7 replies to this topic

[Warbz]

I'm looking to get a digital Camera for Christmas but not sure what one to get, just wondering if anyone on the forum had any recomendations?

It's mostly for still shots of scenery as I live over the road from a beach in Cornwall.

[showing off]
As you can see from the view from my bedroom window

[/showing off]

My Mum's partner and I went for a walk on the beach earlier and he took a picture of me sitting on the edge of some rocks on the beach, just as an example of the types of shots I want to do;



I'd like a camera that can do low light shots at high resolution. NOt really sure if I need anything else, I don't intend on doing macro/close-up shots or moving images.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

It really depends on the price you are willing to pay. But I can bet any half decent point and shoot is still going to be better than your current camera, heck, my phone have a better camera than that.



Somewhat dark at low lights, but still have half decent colour for a phone camera.




Meh, IPB3 love to rescale the images. For low lights and high resolution, a camera with large quailty lens and large sensor is a must, don't worry about the number of pixel much, it is not directly related to quailty and some cheap high MP camera have a lot of noise with them.

http://www.dpreview.com/ < does some decent review on most cameras.

Edited by ΓΛPTΘΓ, 30 November 2011 - 20:42.

[Warbz]

Thanks, I assumed on any decent digital Camera More MP would have actually meant better image quality. THe image in the OP was also taken with a Camera phone, an Old NOkia with a 3.3MP camera.

I've been looking at getting a Panasonic DMC-FZ35/38

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Just my experience of the 16.1MP camera on my phone. I find most, if not all free image host just don't let me upload the image at the full glory without downsizing and such. Although it is a great camera to use with massive customization option for a phone, but the image size is making it quite a hassle to upload images.

I have used a few Panasonic Lumix camera, and they are simply great. The G series compact and powerful, was using one while I was on holiday in Japan.

[Alias]

If you're doing a lot of low light, you're going to need a lens with a wide aperture (lower f number).

If you're serious about it, get one of the mid-range Canon DSLRs and the 50mm f/1.4.
Alternatively if you wanted to spend a little less, you could get a micro four thirds system.

[Warbz]

The aperture on this one can be set to F2.8 - 4.4

Not really sure if that's good or not, I believe Aperture is the size of the opening through which light passes through when taking a photo. Though I'm not sure what that number actually relates to, Radius in mm of the gap?

I'm only looking to get a budget one for the time being until I'm much more knowledgeable on the subject, but I wanted to go a bit above absolute minimum just to be able to experiment with a half decent camera rather than literally just have a point and click that I'd get bored of within a week. If that makes sense???

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Oh, yes. Lens are always better than bumping ISO at low lights. It is always about how much you are willing to pay.

[Nem]

Alias, on 30 November 2011 - 21:24, said:

If you're doing a lot of low light, you're going to need a lens with a wide aperture (lower f number).

If you're serious about it, get one of the mid-range Canon DSLRs and the 50mm f/1.4.
Alternatively if you wanted to spend a little less, you could get a micro four thirds system.

Alias knows what he is talking about, Though I would suggest Canon's 1.8 instead, it's a fraction of the price, and still more then you need for what you have in mind.
Combined with a Cheap T3 that's $535.98, and your image quality will be comparable to this:


(assuming you know what you're doing)

Edited by Nem, 02 December 2011 - 07:32.