Phoenix Network Forums

I'm looking for a nice digital camera that I can use for artistic photography. I don't have unlimited funds and I think that digital would beat out a SLR on cost and ease in the long run.

I'd like a camera where I can control most everything about the picture. I'm just beginning but I've reached the limits with the cheap camera I have now. I'd like to be able to manually focus and control the exposure time.

I'm thinking my upper limit might be $500, but I'm pretty flexable. If anyone knows or can find a camera that fits my needs I'd like to know!

Something good for beginners, but not so much so that it limits what can be done.

Just a stab... but I'm guessing 5 mega pixles will keep my happy for a while (current 3.2).

So, regardless of price and mega pixel, if you know of something I'll apreciate your help!

What brands are good and what's crap?!?

Thanks in advance!

-WhiteHat101

I got me a Nikon 4300. I got it a year and a half ago, and it's kind of heavy, but it has the manual mode in which you can set the exposure and the shuter speed yourself. Unfortunately you can't focus manually, but you can set up the focus area so the camera does it itself.

I'm afraid you can't control the focus on the cheaper-end digital cameras. I think you'd need one of them digital SLR cameras to do what you wanna do.

Nikons, and Cannons are awesome and getting better (I saw a Nikon 4600, a camera with better features than mine at almost half the size and price). My experiences with sonys and olympus are mixed - some make great shots, some really crappy ones.

did U try some non-digital camera?
here in Latvia a friend of mine have a Russian made camera some 30-40 years old, but in realy good condition
and pictures made with this cam are realy good quality
just like with professional digital cam ;-]

some of his works with that old cam:
http://lidlauks.times.lv/foto_galerija.htm

I don't have unlimited funds and I think that digital would beat out a SLR on cost and ease in the long run.

I think whitehat101 had the price of shooting and developing film in mind as well. But really really nice SLR cameras are not very expensive anymore, providing you plan to invest in lenses later on.

If you're wondering. I have a Olympus D560 Zoom, I got it as a gift a year or two ago. It's good enough to take casual pictures and all that fun.

SLR being cheaper is something to think about, but It's nice to shoot and have the picture already in a format that you can use.

As far as I know, when you get film developed you can't get hq digital images. That would mean getting a new scanner (& negative adapter). Or I guess you could scan the prints, but that is just another generation of quality lost.

Lenses will probably be something to think about, too... That is still probably a little way off though.

I have heard good things about Nikons and Cannons and zogo seems to of had a good time with his. (I googled it and saw a few bad reviews where the Nikon 4300 died, but a few bad cameras is probably to be expected with all brands)

Anyone else have any reviwes/experenced with Nikon or Cannon?
Or any SLR camera?

I used to want to get into photography, and my friend suggested a nikon n80 (slr) it looked nice, but I never got enough for it. :\

Kevo wrote:I used to want to get into photography, and my friend suggested a nikon n80 (slr) it looked nice, but I never got enough for it. :\

make some business with what u have
work as some amateur photograph for some celebrations or smth
mayby U can earn smth
of course-I don`t know yet what is your job now...

Current job is a carpenter. But problem is I usually waste my money on dumb stuff before I have a job to save up for something.

My eyes can't really tell the difference between 3.2mp and 6mp for example. Seriously... for me, images are just images

Strafe wrote:My eyes can't really tell the difference between 3.2mp and 6mp for example. Seriously... for me, images are just images

True true, but when you try to make large prints the difference becomes apearent. My 3.2 gives me shots at 2048x1536 (now that I think about it that makes it a little under 3.2 'bout 3.145) At 72dpi (like a monitor) you ca view it at 28.4x21.3 -- which is big. When you make it a print at say 300dpi you can make 6.82x5.12 prints before pixelation. With 6 megapixels say about 2867x2150 (~6.1megapixel) you can get 9.5x7.1 prints at 300dpi.

3.2 is fine for casual use, but I'm hoping to get a little bigger prints. Plus, I'm looking for a camera that will give me more control over the picture more than just more megapixles.

You've lost me at the "but..." part )
Anyway, I just don't see what's the point of having pictures the size of skyscrapers... 1024x768 is ok for me and should be for anyone, even though i usualy go with the default setting of 1520x2032 (too lazy to change it.. - it's my girlfriend's camera, BENQ DC E30, 3.2mp) and then resize them.
But if you're into some other stuff, i understand. Just like when you have a car with a 1.2 engine (it runs and takes you from A to B, but not as fast as a 2.0)...

If they are bigger... You can print larger prints... If you were going to sell anything you shot having the option to print larger a 3.41x2.56in (1024x768 at 300dpi) picture isn't something that most people would put on their wall, usually they want a tad bigger

But that's not really the issue! I'm looking for a camera (or brand of camera) that you guys trust and that can do what I'm looking for. Megapixel will probably come last and how many megapixels will probably vary directly with how much I end up spending.

So... Nikon is good, i'll probably check out some prices & specs this weekend.

(any comments on cannon?)

(nop )

whitehat101 wrote:If they are bigger... You can print larger prints... If you were going to sell anything you shot having the option to print larger a 3.41x2.56in (1024x768 at 300dpi) picture isn't something that most people would put on their wall, usually they want a tad bigger

But that's not really the issue! I'm looking for a camera (or brand of camera) that you guys trust and that can do what I'm looking for. Megapixel will probably come last and how many megapixels will probably vary directly with how much I end up spending.

So... Nikon is good, i'll probably check out some prices & specs this weekend.

(any comments on cannon?)

I don;t know if this is any valid to you anymore ... but my experience with cannon isn't exactly that good somehow I don;t find it user friendly at all maybe I'm just stupid and an idoit photographer. Sony and Casio would be my chioce for digital cameras (more idoit-proof?)
Anyway, I've just bought a new Sony digicam .. DSC- W7/B

I bought a Nikon 5200 camera a year ago. It's a fair consumer camera that allows to shot good photos. I feel well with this camera so I can recommend you a nikon. Price also was reasonable.
A suggestion: digital cameras tend towards to make a bit blurred photos, you can easily avoid that using a camera with image stabilizer. A year ago only most expensive and professional digital cameras had it, but now you can get it also on some consumer models.