camera question

[CAP1]

ok....i'm not looking for anything near professional......just something good.

looking at a camera on sale. it's a nikon coolpix 100.

it's listed at 10 megapixels, 26x optical zoom, 26mm wide angle lens, and it does 1080p hd video.

 under $400. whatcha all think?

thanks!!

[Tac]

dont buy 'coolpix' or any other marketting-label named items. They tend to be low quality junk. Yes, it may take 10mpix pictures and such but the insides are low quality components that will go bad in a year or two.


For that price range you can buy yourself an entry level DSLR camera. A newbie-friendly DSLR.


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-+10.2-Megapixel+Digital+SLR+Camera+-+Black/9456803.p?id=1218107268800&skuId=9456803

its listed as 499 but thats just best buy's inflated price.. you can find it cheaper on other stores if you do a search. Also, there are beginner DSLR's that can be found between 350 and 400 bucks.. these are DSLR cameras that behave a lot like point and shoot digital cameras but also have the option of functioning as a 'lite' DSLR.. and that is just plain awesome.

[saggs]

I kinda disagree with Tac.  I think the some of the "Coolpix" series are great little cameras, just depends on what you want to do with it.  I also really like the Pentax Optio series.  The only P&S I own is a waterproof Pentax Optio that I carry on rafting and canoe whitewater trips when I don't dare take my full SLR kit.  I'm down on Canon P&S right now though because I know two people with recent Canon models that have stripped out zoom drive gears.

I'd actually recommend against buying an SLR unless you really want to spend some time and effort learning how to use it properly.  For snapshots printed up to say 11x14" a decent point and shoot will do just as well as a beginner SLR on "P" or "Auto" or the "green square", or whatever the fully auto mode is on that SLR brand.

The weak point of those beginner SLR kits is that the kit lenses that come with them suck, they are the very bottom of the barrel when it comes to optics and build quality.  So straightaway with a beginner kit you'll be tempted to drop another $400+ just to get a decent walk-about lens.  And then if you want a flash that actually works be prepared for another $250+.  And my biggest pet peeve with beginner SLRs is that the viewfinders on then are all *expletive* !!!!!  They are all so tiny and dim that I can't see how anyone can compose an image or check focus with them.  Better to stick with a P&S and just use the live view screen.

So (unless you want to get serious with photography, and that means a lot more $$$ invested) I'd say stick with a point and shoot ; smaller, lighter, cheaper, easier, better live-view, and equal picture quality at most commonly printed sizes.

Also you mentioned 26mm as "wide angle"... ... I'd double check that because 99% of P&S cameras have a pretty small sensor and 26mm is nowhere near "wide angle" on a sensor that size.  On most P&S cameras you'd be looking for more like 6-10mm for decent wide angle capability.

For reviews check out sites like Dpreview.com and steves-digicams.com or retailers like Adorama or B&H photo, they usually have the best prices to.

[saggs]

Just looked it up:  

http://www.adorama.com/INKCPP100BK.html

$376 at Adorama.  Looks like a pretty sweet little camera to me.  It's got a better lens than most P&S cameras, and probably most SLR "kit" lenses too, it opens up all the way to f2.8 on the wide end, which means it'll work better in low-light situations than most.

And I see what you mean with the 26mm now.  It's actually 4.6-120mm lens, but they market it as "26-678mm **35mm equivalent** focal length"  which is another of my pet peeves.  

[Tac]

I agree that it depends on what he wants to do with it. He said not professional but good. That to me instantly removes 'coolpix' type cameras from the market. Heck that 26mm lens issue you mentioned is just part of the marketing gimmicks these companies use to sell cellphone-camera CCD sensor units that they've slapped into the body of a REAL camera and gave it a cute lens so it looks better and they can charge people a lot more for them.

I have a coolpix 10mpx camera thats small and very handy to carry on my person. Very light, fits in my pocket. Takes HD video and all that jazz. Its a point and shoot camera with lots of menu options. I would never however, dare use it to take pictures I might want to print and frame.

Also own a mid-range 'good quality' picture taker Panasonic FZ-7 . 6mpixels camera that has rather good optics considering how cheap it was. With that camera I do take pics I frame..even though its less mpixels than the coolpix. The difference between the two in image quality is just massive. There is no substitute for having a good lens/optics. I bought that fz-7 about 5 years ago so today it is rather crappy but for its day, it was glorious.

Then I jointly own a Nikon D60, D80 and D300 with my parents. DSLR's with tons of options, these cameras are between the hobbyist and professional level. Yes, the optics for them cost money but thats only IF you get the fever to buy the macro, zoom lenses, etc. With those two cameras I can take insanely good quality pics and its a joy to frame them.

When I travel, on the go I take the pocket camera..its good for snapshots of the city and people...for when im not there TO take pics. When I go to places for a first time around 'scouting' them for their potential to come back and take pics, I take my DZ-7. If the place is worthy of spending a whole day in the area to take pics I return with the nikons because those are the pics ill be keeping and printing (plus the nikons and their lenses are HEAVY to carry around ).

So, if he wants good but not pro. The Nikon D3000 (the one I originally linked) has the good lens, great features and price. Performance with it will be just what he's looking for. And if he later on wants to get more into photography he can buy lens for it that should also work on the more capable cameras like the d80/d300. nikon is real good about keeping compatibility of lenses with their cameras (OP: if you do buy this camera be SURE to ask about the lens compatibility. I do not own a D3000 so im not 100% sure).

Here's a few good links for the OP :

Sensor Size does matter! :

http://photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/

The author tries to put things as simple as possible but truth is, it took me a while to catch what he was saying. For this discussion, simply look at the chart of the sensor sizes and graphic.

Canon D30    "Sensor size":  (not given)  Physical size (mm): 22.7X15.1
Nikon Coolpix 995  "Sensor size": 1/1.8"   Physical size (mm): 7.2 x 5.3
Minolta  Xi "Sensor size": 1/2.7"  Physical size (mm): 5.3 x 4.0




Magnification needed for 8x10 crop (so that the picture taken will match that taken by a true 35mm camera):

CanonD30:    13.46x
Coolpix 995:38.3x
Minolta: 50.8x

Of these 3, the Minolta is the equivalent of the coolpix 100 ... 1/2.7" sensor means you need to mag it up to 50X just to get something similar to a 35mm film.

The coolpix 995 is marginally better than the minolta but still is crap compared to the D30 from nikon.

The d30 needs very little mag to match the 35mm.. and the D3000 has the same sensor size as the D30.

Optics Matter!:

http://photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/

The pictures will say it all


Saggs:

Ive been drooling over this one: Sigma SD15 . Im thinking of selling my FZ7 and D60 to buy it. Its so nifty it has the option of going 100% manual... its the closest to a manual 35mm there is as a dslr and the new tech this camera has takes impressive pics.

[Flench]

I would get the GoPro HD camera ..

[saggs]

Tac,

Yes sensor size does matter, but not so much for the reasons you mentioned.  When printing from digital you are not magnifying anything when you print, it's just a computer file of info sent to the printer.  A 10mp sensor will record 10 million pixels, doesn't matter how big or small it is, it will still record the same amount of image info.  The question is that info good enough for a good print.

The real reason sensor size matters has a lot more to do with diffraction limitation.  It's all very techie talk with stuff like "circles of confusion", "pixel pitch" and "airy discs."  But what it basically boils down to is that the more crowded the photo-sites on a sensor are (ie, a 14mp 1/4" sensor) the more limited you are in the f-stop  you can use before the light becomes "split" between the photo-sites causing a soft image.  Which is why most small sensor P&S's shoot with a wide open aperture all the time, because you can only stop down one or two stops before diffraction becomes an issue.  For a real explanation check this out:  http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

The article you linked is misleading I feel, because he is testing small sensor cameras at f8, past their diffraction limit, where they are rarely used in real life.  And all his talk about lp/mm and MTF has as much to do with the optics as the sensor.   Basically in real life, not many would ever notice the difference. 


Also yes, optics are the most important thing (besides the photographer) in getting a good image.  You can have an $8,000 D3x or even a $40,000 Phase one, but if you but a $50 Vivitar plastic lens in front of it you will still get crap results.   Which is why I pointed out that the "kit" lens with all beginner kits suck!!!!  (and the viewfinders too!!!!!  )  The kit lens on that D3000 will be the crappiest, cheapest lens that Nikor dares stick their name on.  CAP would get it, go outside and take some nice landscape photo (using an awful viewfinder) get a nice big print of it, then look at it and wonder why all the corners and edges are soft and fuzzy.

I'd be willing to bet that you could take a snapshot with that D3000 side by side with that coolpix, print them up to 16x20 and no one (myself included) would be able to tell which was from which camera.   Simply put, at the size most people print their snapshots, a good quality P&S will deliver just as well or better results in their hands then a beginner SLR.

Yes the D3000 is capable of taking better images.  But to get that capability I can promise you'd have to drop at least $400 more on a decent lens, and more again on a real flash setup, then spend at least a couple weeks learning how best to use it all.

[saggs]

Saggs:

Ive been drooling over this one: Sigma SD15 . Im thinking of selling my FZ7 and D60 to buy it. Its so nifty it has the option of going 100% manual... its the closest to a manual 35mm there is as a dslr and the new tech this camera has takes impressive pics.

Did you happen to notice that that is actually a SD9 in the photo.   

Sadly I'm afraid that Sigma is dying as a camera manufacturer.  They do make some great lenses (some crappy ones too.) I own several Sigma lenses and have liked all but one of them.  But as a camera maker I think they have one foot in the grave.  The one thing they had going for them was the Foveon sensor, which may or may not be better (depends who you ask) then a traditional Bayer sensor, it just never caught on though.

Also most every SLR I believe have an "M" or manual setting too.  Ive never seen that didn't.