[mackandproud]

I have a panasonic point and shoot, and am starting to realize it's limitations very early on in my ownership period. In low light, and at a distance, the pictures come out fuzzy and grainy.

I am interesting in moving up to a DSLR. Up to $700 or so.

Picture quality is paramount, and hd video capability is a big plus. Compatibility with mac software is a big help as well. What do you guys use and like?

[imitchellg5]

Pretty much any camera at all works just fine with OS X.

[subego]

You won't be unhappy with a Canon or a Nikon.

[subego]

Also, at that price point, you may want to look into the micro four-thirds format. I know you haven't had the best experience, but Panny supposedly makes some good models.

I'll note though it was low-light performance which made me get on the Canon train.

[parasbuy]

why would you say that? my Canon's great with my Mac.

[subego]

Say what?

I don't believe there's been any comment about compatiblity except to say everything's compatible.

[mackandproud]

My panasonic point and shoot is great for a point and shoot. If you want a photo of a few friends from a few feet away, it's fabulous. For posting a photo of an item for sale on ebay, great.

But if you want to capture pictures with a lot of detail from considerable distance, or in low light, it's quite mediocre. The camera did not cost me very much, so I'll probably keep it, rather than selling it.

I just want something with better zoom, with much better clarity and detail from a distance, in low light in particular.

So if I step up to a quality dslr at $700 will it be a big jump in detail and clarity, as long as it's a reputable brand (canon, nikon, panasonic)?

[subego]

My from the gut answer is "not as much as you'd like". What model do you have now?

The basic deal is $700 will barely get you the lowest end Canon SLR, while it will get you a high end micro four-thirds. I'm not sure how up you are on the format, but it's trying to bridge the gap between point-and-shoots and DSLRs. They don't have a mirror, so they don't need dedicated autofocus sensors, and they also don't have to be engineered to complete the precision mechanical task of flipping the mirror out of the way on cue... a hundred thousand times.

If it doesn't have to do that, you aren't paying for it. Your money is going towards the image sensor and some enhanced autofocus algorithms on a chip.

One other really nice thing about them is the lenses are removable and interchangeable. I've heard the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens is fantabulous. SLRs all use proprietary mounts, so it's very easy to get locked-in to one manufacturer. 90% of the people you meet with DSLRs are either Canon people or Nikon people. You don't cross the beams.

[subego]

DPReview is the go-to spot for ridiculously exhaustive reviews. If you want to know exactly how a particular camera's low-light performance shakes out (with examples), that's where to check.

[subego]

One last thing...

This is a bit of an old-school concept, so I'm not sure if people are still recommending it, but it's how I learned. A lot of this is aimed specifically at the fact there are so many options, and it's really easy to break the bank with this stuff.

1) When you get your first SLR, get a 50mm lens, and that's it. On a camera without a full frame sensor (pretty much any body costing less than $1,000), a 50mm equivalent would be 30-35mm. No zoom. You want closer, you move closer.
2) Shoot 50,000 photos with that lens. Yes, you read that right, 50,000. It was 10,000 when I learned, but that was when you needed to process it, and would only carry a 100 or so shots worth of film with you. You get a whole lot more fast and loose with digital, so that's why the number is boosted. If you're into it, you can swing this in six months, easy.
3) Find someone you trust to critique your work. Really let them slam it hard. If you're not in tears, they're not doing it right.
4) After one, two, and three, you won't need to ask people if you want such-and-such, or if this bajillion dollar telephoto is worth it. You'll know for yourself exactly what you want and why you want it.

Class dismissed.

[cgc]

Subego hit the nail on the head. I read the same thing from the photo.net forums before I bought my EOS 3 and 50mm lens...great way to learn what to do and why you're doing it. Then rent some big glass and see what you think/like/need before dropping big money.

[subego]

Excellent advice about renting. Places which don't suck have a setup where you can pick up Friday and return Monday for the single day rate.

[mackandproud]

I have a pan zs7, which is highly rated just about everywhere.

Perhaps I could sell it, and get a powershot sx230. The test photos I've seen online seem marginally but noticeably better. It costs about $100 more or so.

Another candidate is the canon s95, possibly the best picture, but even more expensive than the 230, around $400 or so.

I'm used to seeing those paparazzi photos online which have crazy resolution: where you can see the detail on a fleck of dust on someone's clothes. I wonder how much THOSE cameras cost.

[mackandproud]

I like two cameras:

canon sx 230

canon s95

The 230 is less expensive, has 1080 hd video, 14X zoom, excellent low light performance and takes high quality pictures. Apparently, battery life is not all that great, but I always plan on having an extra battery for these types of cameras.

The 95 only has 720 in 24 fps.

Now, time to sell the zs7: a fine camera in it's own right, esp. if there is plenty of light.

[subego]

If you haven't yet, take a peek at the Panasonic Lumix GF2.

[mackandproud]

Nice find.

Image quality is clearly better than any P&S, but not by as wide a margin as I was expecting.

Also, it supposedly is not that good in low-light situations. This seems to be a sticking point for panasonic.

[amazing]

I'm not upgrading to Lion, and I don't have a Canon, but I just ran across this caveat today (and I don't know it it applies to you, but it may be something you should know about If you're running Snow Leopard, no worries...

Big question is whether you're running Lion, because Canon EOS Utility apparently doesn't support Lion, per this article:

How to install Snow Leopard on a brand-new Lion-based Mac | ZDNet

[subego]

FWIW, I've owned a half-dozen Canons and never needed the utility. iPhoto has handled everything fine (though I would recommend Aperture or Lightroom if you're dealing with RAW files).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you haven't yet, take a peek at the Panasonic Lumix GF2.

That's a very good suggestion: my best friend upgraded to a GF2 from a Nikon D70. He almost never took his D70 anywhere, but the GF2 is a constant companion.

[subego]

In a similar vein, my iPhone 4 is my go-to camera 'cause it's always in my pocket.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) When you get your first SLR, get a 50mm lens, and that's it. On a camera without a full frame sensor (pretty much any body costing less than $1,000), a 50mm equivalent would be 30-35mm. No zoom. You want closer, you move closer.

You got that one backwards. 50mm on a crop is the equivalent of 75-80mm on full frame. A nice portrait lens, but too tight for general usage.

Originally Posted by subego 

(though I would recommend Aperture or Lightroom if you're dealing with RAW files)

I'd recommend them even if not shooting RAW (and you shouldn't be).

[subego]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You got that one backwards. 50mm on a crop is the equivalent of 75-80mm on full frame. A nice portrait lens, but too tight for general usage.

You just read it backwards.

I said if you want a 50mm equivalent on a crop, get a 30-35mm.

[cgc]

50mm on a film SLR is equivalent to no zoom and is about what we see normally with our eyes.

[subego]

Never mind. Didn't look at the author of the post I was responding to.

[subego]

Originally Posted by cgc 

50mm on a film SLR is equivalent to no zoom and is about what we see normally with our eyes.

Yup. If you're using 35mm you want a 50mm.

And people wonder why photography seems mystifying.



For those keeping score at home, here, the 35mm refers to the size of the negative, and 50mm refers to the focal length of the lens. When talking digital, a camera with a "full frame sensor" has a sensor which is the same size as a 35mm negative. If you put a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor, it will give you about the same shot as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera. A "crop frame" is smaller, which (among other things) means any given lens will behave as if it had a longer focal length. With most sensors, you multiply the focal length by 1.5.

So, you put a 50mm lens on a crop, it behaves like it had 1.5 times the focal length in comparison to that lens on a 35mm film camera. IOW, it's like putting a (50mm x 1.5) 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

As cgc said, a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera is comparable to what the eye sees, so this is a key focal length you work with on 35mm film, or a full frame sensor. If you have a crop frame, that same 50mm lens acts like a 75mm lens, i.e. more zoomed in, and therefore not as generally useful (though specifically useful, as mduell pointed out).

[mackandproud]

Man, this is getting WAY too technical!

Perhaps I'll just wait for an 8 megapixel iphone 5. It even has flash!

[cgc]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

Man, this is getting WAY too technical!

Perhaps I'll just wait for an 8 megapixel iphone 5. It even has flash!

I think point and shoot cameras are really good but a DSLR or SLR can give you so much more flexibility. I got an all manual SLR (35mm film) and learned on that, talk about frustrating. I still like film because I can do things you can't do with digital (like long exposure to show the rotation of the Earth or stars depending on perspective). Can't go wrong with a semi-advanced point and shoot or any DSLR by a known brand (e.g. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, etc.).

I think there are really only a couple main stream digital camera sensor builders: Sony and Canon. Everyone uses Sony except Canon (and Sigma which uses Foveon but they don't count) so the other specs are most important (e.g. low-light, color rendition, lens selection, etc.).

[subego]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

Man, this is getting WAY too technical!

Perhaps I'll just wait for an 8 megapixel iphone 5. It even has flash!

It is and it isn't. I went full on technical in case anyone was interested, and I'm not the greatest communicator.

Let's see... the simplified version is none of what I said matters unless you're buying a lens which doesn't come with the camera.

When you buy an SLR, it usually comes with some form of zoom lens. It's going to have numbers on it, and most of those numbers don't really matter in a practical sense. It'll say something like 25mm-100mm, but in the real world, you get a feel for what 25mm (or 100mm, or anything in-between) means by looking through the viewfinder.

Now, if you want to buy another lens, the numbers take on more importance, because you don't want to drop $200 and not know what you're getting.

Likewise, the same lens may look more or less zoomed in on different cameras. Again, if you have one camera, that totally doesn't matter. What matters is how it looks on your camera. However, once you start buying more and more lenses, you'll probably get another camera along the way, so it behooves you to understand how zoomed in your lenses would look on that type of camera. Otherwise, you build a huge lens collection, and then realize those aren't the lenses you want for your new camera.

[subego]

Extra simplified version:

Ignore everything I said.
Get the camera which most inspires you.
Take pictures.

[mackandproud]

Well, for point and shoots, the canons in the $350-$400 price range are looking pretty good.

The panasonic you mentioned seems to be high quality also, although it's not clear what the zoom is.

As far as budge dslr's are concerned, again, canons seem like a standout.

[P]

Recently bought a Nikon D5100 with a 18-105 lens for my parents. They just leave it on full auto and take amazing pictures. It's small enough to bring with you (significantly smaller than a D70) and for their needs, it's a great fit.

That package may be more than you are willing to pay, but there is one package with an 18-55 that comes in around $700 - or you could do like subego says and learn with a fixed lens. I didn't really do a lot of comparison shopping with Canon's offerings, as my dad has a few old Nikon lenses that I wanted the option to use (that didn't happen, because that one lens is very capable, but I didn't know that when shopping), but any review I found praised it.

There is also an app that lets you remote control it from an iPhone. Will have to try that out at some point.

[mackandproud]

P, what is the zoom with the 18 55 or 18 105 lenses?

I have up to 12X optical zoom on my panasonic point and shoot.

[davidflas]

In my experience, every point and shoot camera on the market is held back my one factor: they have a tiny image sensor. That is the main reason I recommend DSLR cameras for anyone who can afford them, they have a much larger image sensor. The size of the sensor is more an indication of image quality then the number of megapixels. I am biased towards Nikon, but Canon makes excellent cameras too. Like many other posters, I recommend going to a camera store and holding a few cameras in hour hands, then buying the one that feels best to you. Also, with DSLR cameras, it is best to spend less on the body and more on the lenses, no matter how good the body is, a crappy lens will produce crappy pictures.

[OreoCookie]

m4/3 cameras are a very good compromise: they deliver dslr-type quality (- very high ISO performance) and there is a camera system with a wide array of lenses and accessories behind them.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

P, what is the zoom with the 18 55 or 18 105 lenses?

I have up to 12X optical zoom on my panasonic point and shoot.

The zoom range is the ratio of the two mm numbers.

18-55 mm = 3x zoom
18-105 mm = 5.8x zoom

[cgc]

Typically, smaller sensors equal worse low-light performance (due to an accumulation of more heat due to the density of "pixel" amplifiers).

If I were in the market for a Point and Shoot I'd look at the Canon G12. If I were shopping for a DSLR I think the Canon T3i looks enticing. I like the concept of the 4/3 camera and it's been around since ~2003 but I have money invested in Canon gear (which explains my biases recommendations above).

Can't go wrong with any known brand but try the camera out, feel it, shoot some pics, and figure out what you want to do with it (e.g. action, low-light, travel, etc.). There's a camera for every need...

[mackandproud]

Actually, I started with a canon sd1400, and picture quality was unsatisfactory.

The photos came out blurry and soft pretty much every time.

The panasonic was a noticeable improvement, but it simply does not do a very good job for capturing images at a distance.

It seems like getting a dslr with anything approaching 12-14X zoom would be prohibitive in cost, so it looks like I'll be sticking with a point and shoot for now.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

Actually, I started with a canon sd1400, and picture quality was unsatisfactory.

The photos came out blurry and soft pretty much every time.

The panasonic was a noticeable improvement, but it simply does not do a very good job for capturing images at a distance.

It seems like getting a dslr with anything approaching 12-14X zoom would be prohibitive in cost, so it looks like I'll be sticking with a point and shoot for now.

The Canon SD1400 has good reviews but there aren't many P&S cameras that deliver sharp long-focal length images. May want to look at second-hand Sigma, Tokina, or Tamron zooms and a DSLR from last generation. You won't be sacrificing much unless HD videos are important (and if they are I wouldn't get a DSLR to record them anyways).

[P]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

It seems like getting a dslr with anything approaching 12-14X zoom would be prohibitive in cost, so it looks like I'll be sticking with a point and shoot for now.

On a single lens you'd be looking at something like an 18-200, and yes they cost an arm and a leg, but you can have more than one lens. E.g one 18-55 and one 55-300, just to pick one setup, or a 70-300 if you can live with a small hole in the setup.

What do you shoot that needs that extreme magnification?

(The numbers are the focal length. On a modern dSLR, a 35mm length is "no zoom", and everything else can be compared to that number. 70mm thus becomes magnification to 2X, while 18 (really 17.5) is a wide angle "negative zoom" to 1/2X magnification. 300mm would be a zoom in to about 8X.)

[reader50]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

It seems like getting a dslr with anything approaching 12-14X zoom would be prohibitive in cost, so it looks like I'll be sticking with a point and shoot for now.

From what I've read, it is all but impossible to make a superzoom lens for DSLRs without image quality sacrifices. Compacts can get away with it, but a DSLR will show any chromatic aberrations or focus problems.

There are some superzooms on the market. Read the dpreviews section for lenses.

[cgc]

I've seen photos with the Sigma "sewer pipe" (a 50-500mm lens) that were really sharp with no noticeable chromatic aberrations but not many people buy a super zoom w/ a DSLR. I think when people go to a DSLR they are more committed to quality than convenience so they probably carry a short zoom and a telephoto zoom or prime. I have all primes as they are super crisp (and fast) but the zooms are so convenient that's where I'll go next (maybe get the 70-300mm Canon USM zoom). You won't see a "14X zoom" on a DSLR anytime soon/ever.

[reader50]

Sigma 18-250 mm 13.9x
Tamron 18-270 mm 15x

[subego]

Originally Posted by cgc 

maybe get the 70-300mm Canon USM zoom

Fantastic lens. Weighs a ****ton though.

Edit: never mind. I thought you said 70-200mm.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Sigma 18-250 mm 13.9x
Tamron 18-270 mm 15x

Neither of those is "14X"

Looks like I'm a little behind the times...I was into photography big time until I relocated a couple years ago and haven't gotten back into it. Thanks for the info but I'd be leary of a lens that tries to do everything. Here's a comparison of some superzooms good but not great) along with some P&S w/ superzoom lenses.

[charles29]

Of course is Canon camera

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Just as a random FYI, I picked up the Panasonic GF2 a few days ago and so far am very pleased with the results - this is a nice camera. It's certainly not a new camera and its 12.1 MP isn't hot shit anymore by any means, but for $325 with the 14-42 lens, I couldn't pass it up. Touchscreen is a little awkward to use at first but I'm slowly starting to get the hang of it.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mackandproud 

I have a panasonic point and shoot, and am starting to realize it's limitations very early on in my ownership period. In low light, and at a distance, the pictures come out fuzzy and grainy.

I am interesting in moving up to a DSLR. Up to $700 or so.

Picture quality is paramount, and hd video capability is a big plus. Compatibility with mac software is a big help as well. What do you guys use and like?

I use a Nikon D2x and will add a D700 or D800 soon.

For your needs and price point I suggest a

Nikon D3100, $560.

Nikon D3100 Camera - Full Review

Most other review sites are biased toward Nikon or toward Canon, but IR is pretty neutral. IMO in point-and-shoots Canon is superior but at the entry-level DSLR Nikon is superior.

Buy only good glass as you move beyond the kit lens, very important. Stick with Nikon lens choices (or Canon if you choose a Canon DSLR) until you become expert, because modern DSLRs are all about the mix of secret, proprietary software and electronics with the lenses and flash. Even though Tamron has some good lenses, the Tamrons of the world do not know where Nikon will be in 5 years and good Nikon lenses last a lifetime.

Spend lots of time handling the camera before you buy it because individual ergonomic preferences are hugely important. No reviewer or website wag can know how a given camera "feels" in your hands.

HTH

-Allen

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by cgc 

...I'd be leary of a lens that tries to do everything...

Absolutely correct. There is NO free lunch in photography - and that truism will not change. Everything involves trade-offs.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I was actually looking hard at the D3100 in the store, as it was on sale for $580 with the 18-55 lens I think it was. But I couldn't justify the extra $250 over the GF2, and of course it's significantly bigger - is actually nicer and more comfortable to hold, but I've finally bought into taking a smaller body size on vacation.

Ended up getting the GF2 and also picked up a Panasonic DMC-TS3 for adventure spots - beach, snow, etc. And both of them with respective chargers & paraphernalia etc. can fit into the same size case as the D3100. Not bad.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

To be honest, having looked up the GF2 a little more this morning in order to figure out how to better use it (going to snap some pics tonight), I'm pretty happy that I got it new for $325. That seems...absurdly cheap. This was on clearance from Best Buy - I guess they were trying to clear out for the GF3, but from the reviews it almost seems as though there's not much of a difference between those two cameras - and the GF3 is selling for almost $800, while the Olympus EPL and the Sony NEX are all around $600.

Quick question for some of you - one big criticism about the GF2 (from dpreview for example) is poor JPEG performance; it's noted that RAW should really be used instead. Why is this such a drawback? I was under the impression that RAW is a better format to shoot in, anyway, and allowed much better processing results. Is there a reason to prefer hi-res JPEG over RAW?

Thanks,
greg