This week's Shooting Challenge? Inappropriate Holiday Browsing.

For inspiration, look at the results of our last inappropriate browsing contest (warning, some NSFW images). The shot need not include Gizmodo, but someone should be online, ruining the holiday cheer.

The rules:

1. Submissions need to be your own.
2. Photos need to be taken the week of the contest. (No portfolio linking or it spoils the "challenge" part.)
3. Explain, briefly, the equipment, settings and technique used to snag the shot.
4. Email submissions to contests@gizmodo.com.
5. Include 800px image AND something wallpaper sized in email.

Send your best entries by Sunday at 6PM Eastern to contests@gizmodo.com with "Inappropriate Holiday Browsing" in the subject line. Save your files as JPGs or GIFs at 800 pixels wide, and use a FirstnameLastname.jpg naming convention using whatever name you want to be credited with. Include your shooting summary (camera, lens, ISO, etc) in the body of the email.

• Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
• Canon EOS 7D
• Canon PowerShot G11
• Nikon D3S
• Nikon D3000S
• Nikon D3000

Snag it on Software Update, of course. [Apple

Second Runner Up
This is actually a picture of my Christmas tree. I shot this with my Canon XS using a 4 second exposure at f-8, and an iso of 100. I started with the lens unfocused and zoomed in at 55m. During the 4 second exposure I zoomed out to 18mm.
-John Chapman

First Runner Up
Sony A230 Body; Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens; ISO 800; 1/500 sec @ f2.8; No Flash
-Nick Marquis

Winner!
Nikon D5000; Nikkor 18-200 VR; Exposure: 12.2 seconds; Aperture: f/9.0; Focal Length: Multiple; ISO: 200; White Balance: Cool White Fluorescent. This was taken in bulb mode on a tripod. I exposed the tree and surrounding scene at 18mm for about 9 seconds, then slowly zoomed to 200mm closing the shutter right before hitting 200. More here.
-Dan DeChiaro

Dan, please contact me to claim your Joby SLR-ZOOM Gorillapod and Ballhead.

As always, thanks to everyone for participating, and enjoy all of the awesome entries in the gallery below. Picking winners is my favorite worst job to do of the week. Oh, and for those of you wanting wallpaper-sized images, we'll be popping those in a separate post soon.

By the way, more of you sent in shots of soul-sucking winter than pretty, happy Christmas lights. What's that say about us all?

Images coordinated by Kyle VanHemert.

It's not cheap, at $60, but if you're serious photographer in the field it might be well worth it. I can't wait to check it out, myself. Update: Yes, it is similar in some respects to Black Rapid's R-Strap. [LumaLoop]

When you buy a camera, you'll be pelted with specs from a salesperson, many of which are confusing, and even misleading. You will cower, and may cover your head for protection. He will keep pelting. And really, he has to—spec sheets and jargon are integral to camera marketing, at least for now. Here's what it all means, in one handy cheat sheet.

Types of Cameras

Before you set out to buy a new camera, or even just to get to know yours a little better, you've got to know the difference between the different types or cameras. Here are the ones you're likely to come across.

Point-and-Shoots: Also known as compact cameras. If you don't know what kind of camera you're looking for, or what kind your have, it's probably one of these. They're the smallest style of camera, typically—at least in the last few years—trending toward a boxy, mostly featureless shape. The lens is non-removable. The flash unit is built in. They have LCD screens on the back, not just for reviewing photos, but to use as a viewfinder as well. When you press the shutter button on a point-and-shoot, there is a slight delay before the photo is actually recorded. Many new point and shoot cameras will take video, and some even manage to record in HD.

Bridge/Superzoom Cameras: These cameras often look like DSLRs, but don't be fooled: They're just juiced-up point-and-shoots. They will typically come with longer lenses and slightly more impressive specs than your average P&S, and will give you a bit more photographic flexibility to play with. Sadly, they suffer from the same picture-taking delay, or "shutter lag," as point and shoots. The problem with bridge cameras, especially now, is that in order to get a decent one you have to spend at least a few hundreds dollars, at which point you may as well get a...

DSLRs: This unwieldy acronym stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex. Narrowly, this means that the camera has a mirror mechanism which allows photographers to see through the camera's lens while setting up a shot, and which flips up, exposing the image sensor (the equivalent to film in a digital camera). Widely, this means that the camera will have interchangeable lenses, a larger sensor than a point and shoot, and to an extent, more image controls. When you press the shutter button on a DSLR, it takes the photo instantly—no lag, like in a point-and-shoot. Many new DSLRs at mid-to-high price points shoot HD video; some manage 720p, some manage 1080p, but all turn out impressive results, if simply because of the cameras' lenses. That said, they're not really ready to replace proper video cameras yet, because amongother things, no DSLR to date has got the autofocus during video thing right.

These are the cameras that photographers, or people who call themselves photographers, use. They're also the ones that are capable of taking the best photos.

As a rule, DSLRs are more expensive than point and shoots. But they're getting cheaper. Much, much cheaper. Olympus, Nikon, Pentax and Sony all have DSLRs that can be had for under $500—and these are real cameras—rendering the entire category of bridge cameras kind of pointless.

Micro Four Thirds/Digital Rangefinder: Micro Four Thirds cameras are interchangeable-lens cameras, minus the straight-through-the lens viewfinder that defines a DSLR. In other words, they have larger sensors like DSLRs, have swappable glass like DSLRs, but use an LCD screen as viewfinderlike a point-and-shoot. This saves space inside the camera, meaning that—at least this is the theory—it can be more portable than an equivalent DSLR, while maintaining the same versatility and image quality. Most of them record video, too, and they're pretty good at it: They don't have the complex viewfinder/mirror system of a DSLR, so it's technically simpler to record video. Some of these cameras are styled like DSLRs, like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, while some are styled more like portable cameras, like the Olympus EP-1.

This is a small category for now, and accordingly, prices are still high, starting at about $750. Panasonic and Olympus are basically the only game in town.

Sensors

The sensor is the part of the camera that actually records the image. In other words, it is your camera.

Megapixels, and image resolution: Megapixels have been central to digital camera marketing since the beginning (it just sounds like a 90s term, doesn't it?). A megapixel, quite simply, is one million pixels. If a one-megapixel image (or sensor) was perfectly square, it would be 1000x1000 pixels. They're usually rectangular, at 4:3 or 3:2 ratios, which means their resolutions look more like this: 2048x1536 pixels for a 3-megapixel camera; 3264x2448 pixels for an 8-megapixel camera, and so on.

As digital cameras mature, this number means less and less—it's easy to cram megapixels in a camera, but without good optics and light sensitivity, it doesn't mean that it's going to turn out an honest, clean, high-quality images at such a high resolution. My cellphone shoots at five megapixels, but the images look like screenshots from some kind of ghosthunting show. My DSLR shoots at 10.1 megpixels, but turns out images more than twice as clean and clear as my phone. My point-and-shoot is rated at 12.1 megapixels, but on close examination, its images are effectively blurrier than those from the DSLR.

If you're planning on making huge prints, or need to crop your images a lot, a high megapixel count is necessary, but beyond a certain point, the returns are minimal. You'll read a lot of guidance from camera manufacturers about how many megapixels you need to print different sized photos, which you can ignore, because they seem to change with every generation of cameras. Unless you're printing billboards or in magazine or something, don't sweat it too much.

Aside from indicating how many dots a camera is capable of capturing, megapixels can be a helpful indicator of how old a camera's guts may be. Megapixel count has been increasing fairly steadily over the years, so within a given manufacturer's camera line, increased megapixels could correlate to newer sensors, which could, along with high resolution, take richer, less noisy pictures.

ISO: This indicates how fast your camera's sensor collects light—the higher your ISO, the more sensitive your camera is to light, the less light you need to take a picture. And while high-ISO capability is most useful in low light, it also comes in handy when you're shooting extremely fast exposures in the daytime, like at a sports game. With higher ISOs, though, comes more noise—some point-and-shoot cameras advertise extremely high ISOs, on the order of 6400. Shots at this sensitivity will invariably look like ass. DSLRs, which have larger sensors that are better at gathering light, can sometimes shoot at 6400 ISO and higher without too much noise.

It might help to think of it like this: ISO ratings are actually a callback to the days of film. You used to have to anticipate how you'd be shooting, and buy film based on how sensitive it was, as expressed in an ISO or ASA rating. The ratings got carried over to digital cameras, despite film getting replaced with sensors.

Anyway, don't buy a camera for its ISO rating alone, because there's a good chance its top two to three settings will be useless.

CCD and CMOS: From our previous Giz Explains on the subject:

There are two major types of image sensors for digital cameras and camcorders: CCD (charged-couple device) and CMOS (complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor, sometimes also known as active pixel sensor). We're not going to get into the really geeky differences, because you don't really need to know or care. What you should know is that higher-end digital SLRs (the big cameras with a removable lens) use CMOS because it's easier to make bigger CMOS sensors; and mobile phones do because CMOS uses less power. That said, most point-and-shoot cameras and most camcorders use the more common CCD sensor.

Things are a little different now, and CCDs are common in DSLRs nowadays. The difference for consumers is minimal—don't be alarmed to see either on your camera's spec sheet. UPDATE: As some commenters have pointed out, this isn't quite right: DSLRs are still trending more towards CMOS sensors, including most of the latest/greatest cameras. Anyway: still more of a curiosity than a purchasing point, for most people.

White Balance: Have you ever seen a set of indoor pictures that's totally, inexplicably orange? That's a white balance problem. Your camera can adjust to compensate for different light temperatures—tungsten lights have that orange hue, and sunlight will turn your photos kind of blue—and correct your image's color accordingly. Virtually all cameras let you adjust white balance with presets, though it's best if you can adjust it manually, too.

Sensor size, and crop factor: Some cameras have sensors that are roughly the same size as 35mm film, at 36x24mm. These are called full frame cameras. They tend to be more expensive—like Canon's 5D and 1D series, or Nikon's D3s—and their bodies tend to be a bit bigger. Semi-pro to pro equipment, basically.

APS-C sensors, on the other hand, are what almost all consumer DSLRs ship with. These sensors are about 22x15mm, which is significantly smaller than a full frame's sensor. Why does this matter? Larger sensors provide more room for each pixel, which makes them better at picking up light. (A bucket analogy is useful here.) More importantly for APS-C users, though, is crop factor. A smaller sensor will pick up a smaller section of what's coming through a lens, so: A 200mm lens on a full frame DSLR becomes a 300m lens on an APS-C camera, a 50mm becomes a 75mm, etc. Of course, camera manufacturers make APS-C -specific lenses which are designed for the smaller sensors, but the listed focal lengths aren't adjusted—they're still 35mm-equivalent numbers. Just be aware the any given lens will shoot differently from one type of camera to another.

Optics

The optics are the the parts through which your camera sees. They're the eyeballs, basically.

Swappable lenses: There are two kinds of swappable lenses, generally speaking. Ones that zoom in and out, which are called "zoom" lenses, and ones that don't move. These are called "primes." They're all classified by focal length. Strictly speaking, focal length refers to the distance required for a lens system to focus light. In real terms, focal length roughly correlates to physical lens length, and helps indicate how much a lens magnifies an image. 18mm focal length on a DSLR is considered wide, 200mm or more would be considered a telephoto lens.

Point-and-Shoot Lenses, and the X Factor: The second most prominently featured number on your point-and-shoot's obnoxious feature sticker is the zoom rating. It'll be expressed as a number, with an x: 5x, 10x, etc. You'll also see a printed range, something like 5.0-25mm, which describes the focal length of the lens. Here's a trick: Divide the larger focal length measurement by the smaller one. The result should match your "x" zoom rating, because, well, that's all it is: the quotient of the maximum lens length and the minimum lens length.

This is misleading labeling. Mounted on the same camera, a lens that zooms from 50mm to 100mm would be called a 2X lens, while a lens that zooms from 18mm to 42mm would be called a 3X lens, even though at the longest, it doesn't zoom in as far as the 50-100mm lens does at its shortest. Take this equation into account when comparing point-and-shoots, but most of all, try them. You'll see the difference.

Shutter, shutter speed, and shutter lag: You shutter is the little door that opens up between your lens and your sensor, allowing for photographic exposure. Shutter speed ranges are advertised with the intention of implying that the camera will be useful at both ends: from the 10-second long exposure to the 1/4000th-second high-speed shot. Keep in mind, for both numbers, that shutter speed alone doesn't guarantee anything. If your camera can shoot at 1/4000th of a second, but it's got a small aperture and low ISO rating, your shots will probably be too dark.

Shutter lag is something else entirely. You know how on a point and shoot, there's a frustrating gap between when you press the button and when your shot actually takes? That's it. The lower the shutter lag, the better, though many camera manufacturers don't even bother to advertise this.

Aperture: This is the hole through which light passes after its been through part of your lens, and before it hits your sensor. The bigger the hole, the more light gets in. The smaller the hole, the less light gets in. Larger apertures allow you to take pictures in lower light situations, but only allow you to focus on a thin plane—either your background or your foreground will be out of focus. Smaller apertures let you keep more of a scene in focus but they let less light through, and require longer exposure times. Apertures are described by f-numbers—these are the ration between the width of an aperture and the focal length of a lens. The smaller the number, the larger the aperture.

Optical vs Digital Zoom: Another scourge of the camera buyer is digital zoom. Optical is magnification by your lens—in other words, it's true zoom. Digital zoom is just your camera taking the optically zoomed image and blowing it up, like you'd do in Photoshop. It's only useful for framing shots and sometimes helping your camera focus properly. Otherwise, it's a gimmick: Ignore it, shoot wide and crop your shots later.

IS, or Antishake: Image stabilization is fast becoming a standard feature on even the cheapest cameras, though you'll find some sub-$150 point-and-shoots without it. The point of image stabilization is to correct for camera movements during an exposure, which cause blurry shots.

There are two types: Digital IS, which you'll find mostly in point-and-shoots, corrects the image with software, and can be somewhat effective, though the results are often passable, not perfect. Optical image stabilization physically moves some part of the camera to counteract shaking. In some cameras, like Nikons and Canons, the moving parts are in the lens. In most other other manufacturers' DSLRs, it's the sensor that actually moves to stabilize the image. Optical IS almost always works better, but it's not magic—you won't be able to shoot a freehand four-second exposure just because it's on, but you might be able to keep things together for a half-second or more.

Software

"Modes," Face Detection, Smile Detection: Your camera's modes are assistive tools,, not hard features. They're generally just collected presets for settings that you can adjust yourself, like equalizer presets on your iPod. They can be useful, though you'll be a better photographer if you manage settings yourself.

Face and smile detection, again, are like crutches. Face detection guesses when there's a human in the photo so the camera can adjust exposure, white balance and focus to make sure that said human doesn't end up blurry. Smile detection is a crude algorithm that measures facial features, and won't take a photo until the subjects are judged to be SUFFICIENTLY CONTENTED, by which I mean they have vaguely crescent-shaped mouth holes. It's a good way to ensure that nobody is ruining a photo with a grimace. Also, to ensure that none of your photos are ever interesting.

Image formats: You digital camera doesn't have film, but your photos have to go somewhere. In today's cameras, the digitally stored photos are either JPEGs or RAW files. JPEG files are compressed, which means that they are encoded in such a way that they don't take up much space, but lose a small amount of quality. This is how point-and-shoot cameras almost always store images, and how DSLRs store images by default, generally.

If JPEGs are like photo prints (they're not, really, but bear with me) then RAW files are like the digital negatives. (In fact, one popular RAW format, .DNG, crudely stands for "digital negative"). Raw files contain almost exactly what your sensor has recorded, which means you can change values like exposure, white balance and coloration after taking the photo, to a surprisingly high degree. It feels like cheating! There is a downside: larger image files. And, depending on the type of RAW file—different camera manufacturers have different ones—you may need special software to view and edit your photos. Shoot in RAW if you can, and buy a camera that'll let you. This is a huge feature.

As a bonus, most cameras that shoot RAW will also let you shoot RAW and JPEG files simultaneously, so you have a lightweight, ready-to-print-or-upload file right away, as well as the RAW source, for later editing. It takes up a ton of space, but hey, space is cheap nowadays. Spend a few bucks on a bigger memory card, and live your life.

Video: Most new cameras, including some DSLRs, shoot video. But just because your camera shoots stills at 10 megapixels doesn't mean that it'll shoot anywhere near that kind of resolution in motion. The standard resolution for most point-and-shoot cameras is VGA—that's just 640x480 pixels of video, which is good enough for YouTube—while DSLRs, and some nicer point-and-shoots, record in either 720p or 1080p, which are HD resolutions, which translate to 1280x720 pixels and 1920×1080 pixels, respectively.

Storage

Point and shoot cameras usually come with a small amount of onboard storage. This, I'm about 100% sure, is there so that the camera technically works when you buy it, making your inevitable extra storage purchase seem more like a choice, and less like a mandatory camera tax. Anyway, with any camera, you're going to need to buy some memory, or storage.

There are a few peripheral memory card formats still kicking around (Sony, can you please just put Memory Stick Pro out of its misery? Thanks!) but there are only two that matter.

SD: Also seen as SDHC, or SDXC, these little guys are the card of choice for point-and-shoot and bridge cameras, and some newer DSLRs. They're small, they works fine, and they're available in just about any capacity you could ever want. Almost: Most cameras are only SDHC-compatible, a standard which maxes out at 32GB. SDXC, the next evolution of the SD standard, maxes out at a theoretical 2TB, though almost no cameras support it yet.

Compact Flash: These cards are chunkier, can be faster, and are more durable, and anecdotally less prone to temperature and weather damage. These are what you'll find in DSLRs.

Speed ratings: Memory cards come in different speeds. These are advertised in a variety of different ways, for no good reason. You'll see a couple of numbers on most cards, in the "133x" syntax. Ignore them—they are inflated, unregulated and therefore, basically meaningless. What you're looking for on SD cards is a Class rating, from 1-6. The official SD Association chart:
For Compact Flash cards, your best bet is to look for an actual transfer speed on the card, expressed in MB/s.

Further Reading

Reviews: One gadget blog, try as we may, can't cover the hundreds of cameras that come out every year. We'll leave that to the obsessives. See:

• DPReview

• The Photography Bay

• Photography Review

• Photo.net

You really shouldn't buy a camera without consulting these guys first. They have a habit of lapsing into jargon at times, but hey, if you've read this far, you'll be able to get by.

Taking Photos: So now you've got your new piece of neck candy, and you feel awfully cool. You know what would make you cooler? Learning how to shoot, for god's sake. A few of out recent guides:

• The Basics: Your new camera has been removed from the box. It has been fiddled with. You cat has been photographed multiple times. Now what?

• When Not to Use Flash: The answer: Pretty much always.

• How To Shoot HDR: Taking hyperreal photos by combining multiple exposures, without, as we call it, the "clown vomit."

• For general advice, Photo.net's comically extensive set of photography guides provides instructions for virtually any scenario. Need to shoot some, say, nudes? In, say, Namibia's uniquely harsh sunlight? They've got you covered.

And although broad guides are useful, I've learned more about photography and cameras from Flickr than any other resource. Join the Flickr group for your camera, and spend some time on the message boards. You'll learn clever tricks for getting the most out of your hardware, but in doing so, with the help of a gracious community, you'll learn just as much about photography as a whole.

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about DSLRs, P&Ses, B&Bs or BBQs here, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.

The prize at stake: a Joby SLR-ZOOM Gorillapod plus the Joby Ballhead. (Joby was kind enough to write and offer to up the stakes of these contests a bit.)

For a little advice, check out this very apt guide on photographing Christmas lights.

The rules:

1. Submissions need to be your own.
2. Photos need to be taken the week of the contest. (No portfolio linking or it spoils the "challenge" part.)
3. Explain, briefly, the equipment, settings and technique used to snag the shot.
4. Email submissions to contests@gizmodo.com.

Send your best entries by Sunday at 6PM Eastern to contests@gizmodo.com with "Christmas Lights" in the subject line. Save your files as JPGs or GIFs at 800 pixels wide, and use a FirstnameLastname.jpg naming convention using whatever name you want to be credited with. Include your shooting summary (camera, lens, ISO, etc) in the body of the email. ALSO, AND THIS IS NEW FOR THIS WEEK, ATTACH A 2560x1600 JPEG AS WELL FOR PEOPLE TO DOWNLOAD AS WALLPAPER. [Flickr]

(Also, based upon my favorites, I appear to have a barren tree fetish. Regardless!)

Second Runner Up
Camera: Canon EOS 40D; Lens: EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM; ISO: 400; Exposure: 1/8000. Subject: Winter after California Wildfires -Devin Workman

First Runner Up
I used a Panasonic DMC-FX150 point and shoot camera. I had to shoot it in manual mode because I was shooting into the sun. This is after a rainy day in Los Angeles. The shot is looking toward Century City (The water is behind it). -Jim Hale

Winner
This is a shot I took myself at my college Campus in Goshen, Indiana. Was a very rare morning with snow on the ground, yet a tremendous amount of fog also, it almost whited out everything. This tree is in front of our cafeteria, not sure the type, but always looks very spooky at night, and this fog made it really stand out and look awesome. I shot it with a Canon 30d, Sigma 17-70 lens. No real special technique other than framing the shot and taking it. (hope this shot can be extra depressing and destroys the hope of happy holidays for everyone.) Believe me, living in Indiana in the winter, I know a thing or 2 about a gray winter.... -Andy Graber

Thanks to everyone for making this week's turnout absolutely nuts. And as always, my choices are painfully subjective, so take part of this afternoon to look through our gallery of participants, which includes photographs taken on everything ranging from Holgas to iPhone 3Gses—all of which are producing impressive, unique results.

Gallery assembled by Kyle VanHemert.

The technology has been available for years, and the DSLR market has been veering toward the general public ever since that cursed D was appended to it, so it's almost surprising that it's taking this long for touchscreens to infiltrate. But not really: DSLRs are proudly retro, built around mirror box and lens designs that date back decades, and covered in buttons to the point that, to an amateur, they are totally unapproachable. That said, the standard Canon and Nikon button layouts do work pretty well, and there are a lot of parameters you've got to deal with, so, well, here we are, staring down a Canon patent application for a basic touchscreen interface, in 2009:

Here's how it works, as interpreted by the Photography Bay:

1. Sliding your finger across the panel in a vertical direction changes aperture values.

2. Sliding your finger across the panel in a horizontal direction changes shutter speed.

Other features contemplated by the patent that may be enabled by touch entry through the LCD include the following settings:

Focus detection area
Exposure correction value
Flash adjustment correction value
Photometry mode (i.e., metering mode)
Drive mode
ISO value
Auto focus mode
White balance mode
Exposure correction value

In other words, the touchscreen would do everything your current 1970s aviation panel of a DSLR backside would, without the buttons.

In practice, I think a DSLR touchscreen would need to be supplementary. Given that a lot of DSLR adjustment is done with the photographer's eye in the viewfinder, the tactile feedback provided by buttons will be hard to replace; while it might make settings menus a bit easier to navigate, having a touchscreen won't do much good when you're trying to adjust aperture on the fly, or pull down your exposure time after a light flickers on. However wonderfully or horrifically it's executed, though, a touchscreen DSLR from a major manufacturer will happen, and probably soon. [Photography Bay]

The official challenge is "Gray Winter." For fun, let's all shoot black and white in-camera and try to create most of the image without too heavy a hand in post production. If you nee advice/tips on shooting black and white landscapes, check here.

The rules:

1. Submissions need to be your own.
2. Photos need to be taken the week of the contest. (No portfolio linking or it spoils the "challenge" part.)
3. Explain, briefly, the equipment, settings and technique used to snag the shot.
4. Email submissions to contests@gizmodo.com.

Send your best entries by the end of SUNDAY (yes, we moved the contest days) at contests@gizmodo.com with "Gray Winter" in the subject line. Save your files as JPGs or GIFs at 800 pixels wide, and use a FirstnameLastname.jpg naming convention using whatever name you want to be credited with. Include your shooting summary (camera, lens, ISO, etc) in the body of the email.

Bonus points for extra depressing shots that destroy the hope of happy holidays for everyone.

*Note: we didn't run last week's Shooting Challenge (Thanksgiving) because we didn't receive enough entries. Meanwhile, the week before, we received around 75 shots. We'll do our best to keep the challenges interesting, but for Giz's weekly shooting challenge to stay afloat, we really need your free labor, I mean, participation! [Image]

Baby's First DSLR: Nikon D3000

The D3000 is cheap. We're talking a full kit (i.e., it comes with a lens) for just $460, making it the cheapest DSLR kit around. But what really makes it stand out for beginners is a built-in tutorial system that explains how to get certain kinds of shots—like shallow depth of field—in plain English.

Amateur Hour: Canon T1i

The next step up is Canon's T1i. What we like is that it packs a bigger boy's image sensor—it's got the same 15-megapixel sensor as the pricier mid-range 50D—and 1080p video into a camera that's $720 with kit lens. Also, for the money, it edges out Nikon's D5000 on a few points, namely superior video handling and Live View.

Bigger Britches: Nikon D90

Nikon's D90 was the first ever DSLR to shoot 720p video with manual controls, but that's only part of the reason we like it. It's got the awesome image sensor from the semi-pro D300, in a package that's just over $1000. And at that price, it's $100 cheaper than Canon's competing 50D, which has the same image sensor as the cheaper T1i above, but none of the video benefits of either camera.

The Budding Auteur: Canon 7D

The only camera on this list that's more expensive than its competition—the D300s—the 7D overwhelms with DSLR video that's superior to every camera but Canon's very pro 1D Mark IV (which costs $5000). It shoots in 1080p, with full manual controls, and it's amazing what it can do in low light. Besides that, Canon's somehow cheated physics with an 18-megapixel sensor that doesn't explode with noise at high ISO settings, all while cramming a whole bunch of new features, and an actually good autofocus system. It's $1900 with a kit lens.

Beyond here, honestly, you should already have a pretty idea of what you're gonna buy without our help. And if you've got your own opinions about what's best in every price range, let's hear 'em in the comments.

The official challenge: "Thanksgiving." As always, interpret the theme however you'd like to give us the best shot that you can. (Food shots are always great, but Thanksgiving can mean people, Black Friday trampling and more.)

Of course, if you decide to do food, check out this list of ways you can cheat a bit: Food Styling - Fun Tac, anyone?

The rules:

1. Submissions need to be your own.
2. Photos need to be taken the week of the contest. (No portfolio linking or it spoils the "challenge" part.)
3. Explain, briefly, the equipment, settings and technique used to snag the shot.
4. Email submissions to contests@gizmodo.com.

Send your best entries by the end of SUNDAY at contests@gizmodo.com with "Thanksgiving" in the subject line. Save your files as JPGs or GIFs at 800 pixels wide, and use a FirstnameLastname.jpg naming convention using whatever name you want to be credited with. Include your shooting summary (camera, lens, ISO, etc) in the body of the email. [Image]

First Place
"Smoke Signal was taken with an Olympus sp350 set to night scene. This was taken with a color changing led rave light about six inches long by 1/2 inch wide that I wrapped with electrical tape to create a candy cane stripe. I placed the light on my record turn table at a slow RPM and swiped the camera vertically to create the spinning stripe"
- Brad Bogle

Second Place
"No photoshop! To take this photo, I set up some white paper for a background in a dark room. I laid strawberries on a table and separately stood up a banana with some cardboard and tape. With the lights on, I set up a quick-release tripod properly framing the banana (this makes it much easier later). Now the lights are off. So now I set my camera to bulb and used my built-in pop up flash to shoot straight down on the strawberries, filling the frame. Keeping my finger on the shutter button, I put my camera on the tripod and then hit the pilot button on an external flash. The flash hits the white background behind the banana, silhouetting it briefly. Effectively, this washes out all of the original photo of the strawberries except for where the silhouette is, thereby superimposing the first image into the second. And you get a cool glossy product-shot-reflection-look that results from the shadow drop off of the external-flash (although if you look closely, you'll notice the "reflection" is actually just other strawberries from the initial shot) And now you can have a strawberry-banana! Canon 20D 17-55 IS lens @ f/22 ISO 200 13s (multiple focal length)"
- Jason Yore

Third Place
Nikon D5000; Nikkor 18-200mm VR; Exposure: 36.5 seconds; Aperture : f/5.0; Focal Length: 38mm; ISO: 400; WB: Daylight. I had a friend spin some burning steel wool in an eggbeater attached to a lanyard at the top of the overpass. What you're seeing are the resulting spark trails. More here. [Ed note: the umbrella shots are even more impressive]
- Dan DeChiaro

These placements are almost unfair with so many good shots being in the mix. I wish that I could honorable mention you all. Check the gallery. It's well-worth a waste of 10 minutes.

What's New and Dandy

What makes it my favorite Canon so far is actually everything that's completely new to Canon—DP Review has a nice summary here, in pictures. But in short, while this might sound weird, it shoots more like a Nikon than any Canon DSLR I've used. This is primarily because of the new 19-point autofocus system and the color metering system that goes with it. You're able to select AF zones—clusters of AF points—while in the past with Canon you've been limited to a full AF blast or picking out a single point. The system is also more customizable, so it can be locked with different default focus points depending on whether you're holding the camera horizontally and vertically orientations. Against Nikon's D300s, Canon's new AF system mostly kept up, and definitely performs better than autofocus on the 5D Mark II.

The new viewfinder now provides 100 percent coverage, unlike previous Canons in this range, and it uses a new polymer LCD network for the graphical overlay to display AF points, grids and other displays, so it's more flexible and feels more fluid. (It also just looks swankier, and again, more Nikon-like.) Your other viewfinder (when you're shooting video, anyway), the LCD screen, is a 3-inch, 920k dot display like the 5D Mark II and it's still excellent, with a wide viewing angle, nice color and the right amount of crispness.

Sensor and Image Quality

Truthfully, I've been mildly surprised at the quality of photos that've come out of the 7D, which uses an absolutely stuffed 18-megapixel, APS-C sized sensor. (So, there is a 1.6x crop factor.) For comparison, the D300s has a 12MP sensor that's the same physical size (Update: For nitpickers, yes, Nikon's DX format is marginally larger than Canon's APS-C sensor, with the D300s's sensor coming in at 23.6 x 15.8 mm to the 7D's 22.3 x 14.9 mm.) The the D3 only goes for 12 megapixels on its bigger full-frame (35mm-equivalent) sensor. The 5D Mark II has a 21MP full-frame sensor. And typically, the more pixels you try to cram on a sensor of a given size, the more the image quality degrades, especially when it comes to low light, high ISO shots.

I was expecting a noisefest, or at best, seriously noticeable noise reduction employed by the camera's software. It is clear that Canon's using incredibly sophisticated noise reduction algorithms with the dual Digic IV processors onboard, though the effects are less drastic than I expected. It's most apparent, actually, when you directly compare photos taken with the D300s. Looking at photos taken with the 7D and D300s at 100 percent crops, the D300s's images are noisier, but they also preserve more detail. For web-sized images, the 7D's images look better, with less noise and more smoothness.

I've got two sample galleries—an array of sample shots, and then another directly comparing the 7D with the D300s in low light situations, using identical settings for photos. 100 percent zooms follow photos in both galleries. Or you can download full size photos from Flickr here and here.

Video

You can get sense of Canon and Nikon's philosophical differences with the difference in their buttons for video: Canon makes a distinction between Live View and video mode, while Nikon is ready to start shooting video as soon you tap the live view button on the D300s. Creating video is a separate, dedicated event for Canon, in other words, and there is a semi-serious video camera that happens to be built into a DSLR. Nikon's D300s, on the other hand, is a DSLR that happens to shoot video.

With video, the 7D simply has the upper hand—video is very much a legitimized use of this camera, not a secondary one like the D300s. (As expected from a company with an entire wing dedicated to camcorders for pros and consumers.) Not only does it have full manual controls, I find that it's slightly easier to use that the D300s while shooting video—not to mention the whole shooting in a real video codec at 1080p, yadda yadda. Three clips here: A melange of video above, and then by two videos, one from the 7D, one of the D300s, that mirror each other. Both were shot at ISO 6400, and you should be able to catch them at full res if you click over to Vimeo.

Build and Controls

The 7D is heavy, heavier than the 5D, but it's also slightly sturdier, with a build quality and weatherproofing that that's slightly in between the 5D and Canon's definitely pro 1D. It feels about the same in your hand, though. And it's roughly comparable to the D300s.

Controls aren't radically different from other Canon DSLRs of this caliber—that is, it's what you'd mostly expect from a DSLR that sits in between the lower end 50D and the higher end 5DMkII, though it's a bit closer to the latter. While the menu system feels completely unchanged—leaving more advanced features, like the orientation autofocus a bit inscrutable—a few things are new on the outside: The power switch is up on the top left, under the mode dial; there's a dedicated button for switching to RAW/JPEG; a quick action button; and a new toggle switch for Live View and video, which you engage by pressing a start button in the center.

You Already Know If You're Going to Buy This

The real question for Canon users who want something more than the lower end 50D is whether they go for the 7D, at $1700, or full bore to full-frame with the $2700 5D Mark II. The 7D has a 1.6x crop factor which is useful for sports, a better autofocusing system, shoots faster, is slightly more rugged, and is $1000 cheaper. The 5D is full frame—which I suspect is the real consideration for folks—and takes slightly better photos at higher resolutions.

Obviously, if you're locked into Nikon, with thousands of dollars in lenses, you're not going to jump to Canon, or vice versa. But Canon's dedication to DSLR video is proving formidable in carving out a new kind of market that Nikon might have some trouble competing in, since they're a dedicated still camera company, not a video company, too, like Canon. Really, both the D300s and 7D deliver for the money, though I think the 7D delivers more, since it's packed full of newer technology and for the people who want it, the video component is truly killer. Either way, it's proof that competition is good—it clearly wouldn't exist without the D300, and the D400 will be that much better because of it.

New 19-point autofocus and metering systems plus the new viewfinder rock

Excellent 1080p video with full manual controls

Not full-frame, which might put off some people

I'd like a secondary SD card slot, like the D300s

Noise reduction can get pretty aggressive at higher ISO speeds, obscuring detail

BTW, here are some Giz posts shot w/ the 7D:
• Motorola Droid Impressions
• Motorola Droid Review
• Blood Energy Potion Review
• BlackBerry Storm 2 Review
• S90 Review

First Place
8 Bigmacs. Two SB-800 speedlights and on-camera flash (nikon CLS kicks ass) Nikon D80 I think at 1/125 f/5.6. Fast enough to shoot hand-held before it would tip over. The macs are skewered with two wooden kebab skewers to a piece of plasticine (unfortunately visible). Some photoshop curves and black and white mixing. -Zach Slootsky

Second Place
The Coburg Cafe's monster burger. Regular sized burger on top for size reference; 1 lb. hamburger, ham, bacon, swiss & american, on an 8" bun w/all the fixins' -Trask Blueribbon [Ed note: remember to tell us your camera/settings!]

Third Place
This photo was taken at my son's school cafeteria. We had lunch together. It was abysmal. Jello was good though. I snapped this photo with my Verizon HTC Touch. Basic settings. My technique was to hold back the vomit before I barfed on my phone. -Robbie Amburgey

Thanks for the entries, and look for a more classic Shooting Challenge topic next Monday—something more along the lines of photography for photography's sake. (Not that I don't love watching you poison yourselves in the name of art.)

The official challenge: "Fast Food." As always, interpret the theme however you'd like to give us the best shot that you can.

The Four Rules:

1. Submissions need to be your own.
2. Photos need to be taken the week of the contest. (No portfolio linking or it spoils the "challenge" part.)
3. Explain, briefly, the equipment, settings and technique used to snag the shot.
4. Email submissions to contests@gizmodo.com.

Send your best entries by the end of Thursday at contests@gizmodo.com with "Fast Food" in the subject line. Save your files as JPGs or GIFs at 800 pixels wide, and use a FirstnameLastname.jpg naming convention using whatever name you want to be credited with. Include your shooting summary (camera, lens, ISO, etc) in the body of the email. [Image]

Hurlbut is shooting a project based on Navy SEALs, and the trailer (of sorts; it's mostly an awful lot of bikini'd ladies) is shot with a mix of digital and film photography, using the digital Canon 5D MKII and Sony 950 as well as the Arri 235 film camera. He created kind of a contest to see who could pick out the digital shots from the film in the trailer (most is digital, shot with the 5D MKII)—it's way harder than you'd think, not least because the dude is clearly an expert. His wide-angle shots of a yacht and closeups of bikini-clad ladies may look like the intro to a Puff Daddy music video (sing it with me: BEEN AROUND THE WORLD AND AYAYAY) but it is shockingly gorgeous and I'm hard-pressed to be able to tell the difference between digital and film. Check out the video here, and enter his contest here. [Shane Hurlbut via Vincent LaForet]

First Place
Wade Saathoff: Nikon D300, Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4, 1/100th, f/3.2, ISO 320, 14 bit RAW, .nef converted using Raw Therapee and edited in Photoshop 7

Second Place
Tess Davis: Sony A350, 18-70mm kit lens, f/4.5, 1/200s, ISO 100

Third Place
Neal Rosenblat: Nikon D90, 50mm lens, f1.8, 1/2000

Thanks to everyone for making the first Shooting Challenge so much fun. And since these results are completely subjective, enjoy the full gallery below before mocking my taste in the comments. Still, I don't think there's a lousy shot in the bunch.

I had around two hours to shoot with a pre-production model of the tank-like D3s at New York's Big Apple Circus, hence all of the scary clowns and very flexible folks. Since low-light performance is what you're probably most interested in, I've broken down the sample shots into galleries by ISO speed. Overall, shots at ISO 6400 are the cleanest I've ever seen at that ISO rating—just think about that for a second—and ISO 12,800 photos are unquestionably usable for even large web photos (like 1000x1000 pixels). Of course, the pictures at ISO 102,400 have ridiculous grain and you'd never use them for anything but novelty, but consider that we really are talking light sensitivity on the order of night vision. It's a remarkable achievement for achievement's sake.

All of the photos here are from JPEGs straight out of a pre-production D3s, with no retouches. They were resized, but I've included shots of 100 percent zoom close-ups above the galleries.

These two series are shot at the exact same shutter speed, adjusting only the ISO, so you can get a sense of how much extra light the cranked ISO absorbs.

I've also cut together some of the 720p video I shot. The video mode's a little confusing to use at first, since the "shutter speed" is how adjust exposure in video mode, but the results are nice, even if they're not in 1080p. The clip was always shot at an ISO rating of at least 3200 (I was fiddling with the ISO throughout), and the second half makes use of a boom mic for stereo.