digital camera advice, please

Best advice, check out reviews of cameras online, user reviews at places like internetcamerasdirect are really helpful.

What exactly was wrong?

Digital Photography Review
Steve's Digicams
(S400 review, DMC-FZ1 review)

Look in the forums and see what people are complaining and raving about, this is the most essential step. That said, I would go for the Elph in a heartbeat.

Don't underestimate the value of it's tininess and lightness either... it's smaller than a pack of cigarettes so you'll be much more likely to bring it out with you and actually use it. And lose it too of course but you know.

Also, U+K - get the biggest memory card you can afford. Otherwise you'll just end up buying a bigger one anyway, though if you do, they're much cheaper online than in any real shops.

You're right about 3x being insufficient, I think - that's what I have (on my Canon A40), and really, if you're ever in a position where you want to use a zoom (a gig is a good example), it's simply not enough. The digital zoom function is okay, but only good enough quality for online stuff.

Think about how you intend to carry the camera - size does matter, and I wish mine was smaller. I can just about squeeze it into my jeans pocket, but it looks silly and sticks into my hip. I'd only worry about its hardiness if you have a history of breaking delicate machinery.

I think it's probably up to you to make sure you avoid the "dork with a camera" situation :)

size does matter, and I wish mine was smaller. I can just about squeeze it into my jeans pocket, but it looks silly and sticks into my hip. I'd only worry about its hardiness if you have a history of breaking delicate machinery.

Um, I'm not sure! Are these the only two options? Certainly I find 2 million pixels produces perfectly adequate pictures. I'm not sure why you'd need more, really, though I have never actually printed them out on photographic paper. If it's obviously too low quality when you do that (and someone else will have to answer that), then that might make your mind up for you.

Do you mind if I ask what the whole tit-fitting thing is about? Will you be wearing your camera around your neck, or do you (ulp) have a storage facility there?

Perhaps it's worth looking for a compromise in the 3m pixels range (if you haven't done so already). I'd say neither of the cameras you mention really fulfil all your criteria. For example, although it's possibly too bulky for you, the Olympus C-720 has 3m pixels and an 8x optical zoom, and is available for $319 at the link provided.

(the above info was just what I found online - it's not a personal recommendation)

It's where I tend to hide cameras to bring them into gigs.

For example, although it's possibly too bulky for you, the Olympus C-720 has 3m pixels and an 8x optical zoom, and is available for $319 at the link provided.

Yeah, it's definitely too bulky, and it has no stabilization on the zoom.

(If you choose to go without stabilisation, there are surely cheaper things like it)

On top of that, there are very few situations where you'll ever need that kind of zoom range. Aside from wildlife and sports, none come to mind. 3x is a bigger spread than you'd expect - most pro film zooms will run from 28-70 or 70-200 (depending on the manufacturer).

Apparently, "This particular lens is also exceptional in the fact that it maintains the fast f/2.8 aperture throughout the entire focal range," according to Steve's Digicam site.

Lots of good advice on this thread. Keep it coming...

Also Sean, I have a question for you.

Of course for half the price now I could get a cam that does twice what mine does. And so Im thinking of getting a new one. I'd love a powershot G5 but for another 500-1000 I could think about getting a digital SLR like a Nikon or Pentax. I'm not sure I want to spring for that much on a camera tho.

Does anyone know if there's a market at all (either in shop trade-ins or via ebay) for older digital cams? I have a feeling mine's a bit worthless now, which considering it was $1500 is a damn shame.

Whats the powershot g5 like - worth getting, or should I spring up for a proper slr that i can manually focus/change lenses on?

I remember those floppy drive cams. I always wondered how you'd fit more than about 5 pics at a time on them.

Haha I wrote "kokdak" up there. Whoops.

But would I just never bring it out?

if you get a DSLR sooner or later this will happen

The Olympus PEN E-PL1 seems to fall in my price range.

that's a great camera (has the best sensor of all the olympus cameras atm) but maybe something newer will come out soon? and then maybe you can pick up one for cheap, used. iirc you can get like-new used ones for $4-500 if you trawl the right photog forums

It's that cheap on amazon now.

oh, then you could probably get it for $3-400 on photog forums then

Though if I look at micro 4/3 it looks like the Lumix DMC-GF1 may be the sweet spot.

DO IT

Samy's Camera in the LA area has the DMC-GF1 for $499 this weekend (and no sales tax). It looks like the next iteration, the GF2, is coming out soon so it may go down even further.

Is that with or without a lens? Some of the cheaper prices I've seen are just for the body. GF2 is out in January, according to:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1011/10110405panasonicgf2.asp

It's smaller, has a touch screen, but loses the physical knob on top.

The GF1 at Samy's comes with the 14-42mm lens.

when are they gonna upgrade the evf is what i wanna know

still thinking it over. It's just this slippery slope. I start with the S95. Then I think oh if I spend a bit more I can get the LX5 which isn't as portable but maybe takes slightly better pictures and has the hot shoe. Then I think well it's only a little more money to get the GF2 when that comes out, then I get a much bigger sensor and interchangeable lenses and all that. But then I think, hey, why get a Micro 3/4, if I'm not gonna be able to stick it in my pocket, a proper DSLR is only a little bit more money and just get an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR with a way bigger sensor and better quality. And the price difference from the S95 to a Rebel is only 110 dollars. So the way I see it, it's not about the money, but about what I want.

otm. most people go through several cycles of buying/selling before settling down on something they feel uncomfortable with...just look at me

trouble is, it's difficult to know what you want without living with a camera for a while at first

Screw it, I'll get an S95 and if I really start going crazy taking pictures, I'll be slightly above bottom-level DSLR in a year or two, and will still have the S95 for the pocket.

i'm liking the s95

funny, I got mine this past weekend. Haven't really used it yet, just going through the manual and all the functions. Pretty amazing. A bit creepy to have a camera that will take a picture when you wink at it, but other then that, very impressed. Not impressed with battery life, which ran down pretty quick over a few days of playing with it and not really taking many pictures. Maybe all my fucking around was extreme. In any case, I went to B&H on my lunch break and got a memory card, a second battery and a nice little canvas bag with a pocket for the second battery.

i def ran my battery down quick the first go around. im thinking (hoping) that it was just that break-in period where you're learning the controls and so having the screen on too long ends up eating the battery up. feeling more accustomed to the controls in manual mode and getting some surprisingly nice shots that i normally would not expect from a pointnshoot

take it to ILP

I lost my digital camera; a Sony DSC W350, which in addition to being quite nice was also a going away and birthday present. sad face.

Need to get another one for a job, don't want to spend too much as I'm not too fussed about features etc, just want something basic that can also shoot a bit of video and doesn't look too shit in low-light situations. Not even adverse to getting an older second-hand one as long as it's quality enough for a computer screen / printing in old analogue regular size photo papers.

Anyway, would like to stay well below 100Eu, need it before the 16th July, any suggestions welcome.

Looked at today

(new)
Canon Powershot A800 (70Eu)
Canon Powershot A495 (80Eu)
Praktica DC 2 12.1 (70Eu)
Praktica Luxmedia 10 03 (80Eu)

(2nd hand)
Sony Cybershot DSCP73 (This looks like some old shit, 4.1megapixels, but is only 30Eu, poss cheaper)
Sony DSC W530 (74Eu - Thought this might be a replacement for my lost W350, but appears to have slightly crappier features, def. considering this)
Pentax Optio 750Z (Price unknown, seems to be pretty old, looks kinda funky though)

http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/articles/the-worst-digital-cameras-ever
Vasectomy!!!!!!!!

Any real people have something to add?

tbh, I think just about every digital camera going meets yr requirements. The Canon a495 is astoundingly cheap for 10mp, although the video's only vga if that's an issue for you?

:(

i just got a used Lumix LX3

\o/

the new Canon Elph 310 HS (called Ixus 230 HS in UK/Europe) probably my next cam. Rare combination of small & light, high-featured, and reasonably priced. Fast electronics, 12x optical zoom with good wide angle as well as deep zoom, 1280p/24 video with zoom, HDMI out, good low-light performance, lots more.

The Elph 510 HS/Ixus 1100 HS also looks good - has all of the above plus a touch widescreen, but adds weight, size, and cost so probably not for me.

LX3 is good!

Um, any interest in buying a wide angle lens for it? :)

er, i didn't think you could change the lens?

ah - i see now that you can attach a few filters and a wide-angle. cool! i think i'll just use it as-is for the moment, though

so, i'm looking to get a camera, i think i've decided on the sony nex c3. do i get the one that comes with the 18-55mm zoom lens, or the 16mm wide angle lens? i really wish i knew the difference.

i decided to get a decent camera primarily to take shots of stuff i build or repair, but it's also going to be my do-everything camera for vacations, shows, tweeting my privates, etc.

for tweeting yer privates, why not go for the wide angle lens?

i looked up the difference and i still don't know. i thought about buying one kit and just buying the extra lens on top of it but lenses are f'n expensive!

probably the 18-55 lens then

yeah that's what i'm leaning toward right now. also looking at a nikon d5100 which has an external mic input but it's a bit more expensive.

god there are too many cameras.

There's much to commend Sony cameras, their sensor technology is currently in the lead (and used in Nikon & Olympus flagships). But their own lenses are not well regarded. Lots of Sony NEX fans love them for permitting focus-peaking with cheap manual focus legacy lenses used with adapters.

If you're wedded to the Sony NEX cameras, I'd consider getting a lensless body and picking up the well regarded Sigma 19mm f/2.8 (street wide) and 30mm f/2.8 (normal) lenses. You can get both for get both for $20000 and they're sharper than every Sony lens except the http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/nex-7-lens-imatest-resolution-comparison000+ Sony-Zeiss 24mm.

Ask yourself why you really need a interchangeable lens camera. In many respects the Sony RX100 is a superior package to the lower end Sony NEX cameras - you lose the better subject isolation and slightly better dynamic range of the APS-C format, but get a great 28-100 lens and much friendlier handling.

Of course, now that you can get a Panasonic G3 body for Panasonic G3 body for $24949, I happen to think buying into the extensive m4/3 lens system is a no-brainer. With any system camera, you're investing in the lens selection. Bodies come and go.

^BB code error. Should read "You can get both for get both for get both for get both for $20000 and they're sharper than every Sony lens except the Sony-Zeiss 24mm"

Weird. $200 for both.

Should clarify that the Sony A-mount DSLR lenses are rebranded Minolta designs, and many are right up there with Nikon and Canon flagship lenses. Its the NEX system where the number of camera bodies outnumber the lenses.

sanpaku I appreciate all that but that's last 5% difference stuff, gonna be hardly be noticeable in product shots/vacations/shows

The OP is amazing, haha:

"The Canon Digital Elph S400

Pros: 4.0 megapixels (good quality pictures), will fit between my tits, made of nearly indestructible metal
Cons: Very expensive (around $500), has a small optical zoom (3x)"

See also this lens angle of view calculator to get a feel for how wide a view you'll get with any given set of focal lengths. (Set "APS-C Nikon" in the format menu to get the right sensor size of NEX).

thanks, that's helpful! yeah what i saw ppl saying about the lenses that come with the NEX cameras were kinda holding me back. well, my budget is relatively small and access to a huge lens library is not really a selling point for me; i need one or two lenses to cover the necessary ground. i was looking at the NEX c3 because it's small and has the sensor it does. i found a place selling it body-only for about $250 so that + those sigma lenses are tempting. still the nikon i pointed out i found for about the same total price and i definitely like the image quality i've seen over what I've seen for the C3.

argh

then again i can get the NEX C3 w/ the stock lens for like a little over $300

DSLRs are still where its at if you want to shoot action (mirrorless cameras, including the Sony NEX cameras, are poor at autofocusing on subjects moving towards or away from the camera) and don't mind that they're heavy/don't fit in a pocket. Nikon has the best flash metering in the business, still lags on video, but the 5100 is an unimpeachable choice if you're willing to lug it around.

arby's just get the nex with the 18-55, then close this thread and never look at digital photography forums ever again

aahhh i bought the nikon for $450

Am gonna get myself a RX100, they look incredible and the shots are great given the sensor size.

already having buyers remorse cuz i haven't spent this much money on anything not directly school related in idk how long. otoh i have a pro friend who rolls around with thousands + thousands of $$$ in photo/video equipment in his back seat, so $450 for a camera also feels totally modest to me.

congratulations! now never open this thread again

now lusting after a digital leica. oh yes.