I have a Kodak Easyshare 4330 and I hate it. It devours batteries and it is big and ugly. Also, the video quality is garbage (I don't expect much, it's worse than my cell phone).
What I want is a compact camera, I don't much care past 3MP, that is attractive and good on power.
So I need recommendations. Also, should I care past 3MP?
There is not anything more difficult to choose than a compact camera, because six months laters the best seller product is replaced by a new one. Since 20 years, I read Chasseurs d'images, who are perhaps one of the best cam benchmarkers of the world. (they test noise, shaprness, vignetting, geometrical distorsion, chromatical abberation, speed, ....)
From their buying guide, that is updated each months I will try to give you some possible choices in increasing price order :
- for 200 bucks you have the canon A 510 , 3 mpixels : the best quality price ratio
- for 300 bucks you have the A 520, with the same technical features (including 35-140 mm equivalent) but 4 mpixels.
- for 330 bucks you have the 5 mpixels A 95 wich give you even better pics than the G5 (zoom 38-114) equivalent
All of this three cams are not very beautifull indeed (but it's just my personal advices)
- for also 330 bucks you have the 4 mpixels CAnon ixus 400 in his small and tiny package
- for 350 bucks there is also the fuji 455
- for 400 there is the fuji e 550 with the great 6 mpixels SCCD from fuji
- for 450 you have the ixus 700, who will be perhaps the one that your wife will want because of it's jewel aspect. It's very well built, fast (the weak point of digital cams) granted to his latest digic 2 dsp chip, is small and thin.
Now for answering your questions about digital cams :
For small prints , 7 mpixels is useless, for bigger it will rule. 5 mpixels will allow you nice A4 print, and 7mpixels fine A3 print. If you are not interest by big prints, remember that more pixels allow you more cropping, and you will be surprised by how a not so large cropping delete pixels. (to make an anology a 17 inch LCD screen is 1024 per 768 and a 17 inch 1280 per 1024 : two inchs less and 40 % less pixels).
You will find two bigs differences by using a DSLR cam over your reflex (but you already know that)
- reactivity : digital cams are slow to wake up, and slow to shot. Sometimes it recquieres half a second to have the image after you pushed the button. Take a fast one.
- the DOF is huge. It's nearly impossible to have a blurry background with a digital cam : you have to do some photoshop work in other to add some if you want.
I think you owe it to yourself to look at a Fuji F10. It's the first compact digicam that produces credible high ISO results up to 800 ISO, and even gives usable ISO 1600. No other compact can do this.
I think you owe it to yourself to look at a Fuji F10. It's the first compact digicam that produces credible high ISO results up to 800 ISO, and even gives usable ISO 1600. No other compact can do this.
I may consider this camera to stay in my pocket. DSLR cameras are great but big and somewhat heavy.
i have a canon 4megapixel PS85... but i think i might buy another one and get the canon elf; s500 i think it is? anways.. i like the elf, its small and such i like the ps85, but its kind of bulky in the pocket and such...
after my recent trip into the jungles of costa rica, i came to realize that my wonderful fuji S5100 neither allows me to focus in a timely fashion nor is it sensitive enough to even do dim light photos... in other words, I think i am going to have to move up to an amateur level SLR when I have the money...
The espon rd1 is not really awesome. Telemetric focusing is nightmarish on a digital camera. It's nearly impossible to have a very precise focusing. As a result many shots looks like soft with this camera.
If you are interested by Leica stuff, the digital back for R8 or R9 seems to be a lot more interesting with it's 10 mpixels.
A digital rangefinder could be very interesting, if done right. The technology is almost there too. The base length of a rangefinder usually gives a useable focal range of about 21-140mm. First thing is to build an all purpose, FAST, zoom, a tad less ambitious than , 21-140, maybe 24-120, or 28-140. This can be faster, yet much smaller than an equivalent SLR design, because there's no mirror to clear. Digital does require a more perpendicular angle of incedence on the image plane, but nothing that can't be handled with a decent lense design.
Next comes the camera. You have to give it an EVF, something high res, like the Minolta A2, and a FAST autofocus system. Yes, you say, but that's not a "rangefinder" Here's how it comes in. You project the TTL EVF image into the rangefinder window, you can use digital to give you moving parallax lines. Make the window really big, 2X if you use a 4/3rds image circle, 1.5X if you use an APS image circle, either way, you get a nice big, clear, 35mm sized viewfinder that automagically moves the parallax lines as you zoom. Within tose lines, a projected image overlays, when it matches the scene, you're focused! The range finder could give you all sorts of neat info on the fly. For example, given the right focal length and aperture information from the lense, the finder could automatically tell you the subject distance, the DOF, and the hyperfocal distance. Veddy Veddy useful stuff! No calculating, no thinking, the info is just there, you compose accordingly. Or, you just flip her over to AUTO, and let the camera take care of it.
With no mirror, and a smaller image circle, you could build a very small, high quality, relatively light and fast 4-5X zoom. Have insanely fast shutter speeds, and dead quite operation.
Imagine if you will, DLSR sensor performance, a focal range of about 24-120 in 35mm equivalents, and something like an f/2-2.8 lense in something no bigger than a C5050.
I might cost a mint, but damn would it ever be good! This is what Contax should have done instead of follwing the DSLR trend straight into bankruptcy!
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
I have a Kodak Easyshare 4330 and I hate it. It devours batteries and it is big and ugly. Also, the video quality is garbage (I don't expect much, it's worse than my cell phone).
What I want is a compact camera, I don't much care past 3MP, that is attractive and good on power.
So I need recommendations. Also, should I care past 3MP?
There is not anything more difficult to choose than a compact camera, because six months laters the best seller product is replaced by a new one. Since 20 years, I read Chasseurs d'images, who are perhaps one of the best cam benchmarkers of the world. (they test noise, shaprness, vignetting, geometrical distorsion, chromatical abberation, speed, ....)
From their buying guide, that is updated each months I will try to give you some possible choices in increasing price order :
- for 200 bucks you have the canon A 510 , 3 mpixels : the best quality price ratio
- for 300 bucks you have the A 520, with the same technical features (including 35-140 mm equivalent) but 4 mpixels.
- for 330 bucks you have the 5 mpixels A 95 wich give you even better pics than the G5 (zoom 38-114) equivalent
All of this three cams are not very beautifull indeed (but it's just my personal advices)
- for also 330 bucks you have the 4 mpixels CAnon ixus 400 in his small and tiny package
- for 350 bucks there is also the fuji 455
- for 400 there is the fuji e 550 with the great 6 mpixels SCCD from fuji
- for 450 you have the ixus 700, who will be perhaps the one that your wife will want because of it's jewel aspect. It's very well built, fast (the weak point of digital cams) granted to his latest digic 2 dsp chip, is small and thin.
Now for answering your questions about digital cams :
For small prints , 7 mpixels is useless, for bigger it will rule. 5 mpixels will allow you nice A4 print, and 7mpixels fine A3 print. If you are not interest by big prints, remember that more pixels allow you more cropping, and you will be surprised by how a not so large cropping delete pixels. (to make an anology a 17 inch LCD screen is 1024 per 768 and a 17 inch 1280 per 1024 : two inchs less and 40 % less pixels).
You will find two bigs differences by using a DSLR cam over your reflex (but you already know that)
- reactivity : digital cams are slow to wake up, and slow to shot. Sometimes it recquieres half a second to have the image after you pushed the button. Take a fast one.
- the DOF is huge. It's nearly impossible to have a blurry background with a digital cam : you have to do some photoshop work in other to add some if you want.
I hope it will help you
Cheers,
Powerdoc
I played with the Nikon S1, an awesome camera but I dug the Elph more.
I'm a happy boy!
Originally posted by groverat
I got the Canon Powershow SD500 Digital Elph (IXUS 700 to you dirty Europeans) because it was just too damned sexy to not get.
I played with the Nikon S1, an awesome camera but I dug the Elph more.
I'm a happy boy!
Thanks for update : enjoy your new camera.
Originally posted by Matsu
I think you owe it to yourself to look at a Fuji F10. It's the first compact digicam that produces credible high ISO results up to 800 ISO, and even gives usable ISO 1600. No other compact can do this.
I may consider this camera to stay in my pocket. DSLR cameras are great but big and somewhat heavy.
Awesome.
Originally posted by groverat
I got the Canon Powershow SD500 Digital Elph (IXUS 700 to you dirty Europeans) because it was just too damned sexy to not get.
I played with the Nikon S1, an awesome camera but I dug the Elph more.
I'm a happy boy!
groverat,
I recently got one of those - great pocketable supplement for my DSLR for when I want to travel light
This to me is sexy. Uses Leica lenses too.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../epson_rd1.asp
Originally posted by LiquidR
Since groverat found something for himself I'll treat this thread as a what I want topic.
This to me is sexy. Uses Leica lenses too.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../epson_rd1.asp
The espon rd1 is not really awesome. Telemetric focusing is nightmarish on a digital camera. It's nearly impossible to have a very precise focusing. As a result many shots looks like soft with this camera.
If you are interested by Leica stuff, the digital back for R8 or R9 seems to be a lot more interesting with it's 10 mpixels.
Next comes the camera. You have to give it an EVF, something high res, like the Minolta A2, and a FAST autofocus system. Yes, you say, but that's not a "rangefinder" Here's how it comes in. You project the TTL EVF image into the rangefinder window, you can use digital to give you moving parallax lines. Make the window really big, 2X if you use a 4/3rds image circle, 1.5X if you use an APS image circle, either way, you get a nice big, clear, 35mm sized viewfinder that automagically moves the parallax lines as you zoom. Within tose lines, a projected image overlays, when it matches the scene, you're focused! The range finder could give you all sorts of neat info on the fly. For example, given the right focal length and aperture information from the lense, the finder could automatically tell you the subject distance, the DOF, and the hyperfocal distance. Veddy Veddy useful stuff! No calculating, no thinking, the info is just there, you compose accordingly. Or, you just flip her over to AUTO, and let the camera take care of it.
With no mirror, and a smaller image circle, you could build a very small, high quality, relatively light and fast 4-5X zoom. Have insanely fast shutter speeds, and dead quite operation.
Imagine if you will, DLSR sensor performance, a focal range of about 24-120 in 35mm equivalents, and something like an f/2-2.8 lense in something no bigger than a C5050.
I might cost a mint, but damn would it ever be good! This is what Contax should have done instead of follwing the DSLR trend straight into bankruptcy!