Debating between cameras

[hexdragon]

I keep flip flopping between two camera models.

 

My BIL purchased a Nikon D5000 last year and he let me use it. It is sweet, but pricey (for me).

 

I just saw the new Kodak Z990. It looks capable, has up to a 30x zoom (840mm) and I have an older DX model that I took to Scotland and Hawaii... It is also 1/3 the cost of the Nikon...

 

Is the image quality worth the extra money for the Nikon??? I assume that the Nikon is also faster than the Kodak (focusing, data storage, ect)

[johneeo]

I keep flip flopping between two camera models.

 

My BIL purchased a Nikon D5000 last year and he let me use it. It is sweet, but pricey (for me).

 

I just saw the new Kodak Z990. It looks capable, has up to a 30x zoom (840mm) and I have an older DX model that I took to Scotland and Hawaii... It is also 1/3 the cost of the Nikon...

 

Is the image quality worth the extra money for the Nikon??? I assume that the Nikon is also faster than the Kodak (focusing, data storage, ect)

 

I have the D5000, like it a lot.

 

But, it is obsolete, pretty much replaced by the D3100.

[picsboy]

I keep flip flopping between two camera models.

 

My BIL purchased a Nikon D5000 last year and he let me use it. It is sweet, but pricey (for me).

 

I just saw the new Kodak Z990. It looks capable, has up to a 30x zoom (840mm) and I have an older DX model that I took to Scotland and Hawaii... It is also 1/3 the cost of the Nikon...

 

Is the image quality worth the extra money for the Nikon??? I assume that the Nikon is also faster than the Kodak (focusing, data storage, ect)

 

Hmmm, whether the difference in image quality between these 2 cameras is worth it is really up to the individual person. You're comparing a point-and-shoot camera to a dSLR. Comparing these 2 types of cameras is like comparing a compact car (the Kodak Z990) to a sports car (Nikon D5000). Both will get you to where you're going, but is the difference worth it to you? Only you can decide.

 

For me, the difference is worth it. I want pictures that are razor-sharp. I want to be able to capture pictures in low-low-light (often requiring a different lens). I want to be able to capture fast-action subjects with no blur and minimum shutter delay or shutter lag. I want the flexibility to attach an external flash (which is more powerful than the built-in flash) and be creative with my lighting.

 

Because of this, I'm willing to put up with the downsides of dSLR photography. As you've already mentioned, dSLRs are pricier than point-and-shoot cameras, but the spending doesn't end there. Pretty soon, dSLR owners lust after and purchase lens after lens after lens, as well as accessories such as an external flash. dSLRs and their associated gear are heavier to travel with than a point-and-shoot camera, depending on how many dSLR lenses & accessories you travel with. dSLRs are less compact and perhaps less convenient than point-and-shoot cameras.

 

I tried looking through sample photos from the Kodak Z990. I found a Flickr group dedicated to this camera (http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodkz990/pool/). At first glance, the photos look beautiful. But when I zoom in to the original size, I see that the images are a little "soft", not as razor-sharp as what a dSLR could capture. In my experience, this is actually quite common when comparing images from point-and-shoot cameras to those from dSLRs.

 

Part of it is the sensor size. The Kodak Z990, like many point-and-shoot cameras, has a tiny sensor (6.12 x 4.51 mm = 27.6 mm2). On the other hand, the Nikon D5000 has a much much larger sensor size (23.6 x 15.8 mm = 372.9 mm2) -- that's 13.5 times larger sensor than the Kodak Z990. A larger sensor allows the camera to gather more light (that's what photography's about) and to produce higher image quality. Imagine cramming 12 megapixels into a tiny tiny sensor vs. spreading those 12 megapixels over a much larger sensor area. Cramming megapixels into a tiny sensor will certainly affect the image quality in a bad way. In low light-situations, you can get lots of "noise" in photos from these tiny sensors.

 

I also don't like shutter lag (the time it takes between 2 successive photos). dSLRs are usually TONS faster than point-and-shoot cameras. dSLRs can usually shoot about 3-10 fps (frames per second) in burst mode, depending on the camera model. The Kodak tries to give you a whopping 60 fps in burst mode! But the caveat, though, is that these photos are 2 megapixels in size, not the 12 megapixel images you'd normally want. dSLRs, on the other hand, give you full-size photos in burst mode.

 

The 30x zoom (up to an equivalent 840mm focal length) is certainly eye-opening and a very attractive feature. However, to use that long a focal length, the photographer must make sure to hold the camera very very VERY still. When you zoom in that far, any tiny shake of the camera will show up as a large movement in the viewfinder. While image stabilization will help, I'm not sure that it'll completely remove the effects of camera shake at 30x zoom (840mm). You can probably get away with it during bright daylight, when the camera uses fast fast shutter speeds. But if you try zooming to 30x (840mm) in low-light situations, your camera will select slow shutter speeds, which may give you blurry photos if you're not using a tripod or holding your camera super-still.

 

In reviewing the specs for the Kodak Z990, it looks like this camera also adds a lot of neat and interesting features to make photography fun for the consumer, with different artistic effects (like HDR, dramatic, night scene, and intelligent exposure) and different film effects (like Kodachrome, sepia, etc). The panorama mode sounds neat. Looks like Kodak includes lots of "intelligent" features into this camera.

 

This camera also includes different modes (like P, A, S, and M) so you can use this camera to learn the basics of photography (ie. aperture, shutter speed, and ISO). From there, you can translate these skills into using a dSLR camera.

 

Ultimately, though, the Kodak Z990 is a point-and-shoot camera. For me, it's all about the image quality. Even though point-and-shoot cameras get better and better each year, the tiny tiny sensors of point-and-shoot cameras can't produce the image quality I want. That's why I'm willing to put up with the many disadvantages of dSLRs I listed above.

 

For many people, a point-and-shoot camera produces images that are good enough for their uses, especially at an affordable price point and with minimal hassle (don't need to worry about "camera settings"). As long as you're not enlarging the photos (either on-screen or in print) or cropping them a bunch, then it probably is good enough.

 

So, is the difference between these 2 cameras worth it? The answer will be different for different people, but at least I've outlined the major differences between point-and-shoot cameras and dSLR cameras. Only you can decide whether these differences are important enough to you.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

 

 

btw, having a dSLR doesn't mean that your pictures are automatically sharper or better. There's still a learning curve with dSLR cameras. dSLR photos in "Auto" mode can still be quite impressive, compared to point-and-shoot photos. But once you've learned more about using dSLR cameras, you'll find that fast, razor-sharp photos (sometimes with a blurry background) can be very very addicting!

[johneeo]

Excellent points.

 

One more. Since going to DSLR, I have found a whole new world shooting in RAW.

 

I find it amazing what I can do with post processing software working with RAW pix.

[pierces]

I keep flip flopping between two camera models.

 

My BIL purchased a Nikon D5000 last year and he let me use it. It is sweet, but pricey (for me).

 

I just saw the new Kodak Z990. It looks capable, has up to a 30x zoom (840mm) and I have an older DX model that I took to Scotland and Hawaii... It is also 1/3 the cost of the Nikon...

 

Is the image quality worth the extra money for the Nikon??? I assume that the Nikon is also faster than the Kodak (focusing, data storage, ect)

 

As was said earlier, image quality is better in a DSLR. First you have to ask yourself if you need it. If you typically post images on the web or print 4x6s for scrapbooks or albums, almost any point and shoot on the market today will produce technically excellent images in the hands of even the most casual photographer. (I said "technically excellent". A sharp, perfectly exposed but poorly composed image of an uninteresting subject will still suck! :D)

 

In addition to the image quality difference, the speed difference is only important if you need it. Shutter lag actually refers to the time between when you press the shutter and when the image is captured. If you shoot a lot of action, the DSLRs phase-detect autofocus and short press to release lag time will be of great value. According to tests by Imaging Resource, the D5000 will fully focus and fire the shutter in .276 seconds from first press to release where the contrast-detect AF and less sophisticated focusing motors on the Kodak could take well over a second. Both fire pretty quickly if pre-focused, but sports and grandkids are notoriously uncooperative when it comes to pre-focusing opportunities. The burst rate refers to how much (or little) time there is between shots while shooting in continuous mode. Both shoot at up to 4 frames per second, but the Kodak has to pause after only four frames to clear the buffer to the card while the D5000 will blast away for more than 60 frames before slowing down (11 frames shooting RAW format). As previously mentioned, the Kodak shoots up to 60 frames per second, but the images are very small. Good for analyzing a golf or tennis swing, but would make a lousy enlargement of your kid hitting a home run.

 

Then there's the cool factor...set need aside and ask if you WANT it! ;)

 

Happy shooting! Whatever your decision.

 

Dave

[awboater]

Besides, if you had a Nikon - you could borrow your BIL's lenses...

[pierces]

Excellent points.

 

One more. Since going to DSLR, I have found a whole new world shooting in RAW.

 

I find it amazing what I can do with post processing software working with RAW pix.

 

Most people don't really need or want the considerably more complex post-processing needed to shoot RAW. Frankly, I've found that for most of the ones that do shoot RAW don't really need to either. I'm not dismissing the practice or disagreeing with those who do. Rather, I think it's like using a block plane and gouges to shape lumber instead of a belt sander and a router. The results are usually identical but there's a feeling of involvement in the craft.

 

Personally, I shoot RAW when there is a need such as mixed or bad light but as a general practice I shoot JPEG. A properly exposed image in a modern camera doesn't really benefit from RAW post processing enough to make it worth my time (which I have precious little of anymore). Besides, I've yet to catch my family members scanning the shadow density for noise at 100% zoom while looking at photos of last year's Easter egg hunt! :D

 

Dave

[johneeo]

Most people don't really need or want the considerably more complex post-processing needed to shoot RAW. Frankly, I've found that for most of the ones that do shoot RAW don't really need to either. I'm not dismissing the practice or disagreeing with those who do. Rather, I think it's like using a block plane and gouges to shape lumber instead of a belt sander and a router. The results are usually identical but there's a feeling of involvement in the craft.

 

Personally, I shoot RAW when there is a need such as mixed or bad light but as a general practice I shoot JPEG. A properly exposed image in a modern camera doesn't really benefit from RAW post processing enough to make it worth my time (which I have precious little of anymore). Besides, I've yet to catch my family members scanning the shadow density for noise at 100% zoom while looking at photos of last year's Easter egg hunt! :D

 

Dave

 

When I shoot, I get both a RAW and a JPEG.

 

Almost all the time, I can take the RAW, and improve it so much over what the JPEG gives me. I find the difference incredible.

[awboater]

Yep, I also do RAW + JPG, if for no other reason than for archiving the photos in RAW format.

 

But I have even heard criticism of that. Some say that the RAW photo will be changed by the camera settings for JPG. While this might be true in some cameras, but it is not in mine. I like to shoot with Vivid set in my camera, and when I compare the RAW and JPG photos in Lightroom - I can definitely see a difference between the colors in the two photos. The JPG has Vivid processing done in the camera, but the RAW file does not.

 

On the other hand, if I set the camera to B+W, both RAW and JPG come out of the camera in B+W. However, it's interesting that in Lightroom, I can change the RAW file from B+W to Color, but not the JPG. For the RAW file to be able to be changed in Lightroom, the color information must be retained in the file. And it's my understanding that the photos are captured in psuedo B+W from the sensor to begin with - but that gets way too involved for me to care.

[pierces]

When I shoot, I get both a RAW and a JPEG.

 

Almost all the time, I can take the RAW, and improve it so much over what the JPEG gives me. I find the difference incredible.

 

You'd be surprised how much can be done to a fine JPEG in post...even an incorrect WB setting can usually be salvaged.

 

 

Raw is still better for that sort of thing, but as a fairly careful and discriminating shooter, I find that I have relatively few images that could be improved enough with a lot of post-processing from RAW to make it worth the extra time it would take to process all of the images that I shoot.

 

BTW, if your RAW file shows a lot of improvement every time, try fine-tuning the sharpness, contrast and color in your camera's JPEG engine. I played with RAW files and noticed that my JPEGs were a little soft, needed contrast bumped and a bit more color (Vivid was too much). I set my camera for +1 sharpness, +1 contrast and +1 saturation. It made a world of difference in the files straight out of the camera.

 

Dave

[pierces]

Yep, I also do RAW + JPG, if for no other reason than for archiving the photos in RAW format.

 

But I have even heard criticism of that. Some say that the RAW photo will be changed by the camera settings for JPG. While this might be true in some cameras, but it is not in mine. I like to shoot with Vivid set in my camera, and when I compare the RAW and JPG photos in Lightroom - I can definitely see a difference between the colors in the two photos. The JPG has Vivid processing done in the camera, but the RAW file does not.

 

On the other hand, if I set the camera to B+W, both RAW and JPG come out of the camera in B+W. However, it's interesting that in Lightroom, I can change the RAW file from B+W to Color, but not the JPG. For the RAW file to be able to be changed in Lightroom, the color information must be retained in the file. And it's my understanding that the photos are captured in psuedo B+W from the sensor to begin with - but that gets way too involved for me to care.

 

When a RAW file is captured, all of the settings from the camera at the time of the capture are recorded in the file for reference. When you load it into your RAW processor of choice, it reads the settings and applies them to the previewed image just like it would have to an in-camera JPEG. From there, you can fiddle with it and change settings at will from the camera manufacturer's parameters that are supplied in the RAW processor application (which is why there are regular software updates when new cameras are released). Since the B&W setting in the camera just desaturates the color image, removing the setting simply tells the RAW converter software to reprocess the RAW info as a color image.

 

Just in case you were curious...:)

 

Dave

[JWJs]

Hi Dave. Were you using Photoshop software to edit this picture?

 

You'd be surprised how much can be done to a fine JPEG in post...even an incorrect WB setting can usually be salvaged.

 

 

Raw is still better for that sort of thing, but as a fairly careful and discriminating shooter, I find that I have relatively few images that could be improved enough with a lot of post-processing from RAW to make it worth the extra time it would take to process all of the images that I shoot.

 

BTW, if your RAW file shows a lot of improvement every time, try fine-tuning the sharpness, contrast and color in your camera's JPEG engine. I played with RAW files and noticed that my JPEGs were a little soft, needed contrast bumped and a bit more color (Vivid was too much). I set my camera for +1 sharpness, +1 contrast and +1 saturation. It made a world of difference in the files straight out of the camera.

 

Dave

[pierces]

Hi Dave. Were you using Photoshop software to edit this picture?

 

Yup, just good ol' Elements. Its toolset is more than sufficient to correct all but the most egregious mistakes at 1/10th the price of the full Photoshop suite. I have put off upgrading my copy of CS2 for years because Elements does most everything I need on a regular basis.

 

Dave

[awboater]

I was previously a long-time Elements user. I changed from Elements to Lightroom last Nov, when Amazon had Lightroom on sale for $149. I have never seen it that inexpensive. At the time, Adobe had a $100 rebate, and Amazon discounted it $50 more.

 

But CS2 is still too expensive for me. When I used Elements, you couldn't do RAW (shows you how old the version I had was). Not sure if the current version does or not. Otherwise, I always liked Elements.

[johneeo]

I was previously a long-time Elements user. I changed from Elements to Lightroom last Nov, when Amazon had Lightroom on sale for $149. I have never seen it that inexpensive. At the time, Adobe had a $100 rebate, and Amazon discounted it $50 more.

 

But CS2 is still too expensive for me. When I used Elements, you couldn't do RAW (shows you how old the version I had was). Not sure if the current version does or not. Otherwise, I always liked Elements.

 

I use elements and I do RAW all the time.

[pierces]

I was previously a long-time Elements user. I changed from Elements to Lightroom last Nov, when Amazon had Lightroom on sale for $149. I have never seen it that inexpensive. At the time, Adobe had a $100 rebate, and Amazon discounted it $50 more.

 

But CS2 is still too expensive for me. When I used Elements, you couldn't do RAW (shows you how old the version I had was). Not sure if the current version does or not. Otherwise, I always liked Elements.

 

As johneeo said, Elements does RAW just fine. In fact, Elements from about 6 on (9 is the current version) uses Adobe Camera RAW just like Photoshop. It also works fine as a companion editor to supplement LightRoom.

 

Dave

[chipmaster]

Shoot pictures where you need fast camera; fast on, fast focus, fast frame rate, fast like in low light. All those or any one scream of DSLR

 

Need nice vacation pictures to capture memories most P&S and even smartphones are good enough for websharing, flickr, facebook etc. You don't need to spend more than 200 bucks here, or just use your 4-8Meg smartphone.

 

If cost is the issue consider a used D40, D3000, or the newest D3100 that can be had body only for likely under 500 used. Many people got the new camera envy and if you look patiently on CL you can score a deal ( many people also don't have a clue or price gouge or don't understand cameras depreciate, so shop carefully ). The entry nikons are great values and can be had for used for dirt cheap and will take superior pictures than any modern P&S ( except for video ).

 

For superzoom vacation than look here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/

 

 

Raw versus Jpg ROFL :eek::D I'm with pierces. People who shoot raw are like the people who owned darkrooms. With modern JPG you can do amazing things even if you screw up WB. Beyond WB for people to debate raw/versus JPG are peepers. FWIW I got a nice expo disk and have almost no reason to even consider raw with this generation of cameras. I spend my time and HDD space for pictures.

 

 

 

 

 

I keep flip flopping between two camera models.

 

My BIL purchased a Nikon D5000 last year and he let me use it. It is sweet, but pricey (for me).

 

I just saw the new Kodak Z990. It looks capable, has up to a 30x zoom (840mm) and I have an older DX model that I took to Scotland and Hawaii... It is also 1/3 the cost of the Nikon...

 

Is the image quality worth the extra money for the Nikon??? I assume that the Nikon is also faster than the Kodak (focusing, data storage, ect)

[awboater]

As johneeo said, Elements does RAW just fine. In fact, Elements from about 6 on (9 is the current version) uses Adobe Camera RAW just like Photoshop. It also works fine as a companion editor to supplement LightRoom.

 

Dave

 

My last version of Elements was v4. Guess I tend to keep software for awhile.

 

Glad to hear Elements does RAW now. I suppose RAW has become more popular over the last few years.

[Turtles06]

 

Raw versus Jpg ROFL :eek::D I'm with pierces. People who shoot raw are like the people who owned darkrooms. With modern JPG you can do amazing things even if you screw up WB. Beyond WB for people to debate raw/versus JPG are peepers. FWIW I got a nice expo disk and have almost no reason to even consider raw with this generation of cameras. I spend my time and HDD space for pictures.

 

I appreciate your saying this. Too many "experts" try to make people feel guilty for not shooting RAW.

[zackiedawg]

Don't worry - there are plenty of very skilled photographers, and professional photographers, who happily shoot JPG and have used it for years. They just often don't bother to speak up on the subject in forums because of how vociferous and persistent the RAW lobby is.

 

Beyond question, RAW has more processing headroom than JPG - but shooting JPG doesn't mean you don't know, aren't skilled, can't be professional, or are in any way inferior - it's simply a choice which works best for you.

 

I too prefer JPG, and use it 90% of the time...I have sold images and had them published nationally taken in JPG mode. I do use RAW for one particular usage - when on a paid or hired shoot for a client, especially if it's a one-time event that can't be reshot. RAW gives me the 'insurance' that I have a better chance to fix something if for any reason I blow it. But otherwise, I have far more fun shooting JPG and getting all my settings right in camera, because it frees up more time in the field rather than sitting in front of a computer!

[JWJs]

Yup, just good ol' Elements. Its toolset is more than sufficient to correct all but the most egregious mistakes at 1/10th the price of the full Photoshop suite. I have put off upgrading my copy of CS2 for years because Elements does most everything I need on a regular basis.

 

Dave

 

Thanks Dave.:) I use Elements but have no idea how you fixed that picture. Would it be too much to ask for instructions? I sure don't want to highjack this thread so instructions (if it's not asking too much) on another thread would be fine.

[pierces]

Thanks Dave.:) I use Elements but have no idea how you fixed that picture. Would it be too much to ask for instructions? I sure don't want to highjack this thread so instructions (if it's not asking too much) on another thread would be fine.

 

Her's a link to a new thread I posted on the subject:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=29065432#post29065432

 

Your question prompted me to resurrect an old series of articles/classes we did here a few years ago.

 

Hope it helps,

 

Dave

[JWJs]

Her's a link to a new thread I posted on the subject:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=29065432#post29065432

 

Your question prompted me to resurrect an old series of articles/classes we did here a few years ago.

 

Hope it helps,

 

Dave

 

Thanks so much Dave. Super Awesome and very much needed!

[awboater]

Regarding shooting RAW...

 

I shoot RAW+JPG. But I do a lot of posting of photos on-line (I have a boat project website, and I am always adding photos).

 

My JPG settings are Basic and Small, which create the smallest filesizes you can get out of the camera. I generally do this because it is a lot quicker for posting JPG photos that I don't have to edit and reduce the file sizes that I would need to do if I used the highest quality JPGs.

 

But I'll admit that sometimes these files seem a bit large as well, so I occasionally further reduce the filesizes of the JPGs too. I don't want users to have to wait too long for large files to load on webpages, or to put too large of high quality of any JPGs on line, should someone like them and copy them.

 

And since I shoot RAW, I have an archival copy of the original photo should I need to print it or something else.

 

So I suppose it's the best of both worlds. I guess I look at it like the RAW file corresponds to a negative in the film world, and the low-quality JPGs correspond to 4x6 photos. You would not put a 4x6 in a copy machine to get an 8x10 print out of it; you would use the negative.

 

Same thing with RAW files.

 

Like many things, it comes down to personal preferences, and high-quality JPGs are all that many people want or need. So I am not going to say that you have to do one vs. the other. But for me, especially since I save time by shooting lower-quality JPGs, I use the RAW files for archival purposes should I need to do something else with it.

[pierces]

The last thing people would expect from me is a RAW processing tip...:D

 

When I do shoot RAW and need a reduced JPEG for some purpose, I just highlight it in Picasa and click export. It's my version of RAW + JPEG since I can export any number of images from the directory to a JPEG of any size or quality with a couple of clicks. If I need more control, I right-click and open the image directly in ACR/Elements.

 

Google does a great job of keeping Picasa up to date with RAW algorithms allowing you to import, view and perform basic adjustments much like Lightroom at a significantly reduced cost (free).

 

Coupled with tried and true directory management, it still remains my organizer of choice with tagging options and near instantaneous searches. Did I mention that it handles RAW?;)

 

Dave