Closer... closer... Too close!

November 1, 2007 7:15 PM

Does a better lens automatically mean a better digital camera?

I've got a couple of events coming up where I'd like to end up with the best pictures possible, so I'm thinking it might be time to upgrade my digital camera. I currently have one of these little guys -- awesome for fitting in my pocket, but the lens location is too easy to cover with a finger, among other defects.

I'm a grad student, so I don't even have close to the budget needed to go up to a DSLR. What's the best I can get in a point and shoot?

I'd like to keep some level of compactness, so that I can toss it in a purse, but it doesn't have to be as small as my current camera. The default recommendation seems to be for a SD1000, but I'm wondering if I'd be able to get better pictures if I went for something that had a lens with a better zoom. Maybe something like this Samsung or this Kodak? (I do know it's optical zoom I should be looking at, and that digital doesn't improve quality.)

Basically, is getting a camera with a better lens going to automatically mean better pictures, or is the brand of the camera more important? Any personal experience with any of these particular cameras is also welcome.

posted by MsMolly to shopping (15 comments total)

At that price point, lens quality is fairly constant. A higher zoom factor usually means *less* quality, not more, where quality is defined as sharpness, contrast, color rendition, and low-light ability.

The most important factors at this price point are form factor, shutter lag, vibration reduction, and high-iso noise performance.

I can't give any specific recommendations, but your options for truly *better* pictures don't get much better unless you're willing to spend more money.

There are some truly inexpensive DSLRs available now ($400ish, IIRC), but none at your ~$150 price point.
posted by joshwa at 7:40 PM on November 1, 2007

There are a lot of factors here, and quality of lens is not perhaps your first concern. Many small cameras are specifically designed for shooting party pictures - relatively close pictures of people - and their zoom will begin at 38mm. But if you want to take pictures of large groups especially indoors, you want to think about models with a zoom going out to 28mm.

On the other hand, if you want to zoom in on individuals in a crowd, that means you want a good fast long zoom.

If you want to take pictures in low light or mostly at the far end of your zoom, anti-shake is something to look into.

Ergonomics is also a major concern. If you're finding yourself fumbling fingers over your lens, you want to make sure you're buying something with a layout that feels more natural to you.

In short: ponder your priorities then go to a real camera store and talk to them about what kind of shooting you want to do. They should be able to show you cameras that will do it and let you handle them to see which ones feel natural to you.

Incidentally, a good camera store may well have used DSLR equipment they can also show you. A used Rebel or Pentax DL and a kit zoom lens might be a lot more flexible and interesting, and set you back little more than a new tinycam.
posted by zadcat at 7:44 PM on November 1, 2007

The jump from your 3.3 megapixels to the 7.4 megapixels (the cannon) will make more of a difference than the lens upgrade between the two cameras.

As to the lens, a long zoom isn't what makes a lens sharp. It will just make it easier to compose pictures. Keeping your camera zoomed in all the time is probably just going to get you blurry photos anyway, since focal length magnifies the effect of camera shake. The non-Canon cameras you mention have no-name lenses. Nikon, Canon, and Lecia are the name brands as far as lenses go. Those are the companies that make professional-grade lenses, so you'd hope that some of that optical quality control would filter down into their compact cameras.

Go with the Canon. I have a DSLR and looking at the sd1000's specs makes me want to buy one for my coat pocket. That whole ELPH line is nice and gets great reviews.

Full disclosure: I am a Canon fanboi.
posted by cowbellemoo at 7:52 PM on November 1, 2007

I bought my rebel XT refurbished with a kit lens for 600 two years ago, I bet you can get one for 400 or less now. People poo poo the kit lens, but as long as you don't shoot at 18mm the distortion and fringing is basically nonexistent. for another 70 you can pick of the 50mm prime which is great for lower light photography too
posted by Large Marge at 8:06 PM on November 1, 2007

The biggest factor in image quality is the size of the individual pixels - the real reason DSLRs are so good is that the sensors are much larger - usually about 8 times the area of the sensor in a pocketable $150 digital - so the individual pixels on the DSLR are 8 times larger/have 8 times the light-gathering capability/8 times the signal to noise ratio of your average cheapie digicam.

The lesson to be drawn is that photos from a 10 megapixel DSLR with an APS-C sensor will be better in terms of most measurable characteristics that a 10 megapixel ELPH with a tiny sensor, as an example.

The sensor size thing is the real key - bragging about megapixels is just dickwaving. There are people still shooting with 2.6 megapixel Nikon D1H's from years gone by, and the photos are still pretty darn good.
posted by pjern at 8:09 PM on November 1, 2007

Everytime I take digital pictures with any kind of SONY cameras... people actually go out their way to compliment the quality of the picture. This does not happen with other brands I have.

I never buy Sony due to its mem stick.... the small canon i have works well... but never gotten compliments like the sony's pix.....

just my two cents.
posted by curiousleo at 8:17 PM on November 1, 2007

Some helpful answers so far, but just to clarify: I get that SLRs are better, but even a used one for $400 just ain't gonna happen. I have to live on $1,100/month. Even $150 for a new camera is really stretching the old budget. In a year or two when I have a real job again, it'll be a different story. The question is, what's the best available on my budget now.
posted by MsMolly at 8:21 PM on November 1, 2007

One thing I learned early on - if all things are equal, spend the money on the lens, not the megapixels.
posted by azpenguin at 8:36 PM on November 1, 2007

In my experience, this is the ruleset to go by:

1. First, determine the megapixels you need for your intended use. If you're just shuffling pictures around online, you'll need far fewer megapixels than if you're printing 8x10s. There are lots of charts and guides on the web for this, happy hunting there.

2. Next, get the camera with the best lens you can afford at that number of megapixels, but "best" in this case doesn't mean how much it zooms in, but how much light it lets in. The size of the lens is often, but not always, a good indicator as to whether it's a decent lens -- a lens three mm across isn't going to let in as much light as one 20mm across, basic physics there -- but you'll have to do some studying to understand more accurately the way that lenses are graded for this. Again, happy hunting there. Good thing research doesn't cost anything!

3. Finally, prop that up against two thing: how the camera's performance rates on web sites that review such things, and whether you can get a better camera used than you can afford new. In the former, you might find your earlier efforts narrowed it down to three cameras, and the report guides you to the right one; in the latter, you might find that a slightly more expensive one the reviewers preferred to all three is available in your price rance used from a reputable dealer who will let you try it out in the store.

Good luck, have fun, and remember that at this price point it's the pictures you take, not the quality of the image, that will give you joy.
posted by davejay at 9:38 PM on November 1, 2007

I'll add a 4th to davejay's suggestions and ask that you consider the user interface of the computer. If you at all intend to do anything with the camera beyond shooting at full auto then you will want to at least make sure the UI doesn't suck. I've seen a lot of cameras out there and it is very much like cell phones...a few outstanding UIs...a lot of mediocre to bad UIs and a few stupendously awful ones.
posted by mmascolino at 9:56 PM on November 1, 2007

Molly - not sure exactly what resources you have available where you live but - another possibility is: rent!

Yep, rent. Here in Austin we have really only one big gun retail camera place, and even though I don't really shop there, I have rented from them a couple times....things that I would be unlikely to buy, or just to see what it is like to shoot with stupid-fancy gear. Seems they've raised their rates, but maybe it wouldn't be as expensive where you are located (no idea). Just another idea. You probably wouldn't want to rent a camera all the time, then you might as well buy one... but if you just wanted to take some extra-ordinarily higher res pix a couple times, or just wanted to use a potentially super sharp lens, it might be cool.
posted by bitterkitten at 10:01 PM on November 1, 2007

Seconding renting, especially if you're intending to step up to a DSLR in the near future.

This will send you slightly over budget, but there are two Calumet branches in your state (no idea if either is reasonably close, but they will deliver). The day rate for a Nikon D70 body kit (including 4GBs of memory) is $150 and a lens is around $30 - and best of all, day rate also applies for a whole weekend (2pm Friday to 2pm Monday).

I use these guys all the time in the UK for bits of expensive kit that I can't justify buying just yet (studio lights, specialist lenses and the like) and I can't recommend them high enough. They really know their onions and are always happy to help you out if you're not quite sure what you need.

If this looks a bit OTT, you'll probably find deals for lower spec cameras if you hunt around a bit.
posted by dogsbody at 1:46 AM on November 2, 2007

Basically, Yes.

Carl Zeiss are Carl Zeiss for exactly this reason.

Whether the camera sensor does the light that the optics contribute justice or not is another matter, subject to a whole host of things from price to ergonomics; great comments upon which are above.
posted by DrtyBlvd at 5:58 AM on November 2, 2007

I'm going to buck the trend and say that with your budget you don't need to worry about DSLRs for a while; if you ever buy one you will soon discover that the initial cost is just the beginning; you will soon want more lenses, an external flash or two, a tripod, and so on if you are really getting into it. On the other hand, there are a ton of options out there for relatively cheap compact point and shoot cameras. It sounds like you mainly want to take snapshots of parties and the like; I could go on about things like sensor size and low light performance in addition to all the other technical matters already brought up, but all you really need to know is that there is no one "best" camera out there. Judging by your question the biggest issue with your current camera is the user interface; go out ant pick up a few display models at any store you want until you find one that you are comfortable with, then shop around for the best price. As long as you go with a big name (Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, and a few others) the quality should be fine for casual use. If you want a more in depth look at the options DPReview has a good search function and detailed reviews. Finally, if you really want the best pictures you can take, look around at any of a number of photography sites on the web and learn a little about composition and lighting and other aspects of photography. No matter what camera you get it is still just a box to hold a lens, shutter, and light sensitive material. There are people who take wonderful pictures with cell phones and there are others who take crappy pictures with Hasselblads.
posted by TedW at 6:02 AM on November 2, 2007

To add another thought: "better lens" could mean any number of things, since all lenses involve compromises in their construction. It sounds like you want a larger zoom range, but that will probably come at the expense of aperture. Then there are parameters like resolution, distortion, and color rendition that come into play. That is why interchangeable lens cameras like SLRs are so prized and why there are so many lens options-50+ from Canon alone. As you see, your simple question doesn't necessarily have a simple answer. Although the bottom line is that the SD1000 you are looking at is a good camera for the money, as are others. (My wife has an SD-something that she really likes, and I have a bunch of Canon DSLR stuff, so you can see where my loyalties are.)
posted by TedW at 8:21 AM on November 2, 2007