Digital cameras

[rosie]

I want to get a new digital camera for our next visit to Fl and am looking for advice.

At the moment I've got a Canon powershot S40 and it is fine for most of the things I use it for, but would like to move up a bit now.

I want to look at some digital SLR's, and this may be a really dumb question but do any of the digi cams enable you to take panoramic pictures?

Can you guys recommend some to look at.

Thanks [msnsmile]

[Cruella DeVilla]

Youv'e seen our camera and although it is bulky it is the best one I have owned Fuji finepix 602pro I think is the name, takes compact flash and smart media and is 6 million pixel but you can drop it to 3 or 1 million also plus video, voice notes etc. We paid about 500 pounds for it 3 years ago, so it will be chaper now I would imagine.

Steve will be able to give you a heads up on this one Rose especially with the panoramic etc. My SLR takes fab panaromic pictures so I would imagine the digital slrs probably do.

[Snapper]

I'll do the panoramic bit for you first Rosie, then post a second post with camera thoughts.

For the most part, where a digi (typically a point-and-shoot type digi) has a panorama format it tends to cheat a little. The idea originally stemmed, I think, from the APS format and this did the same.

Inside each digital camera is an image sensor, which is doing exactly the same job as an old photograph negative (or slide). So start by imagining an old photographic negative. Typically they're about an inch long and a little less than that high and they capture that rectangular image.

When the camera switches into panorama mode what it does is effectively mask off the top and bottom third of it's image sensor. This gives it a sensor that is much much wider than it is high, so you get the panoramic aspect ratio.

All well and good so far ... or is it?

If you mask off the top and bottom third of the image sensor aren't you then running at 1/3 resolution, and therefor 1/3 quality.

Alas yes. So it kind of begs the question why bother? If you just shot full frame you would still have that middle third and you could cut it digitally later to produce a panoramic shot. Doing this later gives you more control and usually a better result.

So if you'd be effectively running at 1/3 resolution (1/3 quality) is there a better way?

With a DSL and some point-and-shoots there is.

If you take a series of full frame shots you can re-create the panorama from the set of images. There is heaps of good photo editing software to help with this that will help stitch the images together.

One of the things you have to watch for is the camera changing exposures between each shot. The light levels between each shot will differ so the camera will try to correct this. It can lead to each shot being slightly lighter or darker and it makes the joins stand out. This is where you, the photographer, take over and work out what you think is about the best exposure compromise across the whole panorama. With a DSL you can then turn off all the autoexposure, set it to what you think will give the best result, and shoot away.

The quality is quite astonishing, and so it should be.

Rather than taking, say, a 6 megapixel image detector and only using 1/3 of it (2 megapixels). You are stitching together maybe 6 images each of 6 megapixels. That's a 36 megapixel equivalent. 36mp vs. 2mp. Wowzers!

I tried this out with the Nikon when I was out in Arches last year and John very kindly posted the result to the photo thread as it was too big to upload. If you want to see what's possible it's at http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/topic_16162.asp and it's the bottom photo. It would happily enlarge up to about 6' wide by 2' high. If you look very closely you can see the joins but this is entirely my fault. The exposures are all spot-on but I was using Canon software to stitch together Nikon images and so the software wouldn't do the joining automatically for me, and I didn't quite get it right and left a bit of overlap. If I ever get the time to fix it and do the job right it will be quite a nice photo.

[rosie]

Thanks Steve, I knew you would talk sense [msnsmile2]

And WOW that panorama is AMAZING [clap][clap][clap] so now, about your rates for doing my pics and I'll forget buying a new camera.... [msnwink]

[Snapper]

Post 2 Rosie - DSLRs.

I apologise in advance to everyone I'm about to upset with the next sweeping statement because there are heaps and heaps of good products out there, and I'm about to do almost all of them a complete dis-service without ever even having held them. Sorry!

If it were me, I wouldn't look at anything that didn't say Nikon or Canon on it.

There. Said it.

The reason behind the rather sweeping statement stems mostly from personal experience of both Nikon and Canon kit, but also from watching what the pros use. Nikon and Canon more than any other imaging companies have an incredibly dominent position in the pro marketplace. They haven't achieved this because they are cheap, or because their products look pretty or come with a nice looking box. They are there because the products perform. Over and over again.

Choosing between them is difficult, and for the most part I'd say it will come down to which feels the most comfortable when you hold it and play around with it. I find them both pretty much as easy to handle. Which is best? Nikon vs. Canon discussions seem to run for ever on the photo forums so I don't think there is an answer. From what I read Canon usually have a slight edge in terms of technology (more megapixels and twiddly bits) whereas Nikon tend to have a slight edge on the optical quality of their lenses. You do pay for that quality though, and it ain't cheap. Either one you will be incredibly happy with.

In terms of products, I have a Nikon D70 and I'm still over the moon with it. It's excellent. End of. The Canon equivalent is probably the EOS 20D. That's also excellent. End of.

If those are a bit pricey for you I think the next closest contenders would be a Nikon D50 vs. Canon EOS 350D. Both still excellent.

As a last thought, if you want to get serious about your photography, start saving up for lenses. We all tend to think about cameras with all their gizmos, widgets and megapixels, but the words of my old photography teacher still ring clear in my ears. The lens takes the photo; the camera is only there to hold the film.

[rosie]

Thanks Steve. The Nikon D70 and the Canon EOS 20D are a bit more than I wanted to pay [msneek].... I don't like Al THAT much

I like the look of the Nikon D50 though, so I'll take a trek to a camera shop to have a play with it and probably come back with more questions [msnwink]

[chrisflowers]

I agree with Steve, as I have a Nikon D100 which I bought for my daughter's wedding nearly 2 years ago.

You still need a point and shoot - like my Nikon coolpix - so that you don't need to carry around your bulky SLR camera with all the extra lenses/flash etc.

[Snapper]

One of the good things about the DSLR systems Rosie is that most of the bits are interchangable within the same brand. So if you go for a D50 and then start to build up a collection of lenses (a life's task) then decide to upgrade the camera the existing lenses just attach to the new body. Flash systems and other goodies are mostly the same. It lets you spend the money where it's most important (the lens) and only have to worry about upgrading the camera when you start pushing it beyond its limits.

There are some places that will rent you a lens if you have a specialised need. You might ask when you'd ever need to do this, but suppose you were going on a safari one year. You might prefer to rent that 400mm f/2.8 with a TC20 rather than shell out £7,500 for a lens you're only likely to use for two or three weeks.

[chrissb]

Hi Rosie

I treated myself to the Nikon D50 in the summer and have been have been very pleased with it. It may not have all the features of the D70, but then i doubt I am a good enough photographer to be able to use them fully. The D50 is easy to use, and produces good quality photographs. I'm not too sure that buying the camera in the US gives you any savings, may be worth checking out the prices on UK and US websites and comparing.

[rosie]

We did that with our original SLR many years ago, upgraded a bit at a time, so being able to do it again sounds like a good idea.

I'll never be in your league Steve, I just like taking photo's for my own enjoyment, but want to be able to experiment a bit more than my Canon Powershot will let me. It's still a good point and shoot though, and its small and compact, so it is always in my bag [msnsmile]