 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / February 2007Small compact cameras?
Now I have myself setup with the E500, and quite happy with that, I find myself no using the Panasonic FZ7 much now. So, I'm considering my options. I find myself being in places where (as an amateur) I don't want to lug the DSLR kit around, or even wander around with it. The Panasonic, and indeed my old Minolta Z1, are not much better as a discrete photo box either. I am quite keen on getting a compact, preferably true pocket size, so I can carry that around with me wherever I go, but without it being a burden either. I might find one of the all-weather ones could be useful, as I don't mind being out there in bad conditions. It needs to be inexpensive too, having spent a fair bit on the DSLR kit, I'd like to be able to sell on one of the others I have to make this a no cost change. My options are to sell the Z1 or the FZ7. One of which my daughter will use anyway - she already has the Z1, but it might be good to let her have the FZ7 and sell the Z1. Bearing all that in mind, what all-weather compact would you go for?  SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > Now I have myself setup with the E500, and quite happy with that, I find > myself no using the Panasonic FZ7 much now. So, I'm considering my [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bearing all that in mind, what all-weather compact would you go for? The best buy bar none for a good compact is the Canon Ixus 60 which you can get for a bit over £150 or so. Above all it has a very low shutter lag compared with many others, superb metering, and a cracking lens.. I was in Argos in Wakefield the other day. Sony DSC-W5 of £80 on catalogue clearance - when new a few years back they were £250++!! 5Mp and quite quick, but a bit bigger than the Canon. SignatureWoody harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com >The best buy bar none for a good compact is the Canon Ixus 60 which >you can get for a bit over £150 or so. Above all it has a very low >shutter lag compared with many others, superb metering, and a cracking >lens.. The "best buy bar none"? You have to be joking. The Ixus 60, like most compact digital cameras, makes some very noisy images. I would suggest looking at the Fuji Finepix F10, F20 or F30, all of which have the ability to produce virtually noise-free inages at surprisingly high ISO settings. The F30 is the best of these, with selectable ISOs up to 3200, and it can be found for around £170. It is virtually noise-free at ISO 800, but even ISO 3200 is better than most digicams at ISO 400. The others are cheaper. The F10 has been discontinued and may be hard to find but the F20 is a good buy at around £140-150. The low noise of these Fuji cameras, thanks to their SuperCCD sensors, is a real achievement, and all three blow away the results of the majority of digital compact cameras. [..] > >The best buy bar none for a good compact is the Canon Ixus 60 which > >you can get for a bit over £150 or so. Above all it has a very low [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > is a real achievement, and all three blow away the results of the > majority of digital compact cameras. Yes, I had heard about the less than good performance of the Ixus cameras - at least considering their reputation. Perhaps just a case of being good at one time, and being left behind now. I'd also considered the Olympus Mu600, but the reviews I found on that weren't good either. I haven't been a big fan of Fuji stuff, but then I've not looked at the bottom end of the market either. Are any of this lot here weatherproof? SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > [..] > > >The best buy bar none for a good compact is the Canon Ixus 60 which [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Are any of this lot here weatherproof? If you want a relatively unbiased review go look at www.steves-digicams.com and then think again. Not everyone wants to use silly high ASA ratings - the Ixus does 200ASA lowest and I use mine at 400ASA most of the time which is more than adequate. As for noise, I have access to seven digitals across my immediate family, from a Nikon D70s (mine) and an EOS350D (my sons) both DSLRs through compacts by Canon, Ricoh, and Casio, and 'prosumers' by Konica-Minolta and Olympus. The only non-SLR that comes anywhere near the Ixus for lens or metering quality is the Olympus (C5050) but it is so dreadfully slow in terms of shutter lag - as sadly are most Olympus cameras. I have personally always avoided Fuji as they had resolution 'doubling' that was done in-camera and in most could not be turned off. (Before I get flamed again I accept that in most cases that is probably not now the case.) Two friend have 5600 and 6900z cameras and both say they would never buy Fuji again. I would however offer one word of caution whichever way you chose to go and as a keen photographer for nearly 40 years. Don't just go on camera specs; you have got to live with the thing so usability and comfort in the hand play a very significant role. It's all very well having a machine that has more bells and whistles than you can throw a stick at if it is, for instance, too small to hold comfortably. In terms of pixels, for a compact with a 'standard' sized CCD 6Mp resolution is more than you need. If it has a good lens a 4Mp (at a push) or certainly a 5Mp is more than good enough to print at A4 size, so 6Mp will leave you some room for cropping. Anything above about 6Mp gets little benefit in picture quality terms but will inevitably have more colour noise - which can be quite objectionable.* At the end of the day you pays your money and you takes your choice, but don't just go on other peoples opinions - go play with some in the price and quality range that you want in a decent camera shop and (if you are lucky) one of them will feel 'right' - that is the one to buy. If more than one does then price and facilities can be used in consideration. [* The picture-taking cell in a camera - known as a CCD or Charge-Couple Device - in most cameras is known as 1 2/5" (how they evolve these terms beats me.) The sensing devices are actually photo-transistors and like any active electronic device current flowing through them generates heat, albeit minute amounts. However put 6 million on one substrate and in relative terms the heat is quite enormous. Put 8 million or more on the same sized base and dissipation of that heat can become a problem. If it is not conducted away well enough (and most don't) then the transistors run warm and generate electrical noise which manifests itself as a 'graininess' on saturated colours, just like a noisy TV picture. DSLRs in most cases have a significantly bigger chip with (usually) less and therefore bigger transistors. They thus don't generate anything like as much heat and produce a subjectively better picture - most users would probably agree that the results from a 2Mp Nikon DSLR will knock spots off almost all 5Mp compacts. The new Canon EOS400D uses the biggest cell format of all - known as 4/3 - and produces results to die for in its market sector - or it would if the 18-55 lens supplied as standard were not so poor.] SignatureWoody harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com [..] > If you want a relatively unbiased review go look at > www.steves-digicams.com and then think again. Er, yes thanks, been there and got some good reviews of course. It's usually my first port of all. However, it can sometimes help to get a few 'real world' opinons too. > Not everyone wants to use silly high ASA ratings - the Ixus does > 200ASA lowest and I use mine at 400ASA most of the time which is more > than adequate. Indeed, I usually use 100ASA. > As for noise, I have access to seven digitals across my immediate > family, from a Nikon D70s (mine) and an EOS350D (my sons) both DSLRs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so dreadfully slow in terms of shutter lag - as sadly are most Olympus > cameras. I never found that so in my case, although I only had an older Olympus compact, and not an E500 DSLR. Of course not much can compare to a DSLR in the compact market. > I have personally always avoided Fuji as they had resolution > 'doubling' that was done in-camera and in most could not be turned > off. (Before I get flamed again I accept that in most cases that is > probably not now the case.) Two friend have 5600 and 6900z cameras and > both say they would never buy Fuji again. That was one of the reasons I didn't like their cameras too. I prefer a more honest approach to specifications. > I would however offer one word of caution whichever way you chose to > go and as a keen photographer for nearly 40 years. Don't just go on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gets little benefit in picture quality terms but will inevitably have > more colour noise - which can be quite objectionable.* Absolutely, although I can only manage about 22 years as a keen photographer, I do have my own priority criteria. > At the end of the day you pays your money and you takes your choice, > but don't just go on other peoples opinions - go play with some in the > price and quality range that you want in a decent camera shop and (if > you are lucky) one of them will feel 'right' - that is the one to buy. > If more than one does then price and facilities can be used in > consideration. I'm sorry you missed the point of my original question. I already have a camera that 'feels' right, which is why I got the E500 and not an EOS350. There are times though where the E500 is too much kit to carry around for some occasions, but I've often missed a good photo opportunity because I've just been out shopping or something. I am after a small camera, that I can easily chuck into a pocket, and have it available for a picture at any time, and in any conditions. It does not have to be particularly comfortable to use, it just has to be able to get a picture. > [* The picture-taking cell in a camera - known as a CCD or > Charge-Couple Device - in most cameras is known as 1 2/5" (how they [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > market sector - or it would if the 18-55 lens supplied as standard > were not so poor.] Thanks for all that, but I was aware of most of that. A small correction perhaps. The 4/3 system is actually used by Olympus, and was developed with Kodak, and is now used also by other manufacturers, such as Leica and Panasonic. I think you'll find that the EOS ranges uses the largest CCD used in a prosumer level DSLR, the high end Canons use the largest sensors in the DLSRs. Possibly the biggest format of all, in photographic use, is the medium formats used by the likes of Mamiya and Hasselblad, but they run to 20MP, and cost many times more than the DSLRs. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > Not everyone wants to use silly high ASA ratings - the Ixus does > 200ASA lowest and I use mine at 400ASA most of the time which is > more than adequate. Fair enough. The F30 costs more than an Ixus, at least here in Denmark. If one doesn't have the need for high ISO, getting something cheaper seems the best choice. > I have personally always avoided Fuji as they had resolution > 'doubling' that was done in-camera and in most could not be turned > off. (Before I get flamed again I accept that in most cases that > is probably not now the case.) That is correct. They did that at some point. If you look at the current offerings, you'll see that it is no longer the case and that the F30 (and F10 and F20) delivers very sharp images, compared to other compacts. > Two friend have 5600 and 6900z cameras and both say they would never > buy Fuji again. Because they don't believe that Fuji is capable of making pocket camera that works well or because they were so dissapointed about their camera that they want to punish Fuji, no matter how good some of their cameras might be? The first is ignorance, the second makes a lot of sense in my book. All that being said, the F30 is a fairly thick pocket camera, which might disqualify it in Andy's eyes. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ > > Not everyone wants to use silly high ASA ratings - the Ixus does > > 200ASA lowest and I use mine at 400ASA most of the time which is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If one doesn't have the need for high ISO, getting something cheaper > seems the best choice. To be honest, high ISO is very low my list, it does seem to present it's own set of issues, and I'd rather work with better image quality. [..] > Because they don't believe that Fuji is capable of making pocket camera > that works well or because they were so dissapointed about their camera > that they want to punish Fuji, no matter how good some of their cameras > might be? > > The first is ignorance, the second makes a lot of sense in my book. In a way you're right. One thing I've found working n a retail business, brand loyality is a very strong bond. You can keep a customer buying a brand for many years if it's generally very good to them. However, sell them a duffer, and you'll likely never see them again. My own personal favourite brand has always been Olympus, they seem to have made very good products at reasonable cost. Not always the best, but in terms of value, they seem to have got it mostly right. However, I have not been ignoring others either, and I have ended up with Minolta, Kodak and Panasonic in my collection too. Mostly because I'm after a feature within a price range. > All that being said, the F30 is a fairly thick pocket camera, which > might disqualify it in Andy's eyes. Possibly, at the moment I'm making a short list based on specifications and reviews, finding a size will come later. To summarise, my main criteria are (in order of priority). • image quality - has to be sharp and well balanced, enough for a bit of copping. Maximum print size is A4. • optical zoom, but with a preference for wider angle than high zoom. • inexpensive - I've loaded my eggs into the DSLR basket as far as budget goes. • fit into a pocket - doesn't have to be back trouser pocket size though, a jacket pocket will do. • ruggedness - it needs to be able to withstand a bit of a bashing, and would preferably be weatherproof. What I'm not bothered about are the following: • high ISO - this will be used mainly outdoors in daytime. • speed - as long as it gets a shot. • handling, it's not going to be used for a session like the DSLR, so I don't care about the handling, it just needs to get a shot off. • lots of features and settings - I don't want to be bothered by white balance, Ev or anything else, just a good auto setting will do. • buying new - it doesn't have to be the latest model, even something second hand off eBay will suffice. I am currently flogging some stuff on eBay, if I can eek some more out of that lot, then I may well be considering something higher up the chain. However, I'm reluctant to spend too much, as it just won't be justified, I will be preferring to shoot RAW with the E500 if I can, the compact is for taking out when I don't plan a photo session. Thanks to all though. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > To be honest, high ISO is very low my list, it does seem to > present it's own set of issues, and I'd rather work with better > image quality. I have a F10 and it sure has some issues, but the camera isn't a "Great noise control, but the pictures suck"-model. The auto-mode is very poor, so getting the camera to take fine pictures does require fiddling with white-balance and iso-setting. But I find the end result worth it. A friend had the F30 and mentioned that the auto-mode has been improved a lot on that model. Same goes for movie-mode: Horrible for the F10, a lot better for the F30. But again: If I didn't bother about the noise, I'd rather have an Ixus, a Sony T-series or something similar. It's a lot harder to mess up with those cameras and for shooting those in-the-moment pictures, the auto- mode on the camera means a lot. > ⢠optical zoom, but with a preference for wider angle than high > zoom. ⢠inexpensive - I've loaded my eggs into the DSLR basket > as far as budget goes. I'd love to have a wider angle than the semi-standard 36mm I have now. > ⢠ruggedness - it needs to be able to withstand a bit of a > bashing, and would preferably be weatherproof. Pentax seems to do a lot in that area. I haven't really payed attention to it though, so I have no knowledge besides specs. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ >> > Not everyone wants to use silly high ASA ratings - the Ixus does >> > 200ASA lowest and I use mine at 400ASA most of the time which is [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Thanks to all though. When the Ricoh R4 was being sold off last year to make room for the R5 I very nearly bough one for shirt pocket size and with a 28 to 200 equivalent lens too. You might be able to get one still at a good price but it will not be any more waterproof then the others bar the special waterproof models [..] > When the Ricoh R4 was being sold off last year to make room for the R5 I > very nearly bough one for shirt pocket size and with a 28 to 200 equivalent > lens too. You might be able to get one still at a good price but it will not > be any more waterproof then the others bar the special waterproof models Good spot, cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >The F30 costs more than an Ixus, at least here in Denmark. In the UK, the F30 could be found for about £161 from Amazon and Pixmania, which compares very well on price with the greatly inferior Ixus at only about £10 less. >If one doesn't have the need for high ISO, getting something cheaper >seems the best choice. I would never advocate anyone paying more than they need. However, almost anyone buying a Fuji F30 will soon find that the low noise performance at high ISOs will change their photography forever. With the F30, virtually noise-free indoor shots are possible without flash. It is a great party camera. It is also extremely useful in museums and hitoric buildings where flash photography is not allowed, because you can get crisp, virtually noise-free images in low light. The performance advantages of this camera over most other compact digital cameras are very great. For the first time, it is possible for a compact digital camera to produce results in low light that rival those from the best Canon Digital SLRs in terms of noise, and that is no mean achievement. Of course there are people who say they only use ISO 100, possibly because they only shoot in bright sunshine and avoid ever taking photos in dim light. They are not interested in exploring what a really digital camera could do for their photography, especially shooting without flash in low light, which is where the F30 scores so very highly. The F30 is not for them. A cheap £50 camera from Asda would more than suffice, or there is the Ixus at three times the price. The Ixus is what is known in Japan as a "woman's camera". Both film and digital Ixus models have always been designed to appeal to women, or to men who want a tiny camera and aren't particularly interested in the quality of the results. The Ixus is compact and pretty, and that it appeals to many people, men and women, is no surprise. However, it is not a great camera, not by a long way, because too many compromises have been made to produce something that is undeniably small and pretty. A keen photographer, especially someone claiming upwards of 20 years' "experience" as such, should really be setting higher standards by now. The danger of claiming "20 years' experience" is that it is so often merely 1 year's experience repeated 20 times over. [..] > A keen photographer, especially someone claiming upwards of 20 years' > "experience" as such, should really be setting higher standards by > now. The danger of claiming "20 years' experience" is that it is so > often merely 1 year's experience repeated 20 times over. And you are the one reason I was so reluctant to even ask the question on this newsgroup. It must be so nice to be so always right, and have the perfect solution all the time. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >[..] >> A keen photographer, especially someone claiming upwards of 20 years' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >on this newsgroup. It must be so nice to be so always right, and have >the perfect solution all the time. That's the result of knowledge, acquired by making a real effort to learn from my mistakes, rather than making the same errors of judgement every year for 20+ years. In your case, you made an error of judgement in 2006 in buying the Olympus E-500, when better alternatives were available. Now it looks as though you are going to make a similar error of judgement in 2007. History repeating itself. Some people just never learn, do they. ;-) > >[..] > >> A keen photographer, especially someone claiming upwards of 20 years' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > learn from my mistakes, rather than making the same errors of > judgement every year for 20+ years. My only mistake was not using my news reader killfile feature. > In your case, you made an error of judgement in 2006 in buying the > Olympus E-500, when better alternatives were available. Now it looks > as though you are going to make a similar error of judgement in 2007. > History repeating itself. Some people just never learn, do they. > > ;-) Hmm, despite your smiley, I really don't think there's any tongue-in-cheek intentions with your comments at all. You just can't accept that perhaps other people may have different needs to you, and that perhaps another tool may be just as good for the job. From my own point of view, the E-500 was not a mistake, it does what I want it to, and as far as the compact goes, I haven't made any judgement yet, or even mentioned a particular model or brand I'm aiming for. Indeed, my only error in judgement was to actually trust that I could get a sensible discussion in this newsgroup. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >My only mistake was not using my news reader killfile feature. Perhaps now is the time to start learning from your mistakes. You certainly seem to make more than enough of them! > >My only mistake was not using my news reader killfile feature. > > Perhaps now is the time to start learning from your mistakes. > > You certainly seem to make more than enough of them! I wasn't going to respond, but I'd had a look down the postings, and I seem to be the only person that you are insulting to. It's obvious that I don't fit into your little 'click', so I doubt very much I'll be back to this group again. Cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >> >My only mistake was not using my news reader killfile feature. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Cheers. Its a clique of one Andy. Just use your killfile and keep subscribed. SignaturePaul Giverin British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk [..] > >I wasn't going to respond, but I'd had a look down the postings, and I > >seem to be the only person that you are insulting to. It's obvious that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Its a clique of one Andy. Just use your killfile and keep subscribed. No, I don't think I will Paul (BTW, thanks for the 'clique' I had a mental block right then, so gave up). I subscribe to a few groups, and two subject matters in particular suffer badly with product snobbery. It's not like I'm not used to a difference of opinion either, I was a regular at uk.rec.motorcycles for long enough, but the difference there is that *everybody* is insulted equally. But when my own posts are being hijacked by somebody to insult me directly, and not even seem able to converse at a different level to their own high and mighty standards, then I really am not going to waste my time on it. If anything it's probably my own fault for taking the bait each time, but I sometimes hope for at least one discussion that might help me in my quest. As it is, I'm more or less where I started, although I did get a couple of helpful pointers off some, and thanks to those. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> (snip) >Indeed, my only error in judgement was to actually trust that I could >get a sensible discussion in this newsgroup. Your so right. If everyone held the same opinion as I do the quality of discussion would be immeasurably improved. Alas, there always seem to be some, who despite clearly being wrong headed, insist on holding differing opinions. I feel your pain too. Peter Toke Eskildsen <darkwing@daimi.au.dk> observed >> Two friend have 5600 and 6900z cameras and both say they would never >> buy Fuji again. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that they want to punish Fuji, no matter how good some of their cameras >might be? My first digicam was a Fuji 6900z, which I still use, though I now have others. It has produced excellent prints of up to 20" and I have no complaints. What was wrong with your friend's 6900z and if it was technical did they return it to Fuji? Mike SignatureMichael J Davis Now with added pictures on http://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman <>< The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorethea Lange <>< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.