Kodak EasyShare LS755: How good is it in 2011?

Hey guys, something that's been bugging me for a while now, and I'd appreciate any feedback at all on this.

I love taking photos. The only digital camera I've had so far(apart from the one in my phone) is a Kodak EasyShare LS755, which is about 6 years old now. I've taken over 6000 photos on it, and always take photos on the highest resolution setting. I've been using it seriously since early 2007. It's been with me on nights out, holidays, everything. It's been dropped countless times and knocked about a bit over the years, as a result it can't zoom properly anymore, but apart from that it's still in great working order. So I'm not about to stop using it just yet. But I'm looking for potential upgrades all the time now. The situation is:

I know the camera market moves on quickly, and I also know I've developed a lot as a photographer since I started using this camera, to the point where a compact digital camera can no longer really meet my needs. Trying to make an outdated compact camera do pro camera things isn't easy.

What would be the current equivalent of a Kodak EasyShare LS755? How much better would that equivalent be?
What would be a good pro or semi-pro camera for me to upgrade to?

Regarding the upgrade, I'm seriously considering a good quality used Canon EOS 40D, maybe off of Ebay. I'm also aware that a compact camera is less clumsy and better for taking with you on nights out than a bulkier pro camera.

No figure for a budget as such, but I'd obviously be looking for something which is a big step up and also great value for money. Second-hand equipment would be fine.

What does anybody else think? Like I say, I'd value your opinions.

---

I'd look at a Nikon DSLR, maybe something with a 28-150 or 200 lens. There's usually some good packages available if you can shop around. I've always owned Nikons , 35mm F1, F3, F4s and now a digital D80 with a rechargeable battery pack. (4000 per charge). The best part is all of my old lenses still fit. They might not all be AF but they fit and work with TTL metering. That's one of the good things about having a Nikon, they haven't changed the lens mount system, so all the retro stuff you have is usable. A DSLR is a bigger camera to lug around of course, but you have a lot more creative control than with a compact. I have a Nikon Coolpix in the glovebox of the car, you just never know when you might see something interesting.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

Even as a Nikon man, you'd struggle to better the Canon 40D second hand. It's been a bit of a known bargain for a year or 2 now.

That said, the Nikon D90 appears to have dropped in price significantly recently (presumably as the replacement, the D7000, has been released), as I'm seriously tempted to get one to replace my second body, a D40x.

Speaking of which , if you're after saving some pennies, you'd struggle to better a Nikon D40, D40x (same as the D40, but with a higher megapixel sensor) or the D60 (essentially the same as the D40x). Just the one thing keep in mind with these bodies that you need a lens with the autofocus motor built in, so older lenses won't autofocus on them. Any Nikon lens with 'AFS' in the name or any Sigma lens with 'HSM' will autofocus fine though.

For the record, 'pro' DLSRs start with the D700 (or at a push the D300) for Nikon, or the Canon 5D mark ii. Anything in the £700-1400 range is generally referred to as 'pro-sumer', and anything beneath £700 new as a beginner's DSLR. There's nothing to stop you using any body for pro uses of course - a basic outdoors image out of the camera will all look broadly similar regardless of how much you spent. It's when you start needing low-light use and moving targets where the money starts paying you back in the higher-end DSLR cameras.

I think all things considered, the Canon 40D would offer the best value at the moment, though if I found a D90 at a similar price, I'd bite the sellers arm off.

Thanks loads guys This is really helpful. I waited a few days to see if anyone else wanted to add anything, so didn't mean to come across as unresponsive or slow LOL.

Gav, that's great to hear that we seem to have the same kind of idea on what a good value for money DSLR would be, you have a lot more experience of photography than I do so that's a post I genuinely appreciate. I've checked out the various models and am sticking with the 40D just now but that's open to change of course, depending how I feel when I finally buy one. Interesting that the pro cameras are so much more expensive, I'm not sure what there is about them to justify such a jump in price... Obviously they're better with higher-res picture quality and more options for the photographer, but a DSLR like the 40D seems not to be far behind(For example, the pap photos on sites like Zimbio are high enough quality, but they seem not to be an awful lot better than the pics I can take with the Kodak compact I currently have - by which I mean not a million miles away, obviously there's a significant difference). I'd imagine that in another few years, "beginners' DSLRs" will take the same kind of quality photos that pro DSLRs do now.

Mal, that's a very good point you make about having a compact camera on you as well, and that's something I totally intend to do, for the exact reasons you said. When I finally get the DSLR I'll either be keeping the LS755 I currently have or buying another compact which is the modern equivalent(A Nikon Coolpix is definitely one I'd go for I think). Plus the compact cameras can take videos, which is something I don't think DSLRs can(I might just die on my arse for thinking that LOL).

---

Quote
EC83
I'd imagine that in another few years, "beginners' DSLRs" will take the same kind of quality photos that pro DSLRs do now.

In general, they do anyway. The problem with beginners DSLRs is the lack of options. My old D40x only has 3 focussing points. My D300 has 51. If a shot you're composing falls into one of those 3 focussing points, or you have plenty of time to recompose (such as if you're shooting still life) then fine, however if you're shooting a moving object, such as a racing car or a bird or something, then those 3 focussing points are a big hindrance. The D300 also allows your focus points to change on the fly if you want it to, so if you're tracking a car, the focus points will change automatically as you pan, while on the D40x you can't do that, so you have to ensure your subject falls exactly into one of those points.

The D40x is also missing features such as a flash sync socket (so it's difficult to control studio-style flashes) and as far as I'm aware, the ability to use radio remote control (as opposed to infra-red, which needs a line of sight). It's also made of plastic, while the D300 is made of magnesium and alloys, and is apparently splashproof (something I'm unwilling to test!).

In general, the D300, and all higher end cameras, improve in every area* as you pay more, but for the majority of subjects, the lower end cameras will do nearly as good a job as the higher ones.

The one exception is low light use. No matter how much the budget cameras improve, no manufacturer would allow their cheaper cameras to even get close to their more expensive models. That goes for features too. Budget cameras will remain budget cameras. In terms of megapixels and low light ability, they will overtake the current top end in the next 5-10 years, but for everything else, they'll still be budget cameras with all the drawbacks that the pricetag carries. If however you aren't affected by the drawbacks, then they're just as good a choice for a heck of a lot less.

* other than weight, which isn't necessarily a drawback, as a heavier camera can feel better balanced in your hand, but you wouldn't want that extra weight if you were hill climbing.

I think it's a measure how @#$%& my head was back in 2011, and what a bad place I was in personally for reasons beyond my control, that I was so diabolically lax and generally hopeless when it came to acknowledging responses I got and keeping folk updated. That wouldn't happen now. Gav, you're a ledge!

As it turned out I managed to blag(Long story!) a Canon 600D back in May 2011, which I've used for various types of Photography ever since. I've used it in all different types of environments, and it's generally performed brilliantly.

So, although I ended up not choosing a used Canon 40D, Gav's assessment proved to be pretty good, and I always had it in the back of my mind - it influenced the choice I did make.

I'm slightly amazed that I've now had the 600D for over 5 years, probably because I seem to have managed to look after it pretty well, without losing or destroying it! It's a bit worn, but I guess that's bound to happen after someone has taken over 40,000 photos on it.

It's still going strong, and although I'll upgrade from it eventually, I'm not planning to yet since I haven't yet reached the full creative limit of what the 600D can do - till I've done that, I think it would be silly to move on.

By the way, I've still got the Kodak EasyShare LS755 too. It's kicking about somewhere in the flat. But since the battery went flat years ago and I've lost the charger, it might be @#$%& now.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2016 05:18AM by EC83.

Haha, I've still got the D40x. I use it with the school on trips to the beach and things. The D300 is still OK for my use, but it did fall off the tripod one day while I was setting up all the flash triggers (the tripod block wasn't locked in properly) and when it landed the battery cover snapped off at one side (it still shuts, but you have to be careful doing so).

I tend not to do much shooting now. The only things I use the cameras for are for school stuff. It's a shame the camera bodies won't get much second hand as I'd have sold them by now.