooting, in addition to jpg. If you really get serious, it is much better to shoot in "RAW" as the image quality is better and you can extract more detail from the image.

I highly recommend checking out a DSLR. You will likely love it! The only real disadvantage is the DSLR is more costly and significantly bigger and heavier.

 

The Sony A200 certainly seems to offer a lot of value for its sharp price point. The 18-70mm lens range is good because of the nice wideangle limit. But it does not offer the "life preview" feature like most other recent DLSR offer. Personally, I would not miss it at all, but you need to decide for yourself.

In your case, I would not purchase any DSLR before I had the chance to play around with one for e.g. one day. In this way, you will determine whether you like the form factor and operation or not. It would be very unfortunate if you spend $450 and then realise that you don't like that kind of product. Ideal would be if you have a friend or family member who has a DSLR that you can borrow for one day.

 

I would start to venture into the DSLR world with a starter kit like sony Alpha (as OP indicate), Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon D series. Then in time, start to upgrade into higher level.

I purchased my first DSLR camera, Canon Rebel XT with 18-55mm lenses, 3 years ago. I'm now upgrading to my 2nd DSLR camera, Canon 40D.