Going digital

[jethrien]

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.)

Comments

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Do be aware the image quality from any small camera is going to be quite noticeably worse than an SLR.

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.

[shnayder.livejournal.com]

DSLR photos:
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.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I can see. OK, this is helpful in terms of understanding. I still don't know what I want, but at least now I understand the question better. :)