miamizsun wrote: 
 
No friends answered the call....I'll be ok. Thanks!

 
(A boyscout troop would be even better)

 Alexandra wrote: 
stay safe and take/go with a friend

I didn't want to put this in the prayers/good vibes thread (which seems more suitable for people-issues).
 
Please wish me lots of luck in finding my digital camera which dropped out of my pocket on a hike yesterday. I decided it was worth going all the way back out in the Gorge to find (I wasn't given enough time to find it yesterday, since it was a group hike and they had to move on and I carpooled with people)—-because know the approximate area it happened, and feel if I do a lawnmower sweep I have a good chance. I will also notify the ranger in case of any turn-ins (although this particular area is a new park and not heavily traveled).
 
So...any good vibes are much appreciated.
 
Wish I knew a good boyscout troop willing to do a good deed and earn some badges.

 haresfur wrote: 
Wow. 65x optical, $500. That's pretty amazing.

 buzz wrote: 
I ended up buying a Canon Powershot SX60, although I realise it doesn't have as big a sensor as the grown-up cameras. It does shoot raw+jpeg. I think it is going to be good for me and I can always get something different if I really get to the point where the picture quality is the limiting factor instead of my skill level. 

The picture in the other thread was taken at maximum optical zoom handheld so I'm sold on image stabilisation.  Lots of options to learn but lots that seem basically useless to me. And a few that would be nice to have but are missing. The geekiest is controlling the camera from my cell phone. Still can't get it to talk to the computer over wifi though.

 swell_sailor wrote: 
Look for a camera that does Raw+JPEG. My Canon G15 does both as did the G9 before it. 
 
Learning Raw is not a terribly difficult thing if you have an interest. It is simply a series of steps most reasonably intelligent people could learn if they are willing to spend the time. I suppose it depends on how much improving your photography skills means to you.

 haresfur wrote: 

I've been shooting raw since 2001 and agree that to get the most out of your photos you should be shooting in raw. However, developing a raw file is not something learned overnight. Some people find they really don't have the time and are plenty happy with a jpeg. You might want to get your hands on some raw files and run them through your raw converter to see if it's something you really want to do. 

If your converter can batch convert based on in camera settings you can always convert to jpeg in batches while at the same time learning the craft one raw file at a time.

 buzz wrote: 
I was afraid you were going to say that. Seems it wouldn't have cost them any more to save raw files.

I realize that the lens gets slow, and probably the extreme of the zoom would be best avoided for artsy shots. The last time I owned a telephoto, it was a 135 mm on an all manual Minolta.  Think I had a 2x converter for it - talk about slow. Frankly I'm amazed at how much camera you can get these days. One of the reasons I've stuck with my pocket camera is that I figure the camera I take with me gets better pictures than one I leave at home (helps that it is waterproof). PhotographyBlog seems to prefer the Canon Powershot SX 60 but it is nearly twice as expensive here. 

 haresfur wrote: 
i cant comment on the camera model you mentioned, but if you are serious about image quality,  you must shoot raw. 
 
I would also be careful about superzooms. they will be very slow at the long end and probably a little soft.
 
When I get home I will look at the model you mentioned.  

I've been thinking about a new camera and have found one that I think may work for me, at a price I'm comfortable with - an Olympus Stylus SP-100EE. I'd like to be able to get better quality photos, particularly nature stuff. Obviously there are trade-offs but the main thing that concerns me is that it doesn't save raw format files. How important do you think that is for getting the most out of your shots? Any other opinions on these superzoom cameras? Too many compromises in the lens?  Thanks.

 mzpro5 wrote: 
Well, you know, I don't want to talk you out of an SLR if that's the direction you want to go. And of course, there's more to it than what I can cover in a paragraph or two. But I really do believe that if you don't take it further than the kit lens, there are lots of better options, some for much less money, like the Coolpix you mention above. I'll check it out.
Edit:

We all want something different in a camera. This camera looks nice enough, but there are a few things that might make me hesitate to buy it. The lens is pretty bright at the wide end, and not so bright at the long end. That will force longer exposures when fully zoomed, which might equate to poor quality images except on a bright sunny day. The zoom (26x) is far more than I can imagine needing, especially when it's common for optical quality to suffer when we stretch technology to such a degree and put it into a rather inexpensive package. Less might be more in this case. In other words, a $200 camera with a 4x or 8x lens might actually deliver better images throughout it's zoom range than this 26x camera through the same zoom range. Also, while it's not a requirement for me, many people love an articulating LCD, which this camera does not have. Maybe you don't need one either. 

Some things to consider. 

And to correct what I was saying earlier about buzz, I think he's using the G15 now. I think I said he was using a G12. 

 swell_sailor wrote: 



thanks for the info.

Well maybe it is a bit overkill. I can get this Nikon COOLPIX L810 16.1 MP Digital Camera with 26x Zoom NIKKOR ED Glass Lens and 3-inch LCD for a little less than $200 and 6 month free financing, probably more like something I should get.

 mzpro5 wrote: 
There are at least a couple of advantages to an SLR over a compact (point and shoot) camera. One is that they typically use a larger sensor, which can lead to smoother looking images, but this may be less true with modern sensors. The other is lens options. If you want to swap between several high quality lenses, you want a camera that takes interchangeable lenses. But there are lots of disadvantages too, which is why (I suspect) a guy like buzz who can shoot with whatever he likes, chooses to shoot (for fun) with a Canon G12 instead of an SLR. Smaller cameras with a permanently attached lens travel better. They're easier to have with you at all times, which is how you get good pictures. (IMO) Kit lenses are not typically the best quality (like the included 18-55) and images from a camera like the G12 will often better it. (again, IMO)

So in my opinion (whatever that's worth) if you plan to buy an SLR and shoot with the kit lens, you'd be better off not buying an SLR. If you intend to add two or three high quality lenses to your kit, then you'll want the SLR. Keep in mind though, that in the end the body itself may be the cheapest part of the kit, and will likely influence image quality less than the lenses, so you'll want to have an idea about the lenses you'll eventually want before you pick the body to mount them to.

I'm rambling......... 

For me the SLR body is more about feel. It's hard to find an SLR that won't take nice pictures, providing the lenses and the photographer are up to the task. What feels best in your hands, and has the controls where you want them, is likely a good candidate.

Edit:

Here's a review of the camera you're considering. 

 MsJudi wrote:
I guess I'm used to older (pre-digital-era) tripods, but I don't remember seeing ones where the camera base could not be tilted 90°.  I guess those "Gorillapods" don't really have pivoting bases.  I've seen some relatively inexpensive tripods with tilting bases (about $15.00), in Target or Walmart circulars, but I'm not sure how sturdy they are.

Anyhow, I'm curious: What sort of artwork/medium would you be shooting?  I had though of doing similar tutorial type things myself.

Considering a new camera and thinking about getting into the DSLR world.



Normally at this time I would not consider getting a new camera as I am saving funds but I can get this one for 24 months same as cash.



So you shutterbugs is this a good one?

 MsJudi wrote:
 
Maybe it's just our neighborhood, but I'm constantly amazed at what people take to Goodwill. Last week there was a UT baseball cap with Earl Campbell's autograph on the bill. Seriously? At Goodwill?

But camera tripods are a common item. I bet you could find several for $10 or less.

 buzz wrote: 
agh, right. I always forget that.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
That may work in the Southern hemisphere, but not up here on the top of the world.

 MsJudi wrote: 
Have you tried putting the tripod on the ceiling, facing downwards?

 cc_rider wrote: 
Not so crazy: I tried that, but ti didn't work LOL.

I'll check Goodwill, though... can't afford a new tripod ATM, I think any expense beyond the pool right now could land me in divorce court.