Recommend a digital camera?

I threw out the name Hassleblad as an attempt at humor when the prices of cameras being suggested started rising.

Yes, they are still very much in business. And 35 - 40 years ago they were, and still are, the only still cameras on the moon; the astronauts only brought back the film magazines.

I remember reading some years back how scared the folks at Hasselblad were when Apollo 11 landed. Every professional photographer takes a backup camera with them on a shoot. Neil and Buzz had one Hasselblad between them. In the words of the author, "if it broke, we [Hasselblad] were out of business."

 

Glad you like the amplifier analogy, Pete. It was an easy one for me. The best amp I own for music outputs a meager 10 watts per channel.

I thought that size comparison would be interesting to see. So I looked around and found this sensor size comparison chart on CNET in their DSLR Buying Guide:


This image shows the actual sizes of the sensors used in digital cameras, from the tiny chips in compact cameras to the large, 35mm-film-size sensors in some high-end digital SLRs.

For everyone interested, most consumer cameras these days have 1-1/2.5" (red) or 1-1/8" (orange) sensors. Most dSLRs you see people using have sensors represented by the dark blue box. CNET also has this to say:

"Geek note
Larger sensors are the secret to why 5 megapixels from a digital SLR beat 5 megapixels from a consumer digicam. To spread the same number of pixels over a larger sensor area, the pixels (technically, photosites containing diodes) must be bigger. These bigger photosites gather more light, so they produce less-noisy images, capture greater dynamic range, and perform much better at high ISO settings."
​

Which I think sums up things nicely. And the same is true between between different consumer camera choices. Ones with larger photoreceptors can outperform those with smaller ones. When cameras with the same sensor size are compared, this means the difference between fewer vs. greater megapixels. It also means that consumer cameras with 1-1/8" sensors typically image better than ones with 1-1/2.5" sensors. The caveat here is that you end up with a larger camera with less zoom range. So it's good to ask yourself, "Am I willing to put up with something bulkier to get better pictures?" and, "Do I need/would I like more zoom even if it means indoor/evening photography (high ISO) will suffer a loss in quality." This last one is often a tough choice because for many, more zoom equals more fun.

Thus, buying a camera is about balancing choices, which means it's just like buying anything else. If you know what you want and understand the choices you must balance, you can better choose the camera that's right for you. So hopefully all this geek talk helps.

That's a great story! I recently worked with a photographer who'd spent the day shooting with his Nikon D200. But when it was time for the indoor shoot, he pulled out a Hasselblad H2 with the 22MP CF back Pete mentioned. Gorgeous shots it produced.

 

8000 x 8000 pixels. Puts Hasselblad to shame. Still, it's a big honker.

 

The Nikon D2X has a DX sensor too. Only the newly released Nikon D3 has a full frame sensor. Actually, the D3 sensor is a sliver smaller than a full frame 35mm negative.

 

Oops! Then it's only the Canon pro models (and the ill-fated Kodak dSLR) that had full-size sensors before the D3?

 

You're right! And most likely the D3 uses a Sony sensor, just like previous Nikons (and Canons).

I believe that's correct.

Very impressive! It's also interesting to see what can be done on the low side. The camera in the Mars Spirit and Opportunity Rovers that allows NASA scientists to zoom in on rocks far in the distance with great clarity has a resolution of just 1 megapixel by design. From a 2004 Space.com article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]A Sony DSC-F717, with a street price of around $600, has 5.2 million sensors (or 5 megapixels) on a chip that is 8.8 by 6.6 millimeters (or .35 by .26 inches). The Pancam has just a million sensors spread across a chip that's 12 by 12 millimeters -- nearly a half-inch square.

Each tiny Pancam sensor, measured in microns, is nearly four times as big as those on the Sony.

In the consumer market, which Dalsa does not target, 5-megapixel cameras often use the same size CCD as a 3-megapixel camera. More pixels are simply crammed onto the same-size chip.

"The pixels themselves get smaller," Myles said. "This has an impact on image quality."

Why? For one thing, smaller pixels are less light-sensitive.

Also, the lens quality might not support the additional pixels. As the receptors get smaller, a higher quality lens is needed to properly focus light onto each pixel. So where each pixel ought to capture different light information -- say perhaps a subtle shading change on the subject's cheek -- the same information can get spread across several pixels after passing through a lower quality lens.
[/FONT]​

So what about the sensor in the Hubble telescope? It's 800x800 pixels or 0.64 megapixels.

 

Hasselblad is a name. I dreamed from such a camera over 40 years ago. :angel:
At this time photography was my hobby, not model railroad. And I bought an Edixa.
Now I've a Canon Powershot.

Wolfgang

 

About then I too was doing photography. I remember sitting in the evenings after schoolwork drooling over the Spotmatic in an Asahi Pentax catalogue. Hasselblads were just dream stuff, along with the odd film star ...

I did eventually own a couple of Pentax. As a kid I couldn't afford the Spot, so I had one of the lesser models, maybe an SL, but some years later I got an ME Super which lasted me until I gave up 'serious' photography (and got back into trains again )

 

I had to make a choice in 1971: Hasselblad still camera or Eclair 16mm movie camera at about 2x the Hasselblad. Since I was making my money in TV news, I bought the Eclair. I never thought about the Hasselblad again. Back in those days, I was spending hours a day in the darkroom, trying to do 1/100th of what I can do today in a few minutes with a digital image.

 

After some research and reading the comments here the Cannon A620/A630 will be my first choice. Going shopping wish me luck.

 

That's a good choice! Enjoy!

 

I have a Canon A95, which is the earlier version of these cameras. If the one you are getting shoots as well as mine, you will be VERY pleased:thumbs_up:

 

Yes, photography has changed dramatically. My darkroom equipment is in the loft, unused since nearly thirty years. Last time I used it was the birth from our children. I took black an white pictures and a few hours later my wife could see the pics.

But for a really good picture it's still the person behind the camera. :angel:

Wolfgang

 

I think you've made a fine decision. Good hunting!

 

Yes, it's the person behind the camera.

But--and it's a big but--digital cameras have revolutionized the way that non-professionals, and even professionals, shoot. I did a big photo shoot for a drug company in the mid-70s, and probably came back with seven rolls of film. At 36 exposures per roll, that's 252 exposures, or about ten per subject. Film and processing probably cost me about $100 in 1975 dollars. Film and processing was still considered the cheapest part of the shoot. I had a Polaroid back, which allowed me to check exposures and lighting balance, but each test shot took time, and money.

Today, I might shoot 2500 images on the same day's shoot, and I'd be able to correct them quickly on my computer. I don't have to make runs to the photo lab--I never did my own developing--or runs to the printer to make sure that an image was screened correctly, or a second run to a printer to make sure that the presses were in correct registration and color balance.

Non-professionals are recognizing that you don't have to take a single shot of a scene. as they did with film cameras. You can take 100 shots! When I want to shoot something as common as a family gathering, I'll shoot 100's of pictures rather than 10, and somewhere in those 100s will be a gem.

I'm seeing the same phenomenon here with images of trains and model railroads. People aren't afraid of taking many pictures to get one great image! They aren't afraid of experimenting, even if the experiment fails.

To me, this is a revolution. When I look at Friday Night Photo Fun, I see great shots that would not have happened 10 or even 5 years ago.

 

You're right, Pete. At nearly zero cost you can take lot of pictures. And you will find more easy a good one among them. It only takes time. You need time for everything.

Wolfgang

 

Well I'm shopping ebay and the first one I bid on went to $212
Will try again this week and see what I can get.