Photo/Camera guys, help me out?
 

Friend is taking a digital photography course and has a Kodak Z981 (14MP?) and says the results are grainy and needs a better camera. I thought 14 Megapixel was pretty good, but looking for something "much better" apparently. I said I'd ask around and see if I could get some good recommendations. Budget is < $1000

depends on budget, canon t2im, 5d mk 2-7...sony alpha series dslr..just depends on what you want to spend...check www.bhphotovideo.com

Sounds like a question for Paul Markham

I would go with a Canon...:2 cents:

Canon T3i

You can pick up a Canon XSi for $500 or less. T2i for ~$800. If a 14mp camera is turning out grainy photos, I would look in the "User Error" part of the manual.

What would cause a 14MP image to be visibly grainy? I have a similar camera and while it's not a professional DSLR, I wouldn't expect visibly grainy pictures unless some setting was way out of whack.

Setting the ISO high will cause the pictures to come more grainy than using a lower ISO setting.

Judging the quality of a camera by its "megapixels" is like judging the value of a site by its Alexa rank.

MP means nothing at all...just how high of a resolution the photos will be.

Go with a nice canon slr!

Thanks, can you explain a little more about what contributes to the quality of a shot? Like others, I was confused and thought the 14MP meant it was probably really good quality. I realize there must be a difference between a ~$200 camera and a $800+ camera when both are 14/15 MP but I just don't know the difference myself.

Bru...he probably doesn't need a better camera, he probably just needs to learn to use what he already has. You can take great pictures on a 2MP camera if you know what you're doing. And you can take grainy pictures on a 50MP camera if you don't know what you're doing :thumbsup

If he's taking a class, he should ask his instructor to analyze his camera and his pictures to figure out what the problem is. That $1000 that he's itching to spend on another camera can be used later to buy a better camera once he's learned the basics and needs the options that a more expensive camera may offer.

eMail me a few of his pics and I can probably figure out what the problem is :thumbsup

I'll try to get some tomorrow and email them to you. Thanks!

Just upgraded my camera with a digital back

What I was going to say. Needs someone to see what he's doing to see what's going wrong.

It cold be the ISO setting, light or just out of focus.

I've been watching this for about 2-4 months.

For that price, I would say get a Canon t3i.

By grainy, I bet he is taking about the gain.... he needs more light.

depends what he is using it for, I say Canon, if he is at all serious about his picture quality he should get at leaste a 60D, if he can afford it, go with a 7D or 5D, oh and your lense makes a big difference too. also lighting plays a big part in quality.

I hear that Alex (NALEM) is an expert that could help you. hehe :winkwink:

Budget is <1000$

The camera sucks.

The resolution's been bumped up to 14 megapixels, but the photo quality is predictably worse than the 12-megapixel Z980. Although I typically have no major issues with Kodak's image processing, this model is inconsistent with color and exposure. Shooting performance is decent, mainly because CCD-sensor-based megazooms all have a tendency to perform slowly

the 26mm-equivalent wide-angle lens with a 26x zoom, is disappointing, with very visible barrel distortion that Kodak doesn't correct for in its JPEG processing

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009720-1.html

The megapixels tell you the maximum resolution, or minimum graininess. It WAS an important spec in the days of 0.5 and 1.0 MP, because you can tell the difference between 0.5MP and 1.0. People learned to check that spec. You can't see the difference between 12 and 16. Magazine quality is about 8 or better, so anything above 8 in a consumer camera is for marketing purposes.

So what are some real differences? The biggest difference, by far, is just behind the screen. You can put me behind a $10,000 camera and my photos will still look decidely amateur. Photography classes shooting film use $100 cameras because it's the knowledge, skill, and technique that matter.

Next, a good camera has full manual control so that the photog can set the aperture, iso, shutter speed, and other settings based on his knowledge. If you (or your friend) doesn't know how to calculate the right apeture for a given shutter speed and iso, he doesn't need a better camera. He needs the class. (So long as his camera has the manual settings that will be taught in the class.)

Next up is the minimum fstop, how much light the lens allows in. Pros use those big lenses because they can let in more light, allowing more freedom in settings.

After that you get into different types of metering and other features that are out of my depth. I just wanted to cover the main beginner points, especially that thing at the back of the camera, the photographer. That's what matters. David Lace could make a pinhole camera from a shoebox in about 2 minutes and probably shoot better than either of us would with a great camera.

One more thought - a $1000 budget means $500 for the camera, $150 for the other lens, $120 for the off camera flash and bracket, $85 for the tripod ...

My camera body was about 1/3rd of my total $1250 budget for a shooting rig. The pros here can help refine the numbers, but he definitely shouldn't blow all his money on a camera and then have red eye in every pic because he has no budget for off camera lighting.

yup, that could be a cause:2 cents:

Could you explain to how lighting or focus affect graininess?

Thanks.

lack of light will cause the sensor NOT to gather information, the sensor will then try to 'create information' which is usually perceived as grain.

now about megapixel... is some ways megapixel is important to image quality... if not why would mags use MF at 45-60MP for shots? it all about the information gathered. the more information, the better decisions the processor in camera can make... and the the more choices the editor and printer have.

I started shooting digital in June 2001 with a 3mp camera and I don't mean pics of the dog at the park, I'm referring to creating content on a daily basis. I've been using bodies that have progressed up the MP ladder and seen the difference in MP vrs quality.

the biggest differences I experience is clarity, color and latitude, i.e. the smoothness of the gradient between black and whites... the more MP the more information available to carry the contrast between black and white, the more information available to render the shades of color in the images as well.

I have a professinal 12mp body and a professional 24mp body, while the 12mp body is a low light monster the 24mp body is the body of choice... best color I've ever expereince since using a digital camera.

as for focus making an image grainy..... standing by for wall of text :winkwink:

The higher the ISO setting the grainier the photo quality :2 cents:

:winkwink:
http://camerasim.com/camera-simulator.html

good replies here..

if i was looking for a non slr and perhaps even if i was looking for a budget slr, i would take a serious look at the sony interchangeable alpha lens "nex 5".