More on buying digital cameras

Being in the "business" as it were, I get the semi-occasional email asking what kind of digital camera should be purchased.

It's a really tricky question, and I hate not to answer it, so here's what I generally say.

Point and Shoot cameras

If you're just looking for a point-and-shoot camera you can take everywhere, go for Canon. That would almost be heretical, as I use Nikon equipment. But I'm with Thom Hogan on this one: Nikon may make great SLR bodies and lenses, but their Coolpix line of point-and-shoot cameras is pathetic. I didn't know this until recently, but they subcontract to Sanyo to produce the Coolpixes, presumably because it's a stable line of income and if they didn't have point-and-shoot cameras, people wouldn't know to upgrade to SLRs. Anyway, Canon produces a solid point-and-shoot camera; I bought one for my Dad some years back, probably the Powershot A80, and it does everything he needs (and possibly stuff he doesn't), runs on AA batteries, and has a folding LCD screen.

That said, there are (of course) other alternatives worth considering. If you're already in the Sony camp, and have a memory stick or two, then it's worth considering their Cybershot lineup. The cameras keep getting smaller and smaller with more and more features.

If you need a camera that can survive drops, water, dust, sand, snow and children, you might want to consider the Olympus Stylus lineup - they've put a lot of effort into bombproofing the camera. Other than that, it's fairly unremarkable. The Pentax Optio series is also waterproof, but not as survivable.

Casio also makes a very slim, transportable camera - the Exilim series - which is infinitely portable, and will serve well.

If you're looking around and have time to spare, it does come down to how the camera feels in your hand, the intuition factor if you will - and what kind of deal you can get for it. When it comes to point-and-shoot digicams I support buying new where possible, or refurbished. Buying used isn't necessarily a great idea unless you know the previous user personally.

If you're in an airport and need to go with something immediately, you can't go wrong with the Canon Powershot SD1100. Great price, great camera, does everything and well. Canon is selling a zillion of these and for good reason.

When all is said and done, you should be able to get into a good point and shoot for $200-400 dollars.

Digital SLR (Single-Lens Reflex) cameras

Careful now. This gets complicated.

When we talk about digital SLRs, we're talking about those cameras where you can switch the lens. The cameras you see at sporting events and wildlife sanctuaries, where the lens can be many times larger than the camera. And many times more expensive. These cameras have many advantages over regular point and shoot cameras, but also many disadvantages.

Before even contemplating getting one of these things, keep in mind a few things.

1. It can get expensive. Camera companies may push the body, but that's only half the equation; the lens can be just as expensive, if not more, or much more.
2. A point-and-shoot camera can go with you anywhere in your coat pocket; a whole SLR camera system (body, a couple of lenses, flash, tripod) needs a pack of some kind, and isn't as convenient.
3. A point-and-shoot camera, when used properly, could give you about 80% of the quality of the image produced by a SLR camera (obviously that number is highly debatable, depending on the camera and the situation). The point is that there is a lot of technology embedded in today's point and shoot cameras.
4. Digital SLR camera bodies depreciate rapidly in value; see my previous post.

If none of this has scared you off, here are the advantages:

1. SLR cameras, with the right lens, can give you optical effects that are impossible with point and shoot cameras (blurred-out backgrounds common in portraits, large-scale macro shots, super-fast shutter speeds, etc.).
2. Focus time with SLR cameras is dramatically better compared to point-and-shoot cameras; if you've ever missed a moment because the P'n'S was busy focusing, you've experienced this.
3. SLR cameras offer much more advanced functionality for dealing with difficult shooting scenarios.

And many more, obviously.

In terms of what to buy here, it's actually less complicated than you think. The basics of the buying choice start with a few factors:

1. Do you have any existing camera gear? For example, an old Pentax film body with a few lenses? If so, you may want to use the old lenses on a new digital body, ie., you already have an investment in lenses that you won't lose by starting over in a new brand.
2. What's your budget? Count on a beginner system costing you around $600 minimum, to upwards of $1,000.
3. How comfortable are you with buying used? If you're not concerned with trifling things like warranties, then you can save a bundle by buying used, where a two-year old camera can be 50% or less of its original value.

After this, it comes down to what feels comfortable for you. At this level of camera, they all produce excellent images, and there are very few lemons. Different companies showcase different technologies and embody different opinions regarding how images should be made: what is important to one may be completely missed by another.

So I won't come down one way or another with a recommendation on SLR camera gear, other than to say that I shoot Nikon, and enjoy it very much.

As a final note on selecting cameras, I'll point you to The Imaging Resource digital camera advisor, which is actually a very good tool for helping you to narrow down your choices:

The Imaging Resource Digital Camera Advisor

Depreciation of digital cameras

I'm surely not the first to post about this, but digital cameras don't maintain their value over time. In fact their depreciation is quite horrendous, at least on par with cars, if not worse. Take for example, one of Nikon's flagship has-beens, the D1H.

The D1H was released in July of 2001, alongside Nikon's other then-flagship, the D1X. The D1H had a manufacturer's suggested retail price of $4,500 (the D1X was slightly more expensive, at $5,500). Today, just over seven years later, this same camera can be purchased well-used off of Ebay for the $150-200. This represents a depreciation of around 96%.

Now, given, a seven-year old camera that may have been the workhorse of a press photographer may not be the same quality that it was in 2001. But these cameras were originally designed to be used for hundreds of thousands of activations, built with very rugged components that are stress-tested to last. Compared to today's cameras, the D1H is very much under-powered; a 2.7-megapixel camera providing image sizes of 2,000 x 1,312 pixels. Printed at 300dpi, you're looking at a 5x7 print, but some printers can get away with resolutions as low as half that (150dpi), where now 8x12 prints are no problem. The real advantage to this sensor, something that is becoming apparent now with Nikon's strategy with the FX sensor, is the large size and comparatively few photosites produces very clean high-ISO images. ISO1,600 was a very low-noise, and the camera could be boosted to 3,200 and 6,400 (with an obvious increase of noise).

Perhaps one of the best things related to the release of a new camera is the depreciation effect it has on older models. With the release of the D90, older cameras in the same category have an instant price cut:

Release date	Camera	MSRP	Current street price	Depreciation
August 2008	D90	$999	n/a	n/a
September 2006	D80	$999	$600	40%
May 2005	D70s	$899	$300	66%
March 2004	D70	$999	$250	75%

I don't know if these numbers are in line with cars, but they're certainly enough to make me hold off from buying new. Based on this, a two-year old D700 (provided a replacement comes out to drive down the price) will drop from its current price of $3,299, to just under $2,000. When you factor in taxes on a new purchase that's a savings of $1,750.

Of course, if everyone thought like I did, new cameras wouldn't be as prevalent; the current economy depends on a majority turning over their used camera gear and buying new units.

Michael Kamber's review of the Leica M8 - "unusable"

If you talk to anyone who's got a wide exposure to things photographic, the topic of different camera companies and their strengths and weaknesses will come up. Nikon versus Canon, what second-tier companies like Pentax and Olympus will do to sell cameras... an so forth. Photographers who love cameras will mention exotic brands and films. Among these, for cameras, Leica has a history with cameras as Rolls-Royce has to cars - solid, dependable, luxury.

Leica came late to the digital party, and their flagship model is the M8. The M-series of cameras are renowned for their ruggedness - serving many a combat journalistic in gritty war environments - so it seemed only natural that photographer Michael Kamber would try and take the smaller, unobtrusive M8 with him to Iraq. His experience with the M8 in that environment, however, he sums up in one word - unusable. I'd call his article more of an indictment than a review, but it does show how in the real world a camera can completely miss the mark.