Getting A Digital Camera

[ThePiggy]

So, I've been wanting to get a camera that can take high quality pictures of my fish, but I have a very limited budget. I'd appreciate advice on which brands to look for. Thanks!!

 

[raptorrex]

well for pure quality, especially on a budget, an old fashioned canon or nikon using silver halide film, will give by far the best results. even the most expensive Digi SLR cameras are still not as good a quality as a well processed and printed negative film shot, and they are nowhere near the quality of slide film. but the down side is the time and cost of printing and scanning the film. you will need a digi camera of 18 mega pixels or more to get close to neg film and 25 (apparently) mega pixels for slide quality. lol sorry lesson over!

there are a few thing that i think are important when choosing a digi camera:

1, choose a good/well known make. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Leica (if you can afford one).

2, get the highest Mega pixel count your budget allows. i would say 8+.

3, choose one with a zoom lens that is optical, with a minimum zoom of 3x. digital zooms are handy, but do reduce the quality of the shot.
3a, choose a camera with a good macro function (close focus), 10mm is good for fish shots, closer would be better.

4, looking at the higher end, look for a lens made by Leitz/leica, Carl Zeiss, Nikkor, Canon L, Rokkor.

5, make sure it takes, common format memory cards, indeed that it has expandable memory.

6, it should have battery's (rechargeable) of a common format, AAA, AA. specific battery's can be expensive to replace, but more importantly, can only be charged in the camera. so if you battery dies, no more pictures!

7, Make sure you allow enough money to get a reasonably sized memory card at the same time.


LoL, if you haven't guess, years ago, i used to sell cameras for a living Even so i think you will find its good advice

ps, they are listed in my order of importance.

 

[ThePiggy]

Awesome advice! It definitely gives me a starting point to go shopping from. I was clueless before I'll let you know what I eventually end up getting. Thanks!

 

[gaz gun man]

You dont need massive megapixels, 6 or so in a compact camera is sufficent, increasing the megapixels on a small sensor just causes noise issues and degrades the images, especially if you blow up the picture

 

[three-fingers]

Yeah, magepixel's these day's aren't always what to look for.

Also, about specific rechargeable batteries - I would personally try to choose one with these. IME they last much longer, and you can easliy find replacements on ebay for a few £.

For taking fish pictures, unless you have a very brightly lit planted/reef tank - you are going to have to use the flash. And if your going to use the flash, I would recommend this method: [URL="http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=242213&st=0&start=0"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0[/URL]

With lower lighting, and without the flash - you will get very grainy/and or blurry photos. You can get around this by using a DSLR with a fast lens, but that expensive and hard to control the depth of field.

This is much easier on a camera with a pop-out flash.

My advice would be: don't be afraid of buying an older camera second hand, and don't be put off by megapixel ratings. Remember that megapixel = size of photo, but the quality of the photos is something you can't tell from reading specifications.

Try to look for something where you have the option of manually adjusting settings such as shutter speed and aperture.

 

[raptorrex]

You dont need massive megapixels, 6 or so in a compact camera is sufficent, increasing the megapixels on a small sensor just causes noise issues and degrades the images, especially if you blow up the picture

indeed that's why you go for a good make, noise problems are far less with a quality maker. but 10meg will give better quality than 6, of that there is no question. whether you need the extra quality is down to the buyer, and their budget.

labout specific rechargeable batteries - I would personally try to choose one with these. IME they last much longer, and you can easliy find replacements on ebay for a few £.

good point, but the camera is no use when its needed to recharge your battery!

 

[mike os]

on a budget I would look at the Fuji finepix range, & unless you want to print bigger than A4 (12x8) then anything over about 6mp will be fine

 

[raptorrex]

on a budget I would look at the Fuji finepix range, & unless you want to print bigger than A4 (12x8) then anything over about 6mp will be fine

thats just about the rule of thumb i use. but it you ever need to use a selective, a small portion of the original pic, ratings of 8 or above will allow yo to do so. without loss of quality. i have found i rarely use the whole image, especially with taking pictures of fish, it is more like 60% many times.

 

[gaz gun man]

whats your budget?

I prefer cameras that take dedicated batteries instead of AA or AAA, my mum has a Nikon S100 which comes with a plug in charger that charges batteries, you can always buy a spare battery and keep them both charged.

AA/AAA's work out expensive in the long run

 

[raptorrex]

whats your budget?

I prefer cameras that take dedicated batteries instead of AA or AAA, my mum has a Nikon S100 which comes with a plug in charger that charges batteries, you can always buy a spare battery and keep them both charged.

AA/AAA's work out expensive in the long run

interesting, Rechargeable AA are about £2.50 for 4@ 2300mah (aldi with three year guarantee), and recharge over 1000 times. and cost only penny's, each time, to recharge. even AAA are the same price @800mah. not sure how they could work out more expensive. as the replacement for the nikon, costs £14+p&p + its only 740mah.

 

[gaz gun man]

rechargeable batteries never last as long as dedicated camera batteries (which are giving more and more shots per charge with each new model)


If rechargeable AA's etc were so great why dont all the top end DSLR's use them?

You can buy unofficial batteries off of ebay, I have about 5 for my D50 and only one of them is official, the original Nikon ones are about £40 I think (or there abouts)

plus, AA batteries never get a full charge/last as long unless you trickle charge them, which also adds to the electricity bill.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

If rechargeable AA's etc were so great why dont all the top end DSLR's use them?

Mainly because high end cameras have had battery packs for a long time. It's a psychological thing, I mean would you take a Nikon D300 seriously if Nikon for some reason decided to use AA batteries in it?

One of the main reasons I'm a fan of AA or AAA batteries in cameras is that in a pinch you can always get a replacement set at any convenience store. With a dedicated battery pack you certainly can't do that. More often than not you have to have it shipped to you or visit a specialty store. And there are some rechargeable AA or AAA batteries that have excellent life per charge, better than some dedicated packs.

And that's coming from someone who shoots with a DSLR using a dedicated battery pack. I had to order a $60 replacement in order to insure myself in the even of the battery losing its charge. Next time I get a compact, I'm making sure I get one with AA's, I've been stung by a dead battery in my compact camera too many times to make that mistake again. If a high end DSLR comes along with AA's I'll be using that too!

SLC