Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 19, 2005, 7:35 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3

hello, I dont live any where close to a camera shop unless u count wal-mart i have read good things on the S9000 but my plan is to become a pro photographer will this fill my needs or should i just go to a SLR cam and can they take mult. pics I guess it is called burst, or do u need added equipt. i need most out of my dollar to get started thanks
capturedlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 19, 2005, 8:37 PM   #2
Senior Member
airshowfan's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 115

SLRs can take pictures in burst mode. Much better than most fixed-lens cameras actually, since they can take more shots per second and allow you to see what you're doing (through the viewfinder) between shots. But the S9000 has a pretty versatile lens: fast, long, and with good macro. A collection of SLR lenses that can do all that (you'd probably need 2 or 3) would cost quite a bit of money, at least as much as the cost of an entry-level SLR itself.
airshowfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2005, 9:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
nickphoto123's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356

If you are just starting out, the S9000 would be the cheapest means to learn most of the types of photography Pros do for a living.

Once you learn about light, posing, color, etc., you can then decide which type of pro level equipment you would want to buy.

Don't box yourself into the Nikon, Canon, etc., corner by buying one of their cameras.

There are many, many digital photogs using various digital brands only because they had a lens from their same brand film camera.

The S9000 is an excellent learning tool at a very cheap price point. And you can remain flexible for the even more amazing cameras to be released in 2006-2007. Use the time to learn your skill. To do this, the s9000 is all you need, IMHO.

Hope some of this helps.

Regards, Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2005, 9:36 PM   #4
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 55

If you can afford a DSLR then you should get one. The image quality as far as noise is far superior to any non-SLR camera because of the physical characteristics of a DSLR it has a larger CCD you can get better images at high ISOs with a DSLR than you can with other cameras. And if you intend to do professional work many places you submit photos to will not accept images from a non-SLR camera and they can tell by the image quality. Once you are there you may be able to get away with it but they wont accept your portfolio otherwise.

The other reasons a DSLR is better is that it is like a film SLR it has a mirror and the image you see in the viewfinder is through the lens it also lets you follow your subject somthing that is not possible with non SLR cameras because it dosnt pause the screen during pictures. There are work arounds for non SLR cameras such as mounting a gun scope to the hot shoe but professionally it looks a bit redneck IMHO

If you cant afford a DSLR and all the lenses then the Fuji is a good alternative. I looked at the Fuji but chose the Panasonic FZ20 I was more impressed with theFZ20 after scrutinizing the images Fuji was bragging about as far as natural light and high ISO, the FZ20 has much sharper images and I can get very natural images with my FZ20. Also the FZ20 has a very fast lens with 2.8 through the entire zoom of the lens, somthing few lensescan claim.
mnosbor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2005, 11:28 PM   #5
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3

thank for the info I had to laugh about the gun scope and it being "red neck" LOL i live in a southern state omg that was too funny I can laugh i was not born here thanks again and back to researching
capturedlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2005, 4:23 AM   #6
Senior Member
E.T's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921

airshowfan wrote:
A collection of SLR lenses that can do all that (you'd probably need 2 or 3) would cost quite a bit of money, at least as much as the cost of an entry-level SLR itself.
Good quality fast zoom lenses cost very propably considerably more than camera body. (and then you would still need separate lens for any kind macrophotography)

And need for fast burst depends on what you photograph. I don't do action photography where burst are necessary and actually never run out of buffer in normal photographing while taking JPEGs with Minolta 7i. (almost four years old model)
Neither did its screen went black between shots or freeze.

Now with KM A2 and latest firmware it would be really hard to fill buffer with JPEGs in ordinary photography. Also it can take lot of RAWs at space used in ordinary photography. (and then it would be ready for next shot in few seconds)

mnosbor wrote:
The image quality as far as noise is far superior to any non-SLR
And now you need again something more than cheapest lenses, sensor behind doesn't matter if there's general El Cheapo glass in front of it.

And good RAW conversion and processing is equally important for good detail capture.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...200/page12.asp (compare those three crops)

Same applies for noise, good conversion/processing can give much better results than what in-camera processing gives, especially when JPEG compression makes noise much worser.
Like this, stated as noisy by reviewers, Sony 2/3" 8MP sensor in KM A2 (and A200) which is capable to good results for non-SLR sized sensor... propably very close/equal to Fuji.

Sensor in S9000/9500 itself isn't much less noisier, it's just that Fuji uses very powerfull in-camera noise reduction, even lower ISO raws are quite noisy when you remember how Fuji touts this sensor/camera:

Also some parts of SLR design cause bigger disadvantages compared to non-SLRs, first of all noisy shutter... "post preview" of shot taken, you'll able to see resulting exposure only after taking shot... Then for general use like in vacations they lack completely any kind video mode, all good non-SLR digicams take video which is equal/better than VHS quality and it can sometimes save the day.
So both sides are compromises, prosumers can give lot of features in small convenient all in one package while dSLRs enable ultimate versatility (if forgetting video clips) and quality and pretty completely noses free P&S ISOs but price from that is high, both economically and physically (bag of lenses ain't light), and also part of convenience is on sacrifice list.
And which one is better for particular case depends on required features, usage and such.

Here's some comparison between usability of top end prosumer and dSLR.

The A2's focal length (in 35mm equivalent) ranges from 28mm to 200mm...
For the part of DSLRs, a much wider range of focal length can chosen from. Single lenses even exist with 7X to 10X zoom to match the convenience of the A2. However, these lenses come with the price of reduced image quality and slower apertures. Lenses with large zoom ranges usually have slow maximum apertures such as F3.5-F6.3, which at the telephoto end, is much slower than the A2's F3.5 at 200mm (300mm with accessory lens). This is important when considering the need for high ISO settings. A similar shutter speed at F3.5 with ISO 200 and at F6.3 with ISO 800 would produce the same exposure.

High ISO settings are used to achieve higher shutter speeds either to freeze action or prevent camera shake in hand-help photography. The Konica-Minolta A2 has an Anti-Shake system which reduces camera shake. It turns out that the anti-shake system works exceptionally well. So well that in cases where ISO 1600 does not allow a sufficiently fast shutter speed for hand-held photography with the 20D, the A2 managed to produce quite sharp and noise-free pictures using only ISO 200.

Image quality, while not up to that from a good DSLR, is quite good, and I easily was able to produce some exhibition and publication quality images with it.

capturedlight, if you haven't noticed there's whole religion around SLRs (from film era when cameras were either point&prays or SLRs) with its holy cow worshipping extremists... for a some reason that relic has evaded modernization or mothballing and shipping to museum.

And remember that camera is just half of the equation, much depends on methods and using strong points of equipment. Aesthetic side is also other thing, technically correct exposure can give much less impressive result than manually adjusted exposure. (which is much easier with non-SLRs because you have live preview and histogram)
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:04 AM.