Best Affordable Camera to take pics

[Stylopidae]

Cheshire:

<edit>
Now I guess you want to pretend to be a professional photographer. You do not fool me.

Please read what I wrote in context and then shut up.

Nope...not pretending to be a professional photographer. In fact, I suggested the member find a forum specifically related to photography because they'd get a much better answer there than here because we are an arachnid forum...not a photography forum.

Sure, people here know their stuff...however on a forum related to photography the OP will not only get a better answer on the camera but they'll have the terms and functions explained to them by people who do this for a living.

However, I do work at a photolab (Wal*Mart, actually) and see hundreds of pictures taken by film and thousands of pictures taken by digital cameras every week. My comparison between the two as it applies to pictures taken by laymen is completely valid.

I'm an arrogant, confrontational, acidic, acerbic, egotistical, narccissitic argumentive jerk. However, that doesn't mean that my point isn't valid. If I truly didn't have any point, then you'd be able to muster something better than an uncreative argumentum ad hominem.

I did read what you wrote in context and you suggested a $3,000 film camera for someone who was clearly looking for a cheap digital point and shoot.

As far as I'm concerned, you're just as good as any other google expert who's going to post on here.

 

[imjim]

Nope...not pretending to be a professional photographer. In fact, I suggested the member find a forum specifically related to photography because they'd get a much better answer there than here because we are an arachnid forum...not a photography forum.

However, I do work at a photolab (Wal*Mart, actually) and see hundreds of pictures taken by film and thousands of pictures taken by digital cameras every week. My comparison between the two as it applies to pictures taken by laymen is completely valid.

If I truly didn't have any point, then you'd be able to muster something better than an uncreative ad hominem.

I did read what you wrote in context and you suggested a $3,000 film camera for someone who was clearly looking for a cheap digital point and shoot.

As far as I'm concerned, you're just as good as the next-google expert who's going to post on here.

You can't read and comprehend as I was commenting on the previous reply and thread to that point.

The $3000 is for a digital full frame as stated even with models for reference not a film camera but a photographer such as yourself should already know that.

Again if you can read I suggested a Canon PowerShot A580 or current model for the thread starter. I just hope for his sake he doesn't take any advice from you unless its about being a poser.

<edit>

 

[Drachenjager]

I love my Fuji S5200, damn inexpensive..

"IMJIM" you are missing the point... the OP wanted affordable ( assume average person/ average T enthusiest )

I loved my SLR's and If I was to shoot another wedding I'd use film again.
check E-bay for SLR's you can get a full package for 75-100 dollars..
the convenience factor is winning.. has won the battle of digi vs. film.

Film will always have a niche.. and I hope it never goes away, however..
the writing on the wall ... was done with photoshop

I guess i would fit average in that respect based on the fact i am a 13 year walmart associate (translation: underpaid and overworked) and I shoot D80 nikons 2 of them to be exact.
I plant to upgrade one to the d300 when the cash is available.
I also like photography and want to shoot good pix tho.
It all depends. Do you want a cheap camera that will take a pic of your bug good enough to impress folks on here, or , do you want a camera that is able to take pics that will impress Texas Hiways magazine?

There are some ok p/s cameras that will take a pic good enough to post on here just fine.
Main thing with any camera tho is you have to light the subject properly, second thing is to be very still.
Macro photography requires good lighting and steady camera.
I just cant see spending 200-300 on a P/S(translation POS) when you can get a decent DSLR for about 500. The math eludes me.

 

[Arachnomore]

You can't read and comprehend as I was commenting on the previous reply and thread to that point.

The $3000 is for a digital full frame as stated even with models for reference not a film camera but a photographer such as yourself should already know that.

Again if you can read I suggested a Canon PowerShot A580 or current model for the thread starter. I just hope for his sake he doesn't take any advice from you unless its about being a poser.

Fool brains like you are the reason I don't go to Wal-Mart for film processing often.

Quit crying about losing like a 1/16th of a inch off each frame and what you see through the lens.. it doesn't really make a difference in macro because your subject is usually dead center.... This topic should be closed.

 

[Stylopidae]

You can't read and comprehend as I was commenting on the previous reply and thread to that point.

The $3000 is for a digital full frame as stated even with models for reference not a film camera but a photographer such as yourself should already know that.

Again if you can read I suggested a Canon PowerShot A580 or current model for the thread starter. I just hope for his sake he doesn't take any advice from you unless its about being a poser.

Fool brains like you are the reason I don't go to Wal-Mart for film processing often.

Yup...upon further reading, I misunderstood your post. Wasn't the only one to do so, though.

So...anyways you can argue against my point or you can argue against me.

However, if you're going to argue against me I would appreciate it if you didn't twist my words.

In fact, I'll bold my posts in all the parts which should have told you that I'm not trying to come off as the ROCKSTAR-GOD of AB photography.

We'll start with this one:

Nope...not pretending to be a professional photographer. In fact, I suggested the member find a forum specifically related to photography because they'd get a much better answer there than here because we are an arachnid forum...not a photography forum.

The photo CDs made from film at Wal*Mart aren't going to be anywhere near full resolution...assuming, what, 20 megapixels from film?

Seems a bit high for your happy average run of the mill Kodak 400 speed (also avalible from Wal*Mart)...but I haven't done film photography since 6th grade.

Either way...you're missing the point and on top of that, the information you're giving is making me wonder if you really understand the question. I don't think you do. Actually, I know you don't.

We're talking an average photographer on (presumably) a college budget. Show me someone who's going to pick up a $3,000 35mm SLR and take pics anywhere near the quality of the pictures I took above with only a layman's level of knowledge about photography. It's not going to happen.

With just a 5 megapixel digital camera and minimal knowledge about how to set the camera, I take pictures that are better than 90% of the general population who take pictures with film cameras.

For the average college student photographer, digital is the way to go. You pay for the pictures once (as opposed to twice with film), you pick and choose your pictures and you don't have to bother yourself with getting the stuff developed before you post the pictures online, which I'm assuming is what the OP is looking to do.

Argue against what I'm saying or who I am, if you wish. However, twisting my words is nothing but an easily exposed straw man.

Haven't seen any of your pictures...so who knows? You might be a better photographer than I am. This wouldn't really take a whole lot, although I am proud of my work (usually done with my left finger pushing the shutter on a right handed camera).

My original points, although now moot, still stand.

1.) The OP was not looking for a $3,000 camera

2.) The average layman photographer will not be able to exploit film to it's full potential.

Like I said...moot, but still valid.

I'm also going to point out that confirming that I'm a misanthrope still doesn't make the points above any less valid so arguing against me is pointless.

Either way, with the exception of calling you a google expert (after you called me a fool) I never called your skill into question, I merely chided you because I thought you didn't understand/care about the OP's question so the twisting of my words to try to frame me as someone who's trying to come off as an expert is completely pointless. I pointed out my inexperience in my own posts.

The fact that I made that distinction should tell you a little bit about my intelligence, just as you twisting my words tells me something about yours.

 

[Arachnomore]

pwned.... by now I'm sure this guy has already went and bought his camera. I did tell him a good site to find sources and reviews... so I'm sure your bickering isn't going to get him into film... ;P

 

[imjim]

Quit crying about losing like a 1/16th of a inch off each frame and what you see through the lens.. it doesn't really make a difference in macro because your subject is usually dead center.... This topic should be closed.

Please do yourself a favor and research what full frame is to digital resolution as you've got it all wrong.

Consider this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

 

[Tunedbeat]

Do you want a cheap camera that will take a pic of your bug good enough to impress folks on here, or , do you want a camera that is able to take pics that will impress Texas Hiways magazine?

A camera in the right hands, you can just about impress anybody really. Good photos, require good photographers. Buying a high end camera isn't going to make your photos look any better, if you don't have the skills to match.

 

[Stylopidae]

Please do yourself a favor and research what full frame is to digital resolution as you've got it all wrong.

Consider this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

That's um...not macro. That article doesn't discuss macrophotography.

I see your point, but I really don't think any of this is going to make much of a difference to the OP.

 

[sick4x4]

umm i'd say the best pics are the ones that take little effort...some of the greatest, prize winning photos where taken spur of the moment and with little skill......

 

[Stylopidae]

umm i'd say the best pics are the ones that take little effort...some of the greatest, prize winning photos where taken spur of the moment and with little skill......

Which is what the OP is looking for, I might add.

A camera that's going to take great pictures just by turning the thing on.

Funny how ego has a way of muddying the water.

 

[Talkenlate04]

<edit>

I think the cool thing about photography is there is a ton of room for personal preference. People can make suggestions, and give reasons, but bottom line is the buyer knows best what he is going to use it for, and should check out cameras that fit their needs.
I run the Nikon D80 right now, but I am going to upgrade now to the D300. And Unless I sink that bad boy in the ocean I am not replacing it or upgrading ever again. And I own my camera based on what I want to do in photography.
So while suggestions are helpful here, the OP just needs to check out options himself. Go to a camera store get hands on, ask questions and be proactive. Because the only one that has to live with the purchase is him not us.

 

[sick4x4]

Which is what the OP is looking for, I might add.

A camera that's going to take great pictures just by turning the thing on.

Funny how ego has a way of muddying the water.

agreed.......

 

[Arachnomore]

Please do yourself a favor and research what full frame is to digital resolution as you've got it all wrong.

Consider this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

..... macro.. not landscape... big difference.

 

[Talkenlate04]

If you search the forums and find threads where Talkenlate and I have both posted, you'll see that we've been sparring on and off for the past few months. The fact that he's sticking up for me tells me exactly who the guilty party is.

Ok that was my good hearty laugh for the evening. Thank you for that Sir.

Lol film is better then digital? Where was I when that memo came out? :?
My photo thread is not that old, but if to start at the beginning and compare to where it is now, I have learned and am still learning. That would have been tens of thousands of dollars in film crap to get where I am now. Digital when it first came out might have been sub par, but even the most hardcore film guys can admit now that digital has overtaken the practicality of using film.

 

[becca81]

Moderator's Note

Please stay on-topic or the thread will be locked. Please remember that it is OK to disagree with someone's idea, but it it not OK to attack them personally because of their idea.

 

[edesign]

ya know...I was taking a left turn on to the highway today to go back to work after lunch when I happened to look out my driver's side window and all I saw was a huge wall of bluish-grey smoke. Then I realized I had stomped the accelerator to the floor while taking the turn and was causing my right front tire to spin mercilessly which caused the rubber to heat up and begin to smoke. I left a nice long black burn out mark on to the road...it made me feel better after following the retard in front of me at 10MPH under the speed limit and then waiting for a semi hauling half a house to pass in which he had plenty of time to pull out in front of and go on his merry way.

Too bad my Canon PowerShot S3 was stolen a few months ago or I could have taken a picture...

 

[Stylopidae]

My photo thread is not that old, but if to start at the beginning and compare to where it is now, I have learned and am still learning. That would have been tens of thousands of dollars in film crap to get where I am now. Digital when it first came out might have been sub par, but even the most hardcore film guys can admit now that digital has overtaken the practicality of using film.

I really don't want to stir the hornet's nest up again (ironic since I'm the wasp whisperer ), but you do have a point.

Film definitely has it's place, but not for the beginning photographer.

I have about 2,000 pictures on my comp that I've taken since acon...and I'm always adding more. A lot of these need to be deleted, but I'm too lazy to do it. I delete about half my pictures on average because they're sub-par.

So let's bump this up to a total of 4,800 pictures taken (not saved) to make the math easy.

At 24 exposures, that's 200 rolls of film.

At $10 per 5 pack that's about $400.00...just for the film.

at $4.38 per roll to develop it and put it to a CD, that's $876.00

This adds up to about $1276.00...before tax.

With the 6% sales tax in my area, that gets to about $1,352.56 that I've saved just in film costs using digital over film.

Also, consider that my computer crashed this summer and I had just as many pictures when it crashed. So in the time I've had my digital camera, I've saved at least $2,705.12 if I had been using film.

Now...let's look at how much better my photography has become in that time.

This is a picture of the same Brachypelma albopilosum above with it's juvenile coloration. The picture was uploaded on 11/25/2006.

This is a picture of my female Poecilotheria formosa uploaded on 7/29/2007.

If I had been using film, I simply wouldn't have been able to afford to practice this much. As you can see, my photography has improved greatly with practice.

 

[Talkenlate04]

I've had my digital camera, I've saved at least $2,705.12 if I had been using film.

Holy smokes. Ya based on that break down I would be broke if I had been using film.
I do miss my F5 film camera though. It was a great camera till some idiot broke into my apt and took it. I miss it, but not enough to but it again, or give up my digital.

Speaking of cameras though, anyone know a good flash system? One that charges fast and will fit with my nikon body? Slave setup maybe? I am open to suggestions.

 

[Drachenjager]

Holy smokes. Ya based on that break down I would be broke if I had been using film.
I do miss my F5 film camera though. It was a great camera till some idiot broke into my apt and took it. I miss it, but not enough to but it again, or give up my digital.

Speaking of cameras though, anyone know a good flash system? One that charges fast and will fit with my nikon body? Slave setup maybe? I am open to suggestions.

on camera flash i suppose, SB800
or get some strobes that will slave off the limited built in on camera flash the D80 has