# Camera suggestions?



## Newbie_Neil (30 Mar 2008)

Hi all

I'm not a great photographer, but feel the need to buy a digital camera that I can point and shoot.

I have a budget in mind of 2-300 GBP. Is this enough?

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks, in advance,
Neil


----------



## christoph clark (30 Mar 2008)

I have 3 
A small nikon 7900 which goes in my pocket
a medium panasonic fz18 which has a 18x optical zoom
and a Nikon d70 DSLR a lot bigger which even though is only a 6 Mp it takes the best pictures.
The DSLR's tend to have bigger sensors = sharper image with less noise, more accessories but cost more.
The best is to pop over to DPreview.
http://www.dpreview.com/


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Mar 2008)

Newbie_Neil":32io9zi5 said:


> a digital camera that I can point and shoot.



I hate these 'point and shoot' digital cameras, particularly the ones without a proper viewfinder. If you are willing to pay up to £300, Neil, why not get something like a Nikon D40 SLR which I saw in a shop today for about £249 with cash back. A far better camera with which you can see what you are doing and how the pictures will come out.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul (who wishes he could afford an SLR)


----------



## woodbloke (30 Mar 2008)

Neil - I have a small 'point and shoot' Pentax which I like as it's pretty convenient. However SWIMBO hates it and has bought an Olympus digital SLR for herself which she reckons is pretty good, it even comes with a decent zoom lens and will take the XP cards. I saw one of these in Currys today at about £290 which seemed reasonable - Rob


----------



## Harbo (30 Mar 2008)

Most digital cameras will point and shoot - it really depends what else you require? 
Do you want it to slip into your pocket or have the extra weight and bulk but greater flexibility of a SLR? 

I use a Canon Ixus when I want the former - it's compact has a large screen but also a viewfinder which I like. 
When I am in photographer mode I use my Canon 20D (the latest model is the 40D). It's cheaper sibling is the 400D but you may be able to get hold of it's predecessor the 350D (or American Rebel) at a reduced price? 

Rod


----------



## Gary M (30 Mar 2008)

Newbie_Neil":17xg7d98 said:


> Hi all
> 
> I'm not a great photographer, but feel the need to buy a digital camera that I can point and shoot.
> 
> ...



Neil this would be perfect for you.
No need to spend silly money for a good digital camera (read the reviews)
Point and shoot
Unless you like to needlessly spend money :wink: 
Cheers,
Gary.


----------



## jaymar (31 Mar 2008)

I too have been considering a new camera, like you I want a point and shoot,simple camera. My research has led me to two, the Cannon Ixus 70
which has a viewfinder unlike the Ixus 75 which only has a screen (although the screen is larger, in sunlight it is harder to see )The other one is the Panasonic FX12. Both give excellent pictures apparently and will slip into your pocket. Amazon sell both cameras


----------



## Blister (31 Mar 2008)

Hi 

Look no further than this :lol: 

Black (12.1MP, 6x Optical Zoom) 3.0" LCD 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... ROKL5A1OLE

Shop around for prices , and well within your price range 

I have the G5 , earlier version and it great :wink: :wink:


----------



## Newbie_Neil (31 Mar 2008)

Hi all

Thank you for your input. I'm off to do some research on your suggestions.

Thanks again,
Neil


----------



## TonyW (31 Mar 2008)

Hi Neil

Like tools everyone seems to have an opinion of what is best either value or performance (all of them correct!). FWIW I think you should think about what you will use the camera for and what features you most need. You have already identified that you want point and shoot (simple?) most cameras will allow you to do this - even the more complicated DSLR by setting the shooting modes.

For your budget you should be able to buy a very good camera from a large range of models- but deciding on which will be the most difficult. 

There are reviews at What Digital Camera which may be of some help

If you can, try and get to handle the cameras you are interested in and get a feel for how easy to operate etc.
One thing I always try to do before buying is look on manufacturers website for the manuals which can give you a good idea about capabilities and ease of use.

Good luck

Cheers  
Tony


----------



## bugbear (31 Mar 2008)

Newbie_Neil":t0ilvoxc said:


> Hi all
> 
> I'm not a great photographer, but feel the need to buy a digital camera that I can point and shoot.
> 
> I have a budget in mind of 2-300 GBP. Is this enough?



easily. Probably overkill. Most current 100 quid P&S cameras are very, VERY good indeed. Technology is your friend.

I have achieved results I'm more than happy with, using a Canon A630.

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (31 Mar 2008)

Neil

The problem with point and click cameras is the poor quality lenses - after the GWW staff photographer came over to photograph some of my work for an article, I couldn't believe the difference between what his camera produced and what my point and click produced. I chatted with him and then got myself a cheap digital SLR - not in his league, but still stunning photos

I have a Sony Alpha digital SLR and it is awesome. Wins best on test in mags and I knew a couple of people who owned them before I bought mine. After trying all they had in a couple of photography shops, it was clearly no contest.

A little more than your budget at around £500, but the anti-shake and auto settings make it a point and click camera if you want, and a 10Mpixel professional quality camera when the need arises.

I got the 18-200 lens rather that he 18-70. Costs a little bit more, but worth the money.

Also, the battery lasts for around 700 photos which is pretty awesome too

Got mine from Jessops in Leicester and they cut a nice deal

First time I used it was in Bradgate park and here is a piccy from it (auto setting and taken the day I bought it (december 2007))

NOTE the picture is 10MPixel straight form the camera and 4MB
click here


----------



## gidon (31 Mar 2008)

Neil
It's true that you can operate a DSLR in full P&S mode - but unless you're happy to carry around that bulk all the time they aren't necessarily the right choice if you really are after a P&S camera.
I use my DSLR (Canon) when I can but more and more I slip my compact in my pocket. My current compact is a Canon Ixus (860 IS) - this is the best truly pocketable P&S compact I've owned - and I've owned lots! But it is approaching £200 which is a lot of money for a super compact. 
But give us some more details about what you want in you P&S camera and we can try and give some more relevant suggestions. Do you want something that you can slip in your pocket. Do you take lots of shots indoors. Do you need a big zoom. Do you want to manual control over you shots sometimes - or are you happy with simple point and shoot all the time? If so what manual features would be nice - some P&Ss let you control aperture and shutter - can be handy but will you use it? If you want long zoom check it comes with decent image stabilization - Canon, Panasonic, Sony all good - some others suspect.
Check out DPreview.com - the most accurate reviews on the web - if it gets recommended or highly recommended there and fits your requirements you'll most likely be happy.
I'll shut up now.
Cheers
Gidon


----------



## bob_c (31 Mar 2008)

I use a Nikon d70 SLR like Christoph,i bought it a while ago and it was like £600-700 .A great camera,prices on DSLR have came down alot since i bought mine.They are easy to use as point and shoot in auto mode.Lenses can get expensive though,the last i bought was over £300,but i needed a dedicated lense for my work.
Any decent P& S camera is ok for just putting pics on the web and the like but you cant beat a good DSLR shooting in RAW mode for printing out photos ,etc..


----------



## RogerM (31 Mar 2008)

Neil - lots of good advice offered here. If you think that woodworking starts you down a slippery slope you aint seen nothing yet when it comes to cameras. But just as there is more fishing equipment designed to catch fishermen than fish, so cameras have more featurtes designed to catch photographers than take good photographs.

If all you want is P&S you really don't need to spend over £150. I've got a Sony DSC H2 which I originally bought because I wanted the 12x optical zoom for wildlife photography, and I've been well pleased with it. As well as P&S it has manual control, which I rarely use, but I do use a feature that enables you to "bracket" exposure by 0.75 stops either side of optimum which is great for difficult light conditions. Uses 2 x AA batteries so great if batteries run out as you can buy AAs anywhere in the world - even in teahouses in the Himalayas as I found last November.

I got SWMBO a Sony DSC W70 - now superceded by the W80. Chosen because we wanted to use the same storage media on both cameras, the Carl Zeiss lens, optical viewfinder and large 2.5" screen, and tremendous battery life. Currently available for about £125. 

We are very happy with both cameras. If we are just going out for a walk the little W70 comes with us because it slips in the pocket so easily. Under most conditions results are indistinguishable from the much larger H2. For more demanding conditions - i.e. action shots, poor light or subjects requiring the 12 x zoom the H2 comes in to its own.

DSLRs are fantastic and I lust after one, but you have to be very certain that you are prepared to lug it around - and for me the bulk/weight means that it would probably be left at home in favour of the little W70.

FWIW - I think that if you stick with the main brands you are unlikely to be disappointed unless you are very demanding, and the technology is moving so fast that if you have £300 to spend you may be better off spending £150 now and putting £150 aside to buy something more up to date in 3 or 4 years time.


----------



## Maia28 (31 Mar 2008)

I've got a Fuji S9500. Its sort of halfway between SLR and point-and-shoot. You can override all the auto settings should you want to and also take video. It has a CF and an XD slot so you can easily record all the video and photos you want. Current version is:

http://www.fuji.co.uk/consumer/digital/ ... epix-s9600

It's much less bulky than a DSLR but still feels like a camera and does everything I want. £212 delivered from Amazon. get some Fuji rechargables of ebay for £1 each and you'll get 500 shots a charge.

Andy


----------



## kafkaian (31 Mar 2008)

I've always liked the Canon G range. G5, 6, 7 and now 9. These are a bit more than a point-and-shoot in that they are still small and compact (but not pocketable) but have a range of features and accessories that, a) won't burn holes in your pocket and b) allow you to develop as a photographer. 

Still have my G5 which is excellent but have been looking for a dSLR to replace my old Nikon film SLRs. (I am no longer a fan of Nikon after being conned by their Coolpix range in the early days of compact digitals. They brushed off a clear design fault as nothing when in fact it disabled a £400 effort after only 18 months. They refused to repair it FOC although the original problem was highlighted to them early on)

I was just about to buy the Canon 400d when the 450d was announced with some features I would def. like. 

The trouble is in many cases, you never know quite what you need until you have dabbled. So it might be a case of deciding to make a temporary purchase before the big one.


----------



## Harbo (31 Mar 2008)

Nice picture Tony - I take mine in RAW format usually about 8Mb (12Mb when converted to TIFFs). But the information it picks up is amazing as there is no compression.

Way too big to post.

Rod


----------



## tnimble (31 Mar 2008)

Its not if you put pics on the web or print small or large format photo's that determines the type of camera.

The types of subjects you want to photograph in which environment which determined the camera you need. When you only want to shoot some quick birthday, vacation and alike pictures a compact point and shoot camera would be all you need. If you want clean and sharp pictures of a project both a tripot mounted compact point and shoot or a DSLR would be the right thing. If you want good decent closeups, very sharp high contast pictures of both far and ear object under both low and bright light conditions the DSLR would be the better choice.

Try to avoid camera's with tiny little lenses and camera's that have a very large zoom range. A high optical zoom says almost nothing, in fact high numbers say more about design compromises, unsharpness (opr better said softness), image distortion, vignetting, glare and flare.

Personally I own a Canon 30D DSLR with which I'm very happy. I shoot various subject for which I have a small set of lenses (a 50mm prime, a 17-85m zoom and a 100mm macro). To get good pictures good lighting is mostly more important than the camrea you have. For this I have a few speedlights, light stands, umbrallas and gel filters (to control the overall colour in the photo's).


----------



## Newbie_Neil (12 Apr 2008)

Hi all

Thank you all so much for your helpful suggestions, they have been much appreciated.

I have just placed my order for the Canon IXUS 950 IS.

I'll let you know how I get on.

Thanks again,
Neil


----------



## RogerM (12 Apr 2008)

That looks like a really good choice Neil. My first digital camera was a Canon and I'll be very surprised if you are anything other than delighted with the results. If you intend to take it away on holiday I would suggest that you buy a b***** great additional memory card to go with it - say 4GB - because you will find that you will take 10 x as many photos as you would have done on film.


----------



## Newbie_Neil (12 Apr 2008)

Hi Roger



RogerM":1utrr79b said:


> I would suggest that you buy a b***** great additional memory card to go with it - say 4GB - because you will find that you will take 10 x as many photos as you would have done on film.



Thanks for the tip. As a result of my research I ordered 2 x 4Gb cards as they were so cheap. 

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## Lord Nibbo (12 Apr 2008)

Newbie_Neil":1eqt34a4 said:


> Thanks for the tip. As a result of my research I ordered 2 x 4Gb cards as they were so cheap.
> 
> Cheers,
> Neil



8gb :shock: at the highest settings on my camera that would hold over 2000 pics, at it's normal settings 28000 pics :shock: I hope you got a big hard drive


----------



## Shultzy (12 Apr 2008)

Neil, don't forget an additional battery, they always go flat at the most inopportune moment.


----------



## Smudger (13 Apr 2008)

Does anyone else here shoot RAW format? I was put onto it by my son, and I am amazed at how good it can be. In his hands, not mine...


----------



## Lord Nibbo (13 Apr 2008)

Smudger":3qq13zio said:


> Does anyone else here shoot RAW format? I was put onto it by my son, and I am amazed at how good it can be. In his hands, not mine...



Yes, Canon do RAW and sRAW covering a range of 12.5 meg (big as in A3 or poster size quality) per pic. Down to about .5 meg per pic. For normal pics to use on the web though I see no point in using it.

This pic was originally taken in RAW format but compressed to jpeg






HERE is the same pic reduced down to approx 1/8th its original size but still far to big to post on this web site. :lol:


----------



## Harbo (13 Apr 2008)

I take the majority my pictures with my Canon 20D in RAW unless I was desperate for maximum number of shots (cannot use RAW in the fully auto preset modes). But I use a 2Gb microdive and have several other CD cards so that as never been a problem.
RAW does not use any compression so captures the maximum amount of info - I have taken photos in near darkness and the software has been able to produce an acceptable image from it.
From RAW you can convert to other formats (TIFF, JPEG etc) quite easily but you cannot go the other way.
You do do not need to store them in RAW - to save space I use TIFF and JPEG for web stuff. But for the really good photos I have managed to take I keep the RAW file (Canon PSD) and have printed them out to A3.
I use an external drive to store them, together with CD or DVD as backups.
As I see it, there really is no reason not to take photos in the best format possible especially if you have paid good money for a quality camera?

Rod


----------



## cutting42 (13 Apr 2008)

Smudger":qmf1fxcw said:


> Does anyone else here shoot RAW format? I was put onto it by my son, and I am amazed at how good it can be. In his hands, not mine...



Hi

Yes I shoot nothing but RAW on my elderly Nikon D1h D SLR with a tiny (by modern stds) 2.7Mb resolution but extremely good low light capabilities, 5 frames per sec and the most fabulous colours and gentle none digital looking noise I have ever seen (except for the latest £3K Pro cameras). Like Tony I use a 18-200mm lens and treat the whole thing as mostly point and shoot in Program Mode tweaking the aperture and shutter speed when I want to change depth of field etc as using RAW can allow for a lot more detail and modifications post processing than straight out of the camera jpg's. 

I love playing with the images at home on the PC, cropping and setting custom processing but often the in built camera settings are pretty optimal. That is just my take on the hobby, my wife doesn't understand why I cant just show the pics straight after uploading but I like to mess about with them first!

DSLRs are a revelation for shooting action and low light without flash and a compact cannot compare on sensor size and lens quality but are sooo much more convenient.


----------



## caretaker (13 Apr 2008)

Gareth, sorry to but in but is the bottom picture from Cornwall or Devon way?


----------



## Newbie_Neil (13 Apr 2008)

Hi LN



Lord Nibbo":28i70hlq said:


> Newbie_Neil":28i70hlq said:
> 
> 
> > 8gb :shock: at the highest settings on my camera that would hold over 2000 pics, at it's normal settings 28000 pics :shock: I hope you got a big hard drive



They will hold about an hour of video, if I need it at some point.

Cheers,
Neil

PS I love the photo.


----------



## Newbie_Neil (13 Apr 2008)

Hi Gareth

The quality of your photographs is just amazing.

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## cutting42 (14 Apr 2008)

caretaker":1697b0al said:


> Gareth, sorry to but in but is the bottom picture from Cornwall or Devon way?



Hi Caretaker

It is in North Devon, the National Trust teashop and visitor centre at Watersmeet near Lynton and Lynmouth. Serves one of the finest Cream Teas I have ever had!


----------



## cutting42 (14 Apr 2008)

Newbie_Neil":djoc7kq7 said:


> Hi Gareth
> 
> The quality of your photographs is just amazing.
> 
> ...



Hi Neil

Thank you very much for your kind comments. Photography was just a minor interest of mine until the advent of Digital camera's. Suddenly I could get instant feedback and snap away to my hearts content without worrying about the cost of film and processing. I started with very simple compact Fuji compact cameras, worked up to the better Fuji compacts with bigger zooms but still got very frustrated with the speed of the camera's - the shutter would not click when I wanted to take the picture. On advice at the time I moved to dslr's ending up with my current Nikon. 

The camera is way better than I am so any bad pics are down to me not the camera which has been a huge push for me to work on framing, looking for light and optimizing the focusing and depth of field. I also like informal portraits and candid pictures where speed of operation is critical which is one reason I chose the D1h as it used to be the papparazzi camera of choice for many years being fast focusing, robust and great in low light.

Couple of low light pics, no flash taken at London zoo a couple of weeks ago:


----------



## gidon (14 Apr 2008)

Good choice Neil - I have its little brother (860IS) and it's a great carry everwhere camera.



Smudger":14ybhx76 said:


> Does anyone else here shoot RAW format? I was put onto it by my son, and I am amazed at how good it can be. In his hands, not mine...



I have my Canon 350D set to RAW + JPEG mode - this works best for me. Developing a RAW workflow can be time consuming so 99% of the time I just use the "developed" JPEG's, but anytime I like I can get the RAW and play with it . And the good thing is as RAW software improves you'll be able to get better and better results from it. It's invaluable having the RAW file for incorrect white balance settings and small exposure errors.

Canon DSLR's come with some very easy to use software called RAW Image Task which will develop the RAW file exactly as it does in camera - which means it's a good way to learn how RAW works - I can recommend to anyone new to RAW (with a Canon camera ).

Cheers

Gidon


----------



## kafkaian (14 Apr 2008)

Some cracking photos on here and the one thing I miss from my old SLR days is the use of a very fast lens that some of you possess with your dSLRs in order to get that discerning "slither of focus" shot.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Apr 2008)

Hi Gidon and Gareth,

Is there anywhere on the web that explains all this RAW stuff in easy to understand language. I've done conventional, black & white, film-based photography and processing for years and have no difficulty with it, but all this digital stuff is a black art to me :? :? :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## TonyW (14 Apr 2008)

Paul, hope that I am not butting in here but the following info might be of some help:
*What Is RAW?* (stole this from somewhere )
RAW is a type of image file format like JPEG, TIFF and PSD that can usually be selected from the quality settings 
menu in your camera. Unlike other file types, RAW contains the picture information exactly as it read on the camera’s 
image sensor before the camera’s processor has had a chance to enhance the picture and turn it into a standard file type. 
Like JPEG. The picture is unusable in the RAW state and needs to be converted into a standard image before you can 
do anything with it.
Back on your computer, you can use a RAW converter to take the place of the camera’s processor and turn the RAW 
into a TIFF or JPEG. This might sound like an unnecessary extra step but it does offer significant advantages. 
The main ones are the quality and flexibility. RAW’s are a lossless file, so give the ultimate image quality. Plus, 
you also have the opportunity to change the appearance of your image by adjusting the white balance, 
sharpness, exposure, contrast and saturation. The Raw Data contains much more detail than a standard JPEG, 
so amazing quality adjustments can be made quickly and easily.

A few links to get you started on your journey
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/arti ... e_raw.html
http://photo.net/learn/raw/
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_raw.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format

Hope this of some help
Cheers  
Tony

EDIT: Just remembered something (you will need to double check this), if you use a Fuji camera the raw setting saves the file with a .RAF extension which is not recognised by Photosho. There are Photoshop plug ins available but I understand that they do not support the Fuji .RAF format.
So you will either have to use the Fuji convertor or try this one
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValle ... s7raw.html
I have a Fuji compact and have played with this a little although have got lazy and tend to save my pics to Tiff - I know I am missing the good stuff though


----------



## cutting42 (14 Apr 2008)

Paul Chapman":5cqpo36l said:


> Hi Gidon and Gareth,
> 
> Is there anywhere on the web that explains all this RAW stuff in easy to understand language. I've done conventional, black & white, film-based photography and processing for years and have no difficulty with it, but all this digital stuff is a black art to me :? :? :lol:
> 
> ...



Hi Paul

In addition to Tonys excellent links is this one:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/

And specifically the RAW definition which is pretty similar to Tonys description.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossar ... RAW_01.htm


Using RAW is a learning process as you need to develop a sequence of actions often called a workflow. This is my workflow:

1/ Take pictures using RAW setting on the camera. Mine can only do RAW only or jpeg only, modern cameras can do both but clearly this takes up more space on the card. RAW can be stored uncompressed or lossless compressed. I use lossless compressed as it is no different IMO to uncompressed.

2/ Import the pictures from the card/camera onto your PC or MAC, review and delete the horrors

3/ You then need some software to process the RAW files. I use a simpler version of a Pro program called Capture One by Phase One which can be downloaded and trialled here http://www.phaseone.com/4/ . Adobe Photoshop can be used for RAW processing and all the major camera manufacturers can supply RAW processing software

4/ Set white balance, automatic, preset settings for Flash, Cloudy, Bright sunlight etc etc. or manually set the whitebalance and customise to taste

5/ Crop picture. Unless you have every lens ever made and perfect framing technique. This is where you can isolate the best section of the picture and zoom in or just cut out unwanted edge detail. With high res cameras such as 10Mp you can crop quite severely without losing resolution too much. With my low res camera I need to be careful as I don't too many pixels (2.7mp)

6/ Select exposure settings, again auto presets or manual fiddling with saturation, contrast, hue, balance, plus or minus exposure. This is the most fun bit to me and along with the white balance you can rescue many a poor exposure

7/ Repeat for all pictures

8/ Set up a batch and process all the above

There are shortcuts and if you shoot well initially there should not be too much custom processing and you can get through your pics quite quickly. You tend to concentrate on the good pics and put your effort into these. For holiday snaps I just put the lot in a simple Batch and use auto settings rather like the camera would do.

Here is a workflow from someone who knows what he is doing

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/work ... _basic.htm


----------



## woodbloke (14 Apr 2008)

Paul Chapman":1lewflfo said:


> Hi Gidon and Gareth,
> 
> Is there anywhere on the web that explains all this RAW stuff in easy to understand language. I've done conventional, black & white, film-based photography and processing for years and have no difficulty with it, but all this digital stuff is a black art to me :? :? :lol:
> 
> ...


....and Paul's b/w pics are _definitely_ worth a look! - Rob


----------



## gidon (14 Apr 2008)

Paul Chapman":29zuzc5z said:


> Hi Gidon and Gareth,
> 
> Is there anywhere on the web that explains all this RAW stuff in easy to understand language. I've done conventional, black & white, film-based photography and processing for years and have no difficulty with it, but all this digital stuff is a black art to me :? :? :lol:
> 
> ...



Paul

Are you au fait with digital imaging? Developing the RAW file is much like editing any other digital image - it's just you have more control over the final image. If you've not done much digital image edtiting then I would recommend reading up on that first and then RAW. Something like Photoshop Elements is great and will also develop RAW. And Kelby's Photoshop Elements for Digital Photographers is a good book to get you started and it covers RAW (developing in Elements). Sorry not on the web but very handy book in my opinion.

If you just after info on RAW then previous posters have hopefully already supplied some useful links. 

Cheers

Gidon


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Apr 2008)

woodbloke":lrfl9u2f said:


> ....and Paul's b/w pics are _definitely_ worth a look!



Thanks Rob  I'd post some on here but stuffing some 20"x16" prints into the computer might prove difficult :shock: :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Apr 2008)

Many thanks, Gareth, Gidon and Tony - that's very helpful. Must do some reading of all that stuff.

Thanks again.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## davin (14 Apr 2008)

i'm also on the lookout for a cheapish digital to slip into my pocket. 
The only drawback with the digital cameras I have owned and used is the shutter speed (don't know what the correct terminology is for a digital camera - delay lag?) 
I frame up a nice photo, press the shutter and by the time shot has been taken my little girl has disappeared or changed her facial expression. 
Just wondered how this is measured. 
Or how much I would have to spend to get to a camera where this isn't an issue. 
Or is this common to all digital cameras?


----------



## gidon (14 Apr 2008)

Davin
It is called shutter lag. A site like dpreview.com gives accurate measurements for all its reviewed cameras but it's generally pretty short with most cameras nowadays. It's actually the delay from pressing the button half down (focus) and the picture being captured.
If you're someone you presses the shutter button in one go the delay is a mixture of focus speed and shutter lag - the focus speed in low light can be quite slow even with some decent cameras.
This is one of the many advantages of digital SLRs - they are very quick focusing (depends on lens too) and shutter lag is non existent.
Cheers
Gidon


----------



## davin (14 Apr 2008)

Thanks for the quick response.
Off to Jessops then - or is online the way to go.
thanks again


----------



## TonyW (14 Apr 2008)

Shutter lag seems to be most problematical with the cheaper compact cameras. I think the new generation of DSLR not badly affected.
I know it is very disconcerting to press the shutter button and find that your golden moment has been lost due to a delay which can in worst cases be over one second later.

I looked into this some time ago and found this site which details shutter lag for various cameras http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-l ... risons.cfm might help you in your choice

Cheers  
Tony


----------

