Professional shots attainable with digital camera?

Question

I want a camera that will give me professional results, with the ease of a digital camera. I would like to stay in the $400 range. Is this at all possible, or should I buy a camera that uses the professional film? Serious answers only please. I will give 10 points to the best answer with backup information. Thanks!

So many of these answers where wonderful, that I hate to pick just one, but Scott in the way provided pictures to go along with his backup information, so I picked him. Thank you all so much for your helpful input!!

Answer 1

There are a few issues with Non-SLR digital camera that you should know about:

1. SENSOR (part 1): The sensor is very small and you will get terrible results if you shoot at the higher ISO speeds (eg: anything over ISO 400).

2. SENSOR (part 2): The sensor is very small and you will not get satisfactory big prints. (Usually anything over 8x10 is a problem)

3. LENSES (part 1): The lenses are not good enough to resolve to the same extent as the sensor, so you get images that are not sharp and have bad colour abberation and purple fringing in high-contrast areas.

4. LENSES (part 2): It is difficult to get a professional look without big expensive lenses, because you aren't able to isolate your focus points. You know those shots where a person is in focus and the background is just a total blur? Looks professional, right? Well, you basically can't do that with a 'Point & Shoot' digital camera because the lens does not open wide enough to have shallow depth of field.

5. MEGAPIXELS: You do not need more than about 6 or 7. More than that is actually going to harm image quality when you have a small sensor and a crappy lens.

5. CONTRTOLS: a small camera with menu-based image controls is much harder to work with than a bigger SLR-type camera with direct control buttons and dials.

Conclusion: you can get good pictures out of a high end point and shoot camera (eg: Sony H5, Canon G7, Panasonic FZ50) but only in certain situations and with some severe limitations.

Solution: buy a Digital SLR. If you only have $400 then go buy a used SLR. There are some great models that have become recently discontinued that still take amazing images (eg. Nikon D70) and some great models near the end of their product cycle that are going for dirt cheap (eg. Canon Rebel XT, Olympus Evolt 500, Nikon D50). If you can't find one in your price range, wait a couple months and save your pennies. It IS that important.

Finally, the short answer is that, no you cannot get 'Professional' results without buying an SLR. If image quality is what matters you have no other choice. You don't need to go to 'Professional Film' because most professionals are using digital now. Any of the cameras I mentioned above will get you well on your way to great results.

EDIT: the next answer below mine is partly true, but only partly. There are plenty of terrible photographers using excellent equipment and there are plenty of excellent photographers using terrible equipment, but if you want the best results (in this case I'm thinking: big, sharp, accurate, beautiful PRINTS) there is no option but to go to a D-SLR. I had to work with a Panasonic TZ1 ($300 point&shoot) as my only camera for a few months and some of the pictures turned out great but I was always (100% of the time) dissapointed when I printed them at 11x14. The noise was too high and the detail just wasn't there.

Answer 2

Professionals use expensive cameras and know a lot about photography, so seriously, you can't do it.
A film camera may be a better choice for you. A lot of stores have trade-ins on film SLR's in that range... maybe an older model Nikon (N65 for example) with a 28-70 mm might be available in that price range.

Answer 3

It depends on what you mean by professional results. It's the photographer who is the professional, not the camera. A professional photographer is a person who gets paid for taking pictures. Not all professionals are good ... have you seen some of the pictures in the National Inquirer ... some of those shots are worth millions. I'm thinking Brittany's non-underwear shot for example.

I know people who have all the best equipment and they still take terrible pictures. Likewise, I know other people who take outstanding photographs with point & shoot digital cameras (and one who uses a home made oatmeal box, pinhole camera).

I used to say that I wanted a really good guitar someday. My instructor asked what was wrong with my $26 student guitar. He picked it up and made it sound like a million dollar guitar. It wasn't the guitar, it was the player.

Answer 4

even an inexpensive disposable camera for $5 can give you good results if the conditions for the photo is right
good light level,
right angle

there are rules of thumb to follow in taking pictures,
for example,
most people take pictures and the person is looking right at the camera,
well, the eyes will reflect the light, causing red eye, or faded color.

if you take a pict in front of a window when its bright outside,
even a mega super camera will not take a good pict.

it may be best for you to look up tutorials on how to take pictures, and prehaps join an online photo club for ideas and tips.

Answer 5

The short answer is 'yes'. However- it's just a bit more difficult to get professional looking results with a cheap camera. Today's compact cameras give outstanding sharpness and resolution. Easily good enough to look proffessional- as far as image clarity goes. However- a pro shot is more than that.

The 1st thing it's hard to get from an inexpensive camera is a small depth of field. i.e. where the subject is in focus, but the background is blurry. Most compact digicams have a large depth of field. But- if you're close the the subject, use a long focal length, a wide aperture- you can pull off a reasonable shot with non-DSLR.

Next thing- and this is a biggie, is lighting. Professionals use all sorts of lighting techniques (which I won't get into here), and the built-in flash of your small cameras just won't do the trick. If you're aware of these- you can simulate or get creative with natural lighting and make interesting artistic images. But- for portaits, you'll need to know what you're doing.

Thirdly- is control. Easy and quick access to image control parameters is very handy- and harder, or unavailable on a cheaper camera. White Balance, ISO, Aperture, Shutter speed, Exposure Compensation, sharpness, color saturation, etc.

Fourthly- if you're shooting something with action. Having a camera that shoots 5 or 9 frames per second is a joy. With a small camera that only shoots 1 to 2 fps, and then you need to wait 6 seconds- might have you miss the shot.

For $166 you can get a compact Fuji F20 which will take outstanding quality, low noise, silky smooth images. The question isn't whether the camera is good enough... it's whether YOU are good enough.

Enjoy your new hobby! Oh- the Fuji S9000 mentioned above is a good choice, or for $329 the Fuji S6000fd might be a great way to start.

Answer 6

For that price range, your best shot is an "SLR-style" camera. It's better than a standard compact because it gives you more shooting options, plus they come with way better lenses. I bought a 9 MP Fuji FinePix S9000 about a year ago and am very happy with it. Fuji now sells the next generation of this camera (the S9100), plus Nikon (some of the CoolPix line) and Canon sell comparable SLR-style cameras.

Here's the data for my camera:

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Fujifilm%20FinePix%20S9000%20Digital%20Camera:1992909130:page=details;_ylt=AlIc2AHMkXdZq3qsS24yY7_nSHAD;_ylu=X3oDMTBiZ2o2Y3ZwBHNlYwNzaWJzcGVj

For the S9100:

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Fujifilm%20FinePix%20S9100%20Digital%20Camera:1994306972:page=details;_ylt=AlIc2AHMkXdZq3qsS24yY7_nSHAD;_ylu=X3oDMTBiZ2o2Y3ZwBHNlYwNzaWJzcGVj

The Nikon CoolPix 8800 (a bit out of your price range):

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Nikon%20Coolpix%208800%20Digital%20Camera:1991607487:page=details;_ylt=AlIc2AHMkXdZq3qsS24yY7_nSHAD;_ylu=X3oDMTBiZ2o2Y3ZwBHNlYwNzaWJzcGVj

And one from Canon:

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Canon%20PowerShot%20S3%20IS%20Digital%20Camera:1993713213;_ylt=AmwiSx46lZ75LdoCQYoJ0u6mjnUC;_ylu=X3oDMTBubWI1aDE3BF9zAzU3NjkwMzQzBGx0AzQEc2VjA3Ny?clink=dmss//ctx=sc:cdigicamera,c:cdigicamera,mid:59,pid:1993713213,pdid:59,pos:3

I went with the Fuji because with all other things being equal, it was way less expensive than the Nikon. I'm not sure that Canon was offering an SLR-style camera when I purchased mine. I don't recall seeing any, anyway. Had I seen one, I would have considered it since I'm basically a Canon (and Mamiya) girl. But I have absolutely no regrets about the FinePix S9000.

As long as you know which end of a camera is up, you should be able to achieve professional-looking photos with these as well as with any digital SLR...and still remain in the ~$400 range.