Digital Camera Guru's.....I need some suggestions for a new camera.

[imq707s]

I want to get the opinions of some of you guys that are into photography and digital cameras. Long story short, my Kodak Easyshare Z612 finally died on me only after about around a year and a half, and after doing some research on the problem…it sounds like it’s a problem with the CCD which is a common problem on those cameras. It’s not going to be worth it to send it in for repairs, so I’m going to have to get something else. The camera was given to me as a gift….and it was much better than my old little point-and-shoot. Now that it’s out of service, it’s time for me to do some research and get the best deal for my money.

After using the Z612, I’ve learned what features I like, and don’t like. I like taking “action” shots, so the burst option is nice. Also, the 12x optical zoom has come in handy many times. I also like the fact that if I don’t want to use the “auto” setting, I know enough that I can use the manual modes and play with the ISO setting, shutter speeds, aperture settings, …and some of the other adjustments. The rechargeable battery would last past 500+ pics without needing to be recharged which was great. Sometimes when I’m at the lake taking “burst” pics, I’ll take 400 pics a day (usually deleting 350 of them once I get home). It was also nice to be able to take videos, although it’s not something I really need to have.

There were a few things that I didn’t like about it, one being that it was a little larger than I would have liked. I take pictures everywhere I go….and it was a pain having to tote it around in a case all the time…..but unless you have a small point and shoot, there are no other options. The auto-focus seemed to have some problems some times…it would jump around and focus on different objects, and sometimes you had to wait a while for it to focus. It also didn’t seem to have very good light gathering ability, most noticeable in low-light conditions (although it was much better than my older, smaller point and shoot camera). I think the thing that annoyed me the most was that if I was shooting a “burst” of pictures…trying to follow a boat, car, bike, or ATV, the viewfinder would go black as soon as you started shooting…so you had to do your best just to point the camera and hope the pics turned out. It would have been nice to see what you are actually shooting. Other than that, it was a pretty nice little camera and I got some great photos out of it.

So now I need to figure out what I want to do. I would love something like a Cannon Rebel XTI, but I don’t want to get into an SLR camera for a few reasons. The first being the fact that they are so big….even bigger than the Z612 I had. Second, I don’t want to take an $800+ camera out in the boat every weekend, on camping/hiking trips stuffed in my backpack, to rock concerts, road trips, or out on ATV excursions in fear of it getting stolen and/or damaged. For what I use my camera for, I just don’t feel the need to go with a big and expensive SLR.

So, given all of the above information…what would be some good cameras to check out? I would like to keep the price under $350 if possible….and I’d like to stay away from Kodak’s after seeing all of the complaints and problems people have had with them. Something that takes the SD flash cards would also be nice, since I have several of those laying around from my Z612. From the little research I’ve done, it seems like Nikon or Cannon is the way to go…any other good brands out there? Is it possible to get something small enough to fit in my pocket, and still have the features I want (big optical zoom)?

Any tips or information would really help me out. Are there any good digital camera forums out there where I can check out some reviews?

Thanks for the help!!

[pyro]

Nikon and Canon both make great point and shoot cameras.

The Canon SD750 or SD850 IS is good if you want something small that focuses fast and accurate, even in low light. But they don't have an optical viewfinder. The SD1000 and SD1100 IS have a viewfinder, but a smaller display and clumsy flat buttons. There are variations of these models that have 5X optical zoom, which isn't bad for something that fits in your shirt pocket.

The chunkier Canons with the big zoom are great, if you don't mind the size.

Stay with something small and fast for travel. Carrying around a chunky camera blows ass when you're trying to have any other fun besides photography.

Budget about $1200 for an SLR setup if you want to go that route. Don't buy a super low-end SLR, you'll regret it. Everything is better on the "couple of steps up" models, and worth every penny.

[gotboostedvr6]

good reads

http://forums.screamandfly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154835&highlight=sd750

http://forums.screamandfly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145855&highlight=sd750

[99fxst99]

What can be done about the lag time on most cameras between when you click the shutter and when it actually takes the shot? Is there something I don't know? I have a Kodak easy-share and a Sony Cyber-shot.
Thanks!

[gotboostedvr6]

here is the best deal your gonna get on a package

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120196

$221


SD750
2 GB SD card
5 foot monopod extension
<script type="text/javascript">document.write(neg_specification_newline('Neoprene Water-Resistant Ultra-Slim Camera Case
3.2" 2-Way Mini Tripod
LCD screen protector
DC-NB4LA rechargeable battery for Canon NB-4L'));</script> Neoprene Water-Resistant Ultra-Slim Camera Case
3.2" 2-Way Mini Tripod
LCD screen protector
DC-NB4LA rechargeable battery for Canon NB-4L
waterproof camera case

[imq707s]

Thanks for all of the info guys. I think I might have to go check out the Cannon S3 and S5 models, and I’ve also hear some great things about the Olympus SP-550 and Panasonic FZ18. The 18x optical zoom on those cameras would come in handy! I know that a smaller camera would be nice, but I’d rather have the extra bulk and better picture quality with high zoom.

[STV_Keith]

Very happy with my SD850is. One thing to keep in mind is that the SD800is is the same, with slightly different lens specs (less total zoom and wider angle).

[hsbob]

before i bought my nikon d1x, i used the olymus thru the lens point and shoot cameras. the make several today [ i have a c750 4 yrs old]. the newer series have super zooms with up to 500mm. they were equal to the nikon and canon like cameras. there is a new line on olympus slr that are 4/5 camersa. these are close in size the the cameras we been talking about. the neg is the 4/5 has a 2:1 mulitplier [a 100mm lens becomes a 200]. it good for the telehpoto shot but the wide angle is har to come by.

this site has a lot of very good specifications like shutter lag
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS.HTM

[Scream And Fly]

My opinion - if you're shooting action spend more and get the Nikon D40 kit. It will be well worth it.

[imq707s]

My opinion - if you're shooting action spend more and get the Nikon D40 kit. It will be well worth it.

Thanks for the info.

You wouldn't happen to have a link you could post up of one of these "kits" you are talking about would you? How does the D40's size compare to the S5?

Thanks

[pyro]

Not a ton of size difference between a Canon S5 and a D40 with the basic 18-55 kit lens.
You would need a huge lens on the D40 to keep up with the zoom capability of the S5.

The D40 is a very stripped-down SLR. It only has three autofocus points instead of a whole array, it has no info display on the top, it only has one command dial for exposure settings, and most settings involve navigating through a "menu" instead of just pushing one button or holding a button and rolling a dial while you compose your next shot. You can't shoot photos with the camera in your lap, paging through menus. The D40 is a beginner SLR camera with the emphasis placed on easy AUTO point-and-shoot technique.. The benefit here is the lack of shutter lag with an SLR, and interchangeable lenses. There's many reasons why a D80 costs almost twice as much. It's worth it. It's kind of like a plastic D200 with all-new firmware, control layout and other improvements. I would encourage you to play around with all of the SLR's at Best Buy before you even think of spending the money on any of them.

I played with the Canon S5 at Best Buy yesterday, and I was VERY impressed. With the IS image stabilization enabled, I was able to shoot INDOOR 10x zoom photos of salespeople across the store in AUTO mode WHILE VIOLENTLY SHAKING THE CAMERA as if I had taken No-Doz, and the resulting image looked like it was shot off a tripod.

I'd recommend taking a close look at the Canon S5 for a chunky yet portable "jack of all trades" camera. If you go with an SLR, I'd strongly recommend going for a Nikon D80.

[Scream And Fly]

I agree with a lot of what you say Chad, but there's no way any small-sensor point and shoot will come close to matching the performance of even the most inexpensive SLR in terms of image quality and autofocus. The very inexpensive Nikon 55-200VR can be had for peanuts too. I hesitate to recommend the D80 because of his budget. But at less than $600, the D40 kit is an amazing deal and it will absolutely decimate any fixed-lens camera :)

[seahorse]

The new D60 Nikon looks interesting and a step up from the D40 yet priced less than the D80

[imq707s]

Not a ton of size difference between a Canon S5 and a D40 with the basic 18-55 kit lens.
You would need a huge lens on the D40 to keep up with the zoom capability of the S5.

The D40 is a very stripped-down SLR. It only has three autofocus points instead of a whole array, it has no info display on the top, it only has one command dial for exposure settings, and most settings involve navigating through a "menu" instead of just pushing one button or holding a button and rolling a dial while you compose your next shot. You can't shoot photos with the camera in your lap, paging through menus. The D40 is a beginner SLR camera with the emphasis placed on easy AUTO point-and-shoot technique.. The benefit here is the lack of shutter lag with an SLR, and interchangeable lenses. There's many reasons why a D80 costs almost twice as much. It's worth it. It's kind of like a plastic D200 with all-new firmware, control layout and other improvements. I would encourage you to play around with all of the SLR's at Best Buy before you even think of spending the money on any of them.

I played with the Canon S5 at Best Buy yesterday, and I was VERY impressed. With the IS image stabilization enabled, I was able to shoot INDOOR 10x zoom photos of salespeople across the store in AUTO mode WHILE VIOLENTLY SHAKING THE CAMERA as if I had taken No-Doz, and the resulting image looked like it was shot off a tripod.

I'd recommend taking a close look at the Canon S5 for a chunky yet portable "jack of all trades" camera. If you go with an SLR, I'd strongly recommend going for a Nikon D80.



Well after going back and forth between an SLR camera and a point and shoot..... I went ahead and ordered the Canon S5-SI...it should be here in a few days. For the price ($315) it was hard to pass up. I can't wait to test it out!! The only thing I wish it had was a "burst" mode to take several pics per seconds. After reading the manual...it looks like it will only do about 1 pic every .9 seconds or so. Some of the other cameras I was looking at would do 15fps.

Oh well... I'm sure it's still a great camera!



:D

[pyro]

I agree with what Greg said about small-sensor cameras, to some extent. They have small lenses because their image sensor is smaller and more dense. This especially becomes apparent when there's direct sun glare on things like shiny boats, the point-and-shoot camera will have a hazy halo around bright glares. You only notice it when you crop and blow up images. For ordinary family 4x6 prints, you'll be delighted with the quality.

[hsbob]

the last sentence of pyro is the real inportant issue. you dont need the very best if its only family pics or pics reduced for the internet.

[imq707s]

Well, I got my new Canon S5 and I love it. I've spent the last few nights reading through the manual....man, talk about a bunch of different options and settings. I'll be messing around with this thing for a long, long time.

As far as compression and picture quality goes......what should I be using? It has several different options for the size of the pictures (pixels)...Large, Medium 1, M2, M3, small, wide .... And for the quality it has Super Fine, Fine, and Coarse.

If I'm just going to be printing out 4x6's and posting pics on the internet, is there any need to run the highest quality/lowest compression......Large/Superfine?

I've been running Medium 2 (2592x1944) compression and Fine on the quality setting. Should this be ok? or is the extra memory justified on the Large/Superfine setting?

Any info on these would be great.

Thanks

[pyro]

"Quality" means compression, which tends to distort and mess up details, especially when you try to crop and blow up a photo. Set it to the highest "super fine" setting for the clearest, least distorted photos with the sharpest details.

Set size to accomodate your memory needs, and also depending on whether or not you intend to enlarge prints later. Set it to the largest size whenever possible.

Rumor has it that some digital cameras resample the image to produce "artificial" image sizes at their largest settings that are actually larger than the useable pixel count on the CCD imager chip. Some photographers claim that their point-and-shoot camera will have better image detail at the second-to-the-largest setting. I'm not sure if there's any truth to this.

more point-and-shoot tidbits...

The AUTO mode on that camera is really intelligent. Keep it on AUTO for most shots. It will set the ISO to accomodate a shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion in most conditions.

If you're going for a shallow depth of field effect for subject isolation, use "A" priority mode on the dial and a wide aperture (lower f.stop number.)

Pay attention to the focus indicators on the display when you push the shutter button halfway down, make sure it's "locking onto" exactly what you're intending to shoot before you take the picture. if the camera highlights the wrong subject(s) on the display, move it over a little and push the button halfway again. This is a good technique for ensuring your subject is always in focus, especially in lower light.

For close-ups, use MACRO mode (the button with the flowerpot icon).
Click link in my signature for more details.

[imq707s]

"Quality" means compression, which tends to distort and mess up details, especially when you try to crop and blow up a photo. Set it to the highest "super fine" setting for the clearest, least distorted photos with the sharpest details.

Set size to accomodate your memory needs, and also depending on whether or not you intend to enlarge prints later. Set it to the largest size whenever possible.

Rumor has it that some digital cameras resample the image to produce "artificial" image sizes at their largest settings that are actually larger than the useable pixel count on the CCD imager chip. Some photographers claim that their point-and-shoot camera will have better image detail at the second-to-the-largest setting. I'm not sure if there's any truth to this.

more point-and-shoot tidbits...

The AUTO mode on that camera is really intelligent. Keep it on AUTO for most shots. It will set the ISO to accomodate a shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion in most conditions.

If you're going for a shallow depth of field effect for subject isolation, use "A" priority mode on the dial and a wide aperture (lower f.stop number.)

Pay attention to the focus indicators on the display when you push the shutter button halfway down, make sure it's "locking onto" exactly what you're intending to shoot before you take the picture. if the camera highlights the wrong subject(s) on the display, move it over a little and push the button halfway again. This is a good technique for ensuring your subject is always in focus, especially in lower light.

For close-ups, use MACRO mode (the button with the flowerpot icon).
Click link in my signature for more details.

Thanks for the info Chad!! I will have to get out and take some more pics and test out the camera some more. I'll have to post up some good pics...if I get any ;)

[hsbob]

pyro that happened some time ago. fugi in particulate with thieir 3 color reciever[super ccd]. most camera actually deliver what is stamped on the camera at least for the last 3 yrs. all jpg picture use the bayer process to convert black and white picture thru color filter to color pictures. the jpg has several levels of compression that reduces the picture storage size. jpg does not reduce the pixel size but reduces the color content. the color content is the majotiy of the pitchure file size. that is why i dont like sony cameras in that they compress too much.


if you camera has the ability to shoot in the raw format you should do so. the camera software is for converting the raw to jpg is optisimazed for speed and then for picture quality. for the best picture you need to convert your own raw picture using niko capture [ or i used bibble].

[imq707s]

pyro that happened some time ago. fugi in particulate with thieir 3 color reciever[super ccd]. most camera actually deliver what is stamped on the camera at least for the last 3 yrs. all jpg picture use the bayer process to convert black and white picture thru color filter to color pictures. the jpg has several levels of compression that reduces the picture storage size. jpg does not reduce the pixel size but reduces the color content. the color content is the majotiy of the pitchure file size. that is why i dont like sony cameras in that they compress too much.


if you camera has the ability to shoot in the raw format you should do so. the camera software is for converting the raw to jpg is optisimazed for speed and then for picture quality. for the best picture you need to convert your own raw picture using niko capture [ or i used bibble].

Does anyone know if the Canon S5-SI can shoot in RAW format? I've been looking through the manual, and I don't see anything talking about it.

Any ideas?

[pyro]

Don't worry about it. The visible difference in quality between RAW and Canon's super-fine compressed JPG is very minimal to none. Shooting in RAW allows each color channel to be individually manipulated in Photoshop for high-end editing. Don't worry about it!

RAW is usually used with digital SLR's. Greg shoots in RAW format.

[hsbob]

digital-imaginging doesnt show it as a option.

i use the raw format to mostly correct white balance issues. this lead to more color issues than any other problem. sec on it the lite balance then color. im very bad at color [comes form being an dislexict engineer i guess along with bad spelling].

[pyro]

I've been using the PRE white balance mode on my D80 lately. The camera prompts the user to shoot a true white or gray card, and uses it as a white balance reference. It seems to be pretty reliable most of the time.

[hsbob]

if you go to that trouble every time, but that a pain for me. its a very good work flow. i do mostly spontanious shooting and typical home stuff. it does lend to doing a white balance every time.

i started using the raw with my d1x, d100 and d200 now and i find it easier to do after then worry about it before. the d1x was a real animal. it had retangualr pixles of about 2:1 in length to heigth. it didnt take bibble labs too long to find they could increase the true resolution from 5.6 to 12m by altering the bayer processing. thats what got me started. that camer can still blow most hi end digital camera away. but the speed and added featchers on the new nikon d camera are religating it to the backup.

[imq707s]

Well, here are a few pics I took this weekend on my float trip.

I really like playing around with the "color accent" feature on the Canon S5. I know you can also do it on photoshop, but it's kind of cool that the camera allows you to pic a color...and then every other color it makes in to B&W...only accenting the color you selected. Pretty fun to tinker with......and much easier than spending all of the time to do it in Photoshop.

What do you think?

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3895/img0219cyq8.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5736/img0254ji7.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4351/img0290eqf2.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3738/img0365ekq3.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/302/img0314cdz5.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8772/img0368uu9.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2148/img0232eu0.jpg