Needing a new digital camer

boardersdc · Feb 15, 2006

i'm an intermediate photographer, and high school senior. i have most practice with black and white film using an SLR and printing in the darkroom, however for snapshots and with friends i use my kodak easyshare LS743. it's satisfactory, but not what i want. the pictures look great on a computer, but printed at 8x10 or 4x6, you can tell that it's digital, it looks computerized and fake, plasticy if you know what i mean. the flash over exposes at close range, like if i were to hold the camera at arms length for a self-portrait and under-exposes at short distances away. to compensate i turn off the flash and set the ISO to 400, but many times the shots come out blurry.

i've noticed that canon's digital elf SD series has a good flash using my friend's cameras. pc magazine raved over the kodak LS7530, one step up from my current camera, but i'm worried it has the same flash problems.

i'm looking to spend around $200 to get a camera with good flash, and good image quality that i can use for memories, and for art and exploration. i want good quality without the digital-ized look on the prints. i want crisp and rich just like i get from my black and white photos.

any advice on what camera to get?

also, how do i post a photo on the forums to have people critique it? do you just copy/paste??

Rob · Feb 15, 2006

The canons I have seen in this price range have been very good, I'd recommend them!

Rob

Big Mike · Feb 15, 2006

Welcome to the forum.

I really don't think that you will be satisfied with a $200 camera. Pretty much every point & shoot digital camera has the same probelm...the sensor is very small. That makes it hard to get big, good looking prints...even with 6 or 7 mega pixels. Also, the flashes are usually under powered but even worse, they are very close to the lens....which makes for ugly lighting.

Most magazines rave about a lot of crap...I wouldn't put much stock into that. At best, you can compare the features of different cameras.

I would recommend a Digital SLR, which will act a lot like your film SLR...and give you much better image quality...mostly because DSLRs have much bigger sensors that digicams. However, DSLRs are expensive. There are a few available for about $600 US...but that's as low as they go...unless you go for a used one.

Any way, you can compare all digital cameras at www.dpreview.com

boardersdc · Feb 15, 2006

ok, so maybe i need a better camera then to suit my needs. pcmagazine.com has a seciont of cameras between compact and SLR called "enthusiast digital cameras" as i wont be able to afford a $600 SLR. in this rage are the canon powershot G6, konica minolta DiMage z20, how do cameras like these perform in flash quality and image clarity, richness and crispness

Big Mike · Feb 15, 2006

I don't know a lot about all of the dig-cams...there are so many and they seem to change every week.

There are some that are better, as you mentioned. They may have more options and better yet, good quality lenses. But they still have small sensors. The one exemption is a Sony, the R1 (or something like that). Which has a bigger sensor...but is more than $600.

If you check the specs you can compare the Flash Guide Number to see the strength of the flash. Look for FEC (flash exposure compensation) which is a nice feature.

Really, anything from Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc....will be pretty good. Go down to a store and try them out...pick the one that has the features you want and feels good to you.

Jeff Canes · Feb 15, 2006

Sony R1 is around 1000 USD, the specs look really good, equal too or better that a lot of DSLR, but that of out your budget.

Canon PowerShot S80, Nikon Coolpix P1 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 are under $500 USD, I know a few people around there have these camera, they seem to do a good job.

clarinetJWD · Feb 15, 2006

I used to have a kodak digital P&S, as does my roommate...and I have not been impressed in any way. The canon elfs, however, produce some very good images for the price and size. I'd go with those.

markc · Feb 15, 2006

The problem with on-camera flash is that it rarely makes for a good main light, no matter how good of a flash it is. The light is too dirrect and makes the picture look like a snapshop. To get good modeling of what you are taking a picture of, you need the light to come in from another angle. There are times when you can make it work, but I think they are the exceptions. The only thing I consider on-camera flashes to be good for is fill-in. I personally wouldn't use flash as the determining feature for choosing a camera.