Digital Cameras

[DavidATX]

Anyone here ever buy a digital camera off ebay? I am looking for a nice 5 megapixel or so digital SLR. I see them on ebay for rather cheap...just wondering if anyone has had good or bad experiences getting one from there?

Thanks

[Lowbrow]

I got my 5MP Elph off of ebay without a hitch. Since it was a new camera I didnt save all that much money though. I figured I was about as protected as if I went with one of those cheap online electronic boutiques out of manhattan.

[editor]

If you're going for a DSLR it would seem to me that you'd want at least 7mp to give you a little bit of future-proofing. I realize many people buy DSLRs to match their lens collection, so if that's the reason definately go higher. If you don't have a lens format already and still want 5mp, you can buy new regular 5pm digital cameras super cheap that give great quality.

I have an 8.3 that I love. I took over 2,500 shots when I was in Japan a in February and March.

[Gary]

I do alot of photography/ video shooting and production. One of my favorite places to buy equipment is B&H out of Brooklyn. They are not your standard East coast video/photo house, rather they are very reputable and have very solid pricing. There return policies are iron clad and every item they sell has a USA warranty. In other words you have the assurance that it's not a black market camera.

A couple of great deals right now include the new Canon Rebel 8.2mp SLR. It runs about $800.00 with a 18x70 mm lens. There is also the Nikon D70 6mp SLR which has an 18x70, I've worked with it alot and it was fantastic.

One other thing to mention is the lens. If your going to shoot alot of landscape photography you really need to think about going with an SLR. The reason this is is that you need the ability to go as wide as possible. Alot of beginners think that the throw (zoom) is the most important thing on a camera when in most situations (especially lanscape) the width of your lens is what will give you great depth and capture more of the surroundings. Generally a fixed lens camera will start at about 35 to 40 mm and throw to about 110mm. Notice that the above DSLR's widest point is 18mm, this is what you want.

Also remember that a high mp rating can mean absolutely nothing. Many 5 mp consumer cameras use cheap CCD's (charged couple device) which brings them more into a true 3mp range. They also use very cheap glass (lens). With an SLR you have something you can continue to invest in with better and better lenses. The glass on a camera is everything, of course along with a good CCD when going digital.

Of course all of this depends on what your planning to use the camera for but if you can afford to spend a little more you will be much happier in the long run with an SLR.

[DavidATX]

Thanks for the replies y'all. I have been using a Canon AE-1 from 1976 for many years (my father bought it new, gave it to me years later when I was in high school). However, it has just become to much of a hassle to take pictures with it, develop film and then scan them if i want to have them on the computer. I guess all the reasons everyone goes digital.

I will be using it for a multitude of things....landscapes, documenting (restoration of cars), and then the everyday use of events that need to be remembered.

Can a good 5 or 6 mp SLR be had for $500?

Thanks.

[Casual Observer]

I too shop B&H. The website is www.bhphoto.com link

For reference, at home I have a Sony 5.1mp digital camera (DSC-W1), and a Sony miniDV video camera (DCR-PC105).

At work I use a Sony 7.2mp digital camera (DSC-V3), and a Sony 3CCD miniDV video camera (DCR-VX2100).

I love both, and wouldn't trade them for any other brand of the same specifications. When compared to friends pictures & video mine always seem higher quality. Maybe its just me, but I feel that Sony does make a good product.

Concerning digital, I would have to say Sony & Canon are my top 2. I say this because I feel that Sony provides a sharper image, but is very "cold". On the other hand however, the Canon provides "warm" pictures, but never feels quite as sharp as a Sony. Again, this is all opinion.

I know my spill doesn't answer your question, but I would check B&H photo.com and see if they have anything in your price range.

Good Luck!

[jmancuso]

If you're going for a DSLR it would seem to me that you'd want at least 7mp to give you a little bit of future-proofing.  I realize many people buy DSLRs to match their lens collection, so if that's the reason definately go higher.  If you don't have a lens format already and still want 5mp, you can buy new regular 5pm digital cameras super cheap that give great quality.

I have an 8.3 that I love.  I took over 2,500 shots when I was in Japan a in February and March.

i have a 6MP digital rebel and i am happy with it. i thought about the XT (8MP) but figured the chances of me printing out huge posters is slim.

[editor]

I do alot of photography/ video shooting and production. One of my favorite places to buy equipment is B&H out of Brooklyn. They are not your standard East coast video/photo house, rather they are very reputable and have very solid pricing. There return policies are iron clad and every item they sell has a USA warranty. In other words you have the assurance that it's not a black market camera.

In terms of service and reputation, you can't go wrong with B&H. The last few companies I've worked for have all bought millions and millions of dollars of equipment from B&H, and I've never heard a complaint. If you fill out a form on their web site, they'll send you a catalog with stuff you didn't even know you need.

In terms of price, they're OK. They're better priced than your local Best Buy, but can't compete with some of the internet retailers. I got my latest camera a year ago from NewEgg.com for about $800. At the time, the street price for it was $1,400. A year later, the street price is still $950-1,000, so I'm still ahead of the game.

[Gary]

Stupid me for not putting up the B&H link. Thanks casual observer.

David atx, for 500.00 you can get some pretty decent digi cameras but again your stuck with what you've got. My advice would be to save up a little more and buy a 6mp Cannon Rebel (about 750.00 w/lens). The problem is that there getting harder to find because they've been replaced by Cannon's 8.2mp version.

If you just can't wait which means that you'll have to go with a point and shoot, go with Sony. Casual observer is correct in his explanation of Sony's cold but sharper image versus Cannon's warmer yet softer image. This is common among both all the way up to there high line digi Beta video cameras. However Sony builds a superior chasis and also has the name Sony which is tough to beat in the consumer world.

Personally I believe that Nikon offers the best of both worlds plus there chasis are superior to both Sony and Cannon. That being said if you need to stick in that 500.00 range go to the B&H website, click digital photography, click 5 megapixels and up and have fun looking. Like the editor said you don't have to buy from B&H as there are some cheap online deals. Just beware.

[dbigtex56]

As I understand it, more megapixels roughly equals higher resolution (much the same way that large format films can show more detail in enlargements than 35mm). A couple of questions:

At what point does more megapixels cease to matter when the maximum enlargement will be a 4x6 print? To some degree this is probably subjective, but in practical terms, greater detail eventually becomes indistinguishable to the unaided eye.

If one does choose to print enlargements from a digital source, where do you go? Obviously, it's impractical for most people to have a home printer capable of producing poster-sized prints. Any advantages to finding a local source and taking your digital media there, vs. transferring it over the 'net (if that's an option)?

And one more question: I read that Nikon is producing new cameras whose RAW data is not fully compatable with Adobe Photoshop. Is this likely to pose a problem?

I haven't yet taken the digital plunge, and am grateful for any insights y'all could offer.

[jpcampbell]

As I understand it, more megapixels roughly equals higher resolution (much the same way that large format films can show more detail in enlargements than 35mm). A couple of questions:

At what point does more megapixels cease to matter when the maximum enlargement will be a 4x6 print? To some degree this is probably subjective, but in practical terms, greater detail eventually becomes indistinguishable to the unaided eye.

If one does choose to print enlargements from a digital source, where do you go? Obviously, it's impractical for most people to have a home printer capable of producing poster-sized prints. Any advantages to finding a local source and taking your digital media there, vs. transferring it over the 'net (if that's an option)?

And one more question: I read that Nikon is producing new cameras whose RAW data is not fully compatable with Adobe Photoshop. Is this likely to pose a problem?

I haven't yet taken the digital plunge, and am grateful for any insights y'all could offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if you don't enlarge beyone 4x6, you might crop a photo and then want to print at 4x6. The extra resolution will help with this. For me, that's a bigger advantage than printing poster size photos.

[Gary]

As I understand it, more megapixels roughly equals higher resolution (much the same way that large format films can show more detail in enlargements than 35mm). A couple of questions:

At what point does more megapixels cease to matter when the maximum enlargement will be a 4x6 print? To some degree this is probably subjective, but in practical terms, greater detail eventually becomes indistinguishable to the unaided eye.

First don't be decieved, more megapixels doesn't always mean better resolution. I've seen 3mp pro cameras blow away an 8 mp consumer.

The camera's glass (lens) is just as important if not more, even when going digital. Depending upon how serious you are, always look at the camera's glass first, then look at the CCD. Yes a CCD's resolution matters but only to the effect that the glass allows it to. The glass is the initial capture device of light entering the camera, thus the CCD responds to that light and for that matter the resolution of the lens as well.

As far as resolution being an issue in a 4x6 print you might be surprised. If you were to take say Nikons consumer 8mp and print it to a  4x6. Then use Nikons  pro 6mp (D70) and print a 4x6 you would choose the 6mp image all day long. The resolution is betterand the color is more true. All of that being said alot of this is dependent upon the printer and what it's capable of.

If one does choose to print enlargements from a digital source, where do you go? Obviously, it's impractical for most people to have a home printer capable of producing poster-sized prints. Any advantages to finding a local source and taking your digital media there, vs. transferring it over the 'net (if that's an option)?

If your printing poster size images most print shops can do the job. One thing to consider though is to make your color corrections etc in Photo Shop before you take the disc to the printer. The reason for this is that many of the large printer systems do small amounts of automatic color correction which can sometimes throw your original color balance off. As far as transfering it over the net, it really can't be done as there's just to much information in most digi pics.

And one more question: I read that Nikon is producing new cameras whose RAW data is not fully compatable with Adobe Photoshop. Is this likely to pose a problem?

I haven't yet taken the digital plunge, and am grateful for any insights y'all could offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have not heard that and I keep up with the digi stuff, especially Nikon (there the best). The only thing I can think of is that maybe the camera's internal software had some write problems. This is not uncommon when a camera first comes out of beta testing and onto the market. Rest assured that if this is true it will be fixed pronto.

Are you looking to buy soon?

[Gary]

Sorry all, my cut and paste didn't work on that last one.

[dbigtex56]

d'oh!

Of course cropping would justify the additional resolution! I should have thought of that. (An awkward excuse; I'm a fan of printing negatives full-frame, and usually get all snotty about cropping. Digital doesn't carry that pretense.) Thanks, jpcampbell.

Gary, thanks for your insights. As you noted, good glass is expensive, and to the casual buyer isn't as 'sexy' as more megapixels.

The info about Nikon came from this article by David Pogue in The New York Times online edition. You'll have to register to access it, but it's fast and free. I recommend his weekly "Circuits" email.

I'm not looking to buy quite yet (just invested in some large format 'wet' photography equipment, and need to justify what I already have before branching out further). However, I figure it's better to start researching too early than too late.

Thanks again.

[jpcampbell]

Sorry all, my cut and paste didn't work on that last one.

First don't be decieved, more megapixels doesn't always mean better resolution. I've seen 3mp pro cameras blow away an 8 mp consumer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Megapixels directly relates to resolution, but not neccessarily to quality. The 8mp camera will always have higher resultion, but the quality may be less due to the lens, etc. Resolution is just the number of pixels.

[Gary]

Megapixels directly relates to resolution, but not neccessarily to quality.

[Gary]

d'oh!

Of course cropping would justify the additional resolution! I should have thought of that. (An awkward excuse; I'm a fan of printing negatives full-frame, and usually get all snotty about cropping. Digital doesn't carry that pretense.) Thanks, jpcampbell.

Gary, thanks for your insights. As you noted, good glass is expensive, and to the casual buyer isn't as 'sexy' as more megapixels.

The info about Nikon came from this article by David Pogue in The New York Times online edition. You'll have to register to access it, but it's fast and free. I recommend his weekly "Circuits" email.

I'm not looking to buy quite yet (just invested in some large format 'wet' photography equipment, and need to justify what I already have before branching out further). However, I figure it's better to start researching too early than too late.

Thanks again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh man that's great! It's been 15 years since I've done any wet stuff. What did you get?

[Gary]

I too shop B&H. The website is www.bhphoto.com link

For reference, at home I have a Sony 5.1mp digital camera (DSC-W1), and a Sony miniDV video camera (DCR-PC105).

At work I use a Sony 7.2mp digital camera (DSC-V3), and a Sony 3CCD miniDV video camera (DCR-VX2100).

I love both, and wouldn't trade them for any other brand of the same specifications. When compared to friends pictures & video mine always seem higher quality. Maybe its just me, but I feel that Sony does make a good product.

Concerning digital, I would have to say Sony & Canon are my top 2. I say this because I feel that Sony provides a sharper image, but is very "cold". On the other hand however, the Canon provides "warm" pictures, but never feels quite as sharp as a Sony. Again, this is all opinion.

I know my spill doesn't answer your question, but I would check B&H photo.com and see if they have anything in your price range.

Good Luck!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That VX2100 is the best video camera in the world for the buck. I shoot video with some high line cameras about $50,000 and up and I had heard about the VX2000 (previous model) from some friends. Well I was very sceptical about the reviews for low light especially with it only having 1/3" chips.

Well I took the plunge and purchased one a few years ago and it absolutely blew my mind. In fact I put it up against some of the 1/2" 3/4" cameras that I work with and I've got to tell ya that it was very difficult to tell the difference.

Fantastic camera!!!!

[Casual Observer]

Personally I believe that Nikon offers the best of both worlds plus there chasis are superior to both Sony and Cannon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I used both Nikon & Minolta SLRs when I did b&w photography & developing, and was always pleased with the result.

You also seem well versed on CCD technology. I agree too, that many digital camera makers advertise the actual pixel count on the CCD, rather than only the active pixels on that CCD. Also, many CCD video camera manufacturers fail to mention how many 100k of pixels are actually on their CCD(s), and what measurement size the CCD is also.

I would never compare a point & shoot Sony or Canon to a DSLR Nikon, Minolta, or even Canon Rebel. However, when it comes to point & shoot, I don't think you could find a better deal than the Sony DCS-W5 (the new replacement for the DCS-W1 that I have).

As for the VX2100, the only thing I wish it had is a 24fps like the Panasonic AG-DVX100A or at least a 30fps Movie Mode like the GL1 & 2 has.

Oh, I got the new Summer 2005 - B&H photo catalog yesterday..

[Gary]

I agree. I used both Nikon & Minolta SLRs when I did b&w photography & developing, and was always pleased with the result.

You also seem well versed on CCD technology. I agree too, that many digital camera makers advertise the actual pixel count on the CCD, rather than only the active pixels on that CCD. Also, many CCD video camera manufacturers fail to mention how many 100k of pixels are actually on their CCD(s), and what measurement size the CCD is also.

I would never compare a point & shoot Sony or Canon to a DSLR Nikon, Minolta, or even Canon Rebel. However, when it comes to point & shoot, I don't think you could find a better deal than the Sony DCS-W5 (the new replacement for the DCS-W1 that I have).

As for the VX2100, the only thing I wish it had is a 24fps like the Panasonic AG-DVX100A or at least a 30fps Movie Mode like the GL1 & 2 has.

Oh, I got the new Summer 2005 - B&H photo catalog yesterday..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah I like the 24p myself, I've got two friends that have them and there really great. However there not in the same price class as the VX2100 nor do they touch the low light ability of that fantastic Sony. One thing about the Cannon's, those movie modes stink imo. There more of a strobe than anything. I had the XL1 and the GL1 and I disliked both of them which is why I bought the Sony in the first place.

The Panasonic's they have out now have great film like attributes but they really best respond to a controlled atmosphere. My buddy did a concert with a couple of his last month and I'm here to tell you it looked just like 35mm film. When I first started in the photography/video field all we thought about was how to get a real film look with video, now it's here.

Oh and the B&H catalog? Damn it, they haven't sent mine yet. I love getting those things. I don't normally throw them away until the next year.

[Casual Observer]

I've heard the same about the 24p feature on the Pani DVX100. I've never got to play with one though, but I've been eyeing the new PV-GS400. I've heard some sweet things about it, and Sony's last two new lines of prosumer video cameras have seemed weak, to say the least.

I used to have a GL1 for work, and I enjoyed the movie frame mode, but I never really did any heavy cinematic work with it, nor have been able to compare it to the Panasonic's 24p mode.

[Gary]

I've heard the same about the 24p feature on the Pani DVX100.  I've never got to play with one though, but I've been eyeing the new PV-GS400. I've heard some sweet things about it, and Sony's last two new lines of prosumer video cameras have seemed weak, to say the least.

I used to have a GL1 for work, and I enjoyed the movie frame mode, but I never really did any heavy cinematic work with it, nor have been able to compare it to the Panasonic's 24p mode.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Gl1 or GL2 are not on the same planet with the Panasonic, trust me. Of course they are not in the same price class either.

I heard that Cannon was having problems with the XL2 and the 24p mode.

[dbigtex56]

Oh man that's great! It's been 15 years since I've done any wet stuff. What did you get?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just bought a Beseler MCRX enlarger off eBay, which will handle 4x5 negatives. I have a couple of Graflex Speed Graphics (Pacemakers), and currently am using a 545 Polaroid back. Also have a Yashika 124G for medium format. I'm still struggling with the logistics of creating a combination boudoir/darkroom in my small apartment

I figure the safelights will give it atmosphere

btw, any recommendations for local labs which will accept small jobs for C-41 processing? I still haven't addressed the issue of developing 4x5 negatives. It's always something...

[editor]

Megapixels can be misleading. I read a great article about this recently, but I can't remember in which magazine.

Instead of looking at megapixels, look at the output resolution. For example two cameras might list themselves as 8mp, but one makes pictures that are 2500x2000 and the other makes pictures that are 3500x2800.

Most digital cameras use the last few lines of sensors on the borders of the chip to detect metering and light settings, so you don't get that space for your photos.

I've recently seen some companies claiming to have 9mp cameras. What they don't advertise is that the pictures are the same size as you could get from a 3mp camera. That's because they get the "nine" number by saying 3mp of red, 3mp of green, and 3mp of blue. Sounds like a scam to me. Again, look at the size of the output pictures.

Also, there are only a few companies that make camera sensors, and you'll find the same chip in cameras by different manufacturers. The difference in the cameras lies in the optics, the housing, and the features on the back.

It's also interesting to note that Sony's high-end (F-828) camera has a four-color sensor. Instead of RGB, it's RGBE (Emerald). This may or may not matter to you. I have to agree with the above posters and say that speaking generally, Sony images are sharper than most others, but the colors are colder.

Two other things of note -- Sony's latest cameras have outstanding battery life. On a new battery I can shoot from sun up to sun down -- 500 pictures -- without changing the battery.

Another thing to consider when buying a camera is media slots. Mine has two slots, so I have it loaded with a a 2GB Compact Flash card and a 2GB Memory Stick. That way I can shoot all day without having to dump pictures.

A lot of people don't like Memory Sticks. I've never understood why. Five years ago when Sony was the only company making them, they were expensive. But now they're pretty competitive if you shop around. I find the form factor more usable than SD, MMC, xD, and Transflash. Compact Flash seems kind of too large these days.

[Gary]

Just bought a Beseler MCRX enlarger off eBay, which will handle 4x5 negatives. I have a couple of Graflex Speed Graphics (Pacemakers), and currently am using a 545 Polaroid back. Also have a Yashika 124G for medium format. I'm still  struggling with the logistics of creating a combination boudoir/darkroom in my small apartment

I figure the safelights will give it atmosphere 

btw, any recommendations for local labs which will accept small jobs for C-41 processing? I still haven't addressed the issue of developing 4x5 negatives. It's always something...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a matter of fact I do but I can't remeber the name, I haven't used them in a while. Let me look at my records tonight and I'll get some info for ya.

[Gary]

Megapixels can be misleading.  I read a great article about this recently, but I can't remember in which magazine.

Instead of looking at megapixels, look at the output resolution. For example two cameras might list themselves as 8mp, but one makes pictures that are 2500x2000 and the other makes pictures that are 3500x2800. 

Most digital cameras use the last few lines of sensors on the borders of the chip to detect metering and light settings, so you don't get that space for your photos.

I've recently seen some companies claiming to have 9mp cameras.  What they don't advertise is that the pictures are the same size as you could get from a 3mp camera.  That's because they get the "nine" number by saying 3mp of red, 3mp of green, and 3mp of blue.  Sounds like a scam to me.  Again, look at the size of the output pictures.

Also, there are only a few companies that make camera sensors, and you'll find the same chip in cameras by different manufacturers.  The difference in the cameras lies in the optics, the housing, and the features on the back.

It's also interesting to note that Sony's high-end (F-828) camera has a four-color sensor.  Instead of RGB, it's RGBE (Emerald).  This may or may not matter to you.  I have to agree with the above posters and say that speaking generally, Sony images are sharper than most others, but the colors are colder. 

Two other things of note -- Sony's latest cameras have outstanding battery life.  On a new battery I can shoot from sun up to sun down -- 500 pictures -- without changing the battery.

Another thing to consider when buying a camera is media slots.  Mine has two slots, so I have it loaded with a a 2GB Compact Flash card and a 2GB Memory Stick.  That way I can shoot all day without having to dump pictures. 

A lot of people don't like Memory Sticks.  I've never understood why.  Five years ago when Sony was the only company making them, they were expensive.  But now they're pretty competitive if you shop around.  I find the form factor more usable than SD, MMC, xD, and Transflash.  Compact Flash seems kind of too large these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some excellent points. In fact the Sony 4 color ccd has been a disaster, it had alot of white balance and color rendition problems.

As far as Sony's battery life, it's amazing. The video camera I was discussing with Casual Observer (Sony VX2100) has an incredible battery life. My listed "9 hour battery" would give me about 7 1/2 hours even with alot of Zooming. Why other makers don't have this is a mystery.

[editor]

Some excellent points. In fact the Sony 4 color ccd has been a disaster, it had alot of white balance and color rendition problems.

As far as Sony's battery life, it's amazing. The video camera I was discussing with Casual Observer (Sony VX2100) has an incredible battery life. My listed "9 hour battery" would give me about 7 1/2 hours even with alot of Zooming. Why other makers don't have this is a mystery.

Batteries and dual card slot are the primary reasons I got the F-828. I haven't had any white balance problems yet that I've noticed. I've had it since August, and according to the file counter I've taken about 21,000 pictures. It's good for what I use it for because it loves blue and green, and most of what I take pictures of are in those shades. I've noticed the infamous "purple fringe" problem on about 50 pictures, mostly pictures of floodlights taken at night, so it hasn't been that bad, and in some cases (like pictures of neon) it actually makes the picture look better.

I think of the Sony as working with Fuji film -- lots of color, not so good in shadows.

The Nikon feels more like working with Kodak film -- warm tones and good shadows, but at the expense of color.

Also, the build quality of the Sony is incredible. I've been from Japan to Vancouver to Montreal to the Czech Republic with it and it doesn't have any signs of wear. However, I haven't worked with the other major brands (except KonicaMinolta) enough to know how they would fare.

[Gary]

Derr, I passed right by the fact that you had the 828. I never had the opportunity to use the 828 although I did consider buying it when it first came out. I read about alot of purple fringe problems and also heard about the emerald giving strange color effects.

Have you had the emerald issues? Also didn't they discontinue the 828?

Your right about Sony's chassis. Virtually everything they make from photography to video gear is very well made. Don't forget there ccd's (PowerHad) either. They are great low light chips.

[Casual Observer]

Batteries and dual card slot are the primary reasons I got the F-828.  I haven't had any white balance problems yet that I've noticed.  I've had it since August, and according to the file counter I've taken about 21,000 pictures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I happened by the SonyStyle store in the Galleria last week and played with the showroom model F-828. All I can say is "wow". It made me want to throw my DSC-V3 in the garbage. I have to say that you have one nice camera!

For the record, I love Sony & Apple. Don't get me wrong, there are some other devices from some cool manufacturers, but if I had to choose - it would be those two hands down.

On a somewhat related note to the thread, I have zero experience with the digital SLRs. Can anyone give me a quick summary of a DSLR versus straight digital? It sure would be appreciated!

[Gary]

I happened by the SonyStyle store in the Galleria last week and played with the showroom model F-828. All I can say is "wow". It made me want to throw my DSC-V3 in the garbage. I have to say that you have one nice camera!

For the record, I love Sony & Apple. Don't get me wrong, there are some other devices from some cool manufacturers, but if I had to choose - it would be those two hands down.

On a somewhat related note to the thread, I have zero experience with the digital SLRs. Can anyone give me a quick summary of a DSLR versus straight digital? It sure would be appreciated!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few things DSLR's have over consumer or prosumer cameras is, larger ccd's, interchangable glass, accept low light much better because of the larger CCD's and glass, better balance and are more ruggedly constructed.

Also consider that along with interchangable lenses come the ability to shoot much wider than any point and shoot there is. This can be everything in a great shot, especially landscape photography.

Although the 828 is a more prosumer camera it gives a respectable 28mm at it's widest. For me that's still not enough to justify spending the $800.00 (Nothing personal editor). For a few hundred more you can step into a DSLR which gives you so many more options for the future.