![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I think I'm ready to finally be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. It's time to give in and get a digital camera.
I know nothing about digital cameras.
So right now, I have a Canon Rebel that I love. I don't use nearly all the features that I feel like I should, but I love that it's both got idiot-buttons so I can hand it off to someone else, but also lets me play all I want with zooming and focal lengths and stuff. Part of the reason I got a good camera in the first place was a series of pictures where the light levels were all wrong or the auto-focus picked the wrong object and what I actually wanted a picture of was blurry. I also really like that I can blow up pictures from film to have something larger to hang on the wall that is still sharp. (Although I don't do this all that often, either.)
What I don't like about the camera - the usual flaws of film. You can't see it until you process it, you have to print every picture, you can't send a million copies to all your friends for free. Also, I love the quality you get from a bulky, "real" camera, but I'm getting tired of trying to lug such a bulky camera around. I feel like if I had a smaller camera, maybe I'd use it more because I'd take it to parties or horseback riding or whatever.
So, things I would like to be able to do:
- have some control over focus beyond simply zooming in or out
- take pictures of a high enough quality that I could have prints made that were at least 8 1/2 x 11in.
What might be nice, but might contradict points A and B:
- having something small enough to actually fit in a purse or deep coat pocket
I don't actually know pretty much anything about digital photography right now, although I'm willing to learn. I don't know who are good companies, or what kind of specs I should look for.
Help me, Intarwebs! (By which I mean, people who read my LJ and like giving advice.)
I know nothing about digital cameras.
So right now, I have a Canon Rebel that I love. I don't use nearly all the features that I feel like I should, but I love that it's both got idiot-buttons so I can hand it off to someone else, but also lets me play all I want with zooming and focal lengths and stuff. Part of the reason I got a good camera in the first place was a series of pictures where the light levels were all wrong or the auto-focus picked the wrong object and what I actually wanted a picture of was blurry. I also really like that I can blow up pictures from film to have something larger to hang on the wall that is still sharp. (Although I don't do this all that often, either.)
What I don't like about the camera - the usual flaws of film. You can't see it until you process it, you have to print every picture, you can't send a million copies to all your friends for free. Also, I love the quality you get from a bulky, "real" camera, but I'm getting tired of trying to lug such a bulky camera around. I feel like if I had a smaller camera, maybe I'd use it more because I'd take it to parties or horseback riding or whatever.
So, things I would like to be able to do:
- have some control over focus beyond simply zooming in or out
- take pictures of a high enough quality that I could have prints made that were at least 8 1/2 x 11in.
What might be nice, but might contradict points A and B:
- having something small enough to actually fit in a purse or deep coat pocket
I don't actually know pretty much anything about digital photography right now, although I'm willing to learn. I don't know who are good companies, or what kind of specs I should look for.
Help me, Intarwebs! (By which I mean, people who read my LJ and like giving advice.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-17 08:42 pm (UTC)From:If you want something small, there are tons of options--I like the Sony DSC series. Do be aware the image quality from any small camera is going to be quite noticeably worse than an SLR. In looking around, I just saw this: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/ It sounds cool, and comes out in November.
I just broke my camera last weekend, so I'm doing some research as well. I think I may try to find a cheap and tiny point and shoot camera, and wait and see how people like the Panasonic once it's out. I want an SLR, but don't like the size and weight.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-17 09:08 pm (UTC)From:Yeah, I know. I just don't have that good a sense of how each actually translates out.
The problem is, I love the idea of being able to take the high quality photos but I don't exercise the option that often. I do feel like I would have more good but not excellent photos with the smaller camera because I could take it places I couldn't take a bulkier one. I could in theory buy a small digital camera and still use my Rebel with film for more ambitious stuff. But I suspect that once I can see what I've just taken, I'm not going to want to go back. Plus, most of my favorite pictures are from vacations, and I just don't really see wanting to lug two cameras off to Europe or the Caribbean or wherever it is that we go.
Basically, if I have the convenient camera, I'll use that instead of the good camera, and then be annoyed when my pictures don't come out as well.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-17 09:20 pm (UTC)From:http://picasaweb.google.com/harvardoutingclub/UndisclosedLocationBlueberryMushroomHike#
http://picasaweb.google.com/harvardoutingclub/Moosilauke21007#
Sony DSC-W5:
http://picasaweb.google.com/harvardoutingclub/Canyonlands0307#
http://picasaweb.google.com/shnayder/NOLS2008Selections# (not all from my camera, but all from point-and-shoot digital cameras)
The point and shoots are fine, but SLR is better, especially in terms of depth of field, or rather, lack thereof--the SLR lets you only have a narrow range in focus. P&S usually means everything is in focus.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-17 11:58 pm (UTC)From: