Which camera?

[buz-lh]

This may or may not be off topic. If so, I apologize. I got into photography in my early twenties and pursued it as an avocation off and on for about 15 years. Demands of raising a family meant that more and more I was only taking snapshots, so when my home was broken into and all the cameras and equipment was stolen I did not replace. Looking at all the great pictures here has piqued my interest again. I have been pricing digital SLR's and needless to say have some sticker shock. I was reading a review in a magazine of the Fujifilm Finepix S9100, and although not a true SLR it seems to be quite a fine little package for @$375. Does anyone here have any experience with this camera or opinions?

Thanks,

[Remember2]

I had the S9000/9500 which was a VERY good camera for the money...that pretty much goes for all the Fujifilm cameras. When choosing a none DSLR camera, it really comes down to ISO vs. Noise. This is because non-DSLR-cameras have small image sensors, which limits the amount of light the camera can catch. So all non-DSLR's are a trade off between Noise/Quality and Sharpness/Blur.

Fujifilm really has this down...they can go up to high ISO, but still produce low noise pictures.

But NOTHING can compare to a true DSLR.

If I where you, I would look at a Pentax K100 Super, with a Tamron 18-250 lens. It's more expensive, but you get so much more quality, with the same super-zoom-convinience. And it has an in-camera stabilizer, that helps you further reduce blur when shooting hand held.

If it's more than you want to spend, go for a Fujifilm super-zoom. Good reviews here:

http://www.dpreview.com

Just my 2 cents

[buz-lh]

Thanks for the advice and the link Claus.

[Remember2]

My pleasure

[newrolexman]

To take my watch pics I use a $200 Nikon Coolpix, the S1, a tiny aluminum bodied camera.

It has a macro feature and does take a nice picture.


It fares better up close then my $1999 4 year old Nikon D100 SLR.

Since I didnt want to spend $1500 for a good nikkor macro lense I think it was $200 well spent on the S1.

Check some pics out:





This is an out door pic with the D100 SLR, nice too but not up close.

[Ed Rooney]

Nikon D40X is a good choice for someone who wants to move up to an SLR but not spend a ton of money.

[tandrup]

I've always been a Canon fan. I'd take a look at the Canon Rebel XTi - good value for money with the kit-lens. Although as Newrolexfan pointed out, the real close-up shots can be challenging without a good macro.

[vman]

I cannot say enough good things about D40. I shoot D70 myself and I am extremely satisfied with it. However, D40 is still currently produced and it is a nifty little camera that you can find used for several hundred dollars. I have a friend who shoots D40 and he is extremely satisfied.

I think that getting anything professional is a waste of money if you're an amateur who does not earn more than 20% of the income on photography. D40 with stock lenses will do great. D40 with some nice lenses will do even better. If I were you I'd find a used entry level DSLR and then spend money on lenses later on. Even the stock lens will be far more than you can utilize during your first steps. I have been making awesome 8x10 prints with my all stock used camera and I am highly satisfied with what I have.

If you want some good pointers, check out Ken's site at www.kenrockwell.com and remember: Your ability to take pictures is the factor that limits you the most!

[bgriz]

Good stuff here. I am not a camera expert in the least.....my camera is a 3 mp cannon which is outdated now. If I get the fujifilm 12mp can I use it or any other 12mp camera for good close ups? I don't think my cannon 3mp even has macro settings

[gtbike72]

I just got Olympus E-510 I don't know if it's just me , because it's a new camera , but I swear I can take better pictures and much easier to set up that my cannon xti .

[bgriz]

Originally Posted by vman

I cannot say enough good things about D40. I shoot D70 myself and I am extremely satisfied with it. However, D40 is still currently produced and it is a nifty little camera that you can find used for several hundred dollars. I have a friend who shoots D40 and he is extremely satisfied.

I think that getting anything professional is a waste of money if you're an amateur who does not earn more than 20% of the income on photography. D40 with stock lenses will do great. D40 with some nice lenses will do even better. If I were you I'd find a used entry level DSLR and then spend money on lenses later on. Even the stock lens will be far more than you can utilize during your first steps. I have been making awesome 8x10 prints with my all stock used camera and I am highly satisfied with what I have.

If you want some good pointers, check out Ken's site at www.kenrockwell.com and remember: Your ability to take pictures is the factor that limits you the most!

I read through Ken's website and wow, what great info. I spent a couple hours there reading. Learned alot thanks!