ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

If you have Minolta auto-focus lenses, they will mount directly to a Sony digital camera with an A-frame mount. There is an adaptor to mount A-frame lenses on the newer E-frame cameras, but you lose autofocus capability. I'd recommend looking for a full-frame Sony body with a full-frame sensor, if you have the appropriate Minolta lenses; you can use your lenses with that body and get excellent digital images. I have a Sony A900, no longer in production, with which I have been well pleased. If you can't find what you want new, you might be able to find a good used product at KEH (www.keh.com). Their prices are fair, and their grading system is excellent.

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

Hey Grandpa, Go to the link provided and take a look at the pic. It was taken with an Oly ep1 with a 12mp sensor... this is a good example of what a mirrorless can do even if it is stitched together.. Now the Oly Om-D E-M1 will fill your bill quite nicely if you want all the features that it gives one. The Oly OM-D E10 will give you basically the same as the big boy. It has the same sensor and software (operating system) as the EM-1, It gives up the stabilization system for a 3 axis which is still very good, and the body is not weather sealed, but for these exceptions they are essentially the same camera for 1/2 the price... You can't loose.


http://www.sansmirror.com/gallery/us-ut-escalante-0412-ep1.html



:D :D

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Agree. Mirrorless seems to be the way to go for your needs. And this guy knows his mirrorless. You should consider his advice.

PM him. :thumbup:

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

Before making your final decision, at least look at the Canon EOS-M mirrorless. It's small, and built VERY well...better than most of the others. It gets a bad rap for it's slower AF capabilities. But if you're not into much faster action subjects, this won't be a issue. Has 3 Canon "M" lenses; with 3rd party lens makers making a few more. But you can get an inexpensive adapter allowing you to use any of the many Canon EF lenses.
But most importantly, it uses an APS-C sensor just like the Digital Rebels, and produces images every bit as good as DSLRs. I know this....I have one. And finally, you can get the body, lens(es), and adapter for under $400. Used for around $300.
At least look at it.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

DSLRs are very useful when your subject is moving around, whether it's sports, weddings, portraits or just candid shots of people. For landscapes and architecture - things that don't move around that much - a point and shoot does quite well.

The shots you show here are great, and if they represent most of what you shoot, I don't know if I'd change from the Oly's.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

However, the number one shortcoming of the EOS-M is the lack of any kind of viewfinder. Is the screen bright enough to overcome that?? Just yesterday I was touring a college campus when the sun suddenly came out. From my point-of-view, that was a positive thing, especially when I got home, viewed the pictures on my computer screen, and realized how much extra "pop" that added to the colors, but a guy near my suddenly struggled with aiming his LCD - he had no chance of composition.

Grandpa in the mountains Loc: Wyoming

This little moth was very patient while I got off three shots.
(My wife was very patient too. We had hiked five miles to a little lake above our house, and she was content to sit and look at the lake whilst I stumbled around looking for a photo and ran on to this.)
Olympus SZ-10
P mode
Super Macro.
On this setting the field of view is very tight. I probably had the camera about a foot away from the bug.

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

There is an adjustment that can be made to enhance the brightness of the LCD under bright sun circumstances. I was made aware of this after having struggled with this frustrating situation. Actually works very well now.

Grandpa in the mountains Loc: Wyoming

I am an Optometrist, so my understanding may not match exactly with correct photography terminology, but I think the biggest factor in depth of field would be aperture size. That's why you nearsighted folks can see more clear by squinting - try looking through a pinhole and you will be very surprised. :shock:

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I must agree that if most of the shots you take with your SZ-10 are this good, "it ain't broke", so no need to fix it. Still interested to know what you feel you can't do with your P&S that you wish you could. If you can't answer that within a second or less, I recommend you stay put, and just keep shooting with what you have.

jmizera Loc: Austin Texas

If all other things were equal, a mirrorless has a couple of advantages over a SLR. There is no mirror to cause vibration as it slams up to reveal the sensor. Secondly, the lenses are a bit simpler, and closer to the sensor. Same reason that some of the old rangefinders would produce the sharpest images.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

:thumbup: :thumbup: Agreed. Nice photos grandpa.

Saleavitt10 Loc: Maine

Fabulous pictures. I want #2 on my wall! New camera, huh, stay with what you've got!

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Why don't you just say so? Using street slang is a poor way to communicate with a general audience. Be clear when you write.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Grandpa,

You have mentioned "sharpest possible" several times. If that is your primary concern, then you need to look for the largest sensor you can fit into your budget and are willing to carry around when hiking. There are three common sizes, larger and potentially sharper than what you have now in your point-n-shoot camera.

So-called "full frame" cameras utilize a sensor that's 24x36mm, about the same size as images produced by most 35mm film cameras. There are DSLRs from several manufacturers that use this size sensor. There are few, if any mirrorless or compact digital cameras that use this size. Necessarily, these cameras are more expensive to buy because they are more costly to build. Quality lenses that are able to cover this size sensor also are bigger, heavier and tend to be more expensive.

"APS-C" sensors are the next size down, and vary a little in size, but are around 15-22mm to 16-23.5mm. This sensor format is the most common one used in DSLRs, but there are also mirrorless and even some compact digitals that use this format.

"Four/Thirds" sensors are 13x17.3mm and are named for using a different ratio (4:3, that better matches up with some print sizes such as 8x10... instead of the more typical 2:3 ratio of the APS-C and FF sensors). Olympus and one or two others use these in DSLRs, mirrorless and a few compact digital cameras.

There are even smaller sensors... tiny and even some that are super tiny... most commonly found in compact cameras and phone cameras.

Depth of Field actually is only effected by focal length, lens aperture size and distance. Sensor size doesn't effect DOF, so long as all those other things remain equal.

However, those other things cannot remain equal. When sensor size changes, in order to frame a subject the same way you also will have to change either focal length or working distance, or a little of both. When going from larger sensor to smaller, a shorter focal length needs to be used (making "wide angle" harder to achieve) if you stand at the same distance. The result is "greater" depth of field... or, conversely, more difficulty blurring down backgrounds.... when using smaller sensors.

The reason folks asked about the blurred background of the moth image is that it's difficult to get a very strong blur with the tiny sensors used in most compact digitals (i.e. "point n shoots" with non-interchangeable lenses) with their tiny sensors.

However, that's a macro shot, so you were quite close and that makes for shallower DOF. I also suspect you had the lens zoomed to one of it's longer settings and were using it near it's largest aperture... all of which make for a fairly strong background blur.

Even though sensor size doesn't actually directly change DOF..., the larger the sensor, the easier it is to control DOF, and the easier it is to see the effect in bigger, brighter optical viewfinders.