b
I'm planning to upgrade my Digital Camera, I don't know which to get. I don't want the bulkiness of the SLR but then I'm not sure if the quality of the Compact System Cameras are a little bit the same as the SLR? Any ideas on which to pick and feel free to suggest what models are the best. Thank you.
If i'm planning on pushing through the Compact System Cameras because I can change the lens, is there a justification for this?
Answer
The Compact System Cameras are designed for people like you. However that said many pro's on this site are leery of this new mirror-less system, will it last or is it just a fade? The jury is still out on that score.
If you feel there is validity in this thought you might consider an economical "bridge" camera that is one step above what you have now. In that it has a lens with a lot of magnification and the ability to do close ups of flowers, etc. Good cameras in this area are the Fuji FInepix S4500 and the Canon Powershot SX50 IS. The Canon being closest to a DSLR. Lenses on bridge cameras are not interchangeable.nor can you add a different lens to this type of camera. Your cost vary here from about $160.00 to $300.00+
With a DSLR your entry level costs are $500.00 to $800.00, plus other lenses than the usual 28-50mm zoom that is most popular. And you can't do macro/close ups flowers without a specific lens. Yes the quality is with the DSLR camera no contest about that. However I own both a bridge camera and a DSLR and when I want to be "lazy" I take the bridge camera, knowing that I can do close-ups and enlarge to 11x14 prints.
The Compact System Cameras are designed for people like you. However that said many pro's on this site are leery of this new mirror-less system, will it last or is it just a fade? The jury is still out on that score.
If you feel there is validity in this thought you might consider an economical "bridge" camera that is one step above what you have now. In that it has a lens with a lot of magnification and the ability to do close ups of flowers, etc. Good cameras in this area are the Fuji FInepix S4500 and the Canon Powershot SX50 IS. The Canon being closest to a DSLR. Lenses on bridge cameras are not interchangeable.nor can you add a different lens to this type of camera. Your cost vary here from about $160.00 to $300.00+
With a DSLR your entry level costs are $500.00 to $800.00, plus other lenses than the usual 28-50mm zoom that is most popular. And you can't do macro/close ups flowers without a specific lens. Yes the quality is with the DSLR camera no contest about that. However I own both a bridge camera and a DSLR and when I want to be "lazy" I take the bridge camera, knowing that I can do close-ups and enlarge to 11x14 prints.
What makes a good Digital Camera?
Connor
What is it that makes a Digital Camera good?, Is it the amount of megapixels, or it's features, I don't know, what is it? Also what is likely to be the best Camera on the market as of right now?
Answer
There are 2 things which combine to make a good digital camera. The first is the sensor. Physical size of sensor is much more important than number of megapixels. The bigger the sensor, the clearer the image and the less noise you will get, especially at higher ISO settings. The second is the quality of the lens. There's no point in having great "features" if the lens distorts them.
Megapixels are pretty much irrelevant when you get beyond about 8. A 7.2 megapixel camera can produce a 20"x16" enlargement at 150 pixels per inch. Just how big do you want to go? As you cram more pixels on to the same sensor size, the individual pixels get smaller, so it gets much more difficult and expensive to make them more sensitive to light, which means they don't perform well in low light. That's why most cheap compacts with high megapixel counts give rubbish results at high ISO settings in low light.
Those reasons combined is why DSLR cameras outperform most compacts, apart from one or two expensive large-sensor compacts. DSLR cameras have large sensors and interchangeable high-quality lenses.
So the best image quality is actually going to come from a Hasselblad with huge sensor and fantastic lenses. But that is going to cost many thousands and it will be huge and very heavy. Being the "best" camera for image quality does not make it the best camera for most people.
Even if we stick to the more affordable standard DSLR cameras, there are several levels. The best image quality right now comes from full frame DSLR cameras. The Nikon D800 is the best out there right now. But that is still expensive. It is also big, heavy and needs a big, powerful computer to handle the 36MP pictures.
Of course the D800 isn't going to be "best" if you want small, lightweight and portable. It also doesn't have the fastest motor drive around, so may not be best for fast-moving sports photography. So what is technically the "best" camera for image quality is not necessarily the best for you. You have to take into consideration your budget, what you want to use the camera for and how big and heavy you are willing to put up with.
There are 2 things which combine to make a good digital camera. The first is the sensor. Physical size of sensor is much more important than number of megapixels. The bigger the sensor, the clearer the image and the less noise you will get, especially at higher ISO settings. The second is the quality of the lens. There's no point in having great "features" if the lens distorts them.
Megapixels are pretty much irrelevant when you get beyond about 8. A 7.2 megapixel camera can produce a 20"x16" enlargement at 150 pixels per inch. Just how big do you want to go? As you cram more pixels on to the same sensor size, the individual pixels get smaller, so it gets much more difficult and expensive to make them more sensitive to light, which means they don't perform well in low light. That's why most cheap compacts with high megapixel counts give rubbish results at high ISO settings in low light.
Those reasons combined is why DSLR cameras outperform most compacts, apart from one or two expensive large-sensor compacts. DSLR cameras have large sensors and interchangeable high-quality lenses.
So the best image quality is actually going to come from a Hasselblad with huge sensor and fantastic lenses. But that is going to cost many thousands and it will be huge and very heavy. Being the "best" camera for image quality does not make it the best camera for most people.
Even if we stick to the more affordable standard DSLR cameras, there are several levels. The best image quality right now comes from full frame DSLR cameras. The Nikon D800 is the best out there right now. But that is still expensive. It is also big, heavy and needs a big, powerful computer to handle the 36MP pictures.
Of course the D800 isn't going to be "best" if you want small, lightweight and portable. It also doesn't have the fastest motor drive around, so may not be best for fast-moving sports photography. So what is technically the "best" camera for image quality is not necessarily the best for you. You have to take into consideration your budget, what you want to use the camera for and how big and heavy you are willing to put up with.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
