Recommendations on a new digital camera?

[Brian SD]

Originally Posted by Aries

+1. Also, not many of the compact digital cameras have a viewfinder that is accurate or really makes much of a difference from just using the screen. They aren't real viewfinders, such as the ones on DSLR,s.

Originally Posted by retronotmetro

I agree with you. There has been plenty of great photography done with sunny 16 and zone focusing. The core of the genre of street photography (as practiced by Leica/RF geeks at least) is viewfinder ambivalence.

This is not to say that the arms-extended, look-at-the-screen method of digicamera use is a sought-after ideal, but a look-through optical viewfinder isn't an essential thing if you are trained to parse your field of view according to lens perspectives. I've tried out a viewfinderless Bessa L rangefinder using superwide primes, and it works fine. In fact, it can be easier *not* to use a viewfinder with superwides on the Bessa L, since you can then turn your attention to a shoe mount bubble level.

Well obviously you can use a camera in different ways than holding it up to your face, I'm just saying that using the LCD screen to take pictures makes you a tourist, not a photographer. Yes, viewfinders are useless on the compact P&S cameras. It's not even a real viewfinder since it doesn't give you an actual representation of what you're shooting. That's one of the reasons why compact P&S's suck.

 

[Brian SD]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I beg your pardon, but you actually agreed with ME. *****.

Whenever this phenomenon occurs, I guess I just naturally block it out of my head

 

[retronotmetro]

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Well obviously you can use a camera in different ways than holding it up to your face, I'm just saying that using the LCD screen to take pictures makes you a tourist, not a photographer. Yes, viewfinders are useless on the compact P&S cameras. It's not even a real viewfinder since it doesn't give you an actual representation of what you're shooting. That's one of the reasons why compact P&S's suck.

Try shooting with a rangefinder sometime. You don't get an actual representation of what you are shooting with those, either.

I think that if you can properly frame and expose a shot, the features of your equipment do not matter in the least. Personally my shooting is done with a DSLR or through the EVF of a digicam (Panasonic FZ-10). I don't consider myself any more of a photographer when shooting those than when I use my wife's viewfinderless Sony digicam. What counts is getting the shot you want, not the process and definitely not the gear.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by retronotmetro

I think that if you can properly frame and expose a shot, the features of your equipment do not matter in the least. Personally my shooting is done with a DSLR or through the EVF of a digicam (Panasonic FZ-10). I don't consider myself any more of a photographer when shooting those than when I use my wife's viewfinderless Sony digicam. What counts is getting the shot you want, not the process and definitely not the gear.

well said.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by retronotmetro

Try shooting with a rangefinder sometime. You don't get an actual representation of what you are shooting with those, either.

I think that if you can properly frame and expose a shot, the features of your equipment do not matter in the least. Personally my shooting is done with a DSLR or through the EVF of a digicam (Panasonic FZ-10). I don't consider myself any more of a photographer when shooting those than when I use my wife's viewfinderless Sony digicam. What counts is getting the shot you want, not the process and definitely not the gear.

I think the point is this: getting the shot you want through a DSLR optical viewfinder is a skill. Getting the shot you want through a digital representation of an EVF, LCD screen, or just vaguely pointing the direction you want to shoot and depressing the shutter a dozen times, is luck, since what you see (or don't see) isn't what the camera is shooting. It may be close enough for some people, but in reality, in many cases, its really not that close.

Thats why the process and the gear DO matter. Either you are seeing your shot and applying sound photographic principals to the image in the viewfinder, or you are guessing. One person KNOWS he is getting a good photo. One person is HOPING he gets a good photo.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I think the point is this: getting the shot you want through a DSLR optical viewfinder is a skill. Getting the shot you want through a digital representation of an EVF, LCD screen, or just vaguely pointing the direction you want to shoot and depressing the shutter a dozen times, is luck, since what you see (or don't see) isn't what the camera is shooting. It may be close enough for some people, but in reality, in many cases, its really not that close.

Thats why the process and the gear DO matter. Either you are seeing your shot and applying sound photographic principals to the image in the viewfinder, or you are guessing. One person KNOWS he is getting a good photo. One person is HOPING he gets a good photo.

the fact that someone prefers to use the LCD does not mean he is randomly aiming and shooting.

most LCD screens show you 100% of the captured image. most optical viewfinders, even on expensive SLRs, only show about 90% of the captured image. only the very top of the line SLRs have 100% viewfinders. .

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

the fact that someone prefers to use the LCD does not mean he is randomly aiming and shooting.
I never said it did.

most LCD screens show you 100% of the captured image. most optical viewfinders, even on expensive SLRs, only show about 90% of the captured image. only the very top of the line SLRs have 100% viewfinders. .

They don't show depth of field or focus nearly as well though, and no matter how much captured image they show, seeing the actual light and color that will hit the sensor/film is much more useful than seeing a (relatively stupid) computer's electronic representation of the light and color through a relatively crappy, non-calibrated, LCD. Oh, and cheap-midrange DSLR's generally show from 95-98% full frame... not 90%. They don't show 100% for a reason. And that reason is price, which is the same reason that you can't get a true to life LCD view off the back of a camera. Again, fine for a point and shoot casual camera, but anyone really interested in PHOTOGRAPHY will want an optical viewfinder.

 

[retronotmetro]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I think the point is this: getting the shot you want through a DSLR optical viewfinder is a skill. Getting the shot you want through a digital representation of an EVF, LCD screen, or just vaguely pointing the direction you want to shoot and depressing the shutter a dozen times, is luck, since what you see (or don't see) isn't what the camera is shooting. It may be close enough for some people, but in reality, in many cases, its really not that close.

Thats why the process and the gear DO matter. Either you are seeing your shot and applying sound photographic principals to the image in the viewfinder, or you are guessing. One person KNOWS he is getting a good photo. One person is HOPING he gets a good photo.

There is always an element of guesswork and luck, no matter what camera you are using. I've shot hundreds of rolls of film (yes, I'm old school) with an SLR, dozens with a manual exposure rangefinder (even older school), and countless gigs of digital. In my not so extensive experience, every system has its limitations.

An SLR allows you to frame and focus with relative precision, but doesn't give you visual confirmation of exposure. A rangefinder allows you to compare what is in the framelines to the overall field of view, but doesn't allow you to check DoF and doesn't show the exact perspective of the lens. An EVF can give you a realtime histogram to check exposure but lacks the resolution to give you a full sense what the shot will really look like. A P&S will be in your pocket when you didn't bring your SLR but may lack the controls you need to set up a shot. Everything is about compromises.

I do not dispute that the easiest instrument for most people to get the best shot is an SLR, particularly a DSLR where you can frame and focus in the viewfinder, then review shots after taking them to check exposure. In fact, I'm now shooting a DSLR almost exclusively. What I take issue with is the somewhat narrow-minded position that a true photographer has to view the world at the film/ sensor plane.

Did Henri Cartier-Bresson cease to be a photographer when he started using a point and shoot camera instead of an RF? Are street photographers who actually make money selling their work not "real" photographers? If you understand sunny 16 and know what 18% gray looks like, you can expose a shot properly. What do you think people did before RFs with internal center-weighted meters, let alone SLRs and sophisticated multisegment metering? They didn't incident-meter every shot, they applied photographic principles to the light they saw in front of them. If you are shooting with a lens that has wide D0F, you can set it for a hyperfocal distance for the aperture and shoot happily away without touching the focus ring.

 

[GQgeek]

I'm probably going to buy a dSLR in the next couple of months so that I can have a few months to play with it in various settings under different conditions before my big vacation to Italy. Based on reviews I'll probably get a Nikon D80 with the 18-200mm VR Nikkor lens. It's not too bulky or expensive and you can do everything with one lens. The more I think about it the more I dislike the compromises of point and shoot cameras not to mention they don't have the MP for having big prints made.

Btw does anyone here shoot medium or large format? I didn't even know it existed until I started reading about this stuff.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by retronotmetro

What I take issue with is the somewhat narrow-minded position that a true photographer has to view the world at the film/ sensor plane.

I suppose thats true, and maybe its a shortcoming in my game. But regardless, I'd still rather see what I'm photographing, take a clear, well composed picture, and get some sense that what I photographed was what I saw, than hope that what the photo looks like when I load it up into photoshop is what it looked like on the crappy 2.5" lcd on the back of a camera. (which is rarely the case in my experience).

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by retronotmetro

There is always an element of guesswork and luck, no matter what camera you are using. I've shot hundreds of rolls of film (yes, I'm old school) with an SLR, dozens with a manual exposure rangefinder (even older school), and countless gigs of digital. In my not so extensive experience, every system has its limitations.

An SLR allows you to frame and focus with relative precision, but doesn't give you visual confirmation of exposure. A rangefinder allows you to compare what is in the framelines to the overall field of view, but doesn't allow you to check DoF and doesn't show the exact perspective of the lens. An EVF can give you a realtime histogram to check exposure but lacks the resolution to give you a full sense what the shot will really look like. A P&S will be in your pocket when you didn't bring your SLR but may lack the controls you need to set up a shot. Everything is about compromises.

I do not dispute that the easiest instrument for most people to get the best shot is an SLR, particularly a DSLR where you can frame and focus in the viewfinder, then review shots after taking them to check exposure. In fact, I'm now shooting a DSLR almost exclusively. What I take issue with is the somewhat narrow-minded position that a true photographer has to view the world at the film/ sensor plane.

Did Henri Cartier-Bresson cease to be a photographer when he started using a point and shoot camera instead of an RF? Are street photographers who actually make money selling their work not "real" photographers? If you understand sunny 16 and know what 18% gray looks like, you can expose a shot properly. What do you think people did before RFs with internal center-weighted meters, let alone SLRs and sophisticated multisegment metering? They didn't incident-meter every shot, they applied photographic principles to the light they saw in front of them. If you are shooting with a lens that has wide D0F, you can set it for a hyperfocal distance for the aperture and shoot happily away without touching the focus ring.

Indeed; the only light meter I use is an old selenium cell GE from the '50s. I once bought a rather expensive digital spot meter and it was just to complicated and pointless.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Btw does anyone here shoot medium or large format? I didn't even know it existed until I started reading about this stuff.

I like medium 120 format. I use a square format Rolleiflex 3.5E with a Xenotar:

 

[apocalypse later]

If anyone's curious I went with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3. It's infinitely better than my old camera and I love the battery life on it.

 

[SGladwell]

Originally Posted by apocalypse later

If anyone's curious I went with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3. It's infinitely better than my old camera and I love the battery life on it.

Please post again after you've used it a bit. That's the camera I'm interested in, too, but don't know anyone who has one.

 

[offline100]

Yet another vote for Canon PowerShot. You'll love it. As to particular model, get the best one that falls within your budget.

 

[G79]

Awesome pic tokyo slim!