Slashdot Mirror

I will have to wait to look at actual histograms until I get home from work, but it sounds to me like you don't understand image histograms. The blue and green channels can be biased towards the dark end either because someone darkened those channels (which typically results in identifiable artifacts in those channels...spikes or gaps in the histogram), or because there's simply not a lot in the image that is bright in those channels. This is the reason why NASA has the color calibration targets. It's sort of like the white balance cards that pro-photographers often use here on earth.

Anybody with GIMP or Photoshop and an ordinary digital camera can verify this by shooting scenes dominated by one color or another. Alternately, you can find examples on the web (note that even in the correct version, the red channel is much brighter because the target contains more red).

Of course, if you wanted to get serious about it, you could actually get a telescope and look at Mars. Or better yet, you can learn why Mars is red and understand that this is nothing absurd or unprecedented.

Just browsed your Flickr photos. I think you might find this interesting: Your camera doesn't matter.

Anal Probe Corporation's Federal and military products are highly classified.

No. You wouldn't.

All Nikon DSLRs have the setting to write a custom text to the exif comment field. for example :
"(c) www.myname.com" is what I do. If you happen to have one, check these instructions for the D200 : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/users-guide/menus-setup.htm#secret They are pretty similar for all nikons.

...And I guarantee that if we compared the pics between a film camera and a digital SLR, you either wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, or you'd pick the digital photos as being the better of the bunch. Anyone who's worked in photography will tell you that digital is the only way to go.

Ken Rockwell disagrees. There are certainly still cases where film cameras are superior. DSLRs may be strictly superior for any point-and-shoot use, but that doesn't mean they're "the only way to go".

Ditto for tube amps...

• The majority of the brand-name amps are analog, and in the music biz image counts for as much as sound
• Indie bands which are just starting out can't afford brand-new equipment, so they end up with stuff that's 15+ years old (hence, analog).

Have you done any guitar amp price-shopping...ever? Bottom-of-the-line tube amps are way more expensive than solid state amps. Assuming that starting bands will use the cheapest equipment available, that would indicate that they will all use solid-state, because it is cheaper.

I guarantee you could get just as good a sound out of digital equipment as you can out of analog, but due to the nature of the music industry there isn't all that much demand for digital equipment. This is changing, of course, as more younger artists enter the business, and more and more technicians become comfortable working with digital equipment.

Tube amps are very complex systems electronically, so they sound different than solid-state amps. They tend to be perceived as more pleasant or "warm" because they distort very nonlinearly without any hard clipping (no "infinite frequency" behavior seen in digital circuitry). From what I hear, Line6 seems to be one of the larger players for guitar amps that simulate analog circuitry with digital circuitry. It's hard to convincingly emulate the analog sound with digital circuitry.

Furthermore, technicians being used to digital equipment really has nothing to do with tube amps. A guitarist can play through a tube amp, and then a technician can record that on a digital mixer into Pro Tools on a computer hard drive. It's not an issue of "out with the old, in with the new". It's an issue of knowing your tools and choosing the one that's most appropriate.

The truth of the matter is that vinyl records are crap compared to CD's in every measurable way - distortion, dynamic range, frequency response, signal to noise ratio, you name it.

A similar statement can be made about the superiority of a digital photograph to the medium of oil paint and canvas.

Oil paint and canvas are for painting, not photography. Both are fairly entrenched art forms, and neither one is going to replace the other because they do different things. You may be better off comparing digital photography with film photography. Much in the same way that transistors distort differently than tubes (transistors are more linear and clip hard when they peak), digital film distorts differently than analog (particularly highlights). In many cases, film still has superior dynamic range and and resolution.

Analog audio distorts more smoothly (no hard clips), and handles time-compression/expansion and pitch shifting much better than digital. But in the end, the cost of high-quality analog devices far outweighs the cost of high-quality digital devices, and the benefits for using analog are slim to none for a listener.

The truth of the matter is that vinyl records are crap compared to CD's in every measurable way - distortion, dynamic range, frequency response, signal to noise ratio, you name it.

A similar statement can be made about the superiority of a digital photograph to the medium of oil paint and canvas.

Oil paint and canvas are for painting, not photography. Both are fairly entrenched art forms, and neither one is going to replace the other because they do different things. You may be better off comparing digital photography with film photography. Much in the same way that transistors distort differently than tubes (transistors are more linear and clip hard when they peak), digital film distorts differently than analog (particularly highlights). In many cases, film still has superior dynamic range and and resolution.

Analog audio distorts more smoothly (no hard clips), and handles time-compression/expansion and pitch shifting much better than digital. But in the end, the cost of high-quality analog devices far outweighs the cost of high-quality digital devices, and the benefits for using analog are slim to none for a listener.

Ken Rockwell has a very good article about this.

I was always under the impression that the doughnut-shaped bokeh of mirror lenses was due to the second mirror blocking the centre of the main lens itself. But surely that doesn't apply in this case?

I think the "lousy" bokeh of mirror lenses is overstated. Sure, it's not desirable for every case, but it can be quite attractive under many circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Bokeh (of out-of-focus highlights) on the cheapish 28-80 zoom on my low-end Nikon SLR is a hard-edged circle, with most of the light around the edge, softly disappearing towards the centre. (See "Poor bokeh" here for an example). It's a decent lens otherwise...

That's just not true. Flatbed scanners with large format transparency adapters can produce excellent results. There's a good discussion put together here complete with examples and comparisons between a mid-range scanner (Epson 4990) and the Nikon D200.

When I was choosing which DSLR to buy I found the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site informative. He is an experienced photographer who in the past mainly used Nikon gear, and is currently using some Canon equipment. He has reviews of a reasonable range of current equipment. You may find his general photography articles interesting as well.

I ended up buying a Nikon D200, 12 -24mm and 18 -200mm VR. The 18-200mm VR lens is the lens of the moment for Nikon who can't make them fast enough. Expect a long wait if you order one. If you are going to wait for the Nikon D40 to come out be aware that it is rumored to only work with Nikon's AF-S lenses. This is unusual for Nikon as most bodies they make work with a large range of their older lenses.

Steve

When I was choosing which DSLR to buy I found the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site informative. He is an experienced photographer who in the past mainly used Nikon gear, and is currently using some Canon equipment. He has reviews of a reasonable range of current equipment. You may find his general photography articles interesting as well.

I ended up buying a Nikon D200, 12 -24mm and 18 -200mm VR. The 18-200mm VR lens is the lens of the moment for Nikon who can't make them fast enough. Expect a long wait if you order one. If you are going to wait for the Nikon D40 to come out be aware that it is rumored to only work with Nikon's AF-S lenses. This is unusual for Nikon as most bodies they make work with a large range of their older lenses.

Steve

When I was choosing which DSLR to buy I found the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site informative. He is an experienced photographer who in the past mainly used Nikon gear, and is currently using some Canon equipment. He has reviews of a reasonable range of current equipment. You may find his general photography articles interesting as well.

I ended up buying a Nikon D200, 12 -24mm and 18 -200mm VR. The 18-200mm VR lens is the lens of the moment for Nikon who can't make them fast enough. Expect a long wait if you order one. If you are going to wait for the Nikon D40 to come out be aware that it is rumored to only work with Nikon's AF-S lenses. This is unusual for Nikon as most bodies they make work with a large range of their older lenses.

Steve

When I was choosing which DSLR to buy I found the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site informative. He is an experienced photographer who in the past mainly used Nikon gear, and is currently using some Canon equipment. He has reviews of a reasonable range of current equipment. You may find his general photography articles interesting as well.

I ended up buying a Nikon D200, 12 -24mm and 18 -200mm VR. The 18-200mm VR lens is the lens of the moment for Nikon who can't make them fast enough. Expect a long wait if you order one. If you are going to wait for the Nikon D40 to come out be aware that it is rumored to only work with Nikon's AF-S lenses. This is unusual for Nikon as most bodies they make work with a large range of their older lenses.

Steve

When I was choosing which DSLR to buy I found the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site informative. He is an experienced photographer who in the past mainly used Nikon gear, and is currently using some Canon equipment. He has reviews of a reasonable range of current equipment. You may find his general photography articles interesting as well.

I ended up buying a Nikon D200, 12 -24mm and 18 -200mm VR. The 18-200mm VR lens is the lens of the moment for Nikon who can't make them fast enough. Expect a long wait if you order one. If you are going to wait for the Nikon D40 to come out be aware that it is rumored to only work with Nikon's AF-S lenses. This is unusual for Nikon as most bodies they make work with a large range of their older lenses.

Steve

When I was choosing which DSLR to buy I found the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site informative. He is an experienced photographer who in the past mainly used Nikon gear, and is currently using some Canon equipment. He has reviews of a reasonable range of current equipment. You may find his general photography articles interesting as well.

I ended up buying a Nikon D200, 12 -24mm and 18 -200mm VR. The 18-200mm VR lens is the lens of the moment for Nikon who can't make them fast enough. Expect a long wait if you order one. If you are going to wait for the Nikon D40 to come out be aware that it is rumored to only work with Nikon's AF-S lenses. This is unusual for Nikon as most bodies they make work with a large range of their older lenses.

Steve

Why Your Camera Does Not Matter

Summary: Stop worrying about whether your camera is the l33tess and start taking photos. For most people, using a DSLR is about as stupid as taking a photo of your dog with a large-format camera.

Why bother? Someone with a good eye can take a great photo with a 20 dollar 20 year old Russian Holga. On the other hand if you suck at seeing the world the highest end Mamaya large format digital camera will still give you shitty results. See this article if you are confused by what I mean oh Equipment Measurbator.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

Your wife has discovered something that any half-decent photographer has known for year, long before digital cameras even existed.

You cannot turn a crap photographer into a good one by giving them fantastic tools. Ken Rockwell puts it quite nicely and I shan't waste my time further essentially repeating him: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Contrariwise, a good photographer who is used to the fantastic tools (ie. photoshop) may well find the Gimp limiting.

For those of us in the middle of the spectrum, the Gimp is an ideal solution.

Shoot two stops slow with digital...your pictures initially look unpleasantly dark, but the sensors in digis are optimized for shadow detail - you can lighten them tremendously in Photoshop without making them look "artificial", and you get a lot more highlight detail. Example here. It's not as pretty as messing around with manual multiple-image HDR merging (Photoshop's automation SUCKS at this), but it's a lot simpler.

Well sure sounds like that'll BLOW AWAY 35mm film and definitely be about comprable to 4x5 film.

I was actually looking for a funny link, but this guy makes a great point -- a good scanner and a roll of that 4x5 film -- yes, four inches by five inches, absolutely huge compared to a 35mm roll -- will get you 100 megapixels of resolution for a couple thousand bucks.

It reminds me of a story I saw (on PBS or Discovery Channel) about modern medicine in developing countries. People will pay extra for a "digital X-Ray", even though the cheap equipment produces a digital image that has far less resolution than a plain old film X-Ray. But it's "digital", so it must be better.

And don't even get me started about overpriced digital stereo cable!

Well sure sounds like that'll BLOW AWAY 35mm film and definitely be about comprable to 4x5 film.

I was actually looking for a funny link, but this guy makes a great point -- a good scanner and a roll of that 4x5 film -- yes, four inches by five inches, absolutely huge compared to a 35mm roll -- will get you 100 megapixels of resolution for a couple thousand bucks.

It reminds me of a story I saw (on PBS or Discovery Channel) about modern medicine in developing countries. People will pay extra for a "digital X-Ray", even though the cheap equipment produces a digital image that has far less resolution than a plain old film X-Ray. But it's "digital", so it must be better.

And don't even get me started about overpriced digital stereo cable!

Minolta makes (or made, as a discontinued product from a now-defunct company I guess the past tense is safe) a neat negative scanner that would take 35mm and medium format, I think it was called the Multi Pro. Their naming conventions have always escaped me, I think the "Dual" model in each new series is the 35mm/APS model and the "Multi" indicates medium format capabilities. So there were several different versions of it with different sensors, I think the last model was made in 2005:
Review here http://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/mp.htm

I looked at it for a while, but eventually picked up a used 35mm scanner and a high-quality flatbed with a transparency adapter separately for less than the Minolta was costing at the time. However, you might be able to get a gently used one now for a good price, and it would keep you from having to have two devices. In retrospect I wish I had sprung for the Multi Pro, and who knows maybe I still will.

For the 126, 117 and 110 stuff you'd probably have to build some sort of jig, but I don't think that would be very hard. I'd suggest using some strip styrene from any hobby store, and then cutting out holes as necessary using an X-Acto knife. The only thing you'd need to be very careful about is that you didn't leave any sharp edges that would scratch the negatives.

8 bits of brightness per subpixel which is fine for most situations ... but duplicating nature can require about 20 bits

I'm not buying it. Where's the proof?

Check out http://kenrockwell.com/tech/ev.htm...the Light Value scale is logarithmic, each additional Light Value is twice the intensity of light of the previous value. The highest LV you'd see is about 20, the lowest about -15, but those wouldn't be in the same scene. Since LV 20 is basically looking straight into the sun, and LV 1 is typical outdoor scene at night, probably 20 bits is an exaggeration.

On the other hand, my Nikon D50 has 12 bits of dynamic range and it certainly is possible to both blow out highlights and underexpose shadows in the same scene.

Of course, this all gets more complicated by the fact that one usually applies some sort of non-linear gamma curve to remap the intensity levels to something more closely approximating the human eye's response, which means that 8-bit intensity coding using a gamma curve can almost capture the 12 bits of "linear" response of the Nikon sensor (I put "linear" in quotes because it seems more like an exponential to me, but whatever).

I like Ken Rockwell's common sense take on photography. He's got some interesting comments on this topic here.

The text below is quoted from here: clicky

Film overloads gracefully. It's natural. We're used to the way highlights look on film. This graceful overload curve is called a shoulder. Even several stops above white film is still getting just a little bit whiter as you add more and more light to it. If you look at a histogram of a properly scanned film image you'll see it go back down to zero as it approaches 255 white. Color objects merely get less saturated as they gradually wash out to white.

Digital, including your point-and-shoot to DSLRs to $250,000 digital cinema cameras, are completely different. The highlights on digital head towards white (255) and simply clip as soon as they get there. Digital has no shoulder and there is no gradual overload. $250,000 digital cinema and video cameras sometimes have shoulder adjustments, but they don't do what film does. Every slightly overexposed digital shot shows a spike on the right (white or 255) side of the histogram. This spike counts all the pixels that pegged at 255.

Hey dumbass - i am going to bet you weren't even born when Nikon came out with it's first production digicam. So please take your half-assed knowledge somewhere else. It's the photographer, not the medium, which defines quality. And as for your ridiculously stupid statement that 35mm has less resolution, the 35mm beats digital camera resolution by a huge factor. Don't trust me? Read KenRockwell. Your statement that beginners and 35mm (and you mean film here) shows how much you know about photography.

The optional ($99, but worth it) Nikon Capture software has a "Dust Off" feature - you take an out-of-focus picture of a featureless white card (instructions in the manual) so the only thing that shows up clearly is sensor contamination; the software uses it as a reference to strip out any visible dust from your photos. I personally don't have a dust problem, but a friend had some horrible dust issues and the software worked rather well until he could get it cleaned. Word to the wise, not a lot of shops will do that - he had to send his back to Nikon. They were cool about it though, charged him like ten bucks and shipping. I've heard you can retract the mirror and jam a Shop-Vac in there, but I'll be damned if I'm going to try that on my expensive-ass camera.

Did you miss the part that said "under the right conditions"?

Also, for a pro's view on why the camera doesn't matter, may I refer you to this article?

He's a photographer, so his needs are not your needs, but I think you'll find it interesting what he has to say. Basically, it doesn't matter that much.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanner.htm

Actually I'd say you've got this backwards. You can buy a pretty decent 35mm camera for $100. For $300 you can buy an analog camera that you probably can't beat with a digital for output quality for under $5000.

Most people are going to care more about the immediacy and convenience of digital, or the lower cost of film, or the higher capacity of digital.

Check this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoingaway.htm

See real-world tests of 4x5 scans versus DSLRs:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo _Talk803
http://www.butterflydesigns.net/tests/film_digital .htm

I highly recommend that everyone read Ken Rockwell's film vs. digital article. Google Cache And his "Your Camera Does Not Matter" article. Google Cache

Since I tend to agree with Mr. Rockwell on the whole film vs. digital debate and think he writes pretty decent articles, I won't repeat what he says. Also, check out these Arizona Highways articles on film versus digital:

Film vs. Digital

Film vs. Digital Revisited

I highly recommend that everyone read Ken Rockwell's film vs. digital article. Google Cache And his "Your Camera Does Not Matter" article. Google Cache

Since I tend to agree with Mr. Rockwell on the whole film vs. digital debate and think he writes pretty decent articles, I won't repeat what he says. Also, check out these Arizona Highways articles on film versus digital:

Film vs. Digital

Film vs. Digital Revisited

Good article here on why RAW is really unnecessary for almost all photographers, no matter how "advanced" you think you are.

As the other suggested the best way to eliminate red-eyes is either having a flash that is farther from the lens or shooting the flash to the ceiling (something you can do with bigger flashes) or not using the flash entirely: with a DSLR you can go to ISO 1600 without noticeable loss of quality in most cases, so you could get a pretty sharp picture even in dim light. Check out http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm chapter 8 for more info on the topic.
The Nikon 5200 has some kind of in camera red-eye reduction which works at times.

The point of a digital SLR is superior image quality and immediate response. There are two DSLR attributes that result in better image quality: sensor size and lens quality.

CCD (or CMOS) sensors in current DSLR's are at least three times larger than the largest sensor currently found in most point and shoots. The bottom line on a larger sensor is that, for the same number of pixels, you get much better sensitivity to light. This translates into lower noise. The practical application of this is that you can set a DSLR's light sensitivity to something like ISO 400 and have less noise in your image than if you set a Point and Shoot's sensitivity to ISO 100. A larger sensor set to the same sensitivity will give you fewer artifacts than a smaller sensor.

The second attribute, lens quality, isn't as absolute. But in general, a manufacturer's [D]SLR lens has excellent optical properties. They are not as compromised by form-factor or packaging considerations. Many point and shoot cameras have optics that exhibit exposure falloff in the corners or suffer from various optical and/or chromatic problems such as flare and color fringing. This is not true of all point and shoot cameras, digital or otherwise, but you can't use price as a determining factor. The $250 point and shoot I currently own has a much better lens than the $500 point and shoot I purchased originally.

This link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm/ gives a much better summary of the two different types of camera than I can give. But, IMHO, if you're going to spend $800-1000 on a digital camera, you're far better off getting a DSLR than a point and shoot.

An interesting (and not inflammatory) take on the current situation can be found here, and if you read it it you should also read this. I'm just a snapshot photographer, and while I don't have dogmatic views about the digital/non-digital decision for other folks, I'm just about fed up with my 3mp Canon Powershot S230. Apart from the ultra-annoying 1 second delay after you press the shutter-- forget about getting candids -- there are the normally slow exposures, which magnify any shake at all in your hand into a blurry exposure, and the completely non-self-evident complement of controls.

I sat down for hours with the manual, partly to learn how to override the default shutter speed, and finally decided the camera was designed without any real feeling for UI considerations. Some features are activated by pressing one button and deactivated by pressing another; other features are activated and deactivated with the same button... It's very hard to remember how to use this camera if you don't use it constantly.

Mr. Rockwell (mentioned above) opines that "The best way to get a digital image is by shooting film and having it scanned." I don't know about all of you more-expert-than-I photographers out there, but I'm going back to my trusty viewfinder 35mm, with which I used to take an occasional pretty good picture.

An interesting (and not inflammatory) take on the current situation can be found here, and if you read it it you should also read this. I'm just a snapshot photographer, and while I don't have dogmatic views about the digital/non-digital decision for other folks, I'm just about fed up with my 3mp Canon Powershot S230. Apart from the ultra-annoying 1 second delay after you press the shutter-- forget about getting candids -- there are the normally slow exposures, which magnify any shake at all in your hand into a blurry exposure, and the completely non-self-evident complement of controls.

I sat down for hours with the manual, partly to learn how to override the default shutter speed, and finally decided the camera was designed without any real feeling for UI considerations. Some features are activated by pressing one button and deactivated by pressing another; other features are activated and deactivated with the same button... It's very hard to remember how to use this camera if you don't use it constantly.

Mr. Rockwell (mentioned above) opines that "The best way to get a digital image is by shooting film and having it scanned." I don't know about all of you more-expert-than-I photographers out there, but I'm going back to my trusty viewfinder 35mm, with which I used to take an occasional pretty good picture.

I'm a firm believer in not only asking experts, but also not providing (or listening to) wholly generic advice, especially when the advice given SHOULD depend on the specific situation. In your case, I highly recommend looking at a site like kenrockwell.com or other sites maintained by professional photographers. In particular, his how-to section is full of invaluable opinions by someone who takes photographs for a living. He tries to avoid saying "this is the camera everyone needs for everything", and instead gives opinions mostly based on his experience with the particular models out there, for particular situations.

For example, while he raves about the Nikon D70, probably at least in part because he's a big Nikon fan in general, he points out that the Canon Digital Rebel is still a good dSLR, especially if you have an investment in Canon lenses already. For point-and-shoot, he's currently wild about the Canon Powershot Axx series for what he's been using them for.

There are whole pages on How to Choose and Buy a Digital Camera, Should you buy a Digital Camera?, etc. While in the former link he does say just buy a Canon Powershot if you're too lazy to read the rest of the page, he also recommends actually playing with the cameras in a store to find out how easy they are for you to work.

As a side note, as a techie I find some of his more computer-oriented comments...amusing. But a lot of what he says about photography ("your equipment doesn't matter, your skill does", etc) seems spot-on. Just as you wouldn't ask your butcher for medical advice, or your doctor for computer advice, asking a techie for camera advice is probably a bad idea.

I'm a firm believer in not only asking experts, but also not providing (or listening to) wholly generic advice, especially when the advice given SHOULD depend on the specific situation. In your case, I highly recommend looking at a site like kenrockwell.com or other sites maintained by professional photographers. In particular, his how-to section is full of invaluable opinions by someone who takes photographs for a living. He tries to avoid saying "this is the camera everyone needs for everything", and instead gives opinions mostly based on his experience with the particular models out there, for particular situations.

For example, while he raves about the Nikon D70, probably at least in part because he's a big Nikon fan in general, he points out that the Canon Digital Rebel is still a good dSLR, especially if you have an investment in Canon lenses already. For point-and-shoot, he's currently wild about the Canon Powershot Axx series for what he's been using them for.

There are whole pages on How to Choose and Buy a Digital Camera, Should you buy a Digital Camera?, etc. While in the former link he does say just buy a Canon Powershot if you're too lazy to read the rest of the page, he also recommends actually playing with the cameras in a store to find out how easy they are for you to work.

As a side note, as a techie I find some of his more computer-oriented comments...amusing. But a lot of what he says about photography ("your equipment doesn't matter, your skill does", etc) seems spot-on. Just as you wouldn't ask your butcher for medical advice, or your doctor for computer advice, asking a techie for camera advice is probably a bad idea.

I'm a firm believer in not only asking experts, but also not providing (or listening to) wholly generic advice, especially when the advice given SHOULD depend on the specific situation. In your case, I highly recommend looking at a site like kenrockwell.com or other sites maintained by professional photographers. In particular, his how-to section is full of invaluable opinions by someone who takes photographs for a living. He tries to avoid saying "this is the camera everyone needs for everything", and instead gives opinions mostly based on his experience with the particular models out there, for particular situations.

For example, while he raves about the Nikon D70, probably at least in part because he's a big Nikon fan in general, he points out that the Canon Digital Rebel is still a good dSLR, especially if you have an investment in Canon lenses already. For point-and-shoot, he's currently wild about the Canon Powershot Axx series for what he's been using them for.

There are whole pages on How to Choose and Buy a Digital Camera, Should you buy a Digital Camera?, etc. While in the former link he does say just buy a Canon Powershot if you're too lazy to read the rest of the page, he also recommends actually playing with the cameras in a store to find out how easy they are for you to work.

As a side note, as a techie I find some of his more computer-oriented comments...amusing. But a lot of what he says about photography ("your equipment doesn't matter, your skill does", etc) seems spot-on. Just as you wouldn't ask your butcher for medical advice, or your doctor for computer advice, asking a techie for camera advice is probably a bad idea.

I'm a firm believer in not only asking experts, but also not providing (or listening to) wholly generic advice, especially when the advice given SHOULD depend on the specific situation. In your case, I highly recommend looking at a site like kenrockwell.com or other sites maintained by professional photographers. In particular, his how-to section is full of invaluable opinions by someone who takes photographs for a living. He tries to avoid saying "this is the camera everyone needs for everything", and instead gives opinions mostly based on his experience with the particular models out there, for particular situations.

For example, while he raves about the Nikon D70, probably at least in part because he's a big Nikon fan in general, he points out that the Canon Digital Rebel is still a good dSLR, especially if you have an investment in Canon lenses already. For point-and-shoot, he's currently wild about the Canon Powershot Axx series for what he's been using them for.

There are whole pages on How to Choose and Buy a Digital Camera, Should you buy a Digital Camera?, etc. While in the former link he does say just buy a Canon Powershot if you're too lazy to read the rest of the page, he also recommends actually playing with the cameras in a store to find out how easy they are for you to work.

As a side note, as a techie I find some of his more computer-oriented comments...amusing. But a lot of what he says about photography ("your equipment doesn't matter, your skill does", etc) seems spot-on. Just as you wouldn't ask your butcher for medical advice, or your doctor for computer advice, asking a techie for camera advice is probably a bad idea.

A hobbyist wants a DSLR and is willing to buy accessories and learn to use it.

By this definition a hobbyist also has much deeper pockets! Enthusiasts do pay a premium, but you don't need to go DSLR necessarily.

I chose the Nikon CP 8800 (point-n-shoot) over the D70 or 20D because it's less than $800 (street) and has 10x zoom w/ IS. That is hundreds less than the D70.

Sure, the D70 is, in most technical respects, a better camera, but to take complete advantage of its strengths you need to spend another grip of money on lenses. And then you need to carry the lenses around with you in a big heavy bag, or compromise and mount one lens for a trip.

I know I am not the kind of guy who is interested in changing lenses all the time. I also know that I am not willing to spend a lot on new lenses, even if they are nice. Instead, I got a high-end point-n-shoot type camera, because it is cheaper and very flexible out of the box. I am willing to live with the lesser quality pictures. (though if you check the reviews and sample pics you will see it's still quite nice. good enough for this hobbyist, anyway.)

With the money I saved on the camera I was able to get some high-quality support equipment, too: Bogen-Manfrotto 3021 Pro tripod with a Kirk BH-3 ball head/quick release plate.

other good links:

KenRockwell.com -- lots of good info on Nikon DSLRs and lenses. Be warned though, this guy has a very heavy DSLR bias and thinks you are a chump for getting a "prosumer" camera. If you are a pro, you probably are. If you are a hobbyist, maybe not, depending on your needs and budget. (If you only have about $1000 to spend and you want 10x zoom, you ain't getting a DSLR.)

DPReview.com -- Good reviews. Active forums, though they are mostly full of 1) whining and 2) pictures of cats.

Butterfly Photo -- Good prices and a real manufacturer's warranty. Be warned, they WILL call to upsell you accessories before they finalize your web order, but if you don't want any they do ship the camera: it's not a NYC bait & switch.

Really, the reason why film is 35mm is because you can only fit so much grain per cubic centimetre (200 ISO has chunkier grain than 100 ISO, and is thus more sensitive to light). When it comes to electronics, every extra cubic centimetre increases costs greatly. Larger sensors also need larger, heavier lenses. Nikon's standardized on their DX format, which is like 35mm with a 1.5 field-of-view crop (18mm DX lens == 24mm lens).

This guy has a good rundown about sensor sizes. (IMO, the guy has strong opinions/biases. As always, make your own judgements when reading stuff on the web).

He also points out something obvious that most people don't think about. You need to quadruple the megapixel value in order to get double the image size. A megapixel is 1000 wide by 1000 tall; the megapixel measurement is an exponential (square) function.

While raw formats certainly allow for a great deal of flexibility during the post-process stage, I think Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm) has a point when he says to just shoot JPG and get it right the first time. I have thought about shooting in RAW before but have never had the time or energy to deal with it. Do whatever works for you I guess.

No, the two are a bit different. Bokeh refers to the LOOK of the depth of field effect, not its existance. For example, take the same picture at the same focal length and with the same aperature setting for two separate lenses and you get two different looks to the out-of-focus background.

Good bokeh turns sharp background contrast into soft, slowly sloping gradiants (like the airbrush in Photoshop) that highlight the foreground subject. Bad bokeh turns sharp background contrast into a series of pointed halos around the object that distract from the foreground subject. The ideal for many photographers is bokeh that looks like a pointellist painting does up close, though everybody has a different preference (here's my favorite bokeh and a miserably failed attempt).

The camera has to work.. It has to have a good lens, but in the overall analysis it has little to do with images. I've taken great pictures with a cheap manual focus ae-1 and a fixed focus 55mm lens and crappy photos with a better camera. Sometimes technology helps but its not the be all end all to taking pictures. People have been holding cameras over there heads and taking pictures without the benifit of that screen for a long time.

Ken rockwell has a good summary of this philosophy, called You camera doesn't matter

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

He does a good job of telling you what really matters. If he has a bias, it's towards Nikon. BUt that's beside the point. His focus is photography, digital or film.

And I'm pretty sure that if you asked him, he'd point you towards the Nikon D70.

Of course, the hackability of the Canon 300 is pretty tempting, but it's not really the point. You can take fantastic pictures with an SLR or a point and shoot. Those extra features aren't going to make your pictures better. Shooting a lot of pictures and honestly evaluating them is what makes your pictures better.

Movies are shot in films for real reasons. Look here for details. Scroll down to "Recommendations" for the explanation. If you have time, read the entire article... pretty interesting.