Camera Shopping

I have many brilliant friends.

I'm humble enough to defer judgment to my friends on any area in which I do not feel sufficiently qualified so when it came to buying a camera, I knew precisely who to call. I've known this guy for more than three years now and he amazes me at his uncanny vast knowledge of electronics and cars. I mean, this guy is like a walking wikipedia of stuff. Show him and picture of a car and he'll start going on and on about that car until you stop him. Brilliant.

So I deferred judgment to him and asked him what kind of camera I should be looking for. He gave me very useful pointers but sadly, I could not go with his first choice for two reasons. He knows his stuff, and like everyone who knows their stuff, he insists on quality which, inevitably, is pricey. He also speaks like he has an elastic wallet, mine is anything but elastic. And so I had to precariously balance between taking his advice and not calling my wallet ridiculous names it will not respond to.

Ok, I hear you, so I would have spend a lot more was it some other kind of techy device but really, for someone who was satisfied with the 3.2 MP carl zeiss lense that came with the Nokia 5800, there is something like too much money to spend on a camera (and that amount is just slightly above the cheapest).

So here's what I learned about cameras from the consultations that I did.

First, lense manufacturer is key. I guess this one is pretty obvious because while we go after names for the dignity that accompanies their reputation, there is also the assurance of quality. It's like a credit rating, it computes future performance on the basis of past trends. We pay more for German cars not because of regional affiliations but because of reputation (in both name and performance). So for a Sony camera, carl zeiss was the name to look out for, and having had a good experience with this particular lense manufacturer, I was more than happy to keep an eye out for that name as an absolute minimum.

Secondly, megapixels count, but not as much. Now you'd have expected that with my affinity for math and basic knowledge of what pixels are, I'd have figured this one out on my own. You're right, but only at a theoretic level. I mean, we all say size matters, but really, unless it borders on extremes, who really cares that much. Anyway, pixelation is like resolution, once past a certain point, it serves little practical purpose. For instance, when downloading HD movies, I go for 720p instead of the impressive 1080p simply because with the TV size I have, there's little practical difference between those two resolutions. It makes me sad to know I can't distinguish between 720p and 1080p. Back to cameras, once past a certain pixelation, the only advantage with larger size is just how much you can zoom without losing resolution, and for computer viewing, zooming is just for show.

Third, mechanical zoom counts if you like scenery (or bird watching like me). Mechanical zoom is just how much the camera lense can actually zoom, as contrasted with how much the display can zoom in on what the lense captures. And this actually is what, so far, I have a problem with. 4X performs pretty ok but is not for serious bird watchers. Maybe I should just get binoculars.

Fourth, colour. I have little to say about this. When I finally settled on the model to buy which my wallet could accomodate, I had a choice of two colours, pink and silver. I'd have preferred black but luckily the two available colours were pretty easy to choose from.

He wanted me to go for the W570 and I opted for the W530, saving 4k in the process. I'm not too sure my eyes are currently calibrated to tell the difference between the two makes as far as end product is concerned but I'm already wishing I paid the 4k to get HD recording capability.

This tree outside my office has never been photographed, to my knowledge.

First pic. I promise to do better.

Posted in: