Digital Camera

[sechs]

I'm looking to buy a new digital camera this month. The ol' Olympus D-510 is getting long in the tooth. It's great camera except:

1. It takes too long between pushing the button and the picture actually being taken. This is especially annoying when trying to catch something that's moving past me.
2. Not enough optical zoom. The camera's 3x isn't enough for my purposes.
3. The quality of the pictures isn't good enough for extensive editing and cropping before printing. Even if I have the camera save as TIFFs, I am limited as to the work that I can do on them.

I haven't done any serious research, but am curious as to what the folks here think is good these days.

 

[Handruin]

Are you interested in a SLR, or are you interested in another point and shoot option?

All three of your concerns could be addressed with a digital SLR (maybe the Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT)? Your zoom will be limited by your budget on lenses, the camera has a decent MP size of 8 and the speed (on paper) looks good. A full review can be seen here.

 

[LunarMist]

Can you be more specific in your needs and give an idea of the subject matter? If a lot of cropping is necessary then a >10 megapixel body is best, but a nice system may be out of your price range.

 

[sechs]

Definitely a point and shoot. I'm too impatient for a DSLR with lenses and flash options and f stops.

It also needs to be easily portable as it will usually be used on vacations and such.

 

[Groltz]

I can only say that the Olympus C-5050 that I have has been very good. In fact I want to purchase a 2nd one (used since they're no longer made) to keep at work. It has a "fully automatic" mode, is fairly small IMO, and uses "AA" cells instead of proprietary batteries. It has a f/1.8 lens at the wide end which...

"...is the brightest lens for any viewfinder camera (digital, that is) available, and this decreases only by 1 stop at the long end — not bad..." --Andrzej Wrotniak at wrotniak.net

The 2 more-recent generation Olympus prosumer P&S cameras (C-5060 and C-8080) have actually devolved according to many critics since they've gone to obnoxious proprietary batteries and have dimmer f/2.8 and f/2.4 lenses respectively.

Anyway that is my admittedly narrow view of the camera scene.

My premonition is that iGary is going to come stomping in here and utterly dominate with his camera wisdom, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. :drunk:

 

[Handruin]

What about a sony DSC F828?

Like Groltz, I figured iGary would put in a few good words, so you might want to wait for his opinion.

 

[LunarMist]

Does Gary like digital PS cameras? I thought he prefers the vintage Nikon SLR gear?

 

[sechs]

What about a sony DSC F828?

Looks like way too much camera. Also would require its own bag.

Currently looking at:
Olympus Camedia C5500
Nikon Coolpix 5600
Canon PowerShot A95

There doesn't really seem to be a camera that perfectly addresses the issues in my current one. Although this is not unexpected, it's a bummer.

 

[iGary]

Does Gary like digital PS cameras? I thought he prefers the vintage Nikon SLR gear?

I'm hardly the digital Point & Shoot expert, but all I can tell you is that if one wants to go with a P&S digital camera,

• 1.) Do you want to deal with lens caps? There are features and compromises to consider.
  
  2.) Will you need anything with much of a built-in flash unit? Once again, compromises to consider.
  
  3.) Is price the number one priority?

I more or less like the Olympus line for the Point and Shoot, but I have not evaluated everything available in many years. The little Leica and Minox rangefinders are quite handy, but they are pricey.

I continue to use my "old" (circa 1999) Oly Camedia C-2500 for convenience photography. Otherwise, I use my Nikon D-100 digital SLR.

 

[sechs]

1. No. The camera needs a lens cover, however.
2. I'm not sure what you're asking here. The flash on my current unit is fine, and one of similar abilities would be acceptable.
3. Price is a point, but not a limitation. I *could* spend $600 or more on a camera, but would like to keep it around $300 or less.

I side question into which I've run is media. Most cameras seem to be using SD or CF, although some use xD (which is a new one on me). Any thoughts on which, if any, is better?

 

[Fushigi]

CF remains less expensive than SD, but the gap between it and SD has shrunk immensely over the past couple of years. I'm not aware of one format being more reliable or even significantly faster than the other. I have a 1GB SD card in my SmartPhone and a 1GB CF card (replaced a 1GB Microdrive) in my Canon PowerShot G1. Both have thusfar performed as well as I would hope; i.e. they haven't broke yet.

If you would like to use a mini-hard drive, CF is, I believe, the only format that supports it. But with megapixel counts on the rise, I wouldn't recommend HD-based solutions as they are a fair bit slower than RAM.

Camera-wise, I like my 3MP G1. Sufficiently point-and-shoot for simplicity but I can do some fiddling with settings if I want to. For my use, I still can't justify replacing it with a higher megapixel unit. Shooting highest-quality JPG images results in over 1000 images on the GB CF card; well past enough so that I don't have to carry multiple cards (or do downloads) on the average week-long trip.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

1. No. The camera needs a lens cover, however.

A camera with a lens that requires a lens cap to protect the front element essentially means a larger lens, which in turn means essentially better image quality.

A camera with a sliding cover (or otherwise mechanical door) almost always means a smaller lens, which in turn means essentially lesser image quality. Some people *absolutely* do NOT want to deal with lens caps for any reason.

In either case, though, a lens with real glass optical elements trumps a lens with plastic optical elements. The price is higher for a lens with glass optics. ED glass optics run the price up even more. My "old" Oly CL-2500 has glass ED optics.

2. I'm not sure what you're asking here. The flash on my current unit is fine, and one of similar abilities would be acceptable.

Your needs may vary from someone else needs. If you are heavily into happy snaps (i.e. -- group photos) and do these sorts of photos indoors, you will certainly need a flash. What I'm asking is that if you need much of a flash at all, the "inexpensive" cameras can illuminate one or two people at twice arm's length and that's about ALL you can count on. Check the built-in flash's guide number and compare. Some of these small cameras have absolutely piss poor flashes when it comes to illumination power. I could do about as good with a cigarette lighter.

3. Price is a point, but not a limitation. I *could* spend $600 or more on a camera, but would like to keep it around $300 or less.

So, I'm taking it that you are really looking for the most bang-for-the-buck at around US$400 ~ $500 mark. You mention the storage medium (below). This is certainly something important as well.

I side question into which I've run is media. Most cameras seem to be using SD or CF, although some use xD (which is a new one on me). Any thoughts on which, if any, is better?

CF is the best storage medium for a lot of reasons. However, it is physically the largest storage medium, which instantly makes it an anathema for the compact camera world. At this point in time, Secure Digital (SD) is the best medium for the compact digital still camera mainly because you can get high storage capacity with it in relation to the other media (besides CF). CF is a bit faster and can be more rugged while costing a bit less than SD. SD is a perfectly good choice for the vast majority of camera users.

 

[sechs]

I wasn't aware of the lens cap situation, but I can see the point. Past history shows that I'm more likely to lose a lens cap than use it; most of the cameras that I've looked at don't use them anyway.

What is "ED glass optics?"

I'd estimate that about half of the pictures I take are outdoors, with a small portion of those being in low or otherwise poor lighting conditions. The rest are inside pictures which, for the most part, require a flash. As I said, the flash on my current camera has met expectations.

What kind of opinions do folks have on the megapixel question? Obviously more is better, but are there diminishing returns at some point?

Beyond the above, does anyone have any particular series or models to examine?

 

[LunarMist]

What is "ED glass optics?"

ED is a nomenclature for Nikon lens elements that exhibit very low dispersion (reduced lateral chromatic aberration). Some other brands use the terms APO (apochromatic), LD, SLD, etc. to describe the same characteristics. (Canon includes this under "L".)

What kind of opinions do folks have on the megapixel question? Obviously more is better, but are there diminishing returns at some point?
quote]

Yes. The diminishing returns are more related to pixel size than number of pixels. Many believe that some PS cameras already have too many small pixels for decent photosensitivity. Even though my 1Ds MK II has 16.6 megapixels, I wish it had a few more.

 

[sechs]

I've begun considering the Canon PowerShot A95.

I've read in a few places that one can reasonably trade-off optical zoom for megapixels. True or no?

 

[LunarMist]

The A95 is a popular camera that I have recommended to a couple of people that don't need the compactness of the S series and prefer an optical viewfinder over the annoying electronic ones in most digital cameras. It uses standard (inexpensive) CF cards and AA NiMH cells, which is also nice.

I'm not sure what you mean by trade off megapixels for optical zoom.

 

[Pradeep]

I'm assuming he wants to shoot a wider picture with lots of megapixels, then crop out the shot and still have reasonable resolution. The problem is that a lot of these consumer sensors are very small, so you get noise issues from each receptor, as the pixel count goes up.

 

[sechs]

Yes. Unfortunately, it seems, optical zoom is an expensive and space-consuming little option. This is the lowest priority of my complaints, so if I could make a reasonable trade-off, it would widen my options.

 

[Stereodude]

Yes. Unfortunately, it seems, optical zoom is an expensive and space-consuming little option. This is the lowest priority of my complaints, so if I could make a reasonable trade-off, it would widen my options.

I just recently bought myself a Canon Powershot G6. It's picture aren't as nice as my EOS 10D, but it's certainly no slouch for the price.

Dell had a deal going earlier this week where you could get it for ~$410.

 

[sechs]

I'm adding "uses standard batteries" to my list of requirements.

Whoever thought that putting proprietary batteries into a consumer-oriented camera was a great idea wasn't thinking about ease-of-use.

 

[Handruin]

I don't mind the proprietary battery in some cameras. They may end up costing more, but at the same time the camera manufacturer can have it molded/shaped to better fit the camera, rather than trying to find a place to fit a standard AA or AAA battery.

 

[sechs]

If proprietary batteries were cheap and plentiful, or if I didn't already own a stack of rechargeable AA batteries, I might agree with you. The fact of the matter is that using such batteries doesn't seem to gain them much in the design department.

I was able to pop over to Circuitous City and get my hands on several models. The Coolpix models that I've been looking at were a bit smaller than I expected -- actually a bit hard to use two hands on. They didn't have any of the lower-end Canons, so I'll have to go elsewhere to check those out. Prices are also lower than I expected.

Currently looking at:
Nikon Coolpix 5600 5MP, 3x, 2AA, SD $249.95
Nikon Coolpix 7600 7MP, 3x, 2AA, SD $319.94
Canon PowerShot A520 4MP, 4x, 2AA, SD $249.94
Canon PowerShot A95 5MP, 3x, 4AA, CF $269.94

Right now, the A520 is the only one with >3x zoom, which gives it a bit of a lead. I might change my mind, of course, once I get my hands on one....

 

[Handruin]

dpreview has a full review of the cannon A520 if you're interested. I read the reviewm it looks like a decent camera on paper.

With respect to the AA's, my father's Olympus digital camera uses them also, and he's had good results with monster's rechargeable NiMH batteries.

It would be hard to find a more suitable first digital camera for the novice digital photographer than the PowerShot A520. No matter what the situation, the A520 turns out perfectly exposed and focused results shot after shot. And the fact that as well as idiot-proof 'point and shoot' modes and scene modes you get a full array of manual options means it's a camera that you can grow with as your skills develop.

 

[Fushigi]

On batteries, I've heard several times that normal batteries don't fit the power curve of digicams very well, hence they tend to not last very long. So you still wind up buying NiMH or LiIon batteries.

My PowerShot G1 uses a proprietary battery. The Canon battery is something like $35 but I found a site on PriceGrabber that sells the generic equivalent for under $7. At that price point, I picked up a couple of spares and simply keep them all charged. As long as the generic equivalent is available, proprietary battery design is not a concern to me.

 

[sechs]

As I said, I already have a stack (two dozen or so) rechargeable NiMH batteries, so that's a done deal. A great thing about using standard AA batteries is that you can use alkalines in a pinch.

I've been reading on dpreview, dcsource, Steve's digicams. In the fora, people seem to prefer the 3.2MP A510 over the 4MP A520. The A520 is apparently slower (at what, I'm not quite clear) and makes a noise which some users don't seem to like. Several have suggested the older A95 over the A520. Since I haven't been able to get my hands on any of these yet, it's difficult to say that I like one over the others.

Any comments or opinions on either of the Nikon cameras at which I am looking?

 

[Pradeep]

Isn't there a Coolpix 4800 or something with 8.3x optical zoom?

 

[Pradeep]

Ah, never mind, it uses the lithium ion battery (I've had good luck with generics from ebay and my D70 if you are worried about cost).

 

[Will Rickards]

I have a canon Powershot A60, 2MP, 3x zoom.
I really like the 4 double AA batteries.
I go a month between recharging.
You absolutely must go high capacity rechargables.
I was recommended and recommend the MaHa PowerEx batteries.

The zoom is kinda limiting.

As for the time between press and image, if you've already focused it is very quick. If you have not focused and you've turned the focus assist stuff on it does have a bit of a lag to focus and then take the picture. But I wouldn't recommend it. When working without focusing ahead of time I'm about 50/50 with it being focused correctly.

 

[Howell]

I have the A80 which I enjoy. No real conplaints. I do wish it had a little more zoom though.

 

[sechs]

The Target down the street, of all places, has all of these cameras that I've been talking about. So, I finally got to handle them, side-by-side, as it were.

After working with the Canons, the controls on the Nikon cameras were a nonstarter. Except for megapixels and zoom, size and features between the Coolpix x600 and the Canon A5x0 cameras are similar enough that they've fallen back in the pack. The A520 is looking more like my choice.

 

[Tannin]

I switched over from my Nikon Coolpix 4500s to a Canon Powershot A95 recently. In general, the Canon is a substantial improvement, with much better control and menu layout. (It has many and various other improvements too - faster, more pixels, and the like, but most of these can be put down to the simple passage of time, not the Canon - Nikon thing.)

On the other hand, it is even flimsier than the Nikons are. Why can't they make cameras with a metal body anymore? I'd pay the extra. (Yeah, but hardly anyone else would. I know.) Thank the good lord for Araldite.

Also, while it has the ability to self-select an ISO equivalent, it always selects one that is too low, meaning that if I want half-decent shutter speeds (the be-all and end-all for my kind of work) I have to do it manually. Why go to all the trouble of inventing an automatic function, and not bother getting it right?

The main thing that the Canon still doesn't match the Nikons for is macro work. No doubt about it, the 4500s were brilliant for close ups.

But, on the whole, a major improvement. Recommended.

 

[sechs]

So, I put my thinking cap on, and now have three possible plans.

Plan A: Buy a single camera
This is pretty much going to be a compromise on multiple fronts. Currently leaning on the Canon A520.

Plan B: Buy a single camera and telephoto lens
I could get a point and shoot which accepts add-on lenses (generally a Canon) and a telephoto lens. Currently looking at the Canon A95 with an inexpensive Opteka 3x lens.

Plan C: Buy two cameras
I would get a small point and shoot, and a larger camera with larger zoom. The second camera would like compromise in other areas. Considering Canon A510 and Nion Coolpix 4800.

Right now, I'm feeling good on Plan B. I'll only want extreme zoom in some fairly-well defined situations, so adding the zoom lens shouldn't be a major inconvenience. The only issue is that I know just about nothing about lenses. The only information that I've found about this Opteka lens is that it's cheap. An expensive lens is going to be prohibitive.

 

[Jake the Dog]

Have you considered the Fuji S5100/5500 which seemingly fits your needs?

I have the S5500 and find the following points to be some of it's best points

• 37-370mm equivalent focal length thus plenty of zooooom (10x) from the quality Fujinon lens
• RAW image saves. Photoshop CS/CS2 and Elements now natively support the S5100/5500 too
• full manual to full auto control
• uses 4xAA batteries (sparingly too I might add)
• sturdy case body, easy to hold
• powerful inbuilt flash. haven't yet had an indoors photo fail yet.
• good average and zone metering too

I only wish it has some image stabilising capabilities.

 

[Howell]

Also, while it has the ability to self-select an ISO equivalent, it always selects one that is too low, meaning that if I want half-decent shutter speeds (the be-all and end-all for my kind of work) I have to do it manually. Why go to all the trouble of inventing an automatic function, and not bother getting it right?

An admirable compromise to a difficult problem. The added noise bothers some people.

 

[LunarMist]

Why can't they make cameras with a metal body anymore? I'd pay the extra. (Yeah, but hardly anyone else would. I know.)

Tony,

The Contax Tvs digital is well built, but a bit long in the tooth. I hope that it will be replaced by a more modern version with a wider lens (around 28-70mm equivalent).

 

[sechs]

Have you considered the Fuji S5100/5500 which seemingly fits your needs?

Beyond using xD, it's a big camera.

Anyone here have a source of info on lenses that I might be able to use with the A95?

 

[LunarMist]

Umm, its a P&S with a non-removable lens. Are you looking for filters?

 

[Tannin]

Lunar, Contax are getting out of the camera business. I would have considered one of their models for digiscoping, but I didn't want an orphan.

You can get add-on lenses for the A95 (and probably most other Canons too), but they are just tele-converter things. Or macro converters, I think you can get either one. I'm not sure that a converter is really a very good idea.

(On the other hand, what else is my big Swarovski scope other than a ridiculously oversized tele-converter? Pot, kettle, black ... you know the routine.)

 

[Will Rickards]

For the canons you first need a lens adaptor thing that connects to the front.

Then you can add the teleconverters.

 

[Will Rickards]

I should say that I never used it only researched it and found the whole kit too expensive to upgrade my camera.