Digital camera advice

Cecil · 23rd April 2006, 12:02 PM

So my parents are getting me a grad gift, and I suggested a digital camera. They thought that was a great idea, but it's up to me to tell them which one I want.

I have very little knowledge about which features are desirable. I spent a bit of time looking around on dpreview.com, but most of the information there is over my head. I know more pixels = better, and that optical zoom is preferable to digital zoom, but what else should I look for?

I'll be using it for vacation photos (Europe next summer, woo!) and pictures with friends. Good video capability is a must; I'm a swimmer and I'd like to be able to have my races (up to a minute long) filmed for analysis.

I've also noticed that some digital cameras have a lengthy delay between when you press the shutter and when the picture actually takes. Again, since I take some sport pictures it's very difficult to take photos a second or two in advance and it has caused me to miss shots. Is this common to all digitals? Is it a feature I can look for?

I'm looking for something in the $400-$500 range. Any advice on specific models or general features to look for would be appreciated.

Amapola · 23rd April 2006, 12:47 PM

Try this site: Steve's Digital Camera Reviews. Good ol' Steve gives exhaustive reviews of a ton of cameras. This includes taking shots of the exact same subject, so you can compare how that camera works on doing that particular type of shot.

There is no "best" camera. You have to decide what you are mostly using the camera for, and pick one that is great at doing that type of job. I chose mine for doing closeups for the web. I shoot pictures of jewelry, so I need to be able to control the flash and since I am just publishing on the web, having a 3 megapixel camera is adequate for what I want. I also chose one that you can push buttons and change things, as opposed to a "point and shoot" type camera, to try and get better control of my shots. Most people don't have the same needs I do, so you have to pick a camera that will work well for your particular situation and tastes.

Congrats on graduating!

Meffy · 23rd April 2006, 01:29 PM

I'm not familar with that price range, so from me just a general principle. The number of megapixels in the image isn't necessarily the best indicator of image quality. Camera layout, lens design, type of image sensor, quality of construction -- those all have a big impact on how good a picture you'll take. If the lens isn't good enough to transmit the scene to your image sensor with good fidelity, it doesn't matter how many pixels you divide that image into, it'll likely still be inferior to an image with fewer pixels made with a really good lens. Like most engineering or buying decisions, it's a trade-off.

Online reviews were of great help to me in deciding which digital SLR to get in late 2004. Haven't regretted the decision yet. :-)

Chris Haynes · 23rd April 2006, 02:34 PM

We have both a Canon EOS Rebel digital camera and a Canon Powershot SD200 ELPH (the latter is really my daughter's camera)....

While the big SLR digital camera is great for group photos, and getting really good detail... I really like the little Canon ELPH. Here is a Review. I borrow it from my daughter if I go someplace and I want a camera that fits in my pocket.

So you might want to look at some of the newer compact digital cameras for a trip.

steve s · 23rd April 2006, 02:54 PM

I agree with Meffy about the megapixels. More doesn't mean better, especially if all you want are snapshots. You only need about 3 MP for a 4"X6" photo, and 4MP for a 5"X7" photo. More MPs often mean more noise. It also means fewer pics that will fit on your memory card.

Panasonic has some nice, affordable cameras with Image Stabilization. I.S. helps to negate the shakiness of your hands. Add to that a Leica lens and exposure controls from full manual to full auto.

I don't know how their video capabilities are. That's one feature I never bother to use. They do well in terms of shutter lag, but for the least lag you really need an SLR.

At the DPReview site, you might look at the DMC-LX1 for compacts, or the DMC-FZ20 (or FZ30) for a more SLR-like camera.

I took the pic below handheld. In the original full-size pic you can count the hairs on his legs. With my old unstabilized SLRs I'd have to use a tripod to get shots this sharp.

Steve S.

joe87 · 23rd April 2006, 03:36 PM

Optical zoom is a good thing. Digital zoom is worthless, because you can digitally zoom the picture after you take it with any decent image processor. I bought a camera (Minolta Dimage Z1) with 10x optical zoom, and it really helps to be able to zoom in optically, particularly if you like to take pictures of sports events. You rarely get close enough to get good shots without zooming. I think 10x is equivalent to about a 350mm lens.

CBL4 · 23rd April 2006, 03:54 PM

I suggest that you limit your choices to a few cameras and try them out. Designing a user interface is difficult (I have tried) and there is no best interface. The quality of images are probably similar in similar featured cameras but some will make you want to throw them out the window when you want to more than point and shoot. (Of course, small point-and-shoot cameras are good sometimes and for some people.)

I was given a Canon Elph and I hated the icon-y nature of the interface. It got lost/stolen and I decided that I would use the camera first. I was surprised that I ended up with another Canon - the S1 IS. It was obviously designed by people with a film SLR background which I prefer. It is much bigger but I can live with that.

The camera is pretty good except that the focus is slow compared to my 15 year old Canon EOS and the view finder is not nearly as good as on film cameras.

CBL

Oolon Colluphid · 23rd April 2006, 04:36 PM

I've pitched it before, and I'll pitch it again!

"With 10x optical zoom and 5.1MP resolution, the Fujifilm S5200 provides excellent image quality. Similar to the Fujifilm F10, noise is low at ISO 64, 100, 200 and 400. ISO 400 is very usable, and a high ISO 1600 allows you to get the shot where otherwise you may not be able to depending on the amount of light present.
The Fujifilm S5200 is f-a-s-t! Startup is about 1 sec. and there is no practical shutter lag."

http://www.photoxels.com/fujifilm-s5200-review.html

All the pics I've posted on this forum (bar one, I think) were taken with this camera.

ETA Well, not this forum exactly. They are mostly in the community forum.

rustypouch · 23rd April 2006, 05:19 PM

I agree with O.C. Right now, the best compact, reasonably priced point and shoot is the Fuji F10, soon to be placed with the F30, which adds one stop of sensitivity and aperture priority. If you need more zoom, go with the S5200.

I am not a fan of the Panasonics, as they tend to be noisy.

Art Vandelay · 23rd April 2006, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by joe87

Optical zoom is a good thing. Digital zoom is worthless, because you can digitally zoom the picture after you take it with any decent image processor.

What if you want to take several times the number of full sized photos that your camera can hold?

Oolon Colluphid · 23rd April 2006, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

What if you want to take several times the number of full sized photos that your camera can hold?

Buy more media. I bought a 256meg card for $39.95, and I've only come close to filling it once when I took 93 pics at 5 megapixel fine resolution.

rjh01 · 24th April 2006, 01:06 AM

I agree. You need 256 MB card minimum. I explored New Parliament House in Canberra for 2 hours and took almost 100 photos. Each photo would be 1 - 3 MB in size. Then if you are planning to go on holiday you should have enough for two or three days worth of photos. Any more and you can go to a shop and dump them to CD. That assumes that there are shops where you are on holidays. Otherwise you need Gb worth of memory.

You will take lots more photos with a digital camera. Just because you can and it is so much more rewarding.

Rolfe · 24th April 2006, 04:08 AM

What about the delay between pressing the button and the shot actually taking? That's what's driving me nuts with my otherwise rather nice Pentax. It wasn't even something I thought about before buying. Do they all do it? Why? How can anyone shoot an action shot with something like that? What would one look out for to indicate that a camera doesn't have this delay (if indeed there are any that don't)?

Rolfe.

Deetee · 24th April 2006, 04:18 AM

A couple of other things to consider....

If you are travelling a lot, try and get a more compact camera. Also get one which doesn't have its own rechargable battery and therefore need its own recharging unit (and supply convertors for europe) - get one that uses replaceable AAs. You may use quite a few, but at least batteries are available almost everywhere.

Think about the card type you will use. Some card types are interchangeable (XD does for both Fuji and Olympus eg) but may not be as versatile or be as commonly represented on card readers as the other types.

For $400 you should be able to get quite a top of the range camera, but for this outlay you want your first choice to be the best. So go try out a few frist - its the only way you will know what suits you best.

And don't expect video to be that detailed, even for a $500 camera. If you want to do a lot of video, consider a digital camcorder that can also take stills.

ChristineR · 24th April 2006, 04:26 AM

Glass lens. Everything else is just preference.

Deetee · 24th April 2006, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What about the delay between pressing the button and the shot actually taking? That's what's driving me nuts with my otherwise rather nice Pentax. It wasn't even something I thought about before buying. Do they all do it? Why? How can anyone shoot an action shot with something like that? What would one look out for to indicate that a camera doesn't have this delay (if indeed there are any that don't)?

See http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-s...-lag/index.htm

rjh01 · 24th April 2006, 04:30 AM

The delay can be shortened to almost nothing.
How? By knowing where to shoot you pre focus by lightly touching the button. Then when the action happens fully press the button. Another way is to have manual focus. But that is hard. Of course if you do not know where the action is you are lost.

pgwenthold · 24th April 2006, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Cecil

So my parents are getting me a grad gift, and I suggested a digital camera. They thought that was a great idea, but it's up to me to tell them which one I want.

I have very little knowledge about which features are desirable. I spent a bit of time looking around on dpreview.com, but most of the information there is over my head. I know more pixels = better, and that optical zoom is preferable to digital zoom, but what else should I look for?

I'll be using it for vacation photos (Europe next summer, woo!) and pictures with friends. Good video capability is a must; I'm a swimmer and I'd like to be able to have my races (up to a minute long) filmed for analysis.

Two things I would say. This is from a non-photographer, but someone who takes pictures, inc vacation pics.

If you are going to Europe, you will want a camera that does a good job indoors, with poor lighting. You can't use a flash in the churches. We struggled with this, because we needed to use a long shutter speed, and then you have to have a very steady hand. I don't know the proper solution to the problem, but if you are going to Europe, this will be important.

Second, as rjh01 has noted, the time lag between click and shoot is not really a problem, because that is just the autofocus. If you partially hold the button down, the camera will focus first, and then when you click it takes the picture immediately.

CurtC · 24th April 2006, 06:46 AM

After my old Canon S100 Elph broke, I got the similar, but better in every way, Canon SD200. The SD200 is smaller, which is a big deal for snapshot kind of photos; you'll always have it with you.

Another thing that's greatly improved is the delays you were asking about. The time from power-on to ready is now very quick, and the time from pushing the button to its taking the picture is also very short, especially if you pre-focus by pressing the button halfway. When I first got it, the pictures kept coming out taken just before I had intended - even before I thought I had pressed the button. So that's really quick.

Originally Posted by steve s

You only need about 3 MP for a 4"X6" photo, and 4MP for a 5"X7" photo.

I don't think that's right - one megapixel is plenty for 4x6 photos, and pictures taken with my old 2 MP Canon produced very nice 8x10s. I agree that the lens is much more important than the number of pixels.

roger · 24th April 2006, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What about the delay between pressing the button and the shot actually taking? That's what's driving me nuts with my otherwise rather nice Pentax. It wasn't even something I thought about before buying. Do they all do it? Why? How can anyone shoot an action shot with something like that? What would one look out for to indicate that a camera doesn't have this delay (if indeed there are any that don't)?

Rolfe.

If you want instant shooting, you need a digital SLR. This take you well outside the range of 400-500 requested by the opening poster, however. Mine can take pictures as fast as I press the button - I think it'll do 3-4 frames a second if I hold the button down. A point-n-shoot is anything but; it's slow to acquire focus, process the lighting, etc., and then it takes a long time to write to the card. you're lucky to get a picture every 2 seconds in good light, and good luck in low light.

CurtC · 24th April 2006, 08:01 AM

I don't think the frames per second was his concern about the delay. My old digital camera would have a significant (1/2 second?) delay from the time you press the button, until it actually took the picture, even if I had pre-focused it by holding the button halfway. But my Canon SD200 has negligible delay if it's been prefocused. For shooting action shots, I usually have time to pre-focus, but the critical part is catching the image at the split-second I intend.

roger · 24th April 2006, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by CurtC

I don't think the frames per second was his concern about the delay. My old digital camera would have a significant (1/2 second?) delay from the time you press the button, until it actually took the picture, even if I had pre-focused it by holding the button halfway. But my Canon SD200 has negligible delay if it's been prefocused. For shooting action shots, I usually have time to pre-focus, but the critical part is catching the image at the split-second I intend.

Agreed, I was expanding on the delay point. There's more than shutter delay, there's the write delay as well. Most action shooting that I have done hasn't afforded me the luxury of waiting 2+ seconds to write to the camera, wait for me to hold the button down, acquire focus, etc. By then the action is long past.

Hellbound · 24th April 2006, 12:21 PM

On storage space:

They've actually come out with mini-hard drives for some digital camaeras. We have one that's made for CompactFlash cameras (like the Digital Rebel) that's a 6GB card. Yes, GB. My wife gets a kick out of it, because she'll set the camera to maximum resolution, take several pictures, and the "pics remaining" readout on the camera has yet to go below 999. And the 6GB only cost about $200 (I think, may have been $300).

Take a look at the media type a camera uses, and see what's available for it. IF you plan on video, I'd look for at least 1GB, unless you plan to have a laptop handy for downloading images (or carrying several media cards/sticks and swapping out).

Oolon Colluphid · 24th April 2006, 01:50 PM

Most digital cameras these days have a 'continuous shooting' option that is similar to having a motorized winder on an slr. Depending on which option you set, it (the S5200, anyway) will save the first three frames, the last three frames, or keep taking pics till the memory is full. The last one takes longer between frames because it saves them as each is taken. The other two options will hold three frames in the buffer before writing them to the card, so there is less of a delay between them.

As far as video goes, more recent cameras are capable of 640x480 movies at 30 frames per second, and that ain't too bad at all! Of course, they eat up about 10 megabytes per minute, and with the Fuji S5200 (don't know about the S9000) there is a compatibility issue with the 1 gig cards in movie mode. They work fine for photography though, and there's no problem with the 512 meg (or less) cards in movie mode.

Meffy · 24th April 2006, 02:05 PM

Here's a factor that can influence capture speed: various removable media operate at different speeds. I use a Sandisk Ultra II 512 Mbyte CF in my Nikon D70 -- when empty the frame counter reads 47 but I usually get about 90 shots in normal use (landscapes, nature, random scenic stuff). It's very quick, and combined with the D70's almost total lack of trigger delay it feels as fast as a good motor driven film camera. Mini hard drives aren't as fast as RAM but you get soooo much storage on the little boogers... =@.o= I don't do video so can't say how that would affect the data transfer rate requirements.

Anyhoo, the moral of the story is: Before buying removable media, read the requirements for the camera(s) you're interested in, so you won't end up with a camera that feeds data faster than the storage can accept it.

WildCat · 24th April 2006, 02:32 PM

I just bought a Canon S2 IS. I really want a digital slr, but I like to take pics of rock bands, and more and more they're not allowing "professional" cameras into shows any more, and they define that as anything w/ a removable lens. The Canon is nice because it has full manual controls (useful in low-light situations) and a 12x optical zoom. It will get its first workout at the New Orleans Jazz Festival this weekend.

merentha · 24th April 2006, 11:21 PM

There's no need to lug a laptop around to download the card contents. I bought a 30gig portable photo storage device for less than the price of a 1gig xD card (that was 2 years ago). The device has multicard slots that supports all popular card types, including my xD card (Olympus and their proprietary memcards). It also doubles as a lightly large MP3 player. With two 128MB memcards (free with my camera purchase) and the device, I was happily snapping away in Europe.

I think I used to see an adapter for the iPod that allows the player to double as a similar storage device for SD cards.

On cameras, it'll depend on whether you like to fiddle with settings. No point getting an expensive prosumer or SLR camera if it's going to be set on Auto most of the time. Plus those cameras are usually quite bulky. I have an Olympus 700UZ for the occasional fanciful stuff, and a surprisingly feature-packed point-and-shoot Casio Exilim which I carry in my handbag all the time. It's tiny, lightweight, quick to start, quick to shoot, and has extremely long battery life.

tygirwulf · 25th April 2006, 12:31 AM

I would not recommend a digital SLR. It's too troublesome for most folks and heavier than consumer level cameras. You need various lenses to cover the zoom range a point & shoot has, which is both a strength and a drawback, depending on who you ask. For a lot of people, it's a drawback. That said, an SLR does have much faster shooting and better light sensitivity without being grainy. I have taken pictures in near-darkness handheld with reasonably good results without the flash, but that's with a fast lens capable of being wide open. The pictures turn out with almost no grain.

Don't get me wrong, it is a rewarding hobby, but it takes a lot of dedication, and I sometimes just want to forget it all and buy a P&S. I've seen many cases on dpreview where someone got an SLR, tried to learn the ins and outs, then got a P&S and sold the SLR. Even many photographers have backup P&S cameras for situations where carrying a camera bag is impractical or when they don't feel like lugging everything around.

I second the recommendation to try a few out at the store. Different brands have different control layouts, which in many cases, tend to carry over through all their similar looking models, so you don't necessarily need to try out the exact same camera you want to buy. I had a couple of Sony point and shoots years ago and I'm still quite familiar with how the new cameras work.

Trantor · 25th April 2006, 07:10 AM

I would also check out a Sony digital camara with a Carl Zeiss lens. This lens takes very sharp pictures, regardless of the numeber of megapixels. 4-5 megapixels with a Carl Zeiss lens will keep you happy.

For a small camara, I prefer the Cannon ELPH's. Very portable and excellent construction.

Soapy Sam · 26th April 2006, 05:34 AM

I find it annoying that camera makers supply a 16MB card as standard. This is useless. Far better to supply no card and take $15 off the price.
Remember Fuji and Olympus use XD cards, Sony use their own memory sticks and everyone else uses smartmedia or SD. If you already have a device using one of these formats, it may be worth choosing your camera accordingly (other things being equal).
Batteries. If you are a heavy user, always carry a spare. Ask if you can charge it separately or if it can only be charged in the camera.

Ooolon- how useful is your Fuji in low light? I have thought of getting and F10 / F 30, but I'm not sure how usable the slow speeds are.

Oolon Colluphid · 26th April 2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I find it annoying that camera makers supply a 16MB card as standard. This is useless. Far better to supply no card and take $15 off the price.
Remember Fuji and Olympus use XD cards, Sony use their own memory sticks and everyone else uses smartmedia or SD. If you already have a device using one of these formats, it may be worth choosing your camera accordingly (other things being equal).
Batteries. If you are a heavy user, always carry a spare. Ask if you can charge it separately or if it can only be charged in the camera.

Ooolon- how useful is your Fuji in low light? I have thought of getting and F10 / F 30, but I'm not sure how usable the slow speeds are.

My first digital was also a Fuji. An S2800 zoom, that used Smartmedia. Neat little camera, but I found that I outgrew it rather quickly, and Smartmedia seemed to be on the way out. It's now very difficult to find SM unless you look at surplus/closeout stores and the like.

The S5200, like the S2800, uses 4xAA batteries. I bought a package of four 2500 mah NMh AA's complete with charger for little more than the cost of the batteries alone. Then I went and bought another one! It's nice having two sets of rechargables

Soapy Sam, I've had mixed results with low light, but then I haven't tried it too much. The picture below was a 15 sec exposure at f3.2 and ISO 100 in RAW mode with the lens zoomed all the way out. I had to increase the gamma after I downloaded to the computer, in order to get most of the stars to be visible. The big light near the middle is Jupiter which is in Libra, and the constelation to it's left is Scorpius. It turned out okay, but an attempt to get Venus just as the sky was lightening didn't turn out well at all. However, that might have been due to my ineptitude, and not a deficiency of the camera.

Oolon Colluphid · 26th April 2006, 05:48 PM

Here's the one of Venus. It was a 1/2 second exposure (probably the problem right there), f3.2 at ISO 200. Again, I had to brighten it up a bit on the computer afterwards. It still looks kinda crappy, which is a shame, because the sky looked so beautiful in real life.

The second one is just some vulture I saw on my way home from work. I've recently come to realise that, what I've been thinking were hawks all theses years, are in actual fact, Turkey Vultures. And there are a lot of them! I snapped 8 of them hunting in a pack today, and yesterday I got a close up of one snacking on a deer carcass in a field. Ugly, ugly critters!

These aren't really representative of the camera's capabilities, due to the necessity of downsizing the original 2592x1944 images, and saving them at only 80% quality to comply with photobucket and JREF size restrictions.

WildCat · 4th May 2006, 09:28 AM

OK, I tried out the Canon 2S Is in New Orleans last weekend, here's some results. Bear in mind, I had to reduce quality and size to fit them here.

Bruce Springsteen at the Jazz Festival, I was at least 300 yards away from the stage (waaaaay in the back of the field), had the lens at the full 12x optical zoom and no tripod. It has a built-in image stabilization, which seemed to work well despite all the alcohol I had consumed that day.

This was cropped from a much bigger pic!

This next one was taken in Lafitte's Blacksmiths Shop tavern. This was built in 1722, and in keeping w/ that theme there are only candles illuminating the inside, and as it was night it was extremely dark in there! The built-in flash worked very well.

I'll add that the movie mode is fantastic in this camera, high-res and worked very well even at night, and stereo sound! Files are way too big to show you though - a 1 minute movie (at full video and sound res) uses up ~125 MB.

And finally, an obligatory pic of one of our cats eating a lavender plant, to show the macro mode.

Almo · 4th May 2006, 02:18 PM

Get a Sony with optical zoom. If it's a difference between 4x Optical zoom with 12 megapixles or 12x optical zoom with 5 megapixels, go for the optical zoom.

unless you're making VERY large prints, 12 megapixels is way overkill. Ours is a Sony $600 Canadian with 12x optical zoom, and it kicks ass.

23rd April 2006, 12:02 PM	#1
Cecil Muse Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Vancouver Posts: 991	Digital camera advice So my parents are getting me a grad gift, and I suggested a digital camera. They thought that was a great idea, but it's up to me to tell them which one I want. I have very little knowledge about which features are desirable. I spent a bit of time looking around on dpreview.com, but most of the information there is over my head. I know more pixels = better, and that optical zoom is preferable to digital zoom, but what else should I look for? I'll be using it for vacation photos (Europe next summer, woo!) and pictures with friends. Good video capability is a must; I'm a swimmer and I'd like to be able to have my races (up to a minute long) filmed for analysis. I've also noticed that some digital cameras have a lengthy delay between when you press the shutter and when the picture actually takes. Again, since I take some sport pictures it's very difficult to take photos a second or two in advance and it has caused me to miss shots. Is this common to all digitals? Is it a feature I can look for? I'm looking for something in the $400-$500 range. Any advice on specific models or general features to look for would be appreciated.
	__________________ "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein "The common man marvels at the uncommon; the wise man marvels at the commonplace." --Confucious "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell

23rd April 2006, 12:47 PM	#2
Amapola Pirate Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Mora, New Mexico Posts: 8,260	Try this site: Steve's Digital Camera Reviews. Good ol' Steve gives exhaustive reviews of a ton of cameras. This includes taking shots of the exact same subject, so you can compare how that camera works on doing that particular type of shot. There is no "best" camera. You have to decide what you are mostly using the camera for, and pick one that is great at doing that type of job. I chose mine for doing closeups for the web. I shoot pictures of jewelry, so I need to be able to control the flash and since I am just publishing on the web, having a 3 megapixel camera is adequate for what I want. I also chose one that you can push buttons and change things, as opposed to a "point and shoot" type camera, to try and get better control of my shots. Most people don't have the same needs I do, so you have to pick a camera that will work well for your particular situation and tastes. Congrats on graduating!
	__________________ ignoring is art....not science pillory

23rd April 2006, 02:34 PM	#4
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,204	We have both a Canon EOS Rebel digital camera and a Canon Powershot SD200 ELPH (the latter is really my daughter's camera).... While the big SLR digital camera is great for group photos, and getting really good detail... I really like the little Canon ELPH. Here is a Review. I borrow it from my daughter if I go someplace and I want a camera that fits in my pocket. So you might want to look at some of the newer compact digital cameras for a trip.
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

23rd April 2006, 02:54 PM	#5
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,659	I agree with Meffy about the megapixels. More doesn't mean better, especially if all you want are snapshots. You only need about 3 MP for a 4"X6" photo, and 4MP for a 5"X7" photo. More MPs often mean more noise. It also means fewer pics that will fit on your memory card. Panasonic has some nice, affordable cameras with Image Stabilization. I.S. helps to negate the shakiness of your hands. Add to that a Leica lens and exposure controls from full manual to full auto. I don't know how their video capabilities are. That's one feature I never bother to use. They do well in terms of shutter lag, but for the least lag you really need an SLR. At the DPReview site, you might look at the DMC-LX1 for compacts, or the DMC-FZ20 (or FZ30) for a more SLR-like camera. I took the pic below handheld. In the original full-size pic you can count the hairs on his legs. With my old unstabilized SLRs I'd have to use a tripod to get shots this sharp. Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,659	Last edited by steve s; 23rd April 2006 at 02:58 PM.

23rd April 2006, 03:36 PM	#6
joe87 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 89	Optical zoom is a good thing. Digital zoom is worthless, because you can digitally zoom the picture after you take it with any decent image processor. I bought a camera (Minolta Dimage Z1) with 10x optical zoom, and it really helps to be able to zoom in optically, particularly if you like to take pictures of sports events. You rarely get close enough to get good shots without zooming. I think 10x is equivalent to about a 350mm lens.
joe87 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 89

23rd April 2006, 01:29 PM	#3
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	I'm not familar with that price range, so from me just a general principle. The number of megapixels in the image isn't necessarily the best indicator of image quality. Camera layout, lens design, type of image sensor, quality of construction -- those all have a big impact on how good a picture you'll take. If the lens isn't good enough to transmit the scene to your image sensor with good fidelity, it doesn't matter how many pixels you divide that image into, it'll likely still be inferior to an image with fewer pixels made with a really good lens. Like most engineering or buying decisions, it's a trade-off. Online reviews were of great help to me in deciding which digital SLR to get in late 2004. Haven't regretted the decision yet. :-)

23rd April 2006, 03:54 PM	#7
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	I suggest that you limit your choices to a few cameras and try them out. Designing a user interface is difficult (I have tried) and there is no best interface. The quality of images are probably similar in similar featured cameras but some will make you want to throw them out the window when you want to more than point and shoot. (Of course, small point-and-shoot cameras are good sometimes and for some people.) I was given a Canon Elph and I hated the icon-y nature of the interface. It got lost/stolen and I decided that I would use the camera first. I was surprised that I ended up with another Canon - the S1 IS. It was obviously designed by people with a film SLR background which I prefer. It is much bigger but I can live with that. The camera is pretty good except that the focus is slow compared to my 15 year old Canon EOS and the view finder is not nearly as good as on film cameras. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

23rd April 2006, 04:36 PM	#8
Oolon Colluphid Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Trapped inside an osteal carapace. Posts: 926	I've pitched it before, and I'll pitch it again! "With 10x optical zoom and 5.1MP resolution, the Fujifilm S5200 provides excellent image quality. Similar to the Fujifilm F10, noise is low at ISO 64, 100, 200 and 400. ISO 400 is very usable, and a high ISO 1600 allows you to get the shot where otherwise you may not be able to depending on the amount of light present. The Fujifilm S5200 is f-a-s-t! Startup is about 1 sec. and there is no practical shutter lag." http://www.photoxels.com/fujifilm-s5200-review.html All the pics I've posted on this forum (bar one, I think) were taken with this camera. ETA Well, not this forum exactly. They are mostly in the community forum.
	__________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. Last edited by Oolon Colluphid; 23rd April 2006 at 04:41 PM.

23rd April 2006, 05:19 PM	#9
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,118	I agree with O.C. Right now, the best compact, reasonably priced point and shoot is the Fuji F10, soon to be placed with the F30, which adds one stop of sensitivity and aperture priority. If you need more zoom, go with the S5200. I am not a fan of the Panasonics, as they tend to be noisy.

23rd April 2006, 10:07 PM	#10
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by joe87 Optical zoom is a good thing. Digital zoom is worthless, because you can digitally zoom the picture after you take it with any decent image processor. What if you want to take several times the number of full sized photos that your camera can hold?

23rd April 2006, 11:27 PM	#11
Oolon Colluphid Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Trapped inside an osteal carapace. Posts: 926	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay What if you want to take several times the number of full sized photos that your camera can hold? Buy more media. I bought a 256meg card for $39.95, and I've only come close to filling it once when I took 93 pics at 5 megapixel fine resolution.
	__________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

24th April 2006, 01:06 AM	#12
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,172	I agree. You need 256 MB card minimum. I explored New Parliament House in Canberra for 2 hours and took almost 100 photos. Each photo would be 1 - 3 MB in size. Then if you are planning to go on holiday you should have enough for two or three days worth of photos. Any more and you can go to a shop and dump them to CD. That assumes that there are shops where you are on holidays. Otherwise you need Gb worth of memory. You will take lots more photos with a digital camera. Just because you can and it is so much more rewarding.

24th April 2006, 04:08 AM	#13
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,320	What about the delay between pressing the button and the shot actually taking? That's what's driving me nuts with my otherwise rather nice Pentax. It wasn't even something I thought about before buying. Do they all do it? Why? How can anyone shoot an action shot with something like that? What would one look out for to indicate that a camera doesn't have this delay (if indeed there are any that don't)? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

24th April 2006, 04:18 AM	#14
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	A couple of other things to consider.... If you are travelling a lot, try and get a more compact camera. Also get one which doesn't have its own rechargable battery and therefore need its own recharging unit (and supply convertors for europe) - get one that uses replaceable AAs. You may use quite a few, but at least batteries are available almost everywhere. Think about the card type you will use. Some card types are interchangeable (XD does for both Fuji and Olympus eg) but may not be as versatile or be as commonly represented on card readers as the other types. For $400 you should be able to get quite a top of the range camera, but for this outlay you want your first choice to be the best. So go try out a few frist - its the only way you will know what suits you best. And don't expect video to be that detailed, even for a $500 camera. If you want to do a lot of video, consider a digital camcorder that can also take stills.
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM Last edited by Deetee; 24th April 2006 at 04:22 AM.

24th April 2006, 04:26 AM	#15
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	Glass lens. Everything else is just preference.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

24th April 2006, 04:27 AM	#16
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	Originally Posted by Rolfe What about the delay between pressing the button and the shot actually taking? That's what's driving me nuts with my otherwise rather nice Pentax. It wasn't even something I thought about before buying. Do they all do it? Why? How can anyone shoot an action shot with something like that? What would one look out for to indicate that a camera doesn't have this delay (if indeed there are any that don't)? See http://www.digicamhelp.com/what-is-s...-lag/index.htm
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

24th April 2006, 04:30 AM	#17
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,172	The delay can be shortened to almost nothing. How? By knowing where to shoot you pre focus by lightly touching the button. Then when the action happens fully press the button. Another way is to have manual focus. But that is hard. Of course if you do not know where the action is you are lost.

24th April 2006, 06:44 AM	#18
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,066	Originally Posted by Cecil So my parents are getting me a grad gift, and I suggested a digital camera. They thought that was a great idea, but it's up to me to tell them which one I want. I have very little knowledge about which features are desirable. I spent a bit of time looking around on dpreview.com, but most of the information there is over my head. I know more pixels = better, and that optical zoom is preferable to digital zoom, but what else should I look for? I'll be using it for vacation photos (Europe next summer, woo!) and pictures with friends. Good video capability is a must; I'm a swimmer and I'd like to be able to have my races (up to a minute long) filmed for analysis. Two things I would say. This is from a non-photographer, but someone who takes pictures, inc vacation pics. If you are going to Europe, you will want a camera that does a good job indoors, with poor lighting. You can't use a flash in the churches. We struggled with this, because we needed to use a long shutter speed, and then you have to have a very steady hand. I don't know the proper solution to the problem, but if you are going to Europe, this will be important. Second, as rjh01 has noted, the time lag between click and shoot is not really a problem, because that is just the autofocus. If you partially hold the button down, the camera will focus first, and then when you click it takes the picture immediately.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

24th April 2006, 06:46 AM	#19
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	After my old Canon S100 Elph broke, I got the similar, but better in every way, Canon SD200. The SD200 is smaller, which is a big deal for snapshot kind of photos; you'll always have it with you. Another thing that's greatly improved is the delays you were asking about. The time from power-on to ready is now very quick, and the time from pushing the button to its taking the picture is also very short, especially if you pre-focus by pressing the button halfway. When I first got it, the pictures kept coming out taken just before I had intended - even before I thought I had pressed the button. So that's really quick. Originally Posted by steve s You only need about 3 MP for a 4"X6" photo, and 4MP for a 5"X7" photo. I don't think that's right - one megapixel is plenty for 4x6 photos, and pictures taken with my old 2 MP Canon produced very nice 8x10s. I agree that the lens is much more important than the number of pixels.

24th April 2006, 07:20 AM	#20
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Originally Posted by Rolfe What about the delay between pressing the button and the shot actually taking? That's what's driving me nuts with my otherwise rather nice Pentax. It wasn't even something I thought about before buying. Do they all do it? Why? How can anyone shoot an action shot with something like that? What would one look out for to indicate that a camera doesn't have this delay (if indeed there are any that don't)? Rolfe. If you want instant shooting, you need a digital SLR. This take you well outside the range of 400-500 requested by the opening poster, however. Mine can take pictures as fast as I press the button - I think it'll do 3-4 frames a second if I hold the button down. A point-n-shoot is anything but; it's slow to acquire focus, process the lighting, etc., and then it takes a long time to write to the card. you're lucky to get a picture every 2 seconds in good light, and good luck in low light.

24th April 2006, 08:01 AM	#21
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	I don't think the frames per second was his concern about the delay. My old digital camera would have a significant (1/2 second?) delay from the time you press the button, until it actually took the picture, even if I had pre-focused it by holding the button halfway. But my Canon SD200 has negligible delay if it's been prefocused. For shooting action shots, I usually have time to pre-focus, but the critical part is catching the image at the split-second I intend.

24th April 2006, 08:17 AM	#22
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Originally Posted by CurtC I don't think the frames per second was his concern about the delay. My old digital camera would have a significant (1/2 second?) delay from the time you press the button, until it actually took the picture, even if I had pre-focused it by holding the button halfway. But my Canon SD200 has negligible delay if it's been prefocused. For shooting action shots, I usually have time to pre-focus, but the critical part is catching the image at the split-second I intend. Agreed, I was expanding on the delay point. There's more than shutter delay, there's the write delay as well. Most action shooting that I have done hasn't afforded me the luxury of waiting 2+ seconds to write to the camera, wait for me to hold the button down, acquire focus, etc. By then the action is long past.

24th April 2006, 12:21 PM	#23
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	On storage space: They've actually come out with mini-hard drives for some digital camaeras. We have one that's made for CompactFlash cameras (like the Digital Rebel) that's a 6GB card. Yes, GB. My wife gets a kick out of it, because she'll set the camera to maximum resolution, take several pictures, and the "pics remaining" readout on the camera has yet to go below 999. And the 6GB only cost about $200 (I think, may have been $300). Take a look at the media type a camera uses, and see what's available for it. IF you plan on video, I'd look for at least 1GB, unless you plan to have a laptop handy for downloading images (or carrying several media cards/sticks and swapping out).

24th April 2006, 01:50 PM	#24
Oolon Colluphid Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Trapped inside an osteal carapace. Posts: 926	Most digital cameras these days have a 'continuous shooting' option that is similar to having a motorized winder on an slr. Depending on which option you set, it (the S5200, anyway) will save the first three frames, the last three frames, or keep taking pics till the memory is full. The last one takes longer between frames because it saves them as each is taken. The other two options will hold three frames in the buffer before writing them to the card, so there is less of a delay between them. As far as video goes, more recent cameras are capable of 640x480 movies at 30 frames per second, and that ain't too bad at all! Of course, they eat up about 10 megabytes per minute, and with the Fuji S5200 (don't know about the S9000) there is a compatibility issue with the 1 gig cards in movie mode. They work fine for photography though, and there's no problem with the 512 meg (or less) cards in movie mode.
	__________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

24th April 2006, 02:05 PM	#25
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Here's a factor that can influence capture speed: various removable media operate at different speeds. I use a Sandisk Ultra II 512 Mbyte CF in my Nikon D70 -- when empty the frame counter reads 47 but I usually get about 90 shots in normal use (landscapes, nature, random scenic stuff). It's very quick, and combined with the D70's almost total lack of trigger delay it feels as fast as a good motor driven film camera. Mini hard drives aren't as fast as RAM but you get soooo much storage on the little boogers... =@.o= I don't do video so can't say how that would affect the data transfer rate requirements. Anyhoo, the moral of the story is: Before buying removable media, read the requirements for the camera(s) you're interested in, so you won't end up with a camera that feeds data faster than the storage can accept it.

24th April 2006, 02:32 PM	#26
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,015	I just bought a Canon S2 IS. I really want a digital slr, but I like to take pics of rock bands, and more and more they're not allowing "professional" cameras into shows any more, and they define that as anything w/ a removable lens. The Canon is nice because it has full manual controls (useful in low-light situations) and a 12x optical zoom. It will get its first workout at the New Orleans Jazz Festival this weekend.

24th April 2006, 11:21 PM	#27
merentha Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 437	There's no need to lug a laptop around to download the card contents. I bought a 30gig portable photo storage device for less than the price of a 1gig xD card (that was 2 years ago). The device has multicard slots that supports all popular card types, including my xD card (Olympus and their proprietary memcards). It also doubles as a lightly large MP3 player. With two 128MB memcards (free with my camera purchase) and the device, I was happily snapping away in Europe. I think I used to see an adapter for the iPod that allows the player to double as a similar storage device for SD cards. On cameras, it'll depend on whether you like to fiddle with settings. No point getting an expensive prosumer or SLR camera if it's going to be set on Auto most of the time. Plus those cameras are usually quite bulky. I have an Olympus 700UZ for the occasional fanciful stuff, and a surprisingly feature-packed point-and-shoot Casio Exilim which I carry in my handbag all the time. It's tiny, lightweight, quick to start, quick to shoot, and has extremely long battery life.
merentha Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 437

25th April 2006, 12:31 AM	#28
tygirwulf Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 371	I would not recommend a digital SLR. It's too troublesome for most folks and heavier than consumer level cameras. You need various lenses to cover the zoom range a point & shoot has, which is both a strength and a drawback, depending on who you ask. For a lot of people, it's a drawback. That said, an SLR does have much faster shooting and better light sensitivity without being grainy. I have taken pictures in near-darkness handheld with reasonably good results without the flash, but that's with a fast lens capable of being wide open. The pictures turn out with almost no grain. Don't get me wrong, it is a rewarding hobby, but it takes a lot of dedication, and I sometimes just want to forget it all and buy a P&S. I've seen many cases on dpreview where someone got an SLR, tried to learn the ins and outs, then got a P&S and sold the SLR. Even many photographers have backup P&S cameras for situations where carrying a camera bag is impractical or when they don't feel like lugging everything around. I second the recommendation to try a few out at the store. Different brands have different control layouts, which in many cases, tend to carry over through all their similar looking models, so you don't necessarily need to try out the exact same camera you want to buy. I had a couple of Sony point and shoots years ago and I'm still quite familiar with how the new cameras work.
	__________________ "Those who sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin. We have to choose what we want for our future, or somebody else will. - Jeremiah

25th April 2006, 07:10 AM	#29
Trantor Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 526	I would also check out a Sony digital camara with a Carl Zeiss lens. This lens takes very sharp pictures, regardless of the numeber of megapixels. 4-5 megapixels with a Carl Zeiss lens will keep you happy. For a small camara, I prefer the Cannon ELPH's. Very portable and excellent construction.
Trantor Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 526

26th April 2006, 05:34 AM	#30
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	I find it annoying that camera makers supply a 16MB card as standard. This is useless. Far better to supply no card and take $15 off the price. Remember Fuji and Olympus use XD cards, Sony use their own memory sticks and everyone else uses smartmedia or SD. If you already have a device using one of these formats, it may be worth choosing your camera accordingly (other things being equal). Batteries. If you are a heavy user, always carry a spare. Ask if you can charge it separately or if it can only be charged in the camera. Ooolon- how useful is your Fuji in low light? I have thought of getting and F10 / F 30, but I'm not sure how usable the slow speeds are.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

26th April 2006, 04:55 PM	#31
Oolon Colluphid Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Trapped inside an osteal carapace. Posts: 926	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam I find it annoying that camera makers supply a 16MB card as standard. This is useless. Far better to supply no card and take $15 off the price. Remember Fuji and Olympus use XD cards, Sony use their own memory sticks and everyone else uses smartmedia or SD. If you already have a device using one of these formats, it may be worth choosing your camera accordingly (other things being equal). Batteries. If you are a heavy user, always carry a spare. Ask if you can charge it separately or if it can only be charged in the camera. Ooolon- how useful is your Fuji in low light? I have thought of getting and F10 / F 30, but I'm not sure how usable the slow speeds are. My first digital was also a Fuji. An S2800 zoom, that used Smartmedia. Neat little camera, but I found that I outgrew it rather quickly, and Smartmedia seemed to be on the way out. It's now very difficult to find SM unless you look at surplus/closeout stores and the like. The S5200, like the S2800, uses 4xAA batteries. I bought a package of four 2500 mah NMh AA's complete with charger for little more than the cost of the batteries alone. Then I went and bought another one! It's nice having two sets of rechargables Soapy Sam, I've had mixed results with low light, but then I haven't tried it too much. The picture below was a 15 sec exposure at f3.2 and ISO 100 in RAW mode with the lens zoomed all the way out. I had to increase the gamma after I downloaded to the computer, in order to get most of the stars to be visible. The big light near the middle is Jupiter which is in Libra, and the constelation to it's left is Scorpius. It turned out okay, but an attempt to get Venus just as the sky was lightening didn't turn out well at all. However, that might have been due to my ineptitude, and not a deficiency of the camera.
	__________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

26th April 2006, 05:48 PM	#32
Oolon Colluphid Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Trapped inside an osteal carapace. Posts: 926	Here's the one of Venus. It was a 1/2 second exposure (probably the problem right there), f3.2 at ISO 200. Again, I had to brighten it up a bit on the computer afterwards. It still looks kinda crappy, which is a shame, because the sky looked so beautiful in real life. The second one is just some vulture I saw on my way home from work. I've recently come to realise that, what I've been thinking were hawks all theses years, are in actual fact, Turkey Vultures. And there are a lot of them! I snapped 8 of them hunting in a pack today, and yesterday I got a close up of one snacking on a deer carcass in a field. Ugly, ugly critters! These aren't really representative of the camera's capabilities, due to the necessity of downsizing the original 2592x1944 images, and saving them at only 80% quality to comply with photobucket and JREF size restrictions.
	__________________ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

4th May 2006, 09:28 AM	#33
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,015	OK, I tried out the Canon 2S Is in New Orleans last weekend, here's some results. Bear in mind, I had to reduce quality and size to fit them here. Bruce Springsteen at the Jazz Festival, I was at least 300 yards away from the stage (waaaaay in the back of the field), had the lens at the full 12x optical zoom and no tripod. It has a built-in image stabilization, which seemed to work well despite all the alcohol I had consumed that day. This was cropped from a much bigger pic! This next one was taken in Lafitte's Blacksmiths Shop tavern. This was built in 1722, and in keeping w/ that theme there are only candles illuminating the inside, and as it was night it was extremely dark in there! The built-in flash worked very well. I'll add that the movie mode is fantastic in this camera, high-res and worked very well even at night, and stereo sound! Files are way too big to show you though - a 1 minute movie (at full video and sound res) uses up ~125 MB. And finally, an obligatory pic of one of our cats eating a lavender plant, to show the macro mode.

4th May 2006, 02:18 PM	#34
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,405	Get a Sony with optical zoom. If it's a difference between 4x Optical zoom with 12 megapixles or 12x optical zoom with 5 megapixels, go for the optical zoom. unless you're making VERY large prints, 12 megapixels is way overkill. Ours is a Sony $600 Canadian with 12x optical zoom, and it kicks ass.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia