Digital Camera Suggestions

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    IT's not bottom of the line. It's a slim model that has removed the zoom for size and elegance.



    Elegance? You should work in marketing



    Quote:

    If you don't need a optical zoom (many really don't), it's a good camera.



    I think not having optical zoom is a poor trade-off.



    Quote:

    Their Leica lenses offer some very sharp optical quality for a compact camera.



    As with the Carl Zeiss name on Sony lens, it's nothing more than a label.
  • Reply 22 of 43
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    Elegance? You should work in marketing



    Shit, I think I've had my saturday job in a Photo supplies Store for too long... hehe



    Quote:

    I think not having optical zoom is a poor trade-off.



    Most people take better pictures if they forget about the zoom. It' true.

    Also with a 5 megapixel camera, you can easily live with a digital zoom.

    I would have got one with zoom myself, but the zoom does not make the photographer. People should move their feet more when taking pictures. :-)



    Quote:

    As with the Carl Zeiss name on Sony lens, it's nothing more than a label.



    Well, the Leica lenses have impressed me. Zeiss have not.
  • Reply 23 of 43
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    Most people take better pictures if they forget about the zoom.



    I was thinking just the opposite. Most people don't get close enough to their subjects and SHOULD use zoom more frequently.



    Quote:

    Also with a 5 megapixel camera, you can easily live with a digital zoom.



    I disagree, but to each his own.



    Quote:

    Well, the Leica lenses have impressed me. Zeiss have not.



    Not that I have anything against Panasonic, it's just that I trust a camera company more. Admittedly, I have seen some excellent photos from Panasonic digicams.
  • Reply 24 of 43
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    I was thinking just the opposite. Most people don't get close enough to their subjects and SHOULD use zoom more frequently.



    You are right, but the problem is also that people zoom as far as they can, and then take the picture, while taking a step forward would have made the ppicture far better.



    Quote:

    I disagree, but to each his own.



    Most people do not need more tha 3 or 4 megapixels.



    Quote:

    Not that I have anything against Panasonic, it's just that I trust a camera company more. Admittedly, I have seen some excellent photos from Panasonic digicams.



    I've always been a Nikon fan myself, and used to recomend the 5200 until the new panasonics came along. The blue Fx-7 is perhaps the most beautiful digital compact I've seen. And has the features to match, with a built-in stabilizer and all.



    (But ofcourse, in a few months someone else will be leading the race.)
  • Reply 25 of 43
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    Most people do not need more tha 3 or 4 megapixels.



    I totally agree, but I am not sure of the significance of digital zoom vs. megapixels. IMHO, digital zoom is nasty regardless.
  • Reply 26 of 43
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    I totally agree, but I am not sure of the significance of digital zoom vs. megapixels. IMHO, digital zoom is nasty regardless.



    In principle I would not hesitate to agree, but I've tried the digital zoom in the 4 megapixel version of the Canon camera, and it's really not "too nasty"...
  • Reply 27 of 43
    grahamwgrahamw Posts: 575member
    I own a Canon S60 5mp and the Canon SD 10 4mp.



    The Wide angle on the S60 along with the 3x Optical makes for some great picture taking opportunities. Canon's are great for their shooting modes and the intelligent auto focus.



    The SD10 is a great camera as well. The lack of optical zoom is not at all a hinderance for the types of shots I use it for. This is a club camera or a party camera; the quickshot mode is phenomenal - no waiting for the unit to focus, just slam the button down and it takes a picture right away. The li-on battery goes for ages (I've taken over 200 shots this month and charged the battery in the last week of September). The digital zoom isn't half bad, but if you've got to, zoom with your feet. It's small enough to pop in a pocket or even slide into a cellphone belt case - pretty swell.



    By no means is the SD10 or 20 bottom of the line - it's a camera with a very specific purpose in mind. You may not have the use for it or like it but that does not lessen its value as a camera.



    For the truly bottom of the line there is the A series A400 or the A310 if you can still find them.



    If you're looking for other slim cameras, the Casio Exilim may be one that you might want to take a look at.
  • Reply 28 of 43
    cubs23cubs23 Posts: 324member
    Man, I didn't realize it didn't have an optical zoom. I knew the SD10 didn't, but thought the SD 20 did. Bummer, back to the drawing board. I don't think I need 5 mp, but I want a good quality 8x10. I suppose 4 would work, but 3 and lower is what I want to avoid. Sooo, now, I am impressed with the casio. I like the manual white balance, and manual focus options a bunch, and it has optical zoom, the lens is pentax, and from what I know, they are a good brand. Casio EX-Z40 I just want to find a store I can check it out at now in person... I am thinking of going through the store I linked to b/c free shipping and no tax. Anyone have any experiences with them? They look reputable and safe. Being in college, I don't want to be ripped off... I appreciate it a bunch.
  • Reply 29 of 43
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    As with the Carl Zeiss name on Sony lens, it's nothing more than a label.



    At the end of the day though the quality of pictures you get from Panasonic's cameras are very good and the colours and sharpness are often better than Sony's. That isn't just the lens it's also the image processing both companies use, and Sony's is particularly bad.
  • Reply 30 of 43
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubs23

    Man, I didn't realize it didn't have an optical zoom. I knew the SD10 didn't, but thought the SD 20 did. Bummer, back to the drawing board. I don't think I need 5 mp, but I want a good quality 8x10. I suppose 4 would work, but 3 and lower is what I want to avoid. Sooo, now, I am impressed with the casio. I like the manual white balance, and manual focus options a bunch, and it has optical zoom, the lens is pentax, and from what I know, they are a good brand. Casio EX-Z40 I just want to find a store I can check it out at now in person... I am thinking of going through the store I linked to b/c free shipping and no tax. Anyone have any experiences with them? They look reputable and safe. Being in college, I don't want to be ripped off... I appreciate it a bunch.



    Casio usually comes with a cradle, which can be pretty annoying. Also some casio's have lacked the ability to connect directly to a TV for picture and movie showing. I'm not sure if the Z40 has this ability. The Z4 didn't.
  • Reply 31 of 43
    Canon S410



    I have the 2M 2x optical version of this...great little camera and the 410 with twice the M and 3x world be that much better.



    Perfect size. Great optics. Could not be happier
  • Reply 32 of 43
    once again, fujifilm



    Like mine, the s3100 is a 4.0 effective MP camera with 6x optical zoom and 3.4x digital zoom, video hookup to tv, XD card usage (not necessarily a good thing...), can do small movies (320x320 so it's not that great, but its there...), works with iphoto, 400 shots before running out of batts (200 w/o flash, 200 with), uses 4 AA batts so you don't have to use proprietary batts, has a manual mode, portrait modes (night time, landscape, sports, and person), automatic mode, auto white light balance, and lens attachments (wide angle, narrow angle, etc). I'm sure there's more but at 216 dollars you can't beat that! Especially since most cameras with 6x optical usually cost around 500 dollars.



    I got it from butterflyphoto at that price, shipped and got to me in 2 days.



    http://www.butterflyphoto.com/shop/p...?sku=FUJIS3100
  • Reply 33 of 43
    I recommend the Canon Powershot G6. 7.1mega pixels. Expandable. Superb battery life and good picture quality.



    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canong6/
  • Reply 34 of 43
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    It's important not to compare apples and oranges here. The topic was small compact cameras. Talking about the G6 is like bringing a bazooka to a teaspoon fight... or something...
  • Reply 35 of 43
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    It's important not to compare apples and oranges here. The topic was small compact cameras. Talking about the G6 is like bringing a bazooka to a teaspoon fight... or something...



    Agreed. The G6 is not exactly a pocket camera by any stretch.
  • Reply 36 of 43
    cubs23cubs23 Posts: 324member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    Agreed. The G6 is not exactly a pocket camera by any stretch.



    Yeah, while that is a nice camera, I don't want to have to have it hang off my neck with a strap or give it to someone to hold onto until I get off a ride. I will be doing a lot of walking/riding rides at Disney, so I don't want something bulky. Everyone's help has been much appreciated and has led me in the right direction.
  • Reply 37 of 43
    don't forget to let us know what you got now!
  • Reply 38 of 43
    regreg Posts: 832member
    I was at Disney last year and I used a 10D for all my pictures. My wife had also brought a Casio EX-S1. Every night we would check out our pictures. After the second day she did not even bring the small camera out. I don't think that the size and weight of most cameras will effect you that much. There was only one ride that I did not take the camera with me. My wife did not want to ride that one. The quality of your pictures will make you a lot happier than a little inconvenience.



    reg
  • Reply 39 of 43
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by reg

    I was at Disney last year and I used a 10D for all my pictures. My wife had also brought a Casio EX-S1. Every night we would check out our pictures. After the second day she did not even bring the small camera out. I don't think that the size and weight of most cameras will effect you that much. There was only one ride that I did not take the camera with me. My wife did not want to ride that one. The quality of your pictures will make you a lot happier than a little inconvenience.



    reg




    Right, but in my book, just getting the picture is really the most important thing. I make no claims to being a photographer, and so for me, the important thing is that the picture is taken so I can remember the event. For this purpose, it's best to a) have a digital camera where I am uninhibited to take a lot of pictures and b) have it small enough so that it's not prohibitive. What good is a camera that's so expensive that you don't feel okay taking it with you or a camera that's too big so you don't feel like lugging it around? Just my humble opinion.
  • Reply 40 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Two items, first a practical point.



    I've been using an A75 for work. Mostly documenting various pressers, events, galas, etc etc. I snap a pic here and there when the cameras are going off like mad, so nobody notices the flash anyway. But I'd like to steal a candid now and again, and this is almost impossible indoors, with a P&S camera and no flash. If the panasonics are small, and have a decent OIS system (good for 1.5-2 stops) that would be useful. I could lower the shutter speed, stay at ISO 100, give a couple of bumps of EV compensation, and get a decent pic without any annoying flash going off. You could get a camera with the flexibility to shoot higher ISO, faster f-stop, but most of the digital versions are HUGE. I find even the A75 bigger than I want it to be often times. Don't get me wrong, I think the size is fine for everyday, travel, vacation, etc etc... but for my specific use, I'd like something I can hide in the breast pocket of a suit, or on a very discrete belt clip.



    Which is another topic entirely. I'm turning into an andriod these days, between blackberry (work), phone (personal) and A75, even my wide belt doesn't have enough room on it.



    And now a second point.



    I was cleaning out some old crap the other day, and I found my first camera. A Hanimex 110. A 110 film frame is about the same size as a 4/3rds sensor -- which got me thinking.



    If someone wants a SMALL camera (to fit in a pocket) but with good low light performance, they're pretty much out of luck, at least if they're looking for passable ISO400-800 shots.



    This hanimex isn't small by today's standards, but the flat design could be the thing to really make a pocketable camera with a larger sensor (and hence decent mid-high ISO performance). A 3X internal zoom, biased to the wide end, 12-36mm (equivalent to 24-72 in 35mm) and brightish (f/2.8 or so). No telescopics to break, but a 4-5X larger sensor than what's typically found in a pocket camera. Should be capable of excellent ISO 400 and decent-good ISO 800.



    THAT, would be the perfect travel camera. Oh yeah, and since nothing has that protrudes, might as well make it waterproof.
Sign In or Register to comment.