Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi,
I am looking for a digital camera for myself. I will be mainly using it for wildlife, landscape, and people. I would really like a camera with a really good zoom, and one that can take motion shots very quickly. I'm a college student, so I can't spend a whole lot of money, so I was wondering about buying a digital camera with not so great of a zoom, but then buying a replaceable zoom lens thing (I don't know all the terminology of cameras). Does anyone have any suggestions for me? Thanks a lot.
Caroline

Hi Caroline,

It seems that what you are looking for and what you are asking for are not quite going to be satisified very easily by the same kind of camera. First off, if you want a camera that takes motion shots quickly you should look into a true digital camera (true digital = fully digital; not SLR (single lense reflex)). True digital camera's don't have the mechanical limitations that SLR's have, and typically can have shutter speeds as fast at 1/10,000th second! They also typically have "movie mode" recording abilities, and image preview functions; which SLR's lack. As for zoom, I've seen anywhere from 3-14x, depending on how much you have to spend of course.

Considering SLR's, yes, you would have the ability to change lenses, and therefore you could get a very high zoom lense. But now you're talking big bucks, both for the lense(s) and for the camera body in the first place. The ability to change lenses is a key benefit of using an SLR, but it comes at a price. Also, as I said above, SLR's lack some of the functions that true digital cameras have.

If you would like to see what is out there on the market now for cameras, and compare the features of each, you can look on sites like www.dpreview.com and others like it for all the details.

Hope this helps in your decision,
- Mark

.

-----
.
-------------------------------------------------------------
My personal website: www.antegy.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
My Kingsnake.com Picture Galleries

- 1.0.0 Labyrinth Burmese Python Gallery
- 0.1.0 Suriname Boa Gallery
- 0.1.0 Mexican Black Kingsnake Gallery
- 1.0.0 Pueblan Milksnake Gallery
- 0.1.0 Trinket Ratsnake Gallery
-------------------------------------------------------------
My photography on photo.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
My photography on modelmayhem.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Me on myspace.com

sorry dude, i din't really wanna finish reading your response, because it is obvious you don't really know what an slr is. i suggest you learn about them before you answer another post regarding one. there are digital slr's with everything and more than those "true digital" cameras you speak of, including better quality. oh and by the way, when uit says 3X and 4X even 14X, it is all relative to the manufacturer, i suggest you look at the lens and see the actual zoom in mm. the only thing you are right about is that there is no such thing as what she wants.
honestly, i would advice you go with an slr, i have a digital one and a 35 mm one (prefer 35 mm, but digital is fun) you can really get into the picture and take control of every aspect. dont let the movie mode pursuade you unless you wanna take short (usually soundless) videos in crappy quality, you can jsut buy a really cheap videocamera and it will better. i take preofessional wildlife shots and i can tell you from experience, a slr is best suited for this task, but you can make a (almost equally expensive) regular digital work for you. look into the nikon d70, and i forgot the name of it but they also have a great little digital in their lineup with a pretty commendable zoom. my friends are rushing me so i have to go, but good luck (to the both of you).
-jake

I'm glad you didn't finish reading my reply, as it wasn't addressed to you. The things you say I was wrong about - simply put, you are wrong, but in a very gray way. I don't care to argue the point with you though, because you are obviously only here to cause some sort of stir. And what is comical is that you try to come across as intelligent, even though your spelling and grammar reek horrendously of ignorance; which typically says something about the author.

I'm comfortable with giving Caroline good information she can use to learn more about her inquiry, so that she can make an informed decision of her own when it comes time that she decides to purchase a camera. I'm also comfortable with leaving you to reply to this thread knowing full well that I will never know or care about your response (as I suppose it is likely to be at once futile and infantile).

My first visit here in a long time and this is the state of the forum. I might come back in a month or two, maybe not - these forums seem to be getting less and less friendly and/or useful.

Oh yes, my name is not "dude". I do own an SLR, as well as several other cameras, both stock and modified (by myself). I am not a professional photographer, but if I was I certainly wouldn't publicly claim so until I learned to actually behave and present myself as such; which is not the impression your post suggests.

And now I have one last post, to Caroline, I am going to make before I take an extended leave from this forum, as I just remembered another place she could go to learn about her hobby so that she can be an informed, intelligent consumer at her next camera purchase.

Regards,
- Somewhat offended person just trying to help.

>>sorry dude, i din't really wanna finish reading your response, because it is obvious you don't really know what an slr is. i suggest you learn about them before you answer another post regarding one. there are digital slr's with everything and more than those "true digital" cameras you speak of, including better quality. oh and by the way, when uit says 3X and 4X even 14X, it is all relative to the manufacturer, i suggest you look at the lens and see the actual zoom in mm. the only thing you are right about is that there is no such thing as what she wants.
>>honestly, i would advice you go with an slr, i have a digital one and a 35 mm one (prefer 35 mm, but digital is fun) you can really get into the picture and take control of every aspect. dont let the movie mode pursuade you unless you wanna take short (usually soundless) videos in crappy quality, you can jsut buy a really cheap videocamera and it will better. i take preofessional wildlife shots and i can tell you from experience, a slr is best suited for this task, but you can make a (almost equally expensive) regular digital work for you. look into the nikon d70, and i forgot the name of it but they also have a great little digital in their lineup with a pretty commendable zoom. my friends are rushing me so i have to go, but good luck (to the both of you).
>>-jake

seeing as i am making enough money off my pictures to pay my way through college. and while i don't like sounding cocky, i know more than you, io recieved an award personally from the governor for my photography, it was televised. i'm rather proud of that and i am glad the medal finally served a purpose. i honestly am usually more open to people's opinions, but i did not appreciate the way you dissed the SLR. i hope you go read a book or something so you can answer people properly. and honestly, when i have a halfnaked girl waiting for me to go to the beach, i would rather spend my time with her than correcting my grammar and speilling for your mommentary pleasure. i'm a pretty damn good writer too (i'm definitely on the artsy side), unless you tear it appart and try to fit it to a mold of "perfect english" ... guess that gives it away that i like poetry more than essays, but i enjoy the research. anyways, good luck with your pictures, enjoy the hobby... i have a life to get back to,
-jake

you will wanna try www.bhphoto.com, it is the best and most reputable store, they are located in new york. i would recomend this camera, it just came out (link at the bottom)

Nikon D50

Look into the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT.........its an 8 megapixel DSLR ( has interchangeable lenses ) and if you look hard enough you shoudl be able to find it online from between $680-$780 more or less................its a nice camera for a great price!

Jared Horenstein

Hi Caroline,

I just remembered another site you could visit:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

It also has a lot of good info on many different cameras.

- Mark

Caroline,

You need to do some research (which is why your are posting here, of course!).
Like the others, I like dpreview.com. They have a neat feature where you can compare the features of digital cameras side by side that may help you evaluate your options.

Here are some things to consider....

I will be mainly using it for wildlife, landscape, and people. I would really like a camera with a really good zoom,

This is a tough task. In order to discuss this, you have to understand the concept of the focal length of the lens. Long focal length lenses allow you take pictures of things far away with a narrow field of view (like looking through a telescope or binoculars) while short focal lengths give you a wide field of view which allows you to include more of an area in your shot.

The effect of lens focal lengths, however, vary with the size of the sensor in digital cameras, so you can't just compare the focal lengths printed on the lenses of two different cameras. In order to make comparisons, people tend to use "35mm equivalence" in order to standardize the numbers and to be able to evaluate the effect the focal length will have. (These numbers are based on the effect that would be seen in a 35mm film camera since most photographers are familiar with lenses for these cameras).

For wildlife shots, you will need a long lens (at least 300mm in 35mm equivalence - 400mm would be better).
For landscape shots you need a wide angle lens. I like something less than 28mm (in 35mm equivalence).
For people pics, any lens in the 50mm to 100mm (35mm equiv) range will work fine. If you like to photograph big groups, you might need a wider lens (your landscape lens, for example).

Now the problem is getting all of this in one lens! Finding a lens which gives you good images at both extremes is difficult. There are some that do, but the image quality they produce isn't as good as that produced by lenses with shorter zoom ranges.
It is hard to make good lenses that can zoom from wide angle to telephoto (long focal length) that maintain good image quality across the range, so all zooms are a compromise of quality and flexibility. In short zoom ranges, it is easier and quality is better at both ends, but in long zooms (often written as 50-500mm or 10X zoom) you lose some image quality.

So you are probably going to have to compromise if you want to cover this range. I suggest looking for a camera with a zoom equivalent in the 28-200mm (35mm equiv) range that has a 5MP or higher sensor. Then you can get your landscape shots at 28mm and shoot wildlife shots at 200mm and then crop to get frame filling pictures.

I have an older digicam which has a 38-380 zoom and it just isn't wide enough to get good landscape shots, IMHO.

and one that can take motion shots very quickly.

Getting good motion shots depends on several issues.

First, you need a fast shutter speed which almost any capable camera will have. Really you probably would never need a shutter speed faster than 1/2000th of a second. (Yes, there are cameras that can provide shutter speeds of 1/10,000th, but that sort of speed is almost useless, especially without high-speed synchronizing flash units - which cost more than the camera!) So any camera that can take pics at 1/2000th or less is fine. A good flash is also helpful for this.

The other issue is how fast the camera responds. Many point-and-shoot digitals suffer from "shutter lag". This means you press down the shutter release to take a picture and it takes some time before the camera actually takes the picture. How much time varies from camera to camera, but it can be as much as 1/2 a second. If you are taking action shots, most of the action will have changed/moved by the time the camera finally takes the photo. OK for shots of people sitting around, but you wouldn't want to try and get a pic of someone hitting a baseball that way.
Even worse, some cheaper cameras take as long as 5 seconds to turn on. Imagine seeing that great shot of whatever you have been waiting for then having to wait 5 seconds for the camera to turn on and another second for it to actually respond to you pressing the shutter release! It can be frustrating.
Make sure you read about the response time of any camera you are considering. I missed a lot of shots with my older Olympus C-700 UZ because of this. It was almost impossible to get a tongue flick on a snake, for example.

Another issue affecting this is the ISO setting of the camera. Most digital cameras can shoot pics at settings of 100, 200, 400, 800 ISO. Some go as high as 3200. Higher ISOs allow you to take pictures in less light and with faster shutter speeds.

However, just because a camera has that setting doesn't mean it is usable. At high ISOs, the image becomes grainier and grainier (think newspaper pictures). Some cheaper digital cameras are not usable above 400 without serious image degradation. Good DSLRs can generally take pics at 1600 and you can't tell the difference. So you need to see how grainy pics are at higher ISOs with the cameras you are comparing.

Generally, DSLRs provide what you need, but they are expensive. In order to buy a body (I suggest the Nikon D70s or the Konica Minolta 5D as excellent starting bodies), you have to shell out $700. You general use zoom (say 28-200 in 35 mm equiv) costs another $200 and then you want your 300mm wildlife lens which is another $400. Pretty soon you have $1500 invested in camera equipment. However, you can buy a few pieces at a time and add the other things later. The other advantage to this system is that a few years down the line, you could keep all your lenses and other accessories and just buy a new 25MP camera body when they become affordable.

You can also get some very good inexpensive (under $500) point-and-shoot type cameras (some of the better cameras in this range are sold as "advanced" digital cameras rather than point-and-shoot). You may not get the total zoom range you want (make sure you get the wide angle!) and it won't be as responsive as a DSLR, but you can get a very satisfactory camera. The image quality isn't quite as good because the sensors are smaller, but unless you make a poster sized print and compare them side by side, you won't notice a difference.

There are some very good cameras like this available. Unfortunately, everyone will tell you "I have the X-brand 2304g" and it is a great camera. Generally, these people have only ever used that camera or possibly 2 or three others types for comparison! How do they know it is a great camera???

I have only ever used the Kodak 3700, Olympus C-700 and C-750 point-and-shoots as well as the Nikon D70, Canon 20D, and Konica Minolta 7D digital SLRs as well as half a dozen film SLRs. All were capable cameras, but I don't know what to recommend to you because I haven't even picked up MOST cameras. But there are LOTS of others out there. That's where a good review site (like dpreview) will help you out. The people that do the professional reviews have used hundreds of digicams and know the difference.

I know this seems like a lot to consider, but if you spend the time to figure out exactly what YOU need, then you will be much happier with your purchase. Good luck, and show us your pics when you get them!

Remember - good photographers take good photos, not good cameras.

Chris
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, TX