I’m currently looking for a new camera. Each week when I go to Wal-Mart I keep eyeballing this really cool Cannon Rebel. It has 12.2 mega pixels, and an 18-55mm lenses with it. I can’t go over $700 (and frankly I don’t see a need to go to $700) So I was wondering if you all could send some suggestions.
PS: I need a camera that shoots trains well! Along with family reunions and things of that sort!
Thanks Justin
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
The rebel is an excellent camera. That said, unless you are going to make really really big prints, or want to be able to crop very severely, you don't NEED any where near 12 MP. If you WANT 12 MP that's fine, but you don't need it. Any camera over 3 MP will make good prints up to about 8x10 inches.
So, you can look at much cheaper cameras if cost is important to you. You need good depth of field (front to rear focus) and that comes with high aperture (F x) numbers. One nice thing about digital is that you can try it out in the store. See how close it will focus and be sure you can control shutter speed and f-stops. 5 MP, 8 MP are fine. Make sure it has removable media (cards) for moving the images to your computer.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Thanks!
I normally don’t print things. But that sure is a nice think to think about.
I looked at cannon.com, and at Wal-Mart .com. It is actually more expensive on-line.
EBay. I a little cheaper, but not much.
Justin
You really can't go wrong with any of the major name cameras...Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc.
The first question, do you have any legacy lens you want to keep? Canon, Nikon, and Sony (Konica Minolta) bodies accept most of their recent film based auto-focus lenses.
The biggest difference is the way they handle image stabilization. Canon and Nikon use lens mounted IS. So their bodies are less expensive, but they lenses cost more. Sony, Olympus, and a few other use sensor mounted IS. So their lenses cost less, plus you can use film based non-IS lenses, but the bodies cost more.
Your biggest expense probably won't be the body itself, but any extra glass you buy to go with it. For just about any type of train shooting you'll want to add a zoom.
It's also a good idea to pick up an extra battery, and more then one memory card.
Personally, I like Konica Minolta (Sony). I have a KM 5D, 6.1MP, I've used for several years, and love. I use a Tamron 28-300mm for most of my outdoor work, and a KM 18-70mm for indoors. The Tamron lens cost more then the 5D body.
You also might want to try Best Buy. They usually have a package deal for the body, 18-70mm lens and a 70-200mm or 70-300mm lens.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
If you like Canon, look at the Power Shot S5 IS. It's half the price of the Rebel, it's 5 MP and image stabilized. It has 12x optical zoom, so you will probably never have to buy another lens for it.
When you compare zoom from camera to camera, only check optical zoom. Digital zoom is just cropped and then interpolated back up.
I shoot a Nikon D60. I have had good success with it however, you should shoot a bunch of pictures and keep a notebook of your settings. Go back and look at your work to see what shoots you like the best. Use these settings again in similar situations. Here is some of my work with the D60. You can judge for yourself;
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2499/3759909062_b5feec5cb1_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3759104365_1fca35ca6e_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/3759882872_72c911b601_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/3759032917_cb3e59287c_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3666457706_0b02d72d9c_b.jpg
Also, you should join a discussion group that is devoted to the particular camera you choose. I am in two of them with the D60.
George
Phoebe Vet If you like Canon, look at the Power Shot S5 IS. It's half the price of the Rebel, it's 5 MP and image stabilized. It has 12x optical zoom, so you will probably never have to buy another lens for it. When you compare zoom from camera to camera, only check optical zoom. Digital zoom is just cropped and then interpolated back up.
You would have a difficult time finding the S5 IS. It was replaced almost a year ago by the SX10 IS. It is also image stabilized but is now 10 MP and a 20x optical zoom. In the same vein is the Nikon P90 with a 24x optical zoom w/vibration reduction and 12mp. Both of these are considered hybrid cameras. They are not true SLRs but they do have all the manual settings available and the lens that is built into the camera takes the place of 2 or 3 sometimes expensive interchangeable SLR lenses. As a bonus they are more compact.
On the whole, I think I would agree with dmoore and Phoebe Vet -- take a good close look at the Canon SX10 IS or the similar Nikon P90, etc. Or the Canon G10 (dang near bulletproof camera, very little shutter lag, very good lens). The biggest advantage to these cameras is that they are small -- the sort of thing you can and will carry with you (I rarely go anywhere without my G10) and they will do almost anything an SLR like the Rebel will do. For significantly less money. There are also smaller cameras such as my wife's SD800 IS (obsolete model -- the Canon SX200 IS is similar) which really are pocket cameras and have a lot of advantages.
There are several flavours of Rebels, by the way -- so make sure you are comparing apples to apples when you are pricing them. Not only different pixel counts, but the higher end ones really are much better. The price you are quoting looks as though it must be the XS (also known as the 1000D) model, which is $530 from B&H Photo Video, New York (which the only place I'd buy a camera: bhphotovideo.com -- service and support like you wouldn't believe!). Good camera, but see the comment on shutter lag.
Things to watch out for, though -- and what you really get for more money: lens distortion in the wide-range zooms (barrel and pincushion). It's almost impossible to get rid of, optically, in such a wide range of zoom. Usually not a problem, but it might be in some situations (Note: Photoshop can get rid of it very neatly, so...). Shutter lag. This can be a real bear in some of the less expensive cameras, and is one of the places in digitals where money really does talk. The SD800 I mentioned has significant lag, and can be a real problem for action shots. The SX10 has a lot less -- not much different from the Rebel. The G10 is even better. However, if shutter lag might be a problem, and you really want to get rid of it, you haven't much option but to go up to the Canon n(n)D cameras -- 1D, 5D, 7D, 50D etc. Which have no shutter lag at all. And which are varying amounts of LOTS of money.
Bottom line for me? The Canon G10. If I had to have one, and only one, camera, that would be it. Over 90% of my stuff is taken with it. (little disclaimer here: my wife's camera, as I mentioned, is an SD800 IS. My other camera, which I use only for real 'shoots', is a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III -- with a bunch of lenses).
... and the money you save by buying a cheaper camera should be used to buy a tripod.
I have a Nikon D50 digital camera which I bought in 2006, and it works well for me. I think it has been replaced by the D40. My D 50 has 6 Mega pixels and it has media speeds ISo 200, 400, 800, and 1600. I usually use ISO 400, but I have tried ISO 800 in low light, and I have gotten clear pictures
My camera kit came with an 18 - 55mm zoom lens which is equivalent to a 28 - 55 mm zoom lens on film cameras. If I were to do it over again I would not buy a kit, I would buy the body with an 18 -135 mm zoom lens, or perhaps an 18 - 200 mm zoom lens. If you get a long focal length zoom lens, 18 - 135 mm or longer, it would be a good idea to get an image stabilization system either on the lens or on the camera.
Other accessories to get are a camera case and a spare battery. Media cards are not included with digital SLR camera kits. I would get at least two 2 - 2 gigabyte media cards.
But I want a really sharp image. So I need 12 mpxls right. I normally don’t print things out.
For screen display you need even less resolution than for prints.
bubbajustin But I want a really sharp image. So I need 12 mpxls right. I normally don’t print things out.
Unless you're planning on blowing your pictures up to mural size, or do significant cropping to achieve final image size, 12mpxls is overkill. I have some great shots taken with a 1.2 mpxl Sony. I shoot with an 8 mpxl Rebel now.
At risk of sounding sarcastic, use some of the money you save buying an 8 mpxl camera instead of a 12 to buy some photo instruction books (and a tripod, if you don't have one). The most sophisticated camera in the world is just a Kodak Brownie unless you know how to compose your pictures, what aperature, shutter speed, and ASA mean and how they interact, depth of field, lighting, and a host of other equally important aspects.
Understanding the technical side of photography (especially composition) is paramount, and is what turns a snapshot into a portrait suitable for hanging in the best galleries.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I purchased a Nikon D40, two years ago at Christmas and am completely satisfied with it.
The kit came with a 18mm - 55mm and a 55mm - 135mm and a camera bag. Two years ago it was around $650. I have been very satisfied with it and have seldom used more than the automatic setting. I tend not to tinker.
My background was shooting 35mm for over 30 years so I had the basic understanding. The D40 is a wonderful camera for a non serious photographer. That being said, 90% of photography is done behind the camera. A camera is simply a tool. You must develope into the tradesman using the tool. Lighting and composition are critical.
Digital cameras are simply a great tool. My buddy who is a serious photographer, not only of trains, but also repairs large format cameras agrees and would never go back to film.
ed
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
selectorbubbajustin 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 @%&&***.
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.
I normally use my shot for wallpapers on my PC. Won’t they appear grainy though? .
Also, I see your guy’s shots here on the forum. The have an image size that’s really big, and when you click on “view larger image, it fills the whole page. Mine just fills the upper left corner. They are also SUPER SHARP! Really clear, and not grainy. I have shot with a 9 mp. Before. I guess it was ok, I just really like what my 10.mp is doing for me now(quality wise).
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!
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
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.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
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.
Hi all.
Thank you all for the info! It really is helpful. PV. Some of the stuff is over my head for now. Like in railroading it’s self, I’m constantly learning more, and more.
The camera I want is the Cannon Rebel EOS XSi EF-S It has a 18-55 mm lens on it. At Wal*Mart, it is $599.99 it is actually more expensive on-line than it is in the store.
From what I’ve heard, It sounds like a great camera. I will look at E-bay to see if they have one.
Again, thank you all for the information!
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.