Camera Advice

[RSBreth]

All really good advice here - I used to use a Canon SLR back in the film days but since digital I just use a point and shoot for the regular "grip and grin" shots. Too much of a hassle to dig something like that out every time I want to shoot a quick picture like Al said. But if you want the best pictures possible - you gotta go with quality versus ease of use and the "I dropped in in the river- oh well, it was only 80 bucks".

[Al Agnew]

I gotta say that a good waterproof point and shoot will give you photos that, unless you're wanting to sell them to a magazine for their front cover, will be as good as anybody would want...except that you don't have all the options for shooting in less than optimum conditions and adjusting for odd lighting situations that you do with a DSLR. If you're hand-holding for all your shots and not carrying along a tripod, you'll probably be pretty happy with anything you get with a point and shoot with enough megapixels.

[Brownie Whisperer]

So Mr. Agnew which P&S do you use? (Not to hyjack the thread)

[drs7558]

Take a look at the Lumix DMC-F200. You won't find it in any camera stores, you'll have to order it from an Internet camera store. Its an unbelievable camera. I took a chance, never held the camera in my hands before ordering one on the internet. I'll never need another camera or lense. Read about it you'll see.

[Al Agnew]

Right now I'm using a Nikon Coolpix AW100. I can't say it's the best waterproof point and shoot out there because I haven't tried all that many of them, but it does a good job, and I got it cheap in a deal I made for a bunch of other camera stuff from the camera store in Bozeman (which sells cameras and lenses about as cheap as any of the New York mail order places. The only thing I don't like about it is that there is no protection for the lens, unlike a couple of the other point and shoots I've owned. I've owned waterproof point and shoots from Olympus and Pentax previously, and both lasted about 4 years before something went wrong, and when something goes wrong on a point and shoot nobody will try to fix it, they just tell you to buy a new one.

[Nick Williams]

Finally responding..... There's been some great info and points here! I guess I should have said in the beginning what I want it for/what it will be used for. I doubt that she will be letting me take it out on the river any time soon, BUT I WILL try! Unless I am in a drift boat or water (very)tight kayak where it will be safe from all things that kill cameras, then it may not be that big of a deal. However, I am sure it will be used for wildlife/nature/trips, and more often it will be used for family pictures, youth events, videos (fishing, family, kids, youth)... so it would have many different applications.

I already have an Iphone, and a gopro, and though they're two different cameras, they do 'cover the bases.' Though a P&S would be cool, as there are some nice ones out there! So, what I seem to be getting is that you get what you pay for, and Nikon and Canon both have their pros and cons, and I should make sure to spend the money on lenses if I can.

Here's another question: I see DSLR's ranging from like 12mp to 24mp, in a respectable price range, anyways, so how big of a different do MP really make? And if we buy a package deal, camera and lens or lenses, etc. is it better to buy a camera with more mp's and only one lense, or a camera with fewer mp's and multiple lenses. A quick search brings up these examples: http://www.target.com/p/nikon-d3200-24-2mp-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-vr-lens-black-25492/-/A-14129489?reco=Rec|pdp|14129489|ClickCP|item_page.new_vertical_1&lnk=Rec|pdp|ClickCP|item_page.new_vertical_1

http://www.target.com/p/nikon-d3100-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-55-200mm-lenses-black/-/A-14516685?reco=Rec|pdp|14516685|ViewedPurchasedPercent|item_page.new_vertical_1&lnk=Rec|pdp|ViewedPurchasedPercent|item_page.new_vertical_1

For those of you who have used DSLR's for some time, how did you learn to use it with all the different settings and lenses?

[lee G.]

I'll post on this, I have read that after about 6 or 8 mp you cant tell much difference for most applications , except for big enlargements, that being said, most cameras are 14 to 24 mp now.

Two lens should cover almost everything, say a 15mm to 200mm range (zoom).

And the different settings make the difference between good photos and great photos, so learn that instead of shooting on Auto.

Ness go ahead, you are more knowledgeable than I am on this, I am out dated, lol.

[lee G.]

Oh and from i read, there isn't much difference between the 3100 and the 3200 for most people.

Thats not a bad price for the 3100 with two lens.

And as how did I learn, with no cost for film, you can shoot thousands of photos for just the charge on the battery's.

So Shoot and look at the pic, change settings, play around, you will find out how to make pics you like, thats all that counts!

[Nick Williams]

  On 8/9/2013 at 8:55 PM, lee G. said:

I'll post on this, I have read that after about 6 or 8 mp you cant tell much difference for most applications , except for big enlargements, that being said, most cameras are 14 to 24 mp now.

Two lens should cover almost everything, say a 15mm to 200mm range (zoom).

And the different settings make the difference between good photos and great photos, so learn that instead of shooting on Auto.

Ness go ahead, you are more knowledgeable than I am on this, I am out dated, lol.

So, which is better? Maybe a dumb question, but just trying to grasp mp vs. lenses and zooming in in my head.... lets use the example of a bird in a tree... Taking a picture with 24 mp and then zooming in on the actual picture to what you want to see vs. having the correct lens and zooming in before even taking the picture? Not that I won't invest in another lens in the future, but I feel like having a clearer crisper result to work with would be tons easier.

  On 8/9/2013 at 9:00 PM, lee G. said:

Oh and from i read, there isn't much difference between the 3100 and the 3200 for most people.

Thats not a bad price for the 3100 with two lens.

And as how did I learn, with no cost for film, you can shoot thousands of photos for just the charge on the battery's.

So Shoot and look at the pic, change settings, play around, you will find out how to make pics you like, thats all that counts!

That's definitely one way of learning! That's all I do with my gopro, unfortunately I don't care for the LCD touch screen they have available, it is not the same as looking at it on my mac.

[ness]

Megapixels aren't nearly as important as the marketing would make you think. In fact, there are downsides to a lot of megapixels.

Here's an example -- the first screen shot includes a picture I took. It's at a usable size on a monitor. But if I show it full-sized you see how much bigger the real picture is. Too big for a monitor, so the program basically throws away information to make it fit.

Unless you're planning on very large prints, or looking at the stuff on a very large screen, there's not a lot of benefit to the extra MP. And, you're going to use up card/disk space faster and download times will be slower. Just not a lot of benefit to big megapixels for the vast majority of people.

I didn't look too closely at the specs on the two cameras, but I suspect you could sum it up by saying the extra 12 MP cost you the second lens and $50. Decent bodies -- I'd say look for better lenses.