WOW, head spinning with new camera options!

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Anyone else looking to buy a new digital camera in the next 2-3 months?



The high-end consumer options (fixed lense) have just gotten incredible.



Fuji has an S7000 coming:



6/12MP 35-210mm equivalent for 800USD



Minolta has the A1:



5MP 28-200mm equivalent, probably for twice the price, but it has built-in mechanical image stabilization, and is supposed to have a very fast AF.



And now Sony has the 828? Aparently a french photo mag (print) got a sneak



Basically a black (SLR styled) F717 with an 8MP sensor and a pretty amazing 28-200 f2-2.8 lense. WOW! no word on the price yet, probably over 1000USD.



Then there are the new 5MP semi-compact models. The Olympus c5050 and Canon G5, and now, Nikon 5400 (also with a 28mm wide end) and SOny's mini 717, the V1 (also 5MP)



All I can say is WOW! This is really a great time to be in the market for a digital camera.



Anyone else looking for cameras?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    I just got an Olympus few weeks ago. 3,2 mpi, 10 x optical zoom and 3,2 x digital ... very happy with it. No need to upgrade it at least yet...
  • Reply 2 of 43
    gordygordy Posts: 979member
    I have a 3MP now. I won't buy another one until 6MP cameras are around $500, or Canon releases the G6.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Been playing with an Olympus E10. Wow.
  • Reply 4 of 43
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    The F828 looks pretty hot. Especially with the brand new 4-color image sensor. I can't wait for DPReview to post a review of the production model.
  • Reply 5 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Just read the preview on it. It looks HUGE in pics, but relative to a hand and the DSC-717, it doesn't look that much bigger than the previous model. It is quite a bit heavier though. SOme say it's ugly, but I kinda like the look of it.



    At 1200 it won't be cheap, and some people are talking about 999 D-SLR's (body only) in a year's time, so that's something to consider, though buying an equivaent 35mm or (APS, DX format) would cost you at least another grand on top of that, and the SOny will likely come down in price after a few months. And if Sony is good at killing the noise at ISO-800, with that fast lense (f/2), then it should be a very flexible shooter.



    The A1 is bound to cost 200-300 more*** (which certainly takes it out of my reach), and the anti-shake supposedly provides significant stabilization (3 stops worth) with a really fast AF and shutter speeds. hmmm...



    ***edit: Maybe Not. Dpreview speculates that it will cost 999GBP. What does that work out to in USD? Aren't electronics typically more expensive in the UK in that they're ussually sold at a highly unfavorable exchange?



    If the sony and Minolta are about the same price... choices choices...



    The other option is the S7000, which at 800USD is a LOT cheaper, but still has good features and might be worth considering over only slightly cheaper P&S like the G5.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    JUst checked around the net a little more.



    Looks like the A1 and the DSC828 will have the same MSRP.



    From here it looks like Sony will have the superior lense and Minolta the superior AF and metering system.



    Then there's the whopping 8MP 4 color sensor of the sony versus the Image stabilized 5MP sensor of the Minolta.



    1199?



    1800 canadian pesos.



    Which one would you all go for at first glance? I will of course wait for reviews before making a selection.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu



    Which one would you all go for at first glance? I will of course wait for reviews before making a selection.




    I would definitely go for the Sony. The larger image sensor in a way negates image stabilization since you can take the same photo as the A1 without zooming in as far...



    The superior lens will always overcome AF and metering, which you can always adjust manually.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    You're probably right, I sometimes have delusions of "fast action" snap shooting, and in reality I'd let me down, probably, before the auto focus of either camera did.



    I think they're both the same size 2/3rds sensors, just that Sony has more pixels packed into it than the minolta. Some people think that the smaller diodes will lead to more noise, but both cameras claim to do ISO 800 and Sony has traditionally beeen very good at taming noise.



    AH, I get it, you mean the bigger res, Only have to zoom in 60-70% as far as on the minolta to get the same shot, b/c of the greater cropping latitude.



    Ergo, to bring an object to the same size @ the 200mm tele end of the minolta, you only have to go about 120-140 on the Sony and then crop. True true. Couple that with the faster speed (f/2 wide, f/2.8 tele) and the 3 stops advantage of stabilization may not be as great as it at first appears. At 200mm the Minolta would be shooting f/3.5, at around 140mm the sony would still be at about f/2 -- I hadn't thought of that at all.



    I wonder though, if the smaller photosites will be more suseptible to blur from camera shake? It's probably more or less the same, that's going to be a really neat comparo.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    jbljbl Posts: 555member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    I would definitely go for the Sony. The larger image sensor in a way negates image stabilization since you can take the same photo as the A1 without zooming in as far...



    The superior lens will always overcome AF and metering, which you can always adjust manually.




    I have to disagree. If you take telephoto pictures in low light, image stabilization is very important. The "giggle" you get from hand holding pictures is not a particular number of pixels, it is a particular visual angle. Under conditions where the limiting factor on resolution is my ability to hold the camera steady, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to having a higher pixel resolution. None. Zero. Zip.



    Nor will a superior lens always overcome superior AF. If you need to focus quickly, the faster focusing mechanism will beat the more accurate focus every time.



    This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Sony, but both image stabilization and fast auto focus can be extremely useful.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Arrgh, this is going to break into math and then I'm going to get confused and go to bed. JBL, what you say also makes sense. If I can't hold the camera steady, extra res won't help me. But I thinkthere may be something to the argument that Sony could get by in some situations by not having to go as long at the tele end, to get the same shot. However, my original math, like most of my math, was wrong, I was way too generous with my eyeball estimate.



    The comparison value between zoom and MP comes into play, though not to the extent I had mentioned.



    Comparison Value = (zoom)^2 * #of pixels



    Sony = (200mm)^2 * 8MP = 320 000



    Minolta = (200mm)^2 * 5MP = 200 000



    For the Sony to achieve the same value as the Minolta we need:



    x^2 * 8 = 200 000



    or 158mm



    At 158mm the sony can put the same number of pixels on a subject in the frame as 200mm on the Minolta.



    So -- assuming those smaller pixels can resolve the same detail -- the question then becomes, how much easier is it to hold 158mm steady than it is to hold 200?
  • Reply 11 of 43
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    Just for whoever cares, I recently bought an Olympus C5050. It's an awesome camera, I highly recommend it. The modes and features this camera has are really extensive and impressive. For being such a small camera, it takes very, very good pictures at 5 megapixels. Just my opinion.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    jbljbl Posts: 555member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu



    So -- assuming those smaller pixels can resolve the same detail -- the question then becomes, how much easier is it to hold 158mm steady than it is to hold 200?




    And the answer is that there is no advantage. The easiest way to think about this is that, the way you have it set up, each pixel represents the same area in the scene and therefore the same degree of visual angle. The blur from your inability to hold the camera steady comes from changes in the camera's angle toward the object while the shutter is open. The angle of this jiggle can thus be measured in pixels. Since the pixels in each case represent the same visual angle there is no difference between the two cameras. This assumes no image stabilization and the same shutter speed, which is where the actual difference between the cameras comes in. Because the Sony has a faster lens it can probably take this picture at f/2.4 or f/2.6 while the Minolta would be at f/3.5. Give the Sony a stop advantage there (you could use about a stop faster shutter speed). However, Minolta is claiming a 3 stop advantage to its image stabilization. If this turns out to be true, Minolta gets about a 2 stop advantage.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JBL

    I have to disagree. If you take telephoto pictures in low light, image stabilization is very important. The "giggle" you get from hand holding pictures is not a particular number of pixels, it is a particular visual angle. Under conditions where the limiting factor on resolution is my ability to hold the camera steady, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to having a higher pixel resolution. None. Zero. Zip.



    If the image stabilization was perfect, of course. Once you start taking long exposures, you'd be better off with a tripod or monopod in most situations. A couple of Olympus cameras has image stabilization too...They are not particularly impressive.



    Quote:

    [b]Nor will a superior lens always overcome superior AF. If you need to focus quickly, the faster focusing mechanism will beat the more accurate focus every time.[b]



    In a consumer camera with non-interchangeable lenses? You either camera Matsu mentioned above and you are stuck with those optics. Given the option of having soft focus all the time vs some of the time...



    Quote:

    This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Sony, but both image stabilization and fast auto focus can be extremely useful.



    Superfast AF + FPS would be even better.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    I just picked up a G3 after the price fell from the release of the G5. Would have gotten the G5 but I've heard too many reports that the G3 was a better camera.



    It's fantastic, my only gripe with digital cameras is the shallow depth of field. A year from now I hope to pick up a DSLR when their ripe for the picking.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JBL

    And the answer is that there is no advantage. The easiest way to think about this is that, the way you have it set up, each pixel represents the same area in the scene and therefore the same degree of visual angle. The blur from your inability to hold the camera steady comes from changes in the camera's angle toward the object while the shutter is open. The angle of this jiggle can thus be measured in pixels. Since the pixels in each case represent the same visual angle there is no difference between the two cameras. This assumes no image stabilization and the same shutter speed, which is where the actual difference between the cameras comes in. Because the Sony has a faster lens it can probably take this picture at f/2.4 or f/2.6 while the Minolta would be at f/3.5. Give the Sony a stop advantage there (you could use about a stop faster shutter speed). However, Minolta is claiming a 3 stop advantage to its image stabilization. If this turns out to be true, Minolta gets about a 2 stop advantage.



    Yeah I figured as much, just to say that the adantage of the Minolta would not be a full three stops because Sony seems to have sprung for some neat glass and a (perhaps?) better CCD.



    So there's no advantage to greater res when standing at the same distance? That is true the way I figured it, I guess, cropping the Sony image down to 5MP would be like using a smaller sensor at 200mm anyway. And then there are the smaller pixels to deal with. But isn't a lense more susceptible to shake at the long end, than in the middle of its range? Perhaps not a major difference, but at least some. While cropping an image with more pixels and enlarging a print can produce the same net result, it is not really the same thing as using a longer tele in the camera, if more magnification refracts more light, during the actual shooting, the longer lense would be more susceptible to shake, I think of it as a kid sitting at the long end of a seesaw versus one sitting in the middle.



    eeek, it's enough to make me want to go back to bed. From what I've read I do believe it has a small influence, but perhaps a negligible one in this case. but iDunno...



    I wonder about the pixel pitch of the 8MP vs 5MP sensors. When you read some photography pages out there, people are getting all spasmodic about pixels getting to small, an therefore noisy... ISO800 at the ful res must be a good indicator of Sony's confidence in the new sensor though -- not bad for this class of camera.





    PS



    About AF and FPS :/



    Imaging Resource -- who time test cameras -- are saying that the Sony has the fastest shutter release of any non SLR camera they've ever tested so far, .39-.61, (wide-tele) versus .167 for a Canon SLR, the previous speed king for a non SLR was the S602 at about .56-.8 sec.



    They're putting the A1 between .6-.7 (Slower!) but are holding off because it seems wrong to them and may just be a pre-production glitch.



    This is important to autofocus because these tests are all done with full auto-focus mode enabled so it gives an indication of how "fast" the camera focuses, though it doesn't tell us how accurately.



    Interesting stuff because all the Minolta news has been about how the camera was/is going to be the fastest focusing ever, but all the previews so far have said that the Sony is the fastest thing they've seen and that the AF is impossible to fool ??? Simpler but better perhaps.



    I wonder when production models will be made available for review?



    PMS.



    cool gut, iThink you mean deep depth of field, no? The smaller sensors and slower lenses of most of the non-SLR cameras usually produce a deeper depth of field, and sometimes make it hard to get that nice pleasing background blur that's so easy to get with an SLR. You might ant to try the C5050, it's got a reallt fast f/1.8 which may be able to gt that DOF effect you crave.



    OMG, this is a long post. After studying photographs for academic purposes for a few years, I've really been into shooting as much B&W 35mm and using the VERY limited capabilities of a 2MP Fuji P&S I got (free!) It's an amazing hobby, I've been on a total photography kick for the past few months, and with a few friends (professionals) and the internet and magazines for a guide, you can litereally teach yourself.



    I really think that right now is just a great time to buy a digital camera and take up the sport, so to speak.



    C5050, G3, G5, S602/7000, A1, 717, 828, they're all AMAZING in light of what you could hope for only 2 years ago, especially at the price, sure they'll be eclipsed, but that just means we can buy even better cameras in 2-3 years.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    idigitidigit Posts: 18member
    Xaqtly (Re: Olympus C-5050)



    I totally agree with you as I have one also...the thing is AWESOME!!
  • Reply 17 of 43
    jbljbl Posts: 555member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    But isn't a lense more susceptible to shake at the long end, than in the middle of its range?



    Your pictures are more likely to look blurry due to shake when you use a telephoto than when you use a wide angle. That is because each pixel represents a smaller visual angle when you use a telephoto than when you use a wide angle. When you shake your camera while shooting a picture you turn the camera by roughly the same number of degrees whether you are using a telephoto or a wide angle. This means that your shaking spreads objects out over more pixels using a telephoto than a wide angle.



    For example (using completely unrealistic numbers for simplicity):

    Suppose you are taking a picture of an object that is .2 degrees square, and suppose that each pixel on your wide angle lens is .1 degree square and each pixel on your telephoto is .01 degree square. If you could hold your camera perfectly still this object would be a 2x2 pixel square on using the wide angle and a 20x20 pixel square on the telephoto. Now suppose you move the camera .5 degrees horizontally while you shoot the picture. The object now is a 7x2 pixel rectangle using your wide angle and a 70x20 pixel rectangle on your telephoto. There are two important things to notice in this example. First, the blur is the same proportion of the size of the object. This is why using a shorter lens and cropping doesn't help. The second thing is that the blur is a lot bigger on a absolute scale using the telephoto. That is why people always say you need to use faster shutter speeds using a telephoto (or equivalently that telephotos are more susceptible to shake): your uncropped pictures look blurrier using the telephoto.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Not to disagree with you, a lot of this is just me thinking out loud. You could feasibly shoot 160mm a bit slower than 200, could you not, just a little? Your explanation makes sense, it's probably just me having a little trouble thinking about all the variables at once, or just thinking too much and confusing myself.



    If the object takes up the same amount of space (degrees of visual arc) stabilization is the deciding factor. But at 160 (or 158) it takes up less space. It hits the same number of pixels, because the pixels are smaller (in the 8MP senor). So doesn't it come down to the quality of those smaller pixels? If they are as adept as the larger pixels of a 5MP sensor, then you could shoot wider and crop more, conceivably. You'd still have to be pretty still, but holding a 160mm shouldn't be too dificult with good technique. Then again, because those pixels are smaller, they would be more sensitive to small movements, and you lose the gains you had if you crop too much? eeek.



    I almost get it, I'm just trying to reconcile it with other info, but that could be wrong, or inaccurate.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JBL

    I have to disagree. If you take telephoto pictures in low light, image stabilization is very important. The "giggle" you get from hand holding pictures is not a particular number of pixels, it is a particular visual angle. Under conditions where the limiting factor on resolution is my ability to hold the camera steady, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to having a higher pixel resolution. None. Zero. Zip.



    Nor will a superior lens always overcome superior AF. If you need to focus quickly, the faster focusing mechanism will beat the more accurate focus every time.



    This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Sony, but both image stabilization and fast auto focus can be extremely useful.




    Rule of thumb: Shutter speed should be the reciprocal of your lens to avoid "jitter," when shooting by hand.



    If you're using a 200 mm lens, the fastest you can shoot by hand is typically 1/200s. Any slower, and you should use a tripod. Of course, being a rule of thumb, your mileage will vary.



    I've never looked into image stabilization in digital cameras, but I would expect "fuzziness" if it's similar to a camcorder (feel free to enlighten me here).



    For me, the quality of the image starts with good glass (lens). If the glass is bad, who cares what other features the camera has?



    But, to each his own.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    jbljbl Posts: 555member
    The rule of thumb about not being able to hand hold a picture when your shutter speed is less than the reciprocal of your focal length is based on the amount of blur that is going to be tolerable if you don't crop the picture. There is simply no difference between using a 200 mm equivalent lens with a 5Mp sensor and using a 158 mm equivalent lens with a 8Mp sensor and cropping off the outer 3Mp.



    Here is another way to think about it. Nobody actually quotes the real focal length or the physical sensor size in their specs (okay, they do but it is way down on the list someplace). Instead they quote the pixel resolution and the 35 mm equivalent focal length. That is because all that really matters is how many pixels you have and what area of the image is going to cover those pixels. If you limit the 828's lens to 158 mm and then crop off the outer 3 Mp, the resulting camera would be advertised as a 200mm, 5Mp camera, exactly the same as the A1.
Sign In or Register to comment.