This article was written by the New York Institute of Photography, America’s oldest and largest photography school. NYI provides professional-level training via home study for photographers who want to give their images a professional look, and perhaps earn extra income with their camera.
Going Digital? — A Guide
to Chosing the Right Camera
By Richard Martin, NYI Contributing Editor
Ok, you've decided to take the plunge and buy a digital camera.
Or perhaps you already own one and are considering upgrading to a better
model. Either way, you may be intimidated by the bewildering array of choices
out there. So what do you do?
First of all, keep in mind there are two basic types
of digital — Digital Single Lens Reflexes (DSLR's for short) and
smaller compact models, commonly referred to as "point-and-shoots". DSLR's
offer interchangeable lens capability, true through-the-lens viewfinders,
fast operation, and generally low digital noise. If you currently own a
35mm SLR you'll find the transition to a DSLR relatively painless and in
fact you may be able to use lenses you already have. Canon EF lenses will
work just fine on any Canon digital, ditto for Nikon, Minolta, and Pentax
lenses originally designed for their 35mm models. However, some lenses
may not have full functionality on the digital body.
DSLR's are the preferred choice of professional photographers everywhere,
especially photojournalists, so buying one is a "no brainer", right? Well,
there are downsides to consider. Let me mention one in particular, digital's "dirty
little secret" — dust on the sensor. Every time you change lenses
you expose the interior of the camera to the outside environment. Many
users habitually point the camera down when changing lenses in the hope
that such a position will minimize the chances of dust blowing into the
interior. But what's the big deal? You can just use one of those sensor
cleaning brushes or a blower (better not use canned air for the latter;
the propellant might get on the sensor) and the problem is gone. Or is
it? How serious a problem is sensor dust? Well, if you often shoot at wide
apertures you may not even see it. Also, it's more likely to be noticeable
in areas of uniform density on the image, like clear sky, rather where
you have lots of busy detail. Dust specs will likely be more visible on
large prints. If you mostly make 4 x 6 inch prints, you can probably forget
about it. Finally, the dust specs can be easily spotted out in Photoshop
or other image editor but keep in mind those specs will be on every single
frame as long as the dust is there. As someone who spent countless hours
spotting Kodachrome scans (ICE, that wonderful dust and scratch removal
program, doesn't work on most Kodachrome) I can tell you it's no fun.
Sensor dust (the dust is not on the sensor itself but rather on a filter
in front of the sensor) is a fact of life when using a DSLR.
I don't want to belabor this dust issue with DSLR's. These
cameras offer compelling reasons to purchase them rather than a point-and-shoot.
And the cost, at least for entry-level models, has fallen dramatically
over the last year or two. For example, the Nikon
D50 with an 18-55mm lens
retails for about $699 as of this writing. Canon and Pentax offer
similar models with a lens for under $1000 and all these cameras are quite
capable of high-quality results.
But what about point-and-shoot cameras? Well, if you want something small
that can be slipped into a pants or jacket pocket, these little beauties
are the only way to go. (I'm not discussing camera phones here. They're
fun but I consider them to be toys, at least at this stage in their development,
not
"serious" imaging tools). Point-and-shoots themselves break down into two
types – those with electronic viewfinders (EVF's) and those equipped
with optical ones (actually there's a third type – those that feature
only an LCD monitor). The latter viewing systems should not be confused
with through-the-lens SLR's. They are not remotely similar. The expression
"tunnel vision" vividly describes the tiny and cramped view typical with
the optical point-and-shoots. And they usually don't display any camera
information like shutter speed and f/stop. You must access that info via
the LCD monitor. The most you see in the optical viewfinder is an autofocus
indicator. There's a heavy crop factor too which is one reason to frame
your subject with the LCD monitor on these models whenever practical. The
EVF's on the other hand generally show all the information that is normally
visible on the camera's monitor. That's very handy when very bright conditions
make it difficult (or impossible) to see what the monitor is displaying.
The big "plus" with the point-and-shoot models is
"live preview". You see the visual effect of exposure and white balance
settings BEFORE you take the picture. Very nice. With DSLR's these things
are only visible in Playback mode. And you can compose and shoot while
looking at the image on the LCD monitor, which often flips out and rotates
for a more comfortable viewing position. Then too, sensor dust is not usually
an issue with these since the lens doesn't come off. What more could you want?
But what about the "minuses"?
Well, there are plenty of them. Excessive noise, especially at the higher
ISO settings, for one, largely a consequence of the tiny sensors (the new Sony
Cybershot DSC-R1 sports a larger one and may perform better, noise-wise).
The 8MP models are arguably the worst in this regard though they are fine
at 100 ISO. Of course, you can apply a noise reduction program like Neat
Image, Dfine, or Noise Ninja but noise reduction, whether post capture
or in-camera, inevitably entails some softness and loss of detail. It's
a bit of a trade-off.
Another tradeoff is operating speed. Compared to
DSLR's they are really sluggish, especially in burst (sequence) mode or
when shooting RAW. Combine these two shooting modes and you may have enough
time to make a phone call while you wait! The cameras typically lock up
(meaning you can't take any pictures) while the images are processed and
written to the memory card. As for "tunnel vision", the EVF's exhibit this
too because of low viewfinder magnification (so do some SLR's, digital
or film, for that matter), though the display is usually close to 100%
of what the sensor is capturing. But the brightness and clarity you see
in an SLR's viewing system simply isn't there in an EVF. Speaking of monitors,
larger ones are all in vogue this year with the size champ currently on
the Samsung Pro 815 – 3.5 inches. This camera also comes equipped
with a very long-range zoom lens, 28-420mm (35mm equivalent) but sadly
no image stabilization.
By the way, let me insert a word of warning here. If you are new to digital,
don't be misled by claims that the better EVF's are "SLR-like". That's
marketing baloney floated by certain manufacturers. In no way are the EVF's
comparable to SLR's.
Is lens interchangeability important to you? Then forget the point-and-shoot
models. Want to capture sports or other fast action? Then get a DSLR. The
response time of the point-and-shoots is way too slow for those subjects.
In fact, is there ANY reason to buy a point-and-shoot unless you want something
that will fit in your pocket? After all, the better EVF's are not small and
not light. The Sony
Cybershot DSC-R1, for example, weighs in at over two pounds
(995g). On the other hand, the Sony
Cybershot DSC-T7 weighs only 4.1 oz (115g),
a little more when you add a battery and memory card. Naturally the DSC-T7
doesn't have anywhere near the capability of its heavier brother, the R1,
but it's definitely pocketable. Well, as always, buying a camera depends on
two factors: your needs (or maybe desires) and your budget.
Going pro or already one? Then the only decision
is which DSLR to get and that brings the second factor, budget, into play.
Can you afford the really high-end models like the Nikon
D2X or the Canon
1Ds MK II? Pro bodies like these have dust and moisture seals over
the camera's seams, use lubricants that last longer and operate over a
wider temperature range, and are probably subjected to more stringent quality
control in their construction. They will generally stand up to heavy professional
use. They contain less plastic too as the bodies are commonly made of magnesium
alloy or something similar. If you need those refinements, great. Otherwise,
one of the less costly models like the Canon
20D or the new Nikon
D200 will
likely do just as well. Still too expensive (the D200 currently sells for
$1700, body only)? Nikon, Canon, and Pentax offer many less expensive choices.
And if you happen to have a bunch of Minolta Maxxum lenses, don't discount
the Konica-Minolta 7D or 5D.
That brand name may be disappearing from the camera scene (you can read
about it on this Website)
but those cameras measure up and feature K-M's version of image stabilization — right
in the camera body.
If all this sounds like I am recommending that you purchase a DSLR rather
than an EVF, I am. The latter are sometimes just as expensive as the former
so you don't necessarily save money by going the EVF route. I still use
an EVF and I know there are new models on the market. But I feel that EVF's
day has passed. Camera phone anyone?