General Discussion

bubbajustin:

But I want a really sharp image. So I need 12 mpxls right. I normally don’t print things out.

What do you mean by 'sharp'?  You don't need megapixels for what you want to do.  What you want is great focus and great resolution.  The better point-and-shoots will do all you want to do.  Any of the Canon Powershot series these days, if they are available, are inexpensive and excellent.  Nikon, Panasonic, and all the other name brands have excellent versions of the same thing.  You want easy of use, simple, effective, light, small...the point-and-shoots are the way to go.

My

selector:

bubbajustin:

But I want a really sharp image. So I need 12 mpxls right. I normally don’t print things out.

What do you mean by 'sharp'?  You don't need megapixels for what you want to do.  What you want is great focus and great resolution.  The better point-and-shoots will do all you want to do.  Any of the Canon Powershot series these days, if they are available, are inexpensive and excellent.  Nikon, Panasonic, and all the other name brands have excellent versions of the same thing.  You want easy of use, simple, effective, light, small...the point-and-shoots are the way to go.

My

The draw back with the point and shoots are that they are not all that fast. It is the longest few seconds of your life when a train is being down on you and you have the shutter released pushed down but the camera has to think about firing. You thinking " Fire, I said FIRE,FIRE you @%&&***.

George

I would agree with that.  And they don't tend to recover after the shutter releases quickly either, a compounded problem.  Still, another $300 for a faster shutter....?  It is something to think about.

-Crandell

Good point - did lose some shots with the Sony due to that lag.  The after lag was worse when I was writing to floppies (something that particular camera would do).  The Rebel, on the other hand, will take something like 14 "large" jpegs in a row before it has to pause and catch up, and even that doesn't take long.  RAW doesn't deal quite a well with rapid fire...

I won't deny that a point and shoot may well suit many people's needs.  The Sony fits that description and performs nicely in that niche. 

I, too, have experience with film 35's (Pentax K1000), so that translates nicely to the Rebel and it's peers, none of which I'll denigrate.

Justin,

There's a LOT that goes into getting a "SUPER SHARP!" photo. Throwing megapixels at your subject isn't going to help -- especially if you're only looking to display photos on your computer. Megapixels only become important when you want to print BIG. And I mean really, Really, REALLY BIG! I've printed to 20x30 with really good results with a 6 MP DSLR. I have yet to push my K20D yet, but I suspect that 40x60's would be possible if I'm really careful.

So what goes into a "SUPER SHARP!" shot? Here's some important things to remember:

1) The quality of your pixels is way more important than the quantity of them. There's a lot of physics that goes into it, but the general idea is that larger photo sites are very important. So what does that mean? If you look at the sensor size of the sensors that go into compacts digitals and those that go into DSLRs, you'll see that the DSLR is much bigger. Because of that, if you have 10MP on a DSLR and 10MP on a Digital Compact, the photo sites will be bigger on the DSLR. Because they're bigger, they do a much better job of capturing light, and will give you a better photo.

At base ISO levels, this isn't too important, but as your ISO increases, it becomes critically important. Because the larger sensors do a better job of capturing light, they'll do  much better job at lower light levels. ISO 3200 will look better on a DSLR than ISO 400 will on a Digital Compact.

2) Proper technique is absolutely critical. You want sharp pictures? Get yourself a good sturdy tripod. The various types of image stabilization certainly have helped handheld photography. I love Shake Reduction on my K20D. That being said, though, when I'm really getting nutty about image quality, the camera is on a tripod.

In the realm of Digital SLRs, there are other matters that can become important, too. For example, I use Mirror Lockup when I'm looking for absolute image quality, especially at middle shutter speeds (like 1/2 to 1/60th of a second).

Beyond that, knowing your lenses helps, too. Generally speaking, your lens will work better stopped down a bit. But...wanna know a secret? When you pack too many pixels on a small sensor, lenses become diffraction limited. On some of the highest MP compacts, the lens has to be used wide open to get the best image quality because if it's stopped down, diffraction is just going to blur images.

I personally run my lenses through a set of tests to figure out how they behave at different apertures and focus ranges (e.g. sometimes a lens will operate better at close focusing distance than at infinity, or vice versa). Because I go to that work, I know that I should use my FA 77mm Limited at f4-f5.6, my FA 50mm at f5.6, my Tamron SP 180mm f2.5 at f5.6-f8, etc. etc.

Again, technique is absolutely paramount to getting sharp images.

3) Speaking of lenses, don't forget that they're really, really important. Just like in the days of film, a good sensor is useless with bad glass in front of it. Buying good glass can be expensive, but doesn't have to be. Every manufacturer has some good stuff that isn't desperately expensive. For example, in Canonland, the EF 50mm f1.8 is really, really, really good, and costs right around $100. Yeah...it's not a zoom, but that just means that it can be small, light, really fast (lets a lot of light in), really good and really cheap. Good prime lenses can really surprise zoom photogs. I shoot almost exclusively with primes, and I'm constantly surprised what they can do. Modern zooms are very good indeed, but they still can't match a well designed prime.

4) Tree mentioned picking up a photography guide book. That's a great idea. At a very minimum, spend some time on the web learning about photography. Learn about light. Learn about composition. Learn how your camera and lens work. The more you know, the more succesful your photography will be.

5) Learn how to get the most from your files in post processing. Learn how to sharpen effectively so that it's nice and snappy, but not over the top.

When it all comes together, you'll be able to wow your audience. Want an example? Try this. Here's a shot of North Yard here in Denver:

See the building on the horizon on the left side of the frame? That's the Pillar of Fire church. At full resolution, it looks like this:

Despite the miles of atmosphere between it and my camera, I could still pick out the water tower supports. This was taken with my K20D with a sharp lens (the M 50mm f1.7) stopped down to it's sweet spot (f5.6), on a tripod with mirror lockup.

How about another one? Try this. Here's one of the flat cars that carries the Solid Rocket Booster Components for the Space Shuttle:

See the writing on the lower left hand side of the car? This is what it says:

If I were in your shoes, I'd forget about getting something new. Look around for an old Canon Digital Rebel (which you can find for $200 or less if you watch closely), and get a couple good lenses for it. The 6.3 MP it delivers will be plenty for your display, and will even allow you prints to 16x20 or perhaps even 20x30 if you are careful.

Take the time to learn about photography and practice, practice, practice!

If you need any help along the way, feel free to drop me a private message, or better yet, post a message here again. As you've noticed, there are a lot of great photogs here who are willing to share their wisdom.

Good luck!

Justin, Chris' post above is spot on. I would underscore his comment about glass, because that is the single most important part of any camera. With bad glass, you are hosed no matter what. With good glass, you do not have to have the best body behind it, so long as you have the resolution you need and the sensitivity required for the kind of pictures you shoot.

While more Megapixels can help, he is correct about pixel size (nine micron vs. six micron is a big difference, a full f-stop in sensitivity) and there are other considerations such as dust and depth-of-field that come into the picture (you should pardon the expression).

But most importance should be attached to his advice, "Take the time to learn about photography and practice, practice, practice!" No better route can be shown to you, and the great thing is that with digital, the out-of-pocket cost of shooting is virtually nil.

You guys do realize you are talking way over the head of the original poster, don't you?

He's looking for a camera to shoot pictures to display on his computer monitor and you guys are pointing him toward high end cameras and photography lessons.

Most new cell phones have as much resolution as he needs for his intended purpose.  He doesn't need $2,000 worth of camera and glass.

Justin, I use a Canon Rebel XS, with one lense, and it works great for me! Got it for under $500, and you will be able to use it for a long time. DO NOT buy a point and shoot its like throwing money down the drain in the long run.

PV - As Coborn points out, a point-and-shoot isn't the way to go, even if it is cheaper.  So I think most of us have been pointing him at a low end SLR.  I can hand my Rebel to a total novice with it set to the green box, and they'll turn out technically acceptable pictures (even if the composition stinks).  But in Justin's case, he's just getting started in what will likely become more serious digital photography, and I'm sure he'll progress.  He may start out just taking pictures to use as wallpaper on his computer, but as he learns and hones the necessary skills, he'll start getting "fancy" and will use more of the features on the camera.   Most important, though, is that he'll have a decent foundation with an SLR, something that can't be said for a point-and-shoot.

Chris, great shot up at North Yard.

Phoebe Vet:

You guys do realize you are talking way over the head of the original poster, don't you?

He's looking for a camera to shoot pictures to display on his computer monitor and you guys are pointing him toward high end cameras and photography lessons.

Most new cell phones have as much resolution as he needs for his intended purpose.  He doesn't need $2,000 worth of camera and glass.

Actually, my suggestion was for an original Digital Rebel with an EF 50mm f1.8. With some careful shopping, that combo could be had for $300 and will be light years ahead of any brand new P&S he could buy.

And my reply was generated as a response to his question about how to get sharp photos. There's a lot that goes into that, so I illustrated what goes into my shots. Over his head, possibly, but I'd like to think that there was a little bit of information not only for Justin, but for other photogs as well.

Camera salesmen would love to have the world believe that more megapixels is the answer to better photos. Sadly, the exact opposite is true in many cases. Lenses that I thought were good on my K100D were only OK on my K20D. The jump in resolution from 6MP to nearly 15MP proved to be a real stress test on my glass.

I'm with Tree on this. In the "Green" mode, any DSLR will work essentially as a P&S (though kind of a bulky one). If and when Justin is ready to learn more, the DSLR is going to give him opportunities that no P&S will.

tree68:

PV - As Coborn points out, a point-and-shoot isn't the way to go, even if it is cheaper.  So I think most of us have been pointing him at a low end SLR.  I can hand my Rebel to a total novice with it set to the green box, and they'll turn out technically acceptable pictures (even if the composition stinks).  But in Justin's case, he's just getting started in what will likely become more serious digital photography, and I'm sure he'll progress.  He may start out just taking pictures to use as wallpaper on his computer, but as he learns and hones the necessary skills, he'll start getting "fancy" and will use more of the features on the camera.   Most important, though, is that he'll have a decent foundation with an SLR, something that can't be said for a point-and-shoot.

I am not in any way denigrating the Rebel.  it is an excellent camera. 

This is odd, because I am on the opposite side of the argument I usually make when people are asking which DCC system to buy, but I do stand by what I said.  The original poster is obviously not a photographer.  If he was familiar with all the terms being presented here, he would not be asking a train forum which camera he should buy.  he, like many amateurs, believes that more resolution automatically means better pictures.  You can tell that by the way he framed his inquiry.

These two images were made by a friend of mine with a Canon Power-shot S1 IS, a 3.3 mega-pixel camera.

This image was made by me with one of my DSLRs.  I believe it was the Canon 20D. using a $1,500 lens.

For his intended purpose, the Power-shot has all the capability he needs.  If he ever reaches the point where he needs a DSLR, by then he will have formed an opinion about what he wants, and the difference in price is substantial.  A GOOD tripod is a better investment than a DSLR.

coborn35:

...DO NOT buy a point and shoot its like throwing money down the drain in the long run.

I couldn't possibly agree.  I have a Canon Powershot A710is that handles large prints in the 24X32" range with ease.  I took this image a couple of years ago, hand-held, and on automatic.  I was looking off the bank from my property down to the Strait of Georgia, about 80' below, and facing the rising sun.

Someone who practices and who knows his/her equipment can take excellent images.  SLR's are better tools, but they are not strictly necessary for the best images.

-Crandell