 | |||
 |
 |  | |
 |  | ||
 |  | ||
 |  | ||
 |  | ||
| |||
|
| | |
| | ||
| | ||
| | ||
| | ||
| Written by Paul Race for Family Garden Trains(tm) |  |
Idiot-Friendly Digital Cameras for Photographing Trains - Updated for December, 2009!Digital cameras are great because you can fill your memory card with photos, and only print out the ones you like. That said, many folks have come home from an open house or train show to find that particular photos they really wanted to have didn't come out the way they wanted (even though they looked fine on the LCD). But people who invest in "better cameras" may have even worse luck than people who buy "point and shoot" cameras, because they have trouble learning (or remembering to set) all the various settings for each situation. Another potential disappointment is when a "killer" photo that looks great in on the computer screen or in a 4x6" printed photograph looks "washed out" or "soft" when you try to print it any bigger.
For convenience and a higher proportion of good shots either outdoors in bright sunlight, or indoors in lower poor light situations, consider a camera with the following features:
December, 2009 Recommendations -To jump right to my list of recommendations for December, 2009, click here
My First Efforts - In September, 2005, I visited about fifteen Garden Railroad Open Houses. I wanted to take many photos because a publisher had recently criticized me for not having my own "morgue" of photographs ready to send to him for approval with something I was trying to get published. Not having the budget to buy a new camera, I brought my 2-megapixel Fuji with a 3x optical lens (A205); this camera had taken dozens of great photos at my daughter's wedding, and I hoped I'd get at least a couple dozen good shots. 
After all, the wedding was inside, and the railroads were outside, right? If nothing else, the light should be better. But I found myself being crowded, having trouble backing up far enough for some shots or getting close enough or getting to the right angle for others. Several of the railroads were heavily shaded, so I had to choose between using the flash and washing out the closest details while leaving the rest in the dark, or disabling the flash and risking a blurry shot because of long shutter times. When I got home, I discovered that only about ten of the 200 or so photographs I took were really notable, and probably another 30 didn't suck. I've used most of the good photos on my web site, though, so it was a worthwhile investment and trip overall.
Still, that got me to thinking about how taking photographs of indoor model railroads and of real trains would have many of the same issues: uneven lighting, poor access or angle, and so on. So if I wanted to "redeem" my next open house visits, what could I do to guarantee a higher percentage of good photographs? During my research, I also asked several other hobbyists what sorts of digital cameras they used, and incorporated their comments about the advantages and disadvantages of each into my text. For a specific and detailed review of each camera type I considered, I also refered to Steve's Digicams, a site that posts hands-on reviews of almost every digital camera ever made by a reputable manufacturer. In fact, you'll probably get the best use out of this article if you bookmark this page and bookmark Steve's page, and go back and forth as you learn about these technologies and products.
My First Good Digicam - A few months after I wrote the original article, I bought a better camera, but it still wasn't an "idiot-friendly" one. My Fuji E-550 had a 4x optical zoom, a 6.3 meg "super CCD" sensor, better internal software, and more settings. The photos I got with it were much better for most purposes. And because it handled low light better, I was able to get many photos I wouldn't have gotten at all with my first camera. Then, in the fall of 2007, after a couple of years of hard use, the Fuji E-550's lens locked up and I sent it back to Fuji for repairs. It was out of warranty, so I figured I'd never see it again.
My First "Image Stabilized" Camera - I got tired of waiting for word on my Fuji, and I didn't want to go through that Christmas without a good camera, so I bought a camera that as most of the "idiot-friendly" features I commented on earlier, a Canon A720 IS. It's better than the Fuji E-550, and it's "image stabilization" feature gives me better photos in borderline situations than the Fuji. Except for the fact that the flash eats batteries ridiculously fast, it's pretty close to an "idiot-friendly" camera even for folks who don't know anything about digicams. But in bright-light, no-brainer outdoor situations, the photos aren't quite as sharp as the E-550s were.
More Canons - About that time I was taking the Canon A720 out of the house a lot, getting photos of buildings and other things for my web pages. And other family members were complaining that they could never find the camera when they needed it. 90% of what they needed a camera for was "point-and-shoot" stuff (the kind of thing you record at birthday parties, etc., and my computer's hard drive was quickly filling up with the Canon's A720 photos (which were much larger than either of my Fuji's). So I bought a Canon A-530, figuring that it would take longer to fill up my hard drive with 5-megapixel photos of my kids' friends at parties than it would with 8 or 9-megapixel files. That said, the 530 is almost never used, because as soon as I bought it and got it "broken in," we heard back from Fuji.
Fuji Rises Again - Life got even weirder in early 2008, when I contacted Fuji and they told me that they were going to cover my E-550 under warranty, but it wasn't quite fixed yet. A few weeks later, I called them back and had the same conversation. A few weeks after that, same thing. Finally they contacted me (for a change) and told me that they weren't satisfied how my repaired E-550 was performing, so they were going to replace it with a refurbished E-900, the 9 megapixel version of of my E-550. I've put the E-900 through it's paces, but, the extra megapixels not withstanding, its bright-light photos aren't as sharp as the E-550 either. It does have better low-light settings, though, so it's a good camera to have in settings where you aren't allowed to use a flash period (unlike the Canon, the flash doesn't engage unless you tell it to - I spend half of my time with the Canon turning off the flash).
One advantage having two decent point-and-shoot cameras is that even if I'm off somewhere with one of them, the other one is still available when someone wants to take the "good" camera somewhere. And I never have to feel guilty about having the camera in the workshop when something extraordinary is going on somewhere else. :-)
The last thing I'll say about the E-900 is that I was cleaning out the basement a few weeks ago and came across the box it shipped in. Well, I've had it now for over a year, so there's no question of warranty now, even if there ever was one. Going through the papers as I pitched them out, I came across an "invoice" that said, "warranty replacement, original camera lost." So it turns out that the Fuji repair department didn't have trouble fixing my E-550 as much as they had trouble finding it. Still, they went "above and beyond" in their attempts to make things right, so they're still on my "nice list."
Update, December, 2009 - This update takes into account my ongoing experience with the newer, better-featured cameras, as well as technology and marketing developments such as higher resolutions being advertised in cheaper cameras. Also, the Canon A590IS, which I recommended as an entry-level digicam in the spring, was unavailable by mid-year. In fact it has been replaced not once, but twice. So I wanted to get that information into the page in time for Christmas buying.
Why I Need "Idiot-Friendly" Gear - A few years ago, a friend told me he liked a particular piece of electronic equipment because it was "user-friendly." Bewildered by the array of controls and settings on that piece of gear, I said, "I must need something that is 'idiot-friendly,' then." The good news about digital cameras is that the better cameras are becoming more "idiot-friendly" every year. For example, the "automatic" settings are getting better at getting the best shot of whatever you have framed.
In "normal" conditions, an "idiot-friendly" camera will give you more good shots than most "point and shoot" cameras. But in "difficult" conditions, say, where the camera must compensate for distance or poor lighting, an "idiot-friendly" camera will get shots that you couldn't get otherwise period. To discuss digital cameras (and "idiot-friendly" features) intelligently, though, it's important to understand a few factors that can improve or hurt your ability to get attractive, useful photographs under a wide range of conditions.
What Features Are Important? Most people who advertise digital cameras discuss the "resolution" of their product above everything else. And if all other things were equal, a 12-megapixel camera would outperform an 8-megapixel camera. But all other things aren't equal. Cameras also differ in lens quality, operating speed, optical zoom, low-light performance, and other "user-friendly" features such as "image stabilization." As an example, an 8-megapixel camera with a good lens will consistently provide a higher proportion of good shots than a 12mp camera with a cheap lens.
That said, resolution is an important issue. Digital cameras are measured in "pixels." These are a little like the dots on a printer in that each pixel can be a different color. But they don't correlate entirely to dots on the printer, because "pixels" in a digital photograph are "run together" in the print process to give a smooth-looking photograph. So, a color printer set to 200dpi will produce a poor printout of your resume, but may produce a bright and smooth photograph at the same setting (if you use the right paper). Nevertheless, if you are taking photographs to blow up or to use in books or magazines, you will do better with a higher resolution camera, all other things being equal. Also, high-resolution photos are more forgiving about "crops." For example you may have a photo of a group of people but want to print a photo of only one person. The higher the resolution, the more likely it is that a photograph printed from a quarter or eighth of the original photograph will be useable.
A Note About Continuously Increasing Resolutions - As digital cameras continues to flood the market, you'll notice that resolutions keep increasing, especially at the "low end." Seven years ago, 2mp cameras were "standard" at the low end. Three years ago, 4 mp cameras were "standard." Now 10mp cameras are becoming "standard," and many inexpensive 12mp and even 14mp cameras are becoming available. This is due to the huge competition among vendors, and the fact that once you've developed a 10mp sensor you can mass-produce, it doesn't make any sense to tie up your facilities producing 8mp sensors. That said, some reviewers have noted that photos produced by some new 12mp sensors are no sharper or more colorful than the 8mp versions. When I wrote the first version of this article, it was almost impossible to get an 8mp camera for less than $400. Now that 8 and even 12mp sensors are advertised in $99 cheapies, it is becoming even more apparent that the quality in these cameras is not limited by resolution so much as it is by the quality of the lens and the camera's internal mechanism and software.
Another consideration is that higher resolutions mean that the photos will take up more room on your hard drive. Will it really benefit you to fill up your hard drive with 4-meg files from a 12mp cheapo, that are actually less useful than the 2-meg files from an 8-meg camera with a good lens? Also worth noting is that MOST cameras under $600 use a sensor that is only about the size of the fingernail on your little finger. To increase advertised resolution, manufacturers are squeezing more and more circuitry onto the same "real estate," with diminishing returns. As an example, in most "everyday" uses, my old Fuji E550 6.3 meg camera took sharper photos than my newer 8mp Canon A720 IS. In difficult shooting situations, though, the Canon is better, but that's due, not to resolution, but to a bigger lens, better low-light-sensitivity, and image stabilization.
A Note About Sensor Size and DSLRs - Since we've mentioned sensor size, let me add that most "Single Lens Reflex" digital cameras (DSLRs) have a sensor that is about the size of your thumbnail, about four times the size of the sensor in "consumer" cameras. (The sensors in some high-end DSLRs are even larger.) That means that each sensor has that much more room to collect light without noise-causing digital glitches. In addition, the larger sensor requires a larger lens, which lets in more light and allows faster shutter speeds. Is it any wonder that a 6mp DSLR will produce a sharper, more colorful, more useful photo than an 8 or even a 12mp consumer camera? If you go to a DSLR, you usually give up some ease of use, ability to take videos, and some other features. But in case you wondered, there IS a significant difference, between the output of even today's low-end DSLRs, and the output of the best "DSLR-like" consumer camera.
If you don't want to learn photospeak and drag around a big camera, that's okay - 95% of non-professional digital camera users are more than satisfied with the features and performance of the best current non-DSLR cameras, such as the Canon SX20IS 
Finally, if you're in the market for a pocket camera with a viewfinder, image stabilization, and AA cells (not proprietary batteries), take a look at the Canon A1100IS
A Note About File Formats and Memory Cards - Most digital cameras save their photographs in a format called JPG onto memory cards that can be removed. JPG is a graphic file format that "compresses" the file to save memory. As an example, if a section of blue sky is almost all exactly the same color, the software that creates the JPG file will make it all the exactly the same, so it can save space when it writes the file. The "higher" the compression ratio, the more compromises JPG makes with the original digital information. Still, most photos can stand a little compression, and this saves a great deal of memory. For example, files from my 6mp camera are actually under 2meg, although if I saved with less compression, they could be as big as 4 meg. The good thing about compression is that I can get three times as many photographs on the same memory card, and JPG files are fast to save and copy. JPG files are also very portable; they can be used on every kind of computer, shown on many DVD players, and so on. But JPG compression has one disadvantage; every time you open and save a JPG file, the software "recompresses" the picture again, and you lose a little more detail. If you plan to "tweak" and "crop" your photos, save your original JPG files in one directory (or burn them to CD) and use another set of files for your editing; otherwise, after opening, tweaking, and closing a file more than a few times, you can wind up with a file that is not nearly the quality you started with.
If you need the best possible image, some cameras give you a choice of a high-resolution JPG format (usually called "fine" or "superfine") that uses minimum compression. But if you want to guarantee the maximum resolution of a photograph, say because you need it for archival purposes or to send to National Geographic, you may want to look for a camera that supports the RAW or TIFF file option. The disadvantage of using non-compressed files is that you'll use up your camera's memory card quickly, as well as your computer's hard drive. As an example, an 8-megapixel camera saving RAW or TIFF files may save 8-meg files (or larger), while the "fine" version might be only 4-meg, and the "normal" version might only be 3-meg or less. Two side effects of this difference are:
Another memory card consideration is memory card type. Secure Digital (SD) cards are used by many kinds of cameras, as are Compact Flash II (CF2) cards. If you buy a camera that requires something else such as Memory Stick Pro (Sony) or XD Picture-Card (Fuji and Olympus), you will have no trouble getting the cards, but when you upgrade your camera, you may feel "locked in" to the same brand because of your investment in memory cards. My Fuji cameras use XD cards, which are supposedly great because they are so small (but let's face it, is is really that much easier to carry around something the size of a dime than to carry around something the size of a quarter? In fact, it's harder, because the chances for losing it are greater). But when my Fuji went into the shop and I started using a Canon, I couldn't use the XD card.
Lens Quality - Okay, that's easy; get a 6-megapixel or better camera and lots of memory, and you're home free, right? If you're only going to shoot stable images in bright light, yes. But if you need to take photos of moving objects (like trains) or you may be taking photos in less than optimal lighting (say in train sheds or under shade trees), the lens quality may make more difference than the resolution of your camera. A 3mp photo taken in bright light (or with a very good lens) may be more useful when enlarged or published than an 8mp photo taken in dim light or with a poor lens. How can you tell if you have a good lens? A few basic comparisons may help:
First of all, don't bother with any camera that does not have an optical zoom of some sort. Digital zooms work by letting you reduce the resolution of your photograph so it "feels" like you're zooming in on the subject when you're really only cropping out most of the frame (and "wasting" most of the resolution of your sensor).
Sometimes the marketing materials for the camera say something like "all glass, aspherical." That's good, too, especially if you're comparing two similar cameras and the other camera doesn't say anything about the quality of the lens.
Another issue that used to be a consideration is called a "macro" function, the ability to reset the camera so that you can get a closeup shot within an inch or so. This is great for taking close-ups of model trains, especially when you want the model not only to fill the frame, but also to have the same perspective as you would get if you were photographing the "real thing" up close. I say that it used to be a consideration, because most digital cameras over a $100 today have a good macro function, and most of the better digitals have a great macro function.
Time Between Shots - Another issue is how fast the camera focuses and shoots - a camera that takes a second or two to reset and refocus between shots, or that takes a second to fire after you press the shutter button means that you will miss shots when the subject is moving quickly. Fortunately, digital cameras are getting faster all the time, but it's also a fact that the more expensive cameras tend to be faster (in some cases much faster) than cheap ones.
Within most brand names, you'll notice different lines. For example, Fuji has an A line, an E line, an S line and so on. Canon has an A line, a G line, and S line, and so on. The A lines tend to be targeted to consumers who want the simplest, lightest, least expensive camera available with decent resolution and optical zoom. As a result of the smaller size and reduced price, they often have slower mechanisms and cheaper lenses than the other lines with similar features but higher prices.
Low-Light Handling - To take photos without flash in dark rooms with a 35mm, you are used to buying ISO 800 or 1600 "fast" film. If you weren't able to adjust the sensitivity of the film (say, you had just loaded a roll of 200 film), you had to adjust in other ways, such as using the tripod so the fact that your shutter was open a ridiculously long time wouldn't introduce blur into the equation. For several years, most digital cameras haven't handled low light as well as you'd think they should for the price. And the maximum sensitivity setting (which was seldom above ISO 400 equivalency) usually gave you photographs with a lot of weird dots and other artifacts that photographers call "noise." In fact, you were lucky if you got a camera that took good photos indoors with the flash. (Those which do usually have "AF-assist," a light that blinks right before the photo is taken, so that the camera's autofocus has a better chance to work.) Today's sensors are getting better, and having a state-of-the-art sensor behind a really big lens helps a lot. You still don't want to use the maximum ISO setting on most digital cameras unless you have no choice, but at least having ISO settings of 800 or above at least gives you some options. In addition, "image stabilization" and similar features (see below) can help you get clearer shots in low-light situations where the shutter has to remain open longer than "optimum."
A related consideration is how easy it is to set the ISO setting and turn off the flash when you know you're going into a low light setting. Of the two cameras I owned most recently, my Fuji E-550 was actually better for this than the new A720IS, even though the camera went into 2mp mode when you set the maximum ISO. I've learned to get around that on the Canon A720 by choosing the "kids and pets" setting for any low-light indoor photographs. This makes shutter speed a priority, so the camera automatically cranks up the aperture and ISO settings. Still the Canon A720 IS's much-larger
"big brother," the very idiot-friendly SX20IS
Viewfinder Choices - Many companies are removing viewfinders from their mid-line digital cameras. After all most people use the LCD screen on the back most of the time. But when you're outside in bright light shooting into shade, a viewfinder is invaluable. My Fuji E-550 and Canon A720 IS have real "optical" viewfinders that simply show a real-world view that approximates what the lens is seeing. Some newer, better cameras have digital viewfinders that show a reduced version of what you're already seeing on the LCD screen - this is only useful on the really-high end cameras though. Intermediate cameras with this feature tend to black out between photos, though, making it hard to follow a subject's motion. Sadly, most otherwise decent intermediate cameras have removed the viewfinder altogether, simply making the lcd on the back bigger. Yes, that's great for getting snapshots of the lead guitarist from the mosh pit, but it's not as useful outside in bright sunlight as you'd think.
Idiot-Friendly Design Features - The other major consideration (besides resolution, lens quality, time between photographs, and low-light handling is how "idiot-friendly" the camera is. Photography buffs want to be able to set all the parameters for each exposure by hand; professional cameras allow that, and so do many "semiprofessional" cameras. Cameras made for amateurs also typically have several "automatic" settings for what is called "point and click" operation. So the photography nuts in the family can fiddle to their heart's content, but the other family members can choose an automatic setting, then "point and click" and get a high percentage of good photos.
The latest enhancement for "point and click" users is called by names such as "image stabilization," "anti-shake" and so on. This is technology that allows the camera to compensate for any movement that occurred while the shutter was open, providing sharper photographs than would otherwise be possible. This helps with both long-range telephoto shots (in which a microscopic movement of the camera can translate into a blur) and low-light shots (because image stabilization allows you to use longer shutter times without adding blur). So a camera set to ISO 200 with image stabilization may take better photos in low light than a similar camera set to ISO 400, but without image stabilization.
Optical image stabilization actually adjusts the physical relationship between the sensor and lens in the camera if it detects that the camera moved while the shutter was open. "Digital" image stabilization tries to compensate by using software - it's not as good by itself, although a few better cameras now use both.
Since I wrote the original article, image stabilization has been finding its way into smaller and cheaper cameras, so it's worth pointing out that image stabilization does not compensate for an undersized lens or poor light sensitivity. If you are choosing between two similar cameras, and one has image stabilization and the other does not, go for the one with image stabilization. But don't expect it to work miracles, or to compensate for object movement - it won't.
A related option, Fuji's "blur reduction," (sometimes called "picture stabilization") supposedly even compensates for object movement, but it seems largely to be a setting that makes faster shutter time a priority, pre-empting control over everything else, which may not be what you want. The Fuji S1000FD used this technology. Its replacement, the S1500
Idiot-Friendly Software Features - One place where I draw the line is on software that keeps me from using the camera the way I want to. Most digital cameras allow you to plug in a USB2 cord between the camera and a PC, then read the camera memory from the PC like you would a portable "thumbnail" memory card. If you do this, you need to remember to download the photos to the computer's hard drive before you start editing them (or even "rotating" them to view properly, which is a kind of edit). Otherwise, you may create glitches in the camera's memory card and have to reformat it to get it to work properly again. You also want to use the camera's buttons to delete photos, not your computer, for the same reason. Once you realize that, you can easily take a digital camera and the supplied USB cord all over the world, downloading photos on other people's PCs and Macs to your heart's content.
That was why I had a problem with certain Kodaks which would not let you download photographs to your PC without loading the cumbersome "Easy-Share" software on every PC you plan to attach the camera to. Even more cumbersome is the fact that the Easy-Share software insisted on updating itself every so often, which can tie up your computer when you'd rather be using it for other things. On the other hand, people who are completely new to digital cameras and fairly new to computers actually like the "Easy-Share" software as it makes storing, indexing, e-mailing, and printing photographs very easy for newbies. So if you're relatively new to computers and totally new to image processing software, the "Easy-Share" system may be exactly what you need.
What to Consider (Updated for December, 2009) When I first wrote this article, there were about fifteen recent entries worth writing about or checking out. Since then, several vendors have stopped trying to keep up, or have focused on market segments that don't relate to this article. So for December, 2009, I'm simply listing the cameras I would recommend based, not only on comparing specifications, but also on handling all of them and using several of their predecessors. Most of these cameras are mostly the 2009 (or the late-2009) version of some very nice cameras I recommended last year. But the competition is so fierce that the prices for the new 2009 cameras are, more often than not, better than the prices of last year's models.
Canon PowerShot A1100IS (12.1 MP, 4x Zoom Lens, AA batteries).
This very similar to my A720IS, with many of the same features, except for a smaller lens and a bit more pixels. It's also a step up from the A1000IS which I recommended here just a few months ago for about the same price.
Like the A1000 this past summer, many vendors are "blowing out" the A11000IS for $150 or less. If you have never owned a digital camera, and you don't want to put $200+ into it before you decide whether you really want one, this is probably the best place to start. In addition, it's one of the last remaining under-$200 name-brand digitals with a viewfinder. Keep in mind, too, that five years ago, you'd have had to spend $400 or more to get a camera with the same quality and features.
. As mentioned, the SX120IS "saves you money" by not including a viewfinder, but it packs an incredible number of features into a camera that I can still drop into my Docker's pocket. (Okay, I look funny when I do that, but you get the idea.)
.
(This is one I'm kind of leaning toward for my next upgrade, because I've been very pleased with my A720IS, and this camera takes AA cells instead of a proprietary battery like the Sony cameras listed on this page.)
Or if you want a big zoom camera and don't feel that you need to spend the extra $75-100 for a viewfinder and a few other more "exotic" differences, you might consider:
, or
Or if you want zoom camera features in a less expensive package that includes a viewfinder and AA batteries, you might consider:
. Frankly, the photo quality isn't quite the same as the two cameras above, but in my opinion the convenience is greater, so it's your call.
Remember, all of these big-zoom cameras will also give you better photos in your living room than the pocket cameras because the bigger lenses let in more light no matter whether you're using the zoom or not.
line is one of the smallest and least expensive. It will do a very good job, though it won't take the traditional Nikon lens sizes, so if you're already a Nikon 35mm user, you might want to consider the D90
. (The D-90 has a better lens, live view, and other additional features.)
lines.
or Canon EOS Rebel T1i (15.1 MP)
, or
Sony DSLRA350K (14.2MP)
provide an even HIGHER proportion of excellent shots (based on photos I receive from readers with cameras in this class).
Okay, they cost up to $700 more than some entry-level DSLRS, but I thought you should know, they really do make a difference.
What About Cheapies and Closeouts? When I first wrote this article, I recommended picking up last year's model if you could get it at a close out price. But since that, I've noticed that the older cameras aren't really coming down in price, even after the new ones come out. And that's even more surprising when you realize that many of the new cameras are coming out at a lower price point than their predecessors. So unless you shop very carefully, you could wind up paying more for last year's model than for its current, better replacement. So don't assume that discontinued models will save you money.
The "Unstated Specification" - The great "unstated specification" of digital cameras is how many additional memorable shots people have gotten because it didn't "cost anything" to take a lot of experimental "extra" and "safety" shots.
So if you're thinking about a trip or a special event, (especially if it's the next Large Scale Convention or garden railroad open house), think about getting a camera that will bring back a visual record that you can treasure the rest of your life. Be sure to buy your camera a few weeks or months before the trip, though, so you can get used to using it, and so you don't have to spend the first night of your vacation trying to figure out how to get the memory card in or something.
Paul D. Race
P.S. In case you wondered, the man in the title photograph is not an idiot. He is a good friend, a very good garden railroader, and a great person, who, thankfully, also has a sense of humor.
For the point-and-shoot crowd, it's a good overview. A few points to consider; aperture and shutter speed. Some point and shoot cameras don't have a whole lot of range in one or the other, and that can limit the success of your shots. The ability to step down to a small aperture is paramount for getting good shots in the garden. Small apertures mean long shutter speeds, which means tripods or some kind of support is necessary--even with image stabilization--in all but the brightest light (which is typically not ideal for photography anyway).
On the other hand, the smaller sensors tend to have better depth of field for a given aperture, so a point-and-shoot camera at f5.6 might have the same depth as a DSLR at f16.
Most (if not all) DSLRs have "fully auto" mode where they operate just like a point-and-shoot camera.
Canon's latest mid-range DSLR is the 40D, not the 20D. (It's confusing, what with the Nikon's D40.) [Yes, but I've gotten lots of photos from 20D owners, so I was just reporting my own experience - Paul]
Personally, I'd leave the mid-range DSLRs out of the discussion. The bottom-end cameras (D40X, XTI, etc.) are more than adequate and have more bells and whistles than the average user will ever use. The more expensive mid-range cameras don't really offer anything additional that will improve "full auto" mode.
Another good digital camera review site is www.dpreview.com.
John Andrews, another old friend and a talented visual designer, including set design, adds these comments;
I am using a Kodak Z740 which has the in-the-hand feel of a good SLR rather than an Altoids Tin. With 512mb card I get over 300 'fine' pics. While it has an 'auto' feature, I have found that while it take a bit of messing about and time to reset - the backlite, closeup, sports, and nighttime features have gotten me up to a 50% acceptance rate. The biggest problem is, of course, MY framing.
I would have you add to your fine article - the use of flash is good for 6 to 8 feet when shooting PEOPLE. Being in the theatre business, I love to hate the fools who flash from 60 yards back.....and spoil the show for the rest of the audience.
And then there are the good folks who do not use the 3-point bracing of 2 hands and the head to steady the camera.... but who hold it at arms length so they can see the screen. I know the screen is SO! very popular at weddings and other social events, but I would not mind a digital camera withOUT the screen. They can put the manufacturing money into some other feature.... I'll show my pictures AFTER I've gone home and cleaned them up.
I mean, why?! pass around a pic of "my little angel", when "MLA" is RIGHT THERE in person!?!?!? Is the picture more 'real'?
You are right-on about the Easy-Share software. Oh, botheration! Besides the WinXP will grab the shots automatically for me.
| 
|
 |
 |
 |  |  |
Note: Family Garden Trains™, Garden Train Store™, Big Christmas Trains™, BIG Indoor Trains™, and BIG Train Store™ are trademarks of Breakthrough Communications (www.btcomm.com). All information, data, text, and illustrations on this web site are Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 by Paul D. Race. Reuse or republication without prior written permission is specifically forbidden.
For more information, please contact me
