Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › Photography › Not another Camera rec. thread - ;)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Not another Camera rec. thread - ;)

post #1 of 53
5/2/04 at 8:56am
Thread Starter 
HELP! I have lost complete touch in the camera technology world...What am I looking for? Well, I don't want an SLR yet I don't want something cheap. Mid range with room to grow would be best. Point and Shoot, since I don't understand the manual adjustments.

Pixels:
I'm looking in the 4-5 Megapixel range. More would be better, but I think I'd be happy (for what I'd be using it for) with 4.

Cost:
$500 is fine, but I'll go as high as $750 if the features seem worth it.

Size:
Size isn't a big deal...I want a decent sized camera, not a giant arm breaker, and not a pocket sized one that I'll lose.

Features:
I don't need all of the special effects and software bundles (although most higher end cameras come with that stuff standard). Image stabilization and zoom is probably my key goal. As I said above, I want the camera to be automatic (i.e. auto focus), but also have the ability to use it manually if I decide to do so down the road.

Quality:
That's the big one for everyone. I bought my SONY digi-cam corder mainly because of the Carl-Zeiss lens, but on some SONY reviews, they say the Carl Zeiss lens isn't that great?

I'm not sure if I covered the bases. Feel free to ask more questions.


My brother and parents both have Canons (the 'A' series). I like the looks of the A80 and I would have definitely bought the camera and not written this thread, but the view finder (as a lot of sites note) is quite small (i.e. 1.5").

Again, I'm not looking for something professional, yet I don't want to buy something low end and then (over time) wish I had something better. So I kind of want more than I need as a casual photogrpaher without getting into the SLR pro end.

Also, something that sets the camera apart from the others would be cool, but not necessary. This is mainly so the camera doesn't get confused with someone elses when I'm at a party.

p.s. I know a lot of people are going to reply with cameras they own (which is appreciated), but please explain why your camera is better than the others and not just because it's good. All of these cameras look good, so I'm trying to find the little reasons why one is better. Also, what brands should I avoid?

Thanks
Reply
post #2 of 53
5/2/04 at 3:56pm
For that price range check out the Canon G5. For $1k you should check out www.dpreview.com recent round up.

Personally if I was spending $1k I'd want a DSLR like the Canon Digital Rebel than a fixed lens.

Actually, I AM spending that much, soon as I can actually get a Nikon D70 in store without having to order one over the net!

Check out photo.net dpreview and Luminous Landscapes for sure!

Sam
Reply
post #3 of 53
5/2/04 at 4:53pm
Thread Starter 
I was looking at the G5, the only thing that worried me was what I saw on CNET:
Quote:
The bad: Noticeable chromatic aberration in some photos; small, partially obscured optical viewfinder; lens cap won't stay put.
Reply
post #4 of 53
5/2/04 at 5:05pm
The G5 is overrated. Do a search for reviews of the Olympus 5060...you will be pleasantly surprised.
Reply
post #5 of 53
5/2/04 at 7:27pm
I've never used the Olympus 5060, but I've not been impressed at all with the Olympus digital cameras I've come into contact with. They were awesome back when only a handful of companies made digitals, but they're recent cameras have left something to be desired IMO. If you just want a straight point-and-shoot no frills type camera I'd go with a Sony or Nikon. My fiancee has a Sony and I think the pictures are wonderful. Not to mention that her's cost about $400 2-years ago and does a little over 4MP's. If you decide on SLR, definitely look at the Digital Rebel. Also check out the other offerings from Canon and Nikon.
Reply
post #6 of 53
5/3/04 at 12:13pm
I own the Oly 5050 (prior model to the 5060) and I have three 13X17 pics blown up in my front room. I have a hard time convincing people that I took those pics.

Truth be told, any decent 5 meg pixel should be fine...it's the person behind the camera....not the camera! My wife has pics taken on a $100 35mm point and shoot that are worthy of an exhibition.
Reply
post #7 of 53
5/3/04 at 12:28pm
I just picked up a Canon S410 for $325.

4.1 MP, and I'm very satisfied with the quality of pictures. It's tiny, too- goes right in the pocket. Rich color, and the optics seem pretty good.

You can read all sorts of reviews over at www.imaging-resource.com.

Todd
Reply
post #8 of 53
5/3/04 at 12:35pm
Mark:

I've recently been looking to upgrade my camera with similar requirements that you note.

I would ask you to re-consider why you need 4 MP? Do you plan to make lots of prints that are bigger than 8x10? Or, do you plan to make extensive use of the digital zoom feature?

When I looked into it, I decided a 10x optical zoom was more important than 4 MP. You actually have greater flexibility with 10x optical zoom. This past weekend I was at the National Zoo tacking pics and the one thing that was a real problem was my 3x optical zoom limitation. These 10x units are just amazing. Sure, I originally thought I needed 4-5 MP ... after all, it makes you more future-proof, right? Yea, but it also chews up memory space faster and I can print beautiful 8x10's right now with an older Kodak 3 MP unit (dont crop too much). Regardless, I really dont have much need larget than 8x10's, so I really have to ask myself why do I need the pixels?

After lots of looking, I've decided on the Canon S1 IS. This thing gets great reviews and functions great in fully automatic mode (i.e.: point & shoot) ... or if you want it, it has many manual controls as well. Also, the automatic image stabilization is a great feature for lower light shooting and high zoom ... much more useful to me than the extra pixels.

street price is ~$450 and it used CompactFlash format (cheaper!)

Just another humble opinion for you to consider .....

Scott
Reply
post #9 of 53
5/3/04 at 4:28pm
Scott makes a good point. I have a 3.3MP camera and it is more than adequate for casual photography. Also, the whole megapixel rating system is somewhat bogus (very similar to amplifier ratings... the manufacturer chooses how to measure and present the data).

Quote:
Well, I don't want an SLR yet I don't want something cheap. Mid range with room to grow would be best. Point and Shoot, since I don't understand the manual adjustments.
If all you are ever going to do is take point and shoot pictures, then why do you need room to grow?
Reply
post #10 of 53
5/3/04 at 5:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
If all you are ever going to do is take point and shoot pictures, then why do you need room to grow?
"Room to grow", meaning that I want a basic camera right now, but I know I'll get into it quickly and will eventually want more features. I know I'm not going to get to the point of an SLR, but I also don't want a camera that's going to be outdated in a few years.

Kind of like buying a computer with additional/open slots in case I want to add on. I guess most cameras come with cool features so I'm probably looking at this the wrong way.
Quote:
I would ask you to re-consider why you need 4 MP?
I figured 3MP is best for me, but (as I said above) I am also treating it like a computer where you should always get more than you need because you'll probably end up using it later on.

I would plan on using the 3MP option, but it would be nice to have a higher setting in case I needed it. Just a little "insurance", if you will.

Anyone have an opinion on the Canon Powershot A80?
Reply
post #11 of 53
5/4/04 at 8:31am
A80 is feature packed for sure but its too small for my fat hands =)

Sam
Reply
post #12 of 53
5/4/04 at 9:43am
The Nikon 4300 is probably one of the best little cameras that I have owned. (I own a Sony DSC-F828 now). The 4300 takes some VERY nice pictures.

Excellent color, excellent detail, couldn't be easier to use. Here's one of my favorite pics I took with the 4300.

Reply
post #13 of 53
5/5/04 at 8:58pm
Quote:
I just picked up a Canon S410 for $325.
That's the lowest price I've seen for it, where did you get it?
Reply
post #14 of 53
5/6/04 at 11:12am
I picked upt he Kodak DX6490, which is a 4.0M pixel camera and comes with the dock that both charges the camera and does one touch transfer of pictures to the PC. No other camera I have seen comes close to the ease of use. I also love the 10x optical lens and have found that it is beneficial to have the optical zoom capability vs the digital zoom.



As far as having 4 mega pixels, it is nice to have at least that resolution for the following reason. I have taken pictures and then decided to crop a piece of the picture off and discard the rest. Having a high enough resolution allows the cropped image to still have enough detail.
Reply
post #15 of 53
5/6/04 at 7:20pm
www.wellsdigital.com
Reply
post #16 of 53
5/7/04 at 12:03pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm still doing some research...

This new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P10, seems to get high marks. It made the #6 list in PC Worlds Top 10 "Point and Shoot" Cameras, as well as making the top 3 on Yahoo's camera reviews

I've been looking for something more than 3x optical zoom, but the cameras seem to get pricey for that feature, so 3x seems like it will be fine for me.
Reply
post #17 of 53
5/8/04 at 12:36pm
Thread Starter 
Ok, after debating between SLR's and Point-and-Shoots, I found out about Prosumer (inbetween cameras) which I've been doing a bit more research into and narrowed down to 3 choices:

Olympus C-765 UL - SONY Cyber Shot DSC-V1 - Canon Powershot S1

I need opinions:
All 3 are in my price range, but the Canon and the Olympus both have 10x Optical zoom whereas the SONY only has 4x Optimcal zoom. The Canon and Olympus are both 3.2 and 4 Megapixel (respectively), but the SONY is 5 Mp.

So what would be better? a 3.2 Mp with 10x zoom or a 5 Mp with only 4x zoom? It seems like they'd balence each other out? The SONY also has an added 4x digital zoom which gives it a total of 16x. I know that digital isn't better than Optical, but I would assume the 5Mp would make up for the optical zoom loss.

Also the cons on the Canon and Olym. both mention: The 38mm minimum focal length of this camera will make wide-angle photography difficult. The SONY has a 34mm minimum. Is 38mm not low enough? Can someone explain what a good minimum would be?

I just found out that a friend of mine has the SONY DSC-V1 so I will be playing with it (I'm sort of leaning toward this camera due to the Carl Zeiss lens) and my friend says she can add tele photo lenses to the camera (which would make up for the 4x optical limitation).

Any thoughts?
Reply
post #18 of 53
5/8/04 at 1:15pm
I would go with the Canon. The Sony's probably good, but unless you're going to be making pics larger than 8x10 3.2MP will probably be enough. I'd rather have the 10x optical zoom personally. I'd stray from the Olympus, but that's just because I don't personally like them. As for the minimum focal length I don't think it'll be a problem unless you like to take pictures of flowers or insects or something similar.
Reply
post #19 of 53
5/8/04 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Can someone explain what a good minimum would be?
Depends on what you photograph. I liked 28mm a lot for film. When I went digital (SLR) I felt quite constrained by the 1.6 crop factor which effectively turns a 28mm into a 45mm lens. But the joy of an SLR is that I was able to buy a nice 16-35mm lens to compensate.

Quote:
As for the minimum focal length I don't think it'll be a problem unless you like to take pictures of flowers or insects or something similar.
The shorter focal lengths are wide angles lenses, not something for flowers or insects.
Reply
post #20 of 53
5/8/04 at 2:02pm
I would go with the Canon. I had a talk with a photographer friend earlier this week to help me decide between a Canon and Sony camera, and he made the case that Canon has been around much longer, and the quality of their cameras beats everything else that he's seen. Plus, I don't think Sony was even in the camera market until digital cameras came along. Granted, the reviews of their cameras are great, and it's not like they just became a big brand name, but I think it would be better to go with a company that's been in the business for much longer. I think I'm with Seth on Olympus, but I'm not sure. Either my mom or my sister's film camera broke a while back, my Mom had a Fuji and my sister had an Olympus.
Reply
post #21 of 53
5/8/04 at 2:28pm
Right now, my choice would be the Canon PowerShot A80.

I cite the following reasons:

1. The camera is reasonably sized--small enough to be pocketable, but still large enough for comfortable hand-holding.

2. The camera has been much-lauded for its excellent picture quality with its four-megapixel sensor.

3. The swing-out LCD panel--though small--is great for compositing the shot before you take the picture.

4. It uses commonly-available Compact Flash Type I cards. Why Olympus decided to support their semi-proprietary xD card standard instead of the SD card standard is beyond me.

5. It uses four standard NiMH AA rechargeable batteries, so if you need replacements you can buy them at many stores. This is NOT the case with many smaller digital cameras that uses proprietary rechargeable batteries.

Canon just reduced the price of the PowerShot A80 lately and you might be able to get one somewhere in the US$355-US$375 range mail order.
Reply
post #22 of 53
5/8/04 at 2:58pm
Thread Starter 
Ray, I was all set to go out and get the Canon A80, but a lot of user reviews on CNET.com made me a bit cautious. They kept talking about it taking "soft" pictures. But I guess I should know better than to listen to 'user' reviews. The professional reviews give it good marks, which is probably where it counts.

But I did like the flip out LCD screen (which can flip back for protection against scratches) and the fact that it's a 4Mp and under $400.
Reply
post #23 of 53
5/8/04 at 3:06pm
Have you looked at the Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z2?

It's an awesome 4mp camera. It features 10x(!!!) optical zoom (38-380 mm equiv. 35mm analog film), and it records live video and sound at 640x480@30fps, with length of clip only limited by the size of the flash card.

I'm also in the process of buying a new camera, and the above is definitly the leading candidate in my book so far!
Reply
post #24 of 53
5/8/04 at 3:20pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I don't think Sony was even in the camera market until digital cameras came along
Hmm? I've been into digital video for years and SONY has always been my choice, which is why I figured their cameras would be good.

I have a SONY digital camcorder, so I guess it would be a good idea to get the digital still camera because of the fact that I already have memory sticks (which I can swap).
Quote:
I had a talk with a photographer friend earlier this week to help me decide between a Canon and Sony camera, and he made the case that Canon has been around much longer, and the quality of their cameras beats everything else that he's seen.
So I assume Nikon would also be a good choice (name wise)?

The Nikon Coolpix 5700 seems like a contender as well. Although, that's getting into the $800 range.
Reply
post #25 of 53
5/8/04 at 3:43pm
Nikon is second on his list. I believe he said that Canon generally takes sharper pictures than Nikon.
Reply
post #26 of 53
5/15/04 at 9:06am
I'm 95 percent sure I'll be replacing my A60 with the S1 since for me the 10X optical zoom with stablization is the biggest feature missing from my much loved A60 I presently use. If the S1 takes photo's as nicely as my A60 does now I know I'll be very impressed
Reply
post #27 of 53
5/16/04 at 6:53am
I have a Canon G5 and very much pleased with it. Posts about the "dreaded" CA is true yet it isn't that much of an issue for me. Would u blow up a picture every single time looking for purple fringing? And I mean u have to zoom in to see it most of the time.
I have tired a Nikon 5700 for a few weeks and their "hidden" menu killed it for me. U couldn't make set-up decisions on the fly. They have fixed this with the new 8700 as well as in the 5400 putting a dial out.
Seeing that these cameras r getting really low in price and higher in resolution, another upgrade will be in the works in a few months. I've held one of those Rebel digital SLRs and frankly, I think I've been spoiled by the smaller form factor as well as a mifty swivel LCD screen.
Reply
post #28 of 53
5/16/04 at 5:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I'm 95 percent sure I'll be replacing my A60 with the S1
I'm starting to lean toward this one. I held it in the store and it had a great feel to it. The SONY DSC-V1 didn't impress me. It was very awkward to handle.

The only thing I'm not thrilled with the S1 is the 3.2 MP, but I guess that's still a high number for someone who's just going to be printing 4x6 photos. The 10x optical zoom is what's making this one seem like the one for me.

I keep going back to Scotts post:
Quote:
When I looked into it, I decided a 10x optical zoom was more important than 4 MP.
A co-worker had the A80 and I played with that. I now know the difference between digital and optical zoom. The A80 had a 3x optical and a 3x digital zoom and the digital zoom added a lot more distortion than I'd like. I guess end up with 3.2 mp is worth the 10x optical zoom.
Reply
post #29 of 53
5/17/04 at 9:30am
Mark I pulled the trigger on the S1 this morning and it should be here by Thursday at the latest so I can let you know what I think later this week but basically I agree with Scott in that I'm going to use the 10X ability and the high quality video mode daily where as the "limits" of the 3.2MP won't be an issue since I never print 8 * 10 and even then its not like I couldn't grab my 35mm if I really wanted a large format image
Reply
post #30 of 53
5/17/04 at 12:35pm
I've been following this thread trying to get some good suggestions as well. I was leaning toward the Canon S1 myself, but the Kodak DX6490 that Neil mentioned above sounds interesting as well. 10x optical zoom and 4.0MP for less price than the Canon. Anyone able to compare the differences between these 2 cameras?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Photography
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › Photography › Not another Camera rec. thread - ;)