All these people buying 600$+ digicams

[Vernor]

Do they have some background in photography ?


Or are they just buying a cool toy/showing off ?

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

I'd say its 30/70 in the order you listed.

 

[dartworth]

some are learning photography...

<--

 

[Compudork]

..

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: dartworth
some are learning photography...

<--

<--

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: dartworth
some are learning photography...

<--

<--

<--

 

[Ornery]

Your less than $400.00 camera is a waste of money. Damn thing won't shoot decent in low light, which is the case 50% of the time. 3X zoom ain't shlt. You'll likely buy a few two or three hundred dollar cameras before you figure this out, so the people smart enough to buy the five or six hundred dolar camera right off the bat, are ahead of the game. That's unfortunately what it costs to get a camera that can truly "point & shoot".

 

[Wallydraigle]

I'm too poor to buy cheap. I'd rather shell out and buy a camera that will last for a few years than spend less now but have to buy every year.



Plus I'm into photography, a little.

 

[iamwiz82]

I have had some classes on regular SLRs and so I made the big step to DSLR. I could not imagine buying a DSLR to use as a point and shoot, though. :Q

 

[vi edit]

My G2 (with a free upgrade to G3) was over $600 when I bought it two years ago. It was, and still is one of the best "point and shoot" prosumer cameras out there.

And I've never taken a photography class in my life.

 

[Vernor]

Using a 700$ camera on auto mode just doesnt compute.

 

[notfred]

People like nice things. Why do people buy $30,000+ cars when they could drive around in Civics?

 

[Kanalua]

I just bought a $700 camcorder... Overkill for homevideos...built to last...

Bought a $80 HP 2.1 Megapixel digital camera...does just fine for me. Takes much better pictures while on a tripod, I'm too shaky to take stills alone.

My father-in-law bought and buys $800-900 digi-cams. He's a photographer for their local crappy community college...

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: Vernor
Using a 700$ camera on auto mode just doesnt compute.

no kidding...it's like people who buy expensive camcorders and never take it off auto mode...


white balance folks...WHITE BALANCE!!!

 

[0roo0roo]

the scale is differetn compared to film cam. 600 dollar film cam is professional. digital is still in its infancy. 600 dollar is not professional at all.

 

[AznMaverick]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Your less than $400.00 camera is a waste of money. Damn thing won't shoot decent in low light, which is the case 50% of the time. 3X zoom ain't shlt. You'll likely buy a few two or three hundred dollar cameras before you figure this out, so the people smart enough to buy the five or six hundred dolar camera right off the bat, are ahead of the game. That's unfortunately what it costs to get a camera that can truly "point & shoot".

but we all gotta start somewhere, and those really good cameras usually end up too big to fit in a pocket.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Vernor
Using a 700$ camera on auto mode just doesnt compute.

After glancing at a few topics at DP Review, it looks like setting that camera to Auto, won't always get the job done, anyway. Now, that's sad!

My test for the 'point & shoot' ability of a camera, is to put it in the hands of someone who's never used one, and let them snap 20 or 30 shots in just a few minutes. Indoor shots especially. If not more than 80% of the shots are good, it sucks. It may very well be able to get good shots with a knowledgeable user behind it, but that's not good enough, when they cost over a few hundred bucks. An expensive piece of equipment like that, ought to shoot one good picture after another effortlessly. At this point in time, it will cost at least $400.00 to do that, and will not easily fit in a shirt pocket.