we're getting a nikon, probably a d40.
i borrowed our niece's to do some project photos a couple weeks ago and i freaking love it.
it's a bit weak on interior shots, but i figure we'll just tripod it and use a flash.

You didn't mention your budget, but if it's not high then el jeffe is right on. Get the Nikon D40. I've been shooting stock photography at some major stock agencies with it for the past 2 years and it's been pretty good so far. Greatest drawback for the D40 is that it does not have an integral autofocus motor, so not all lenses autofocus with it. Only AF lenses can.

The standard 18-55mm lens that comes with the D40 is not great (there's a bit of distortion when it's fully open), but it still takes very nice photos.

If you're also taking closeup photos of architectural models you should consider the 50mm f1.8 lens. It's great, and it only costs $100. Only drawback is that it does not auto focus with the D40, but you can get used to that. Great lens in low light conditions. It's a prime lens, so no zooming.

Consider getting a tripod for interior shots.

Don't worry about megapixels. It's just a ploy by the manufacturer to make you think you're getting a better camera if the MP is higher. The important thing is the sensor quality, and the D40 is fine.

Good luck.

The D40 is a great deal right now, it's only drawback is the lack of an auto bracketing function, but for the price, its a great camera. The Cannon powershots are also great with the added bonus that they are cheaper, with a lot of built in shooting modes. If you want to do a lot of close up shooting of models etc. the power shot's macro mode is very impressive. It gives you a 0 distance focus ability, without spending $$ on a DSLR macro lense. There are also some add on lenses that you can get a wide angle equivalent for a hundred bucks more or so.

the D5000 (and the slightly more expensive D90) also does 'video' although you'll be focusing manually and the monosound is pretty limiting. ability to change lenses and a rate of 24fps bring it closer to film in principle than to video.

Canon Rebel XSi is a nice affordable digital SLR. I've seen last years model go on for $500 or so (Canadian$), so you could probably pick one up for a steal.

I've never personally used the Nikon D40, but have heard good things as well.

With that said, you could probably get by with a nice point and shoot. Take a look at panasonic's lumix range. Lots of nice extremely compact models with Lecia lenses. Chances are, you will probably bring your camera around more if it fits in your pocket.

i have a sony r1 (not an slr) ... it has a carl zeiss lense and some good features...

Just borrow a camera from another student if all you need it for is Making and Meaning and you don't plan on using it otherwise...

I know I can't have it all, but I want a camera that'll act as a point-and-shoot (with good night-time shots and face detection, etc.) as well as one that will suffice for architecture projects and things.

The Nikon d40 is an SLR and isn't a point-and-shoot... isn't that going over my head?

Ideally, I don't want to have to deal with extra lenses. Knowing me, I'll spend 100$ on one and then use it twice, and then have it break while it's in the back of a drawer somewhere.

Looking for something all-in-one.

Only $100? Wish you had posted that limitation from the beginning.

If you need good shots rent a good camera from a local photo store.

PS, a DSLR is no different than a P&S when you place it in Auto mode. the only difference is that you need to look through the viewfinder (the eye thingy) instead of seeing the pic on the LCD screen.

no no no, FP, I meant 100$ spent only on the LENS.

I guess my budget is in the 250-300$ range.

Nikon d40 is an SLR and I think too complicated for my basic needs.

Oh...OK...That's better.

I still think you should just rent a good camera if you need high quality pics, or borrow from a friend. It doesn't sound like you'll ever use it again.

just get a cheap pocket camera and call it a day.. or search craigslist...

Used is not a bad idea for that price.

I have a Samsung point and shoot that's been great, although I bought it for 'point and shoot', ie didn't care about the quality too much, more about the overall size (but it takes great pics and is 10mp, although that rarely makes a big difference).

I also have a Nikon D80. Now that I am taking things more seriously, I rarely ever use the Samsung.

Get something decent and you'll learn into it. The D40 would be a great starter that you could expand on if you got the bug, or you could just leave it on auto.

But if you are sure that you'll never want to learn more, and I think you would, then look at some of the all-in-ones.


I am looking at the D700 (hopefully the D700x will be out soon), as I have given in and am now fully hooked :-)

I'm extremely happy with the Lumix lx3 which is the same as the more expensive Leica d lux and i would choose a more compact design over a dslr anytime!
The Lumix outperforms my old canon 10d dslr when it comes to Landscapes, Architecture, Models (archi) and does 720 video and f 2.0 24 mm wideangle(that is 14mm when compared to dslrs btw) with little distortion. The canon dslr is still better for portraits and nerdy/arty exposures.
Any new camera will have a high pixel resolution and it really comes down to the size of the image sensor.

An SLR is ideal really especially if you're taking any night shots, it has a larger image sensor and you could learn to operate it beyond the automatic settings. The new Nikon D5000 has a swivel lcd which should come in handy when taking photos of models in awkward positions.

I used my camera quite frequently when documenting my sites and on trips, my first camera was a sony point and shoot which was ok for day shots but decided to get an slr soon after that. I'd see what other students are doing/using and then consider spending more on a better camera so you don't have to spend more money to get something better down the line.

I bought a new point and shoot recently (sony 10mp) it still doesn't compare to an SLR

the key factor is to shoot RAW and expose in a digital darkroom like Adobe Lightroom.

the canon G10 is a good little camera at the low end of the spectrum with RAW capability. a bit above your target price, but thats often the situation with buying technology.

if you're going to just shoot straight to jpgs using the internal vis algorithms, then just about any point and shoot with decent res will do w/o much difference betwixt them..

i am also a huge fan of the Lumix cameras with the Leica lenses...so here is my (biased) recommendation...



on sale for $300, 10.1megapixels, w/ 12x OPTICAL zoom, and 25mm wide lens...

Although I use the Leica branded version (D-Lux 4) I too can recommend the Lumix LX3, which most reviewers find to produce almost identical images files as the D-Lux 4. The LX3 does have exactly the same lens -- which is great in low light situations.

This is a great camera -- especially for close-up (i.e. macro) images.

Note: I am addressing a different Lumix model than simples pictures above.

my recommendation was based on a 300$ budget ceiling, and ease of use...


having said that, peru and bluegoose obviouly know more of what they are talking about!!!

at that price range i would buy an advanced point and shoot model or dslr with a cheap kit lens.

dont buy a camera with the idea that you're not going to want manual settings...

I've owned two different Canon PowerShots, and they take amazing pictures. I often prefer their pictures over the ones taken with my DSLR (Canon Rebel.)

Most of the PowerShot models are extremely portable. I made a case for one out of an Altoids tin.

On both of the ones I've owned, I've adjusted the settings for higher saturation. Just my preference: I like richer color in my photos.

You can buy a new Powershot for a couple hundred bucks.

I haven't read all the comments, but here is my suggestion.

Ideally, you would want an SLR... but you've said you don't want one so that's that. I don't think renting would be beneficial at all. You aren't going to use it, and probably won't be blowing images to enormous sizes, so the difference won't be noticeable from a decent P+S.

Panasonic P+S is a good option. Leica lenses are great. Yes, sensor size/quality is important, but I don't even really know how much of that info is readily available for non-SLRs. Pixels shouldn't be a concern. I think it would probably be difficult to find anything with less than 5mp these days, which is plenty (unless you're going huge and have quality printers, software, etc. so you don't lose quality there). If you want good macro shots, do some searches with that approach. Look for large optical zoom (digital zoom doesn't matter because as soon as you start doing digital modification, you loose quality; i think digital zoom is completely useless).

That panasonic posted above looks nice; i don't know if it is in your price range. The Canon G10 is a very slick, fully featured point and shoot. It is a little more than you would like to spend, but it has the benefit of having all the capabilities of a basic SLR (of course it isn't an SLR, even though you can put different lenses on it if you want: this does not make a camera Single Lens Reflex). This would teach you about exposure, light sensitivity (iso), etc. which could be useful for the future. It would also be nice to have that sort of control over lighting for shooting interior and model shots where you might not have great lights and won't have much flash control (because you just have a P+S camera with a built in flash).

I would say Canon and Panasonic are fairly safe bets for P+S. I forget which brands are more studio/portrait focused and which are landscape and which are sport, but it should be easy to find out. Maybe do a search like that to narrow down some brands, then get more specific.

Seriously though, it sounds to me like you won't really notice the difference between a $150 P+S and a $5000 professional SLR. Get something with at least 5mp, and that looks nice (so you'll be happy with it and also want to use it).

oh, and $100 for a camera lens won't buy much... just incase you were considering an SLR at all and were thinking you would pick up spare glass for cheap.

I'd go for the Canon point and shoots as well. It seems like the image quality comes out good without much knowledge photography, and its pretty easy to use.

point and shoot cameras are kind of disposable though. like in a couple years you won't be able to sell it because better, smaller, and more pixels cameras will be out cheaper. thinking long term, DSLRs are goo.d

Sorry to intrude, but i plan on getting a dslr
I need a camera good enough to take semi professional images of architectural models and stuff
i plan on photographing alot of the work my father did as a carpenter as well. (buildings, doors, windows, etc) So for the most part, i need a versatile camera
my budget is 500-700, so i was thinking of the d60. however, im still deciding
perhaps anyone can enlighten me with some knowledge in this field
is it better to get a d40 with better lens or perhaps a d60 with the factory defaults

Unless you have an amazing eye for exposure, you need a camera shooting RAW. No questions asked.

Camera's shooting JPEG compression are putting out a compressed image that has very little potential for editing in post. Being able to process your photos afterwards and fine tune exposure, white balance and color profile are essential to getting the right image and getting it to print correct.

No, photoshop tuning for contrast and brightness on JPEGs won't cut it.

For architecture, one needs an equivalent 28mm lense. I have a canon ixus with this and it has been invaluable, although its getting on now.

kpxkable - Canon Xsi all the way!... not one of your options but I prefer Canon to Nikon.

My recent buy is Lumix FX35 and I like it a lot. It's very convenient to have camera with you at all times, it's got wide angle (25mm) and also to take real closeups of models, sometimes your camera has to be small. sometimes you cannot position a big SLR camera low enough (below the surface on which the model is standing)

bit more expensive but why don't you look into the lumix gf1? micro four thirds is all the hype now. compact-size and dsrl-like control. a ch larger sensor than the compacts but only slightly smaller than the aps-c. video with lens interchangeablity which i hear is superior to nikon's and canon's. but i did read somewhere that it maintains the same jello effect ...gh1 supposedly has better video and stereo sound but more esspensive and almost as large as a dslr.

correction: a much larger sensor

My argument is that you don't need a fancy (or the latest) camera to take good pictures. Composition is more important than anything else.

That being said, I have a couple digital cameras, but enjoy shooting with my film cameras most of all.

I have a panasonic G1, I think it is a fantastic camera, you should definetly consider it. It does not shoot video, but personally I don't mind at all. I can't really imagine trying to shoot any serious video with these cameras, if nothing else, the basic form factor isn't suited for it.

[url=http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/ [/url]

Synergy, the gh1 and to a lesser extent the gf1 are the best "combocams" so far from a company that excels at camcorders. it does seem like the future of still and video cameras lie in combos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhskGyTF6VE

I have no doubt about the quality of the video recording, My thinking is that if the combo is the way to go, the traditional camera form factor will be the one to go, and cameras will adopt a form closer to the shape employed by camcorders.

Regarding video on digital cameras i've seen some really nice results from the recent dslr's.
I know that I stated earlier in this thread, that I would choose a compact over any dslr but beautiful footage like this:
link from a nikon d90 makes me eat my words again.
I think the trend among the pros is rigging up their DSLRs

Those videos you guys have posted are fantastic. I guess we need to make the distinction between professional use vs. casual use. My comments are more in reference to the casual user, I'd rather have a hand molded camcorder for video than shoot with a GH1 from the hip, just seems awkward. If you have the full mounting gear, by all means, enjoy! :)

I am eying a Canon 5DMkII or the upcoming Nikon D800 (assuming rumors are correct) and look forward to playing with the video capabilities.

I agree with those who've recommended the Lumix or Leica D-LUX series.

I've had this guy

for the past few years, and it's absolutely perfect for architecture model shots, and great for general point-and shoot photography.

it's a great little camera. It's almost pocket size, takes great photos on auto settings, but it's also got a great manual mode. I considered buying the Lumix (which has the same guts & lens) but in the end I couldn't stand the case styling and paid extra for aesthetics....

fyi - tiger direct has the nikon d3000 w/ 18-35mm lens for $469 right now.
just snagged one.

make that 18-55mm

I say don't worry too much about the camera..It is not the camera,it is YOU! I have an ancient Canon 10D/ 28-300mm and(not to brag but..) I take better pictures than most people with fancy new cameras. Lighting and composition is the most important factor and I suggest getting a DSLR because if you have a light camera it shakes a lot and you get blurry pictures. I paid 90$ for a tripod alone.(one of the cheapest tripods out there) Get second-hand lenses. Personally I love fish eye!

good call Parad0xx86, I'd also add that an external flash, w/ appropriate diffusers, can go a long way, though I suppose it depends on what type of photography you are doing. If it is for primarily outside shots of architecture during the day, maybe you don't need the flash, but for portraiture, it can really help.

recently I got rebel xsi, its the cheapest one from the canon slr family and I really love, it takes awesome pictures and its not very bulky like other slr cameras.