What sort of things do you most enjoy photographing and how do you prefer
displaying your images?
There is no such thing as a camera, digital or
otherwise, that can do everything well. Do you shoot mainly for a family album
or is it landscapes and nature, sports and action that interest you? Do you plan
showing your work mostly as small prints or do you intend sending
images as attachments to e-mails or posting on a web site? Will you make large
prints (11 x 14 and larger)? Do you require extreme compactness or can you
tolerate the bulk and weight of a larger camera more likely to give better
results? Are you comfortable dealing with complex gadgets or do you prefer full
automation? These are the questions that will guide you to the right choice. You
may even find you need more than one camera. For example, a bulky, heavy "Group
2/3" (see below) for serious photography and a low-end "Group 1" that's always with you in a
shirt-pocket or purse.
I judge all images at "comfortable viewing distance". Up to poster size, that
means around 2 - 3 ft. If a picture looks sharp at that distance, it is. Don't
pay attention to the sort of critic who runs up to your pictures with a 10,000
power German magnifier and after a detailed forensic examination more appropriate to a
criminal investigation pronounces your work a
lot of garbage. This is a "measurbator" or "pixel peeper". So, along with your objectives, consider
viewing distance. If you really intend close-up examination of your work
you will certainly want to avoid Group 1 cameras.
Similarly, if you plan making poster-size (larger than 16 X 20) images liable
to be seen at very close distance or examined with a magnifier, forget digital altogether for now. You will need a
medium or large format film camera.
Digicams have pretty much sorted themselves into three principle groups.
- Group 1 - Snapshooters: $200 -
$600. Typically in the 3 - 8 megapixel range
with a minimum of manual controls but offering extreme convenience - often
shirt-pocket size,
compactness and simplicity of operation. Many of these will take fine
pictures within the limitations
imposed by their small size. Perfectly suitable for
album shots, display on a
computer or TV (even HDTV), e-mail attachments and for prints to 8 x 10 size. Examples:
are the Panasonic TZ and Canon "G" series. This is a huge group with many
choices. If possible, avoid units with high pixel counts (8 - 12 mpix or more). You
won't get extra detail, just more noise and huge files.
- Group 2 - "Prosumer"
(semi-professional/advanced amateur) or super zoom: Around $600 - $1000. This category is coming
to be dominated by the "super zooms" such as the Panasonic FZ series. Usually
in the 5 - 10 megapixel range and offering up to 12X compact zoom in a package with
optional full manual controls. May have high image quality
sometimes suitable for prints to
11 x 14. These cameras may be almost as bulky as a DSLR but they
can deliver the goods for the serious photographer also interested in
detailed landscapes, wildlife and close-up (macro) photography. This category
aspires to the performance of the more expensive digital SLR (DSLR).
Examples: Panasonic DMC-FZ30/50, Sony H5. An important drawback to this class of
camera is the requirement for a small imaging sensor which is really the
only way these huge zoom ratios can be provided in a compact size and
weight of lens. These sensors will produce visible image noise at ISO 200 or
thereabouts and very possibly substantial shadow noise at even lower ISOs.
These cameras may also have more difficulty dealing with high contrast subjects.
Surprisingly good results in many circumstances but with serious limitations.
10 - 12 megapixel units will almost certainly not offer more detail than 8
mpix models and will be noisier. This price range has recently been invaded
by both Nikon and Canon offering superior, low noise "baby" DSLRs such as
the D60 and Digital Rebel having large sensors. If you don't mind the bulk,
these are superior choices. If you choose Nikon, there's even a "superzoom"
lens available although you will find the lens/body combination a good deal
bulkier and heavier than, for example, a Panasonic FZ50.
- Group 3 - dSLR/digital SLR ("professional"
and "semi-pro"): The most expense
at $1000 to "sky's the limit", heavy and large
but able to produce fine images under a much wider range of lighting situations
than other choices because of their large sensors. In the 8 - 16 megapixel range of sensor resolution and you
won't find the extra pixels chewed up by noise either. These units are something of a throwback to the film SLR
with flapping mechanical mirrors, viewfinder prisms and a susceptibility to dust
getting into their innards because of the interchangeable lens feature.
They have large imaging sensors with
consequent freedom from image noise and greater exposure latitude ("dynamic range" or ability to handle higher contrast images)
as well. These characteristics support usable high ISOs
(800 - 3200)
with consequently improved flexibility in selecting shutter speed/aperture combinations.
Lens interchangeability is standard. These cameras cater for
much the same sort of photographers as the Group 2's but the interchangeable
lenses and low-light capability are also attractive to professionals. Examples: Canon EOS
30D/40D, Nikon D80/D300/D3, Sony A700. Newcomers may find cameras from this group
very frustrating to learn and exploit fully.
DSLRs also make a lot
of sense if you already have a collection of compatible lenses from your film
SLR and, today, they offer significantly better response to a wide range of lighting
conditions than other types. Group 2 cameras
have somewhat closed the gap in terms of low noise, resolution and exposure
latitude but their small imaging sensors impose worrisome limitations on
further advances. Having every focal length you
need available right on the camera confers an advantage when
confronting a rapidly emerging photographic opportunity and this is the group's
main selling point. No one could possibly
miss that backpack or gadget bag full of lenses. Nevertheless,
if highest image
quality in most kinds of light is your priority, the DSLR is still the only way to go.
Beware the temptation to overbuy. If you visit the various photo forums on
the Web you will find many visitors who would have been 100% happy with a fully
automated snapshooter but blew big bucks on a DSLR and are now cranky and
miserable. They start threads begging for help with the simplest things or
complain bitterly about having to deal with all the controls. They seem to think
that having spent all that money they should be getting total user-friendliness
and that better images can be taken for granted. While dSLRs usually have an
"auto" mode, many new owners find the available "features" and
complexity irresistible, then get upset when they feel they are missing out on
something when they can't get it all to work. Check the opening commentary
"Digital vs. Film" for more on this subject.
- The megapixels game:
Don't be bamboozled! Digicams of all types are heavily marketed on the basis of how many
megapixels the imaging sensor has. That's because a simple number is easy to
advertise and - yes - all other things being equal (which is never the case), more megapixels
could be better. Even with good optics you will probably not see
the difference between a 5 megapixel and a 6 or even 7 megapixel camera.
You need a big jump like about 50% for visually apparent improvement unless
you view your images at very high magnification or do a lot of heavy
cropping.
In fact, crowding more and more pixels into the same size imaging sensor
raises noise levels in relation to picture information. Stay tuned for
advances in this area but for now, more pixels usually means a grainier, less
detailed image,
especially in low light. More likely, the manufacturer will employ
aggressive noise reduction which ruins detail. It's hard to find a digi with less than 5 mpix these
days and with a good lens that's enough to make great 8 x 10 prints. No matter what marketers say, you do not need more
than 5 megapixels for the photographic uses targeted by Group 1 cameras.
Don't make a buying decision within either of the three groups on the basis of
pixels. Concentrate on the features you need and optical quality. For the
latter, you can get details from the reviews referenced in the
introduction. Dpreview is especially useful.
- Geometric distortion (within reason): The main ones are
"barrel" and "pincushion". All
cameras (including film) suffer to some degree from these imaging defects. Unless your main
interest is architecture you will probably never notice and besides, most
imaging software knows how to fix these aberrations.
- Vignetting or shading (within reason): This is a
symmetrical darkening of the image away from the center, especially at wide-angle
and large apertures.
It's an unavoidable effect but worse in some lens designs than others. Some
vignetting may actually be desirable. Most prints look better if just a bit darker
around the edges. In any event, the effect is easily removed with
imaging software. Vignetting is often exacerbated by the use of filters which
progressively force light to pass through an increasing thickness of glass
from center to edge.
- Properietary batteries and memory: Some
people hate proprietary batteries and memory cards. Sony is
notorious for equipping their cameras with their own batteries and "memory
sticks". This is a personal thing and have never found it a
problem with my own Sony snapshooter. It's a "nit". Don't let anyone talk you out
of your choice because of a proprietary battery or memory unless you might be
spending a lot of time in the jungle where you cannot recharge your cam and
being able to use a pocket full of AA's would make sense. Similarly, it
doesn't matter if the camera uses SD, CF or other memory card technologies.
They all work just fine and are industry standard.
- Software in the box: Your digicam will come with
some bundled software. With most products you don't need any of this to download your pics to a
computer - it's all drag-and-drop over USB these days. Most of this stuff will
prove a nuisance (but watch for great exceptions, such as "Silkypix"
and "Capture NX") - largely
some sucker-bait (such as a heavily stripped down version of Photoshop) to get you to buy full versions or enticing you into
accepting e-mail ads for other products and upgrades. You will need software, of
course, but you can find what you need on the Internet. Check our
software page for suggestions. Ignore
bundled software when choosing a camera and budget for the good stuff you will
really want to have.
- In-camera image processing: Except for Group
1 cameras where you are likely stuck with it don't give high priority
to reviewer quibbles over camera image processing such as "could sharpen more
(or less)" etc. Group 2/3 cameras can selectively turn off or fine-tune in-camera processing
feature-by-feature
and you'll probably want to do your own on the PC anyway - at least for your
best work. If you plan shooting RAW, camera processing is irrelevant.
- Brand wars: By all means check the product
reviews but avoid getting caught up in the emotional "religious" warfare
amongst brand fanatics you will find on the Internet. Most of this debate is
a waste of time. If the product differences really were obvious there
would be no basis for controversy and everyone would be in agreement. Is
Canon better than Nikon? In some situations, perhaps, but in others not so. No
product is perfect and will always be inferior to the competition in some
respect if you look hard enough in the right places. It doesn't matter. You
will be happy with either a Canon or a Nikon (for example) unless you read
too many articles by people more interested in "pixel peeping" than taking
pictures. No matter what you buy you will always find someone who will trash
it and "prove" you made a foolish choice. Get to know your camera, exploit
its strengths and you will take great pictures. Do your blood pressure a favor once you
have bought a nice camera and avoid reading reviews for a couple of years.
- Sensor technology: You already know the
truth about megapixels. There's similar hype regarding CCD vs CMOS imaging.
The best imaging technology is CCD. That's why you don't see CMOS imagers in
astronomical applications. CMOS is often used in high-end cameras (both
Canon and Nikon) because it is very cheap to manufacture, especially in larger sensor sizes - so helps control cost.
Also, CMOS uses less power which helps extend battery life in these big,
heavily featured cameras. CMOS is
inherently noisy and pixel response is highly variable but - the CMOS
fabrication process supports putting a lot of electronics on the chip itself
(CCD process does not) so the manufacturer can incorporate noise reduction
right there where it's easy and inexpensive to do, thereby making something
of a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially if there's good in-camera
processing besides. And the cost stays low. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what technology
is used, so long as it delivers the results. Some photographers claim that CMOS technology with the
additional processing needed to reduce noise leads to diminished shadow detail.
This is the subject of more arguments and scarcely worth the serious
photographer's time. Both Nikon and Canon use CMOS in their more expensive
cameras. Ignore claims "CMOS is better". It's merely
different. Both technologies work well if
properly implemented. Concentrate on the results, not how they are obtained.
- Noise at high ISO: All images will have
some noise. An image that's sharp and properly exposed but with some visible
noise will be visually more pleasing than one that is out of focus, poorly
saturated and dull but noise-free. To make best use of photo opportunities
it's extremely useful having a reasonably clean ISO 400 or 800.
Where noise does become
problematic is if it can't be controlled at lower ISOs or in the shadows. Our
current crop of super-zooms and other "prosumer" units stumbles
in this area but if you do most of your work in good light, even that may
not matter. Don't get too excited over claims a camera has a clean ISO 3200.
It probably gets this by smearing fine detail. Do you really need noise-free
ISO 3200? If your digi is reasonably good at ISO 400 be happy because it's
already way ahead of what film could ever deliver.
- Avoid cameras/lenses with high chromatic aberration (CA) and/or "soft" images:
A small amount of CA is inevitable but should not be visible at comfortable
viewing distance from your display medium (print, monitor etc). Software can
correct some CA but the process is seldom perfect and may be tedious to apply.
Some image softness can be improved with processing but
full restoration of detail is impossible. A camera sharp in
the center of images but a bit soft at the outside may be OK as the eye
concentrates on the center anyway. All lenses have some fall-off in
sharpness toward the outside.
- Dynamic Range: A camera should be able to
record at least 8 EVs ("exposure values") of brightness with a single, balanced exposure.
Less than this seriously risks blowing the highlights or blocking up
the shadows, that is, losing detail in the brightest and/or darkest parts of
the image. Most DSLRs have no problem meeting this standard but snapshooters
and superzooms, with their tiny sensors, deliver best
results from subjects having a more constricted range of contrast. You will
want to pay extra attention to contrast with these. In the real
world contrast often exceeds 7 or 8 EVs and there is no
camera that can deal with this, much less a display device that could render
such extreme ranges of brightness to the eye. So, exposure is always
something of a compromise but an 8 - 10 EV range is a good complement for most
display media.
- Optical Image Stabilization (OIS/IS/OS/VR): OIS can do
more to improve the appearance of your images than just about anything else.
OIS is becoming standard but there are exceptions. It's worth paying extra to
have it. There's some debate whether it is best to have stabilization in the
lens (the Nikon/Canon way) or to provide it at the sensor so it works with
all lenses (Sony way). Lens based stabilization may have an advantage
because it can be engineered to suit the specific characteristics of the
lens itself. Both methods work so don't make a choice based on this alone.
- Pedigree and optics: Panasonic and Sony
use lenses made by the legendary German companies Leitz and Zeiss
and this contributes a great deal to the popularity of their products amongst
discerning photographers. The justly famous Japanese camera makers Nikon,
Canon and Olympus make their own superb lenses. There are
other good optics out there but you'll seldom go wrong with these.
Optics are
far more important than pixels in determining image quality.
- Group 3 cameras can't take videos (well, this just
in ... some "Live View" models now can): While most Group 1/2 models can,
don't expect quite the same quality as from a proper video cam but the results
are surprisingly good. This is a great feature to have for capturing "moving
moments" with sound. A 1 GB memory card can record 30 minutes or more of
quality video. That's way more than enough to bore your friends to death. Show
some mercy.
- Group 3 cameras provide true direct viewing through the lens
(TTL):
Many prefer this but be aware many of these cameras offer a dim view (Nikon is an
impressive exception). An Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) - typical of the Group
2's - providing it is a good one such as that in
the Panasonic DMC-FZ30 - effectively provides viewing through the lens with much
more information. It's a highly useful photographic tool.
- Group 3 cameras - at today's state of the art - will
deliver the best results over a wider range of lighting conditions: and
are the only ones that use/require interchangeable lenses - a curse (since
really long zooms aren't available for this class, except Nikon - recently
Canon) or an advantage, depending on your needs
and situation. DSLRs are the low-light/dynamic range champions and will do a
much better job with action and contrasty scenery shots. They also offer
the best detail for big enlargements and cropped images.
- Group 1 cameras have optical viewfinders which don't show you the exact field of view seen by the lens
(parallax error): This can be a problem when taking close-ups, unless you use the LCD screen (which may be
invisible in bright light). Even with high megapixel counts, the small lenses
can't produce images good enough to support large print sizes. High pixel
counts (8 - 12 mpix) in this group are nonsense because they result in
huge files and no extra detail.
- Group 1/2 cameras are apt to perform poorly in low light unless flash is
used: They are poor choices if you want to photograph indoor sporting
events such as gymnastics, where flash is not allowed. They will also get into
trouble with high contrast subjects.
- Only cameras from Group 1 offer "shirt-pocket" convenience: All the others
inconveniently hang
around your neck or require a bag of some sort to carry them. This is a more
important consideration than you might at first think. The best camera is the
one you will use, not the one you leave at home because it's a nuisance to
carry.
- Group 2 units offer the best combination of good
image quality and convenience: You always have the focal length
you need and there's usually plenty of resolution to support making reasonably large prints. The
fact they can almost instantaneously provide the combination of
characteristics you need makes them good for some types of nature photography.
Great travel cameras if you need to go light. If you have never used a high quality 12 X zoom you
don't know what you have been missing. But beware the severe limitations
in low light, in high contrast lighting or when requiring high ISO settings
(greater than 100). Note that Nikon now offers
an 18 - 200 mm (11 X) zoom for its DX format DSLRs making them into real
challengers for the focal length versatility advantage of the super-zooms.
Back to top
of page
|