Does anyone have any experience with some high-end digital cameras. I use to have an HP Photosmart 945xxx something, but it busted, so i'm looking for something 7+ MP, a decent optical zoom, and an overall user-friendly interface. And also fucking warranty. since that HP broke a year after i bought it and it got discontinued cuz not enough ppl were buying them...

10/25/2006 10:31:51 PM

canon

10/25/2006 10:40:37 PM

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1188&fl=4

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=7382&pq-locale=en_US

can't find any canon cameras...

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_style_dslr&Dept=cameras

as you can see sony has a lot.....

10/25/2006 10:41:30 PM

Ofcourse. Look no further, how much are you willing to spend? There is no need for a 7+ Mp camera unless you're a sports photographer. Have a look at this beauty.

http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/digital_cameras/lumix.asp

She's everything you need and more in a camera. She's also our top seller.

10/25/2006 10:42:20 PM

up to 500

10/25/2006 10:48:53 PM

Quote :

"There is no need for a 7+ Mp camera unless you're a sports photographer"

As though you'd never made it clear before that you are, in fact, a dumbass...you just keep going.


Vlad:
1) dpreview.com
Pretty much all you'll need to narrow your choices.
2) The Canon S3 IS has been very good to me. Very.

10/25/2006 10:52:28 PM

whoa whoa, before you insult me try explaining the need for 7+ mps'. Please.

10/25/2006 10:53:41 PM

just go to a couple stores, look at the cameras and find some you like, then look online for reviews to make sure you're not getting a camera with problems ... then purchase the camera online where you can likely find it cheaper, but shop around regardless. it's a very personal choice, and while someone might like a certain camera, you might not.

10/25/2006 10:54:40 PM

Also, chocolatervh is a good person to PM if you have specific questions about a particular camera.

Quote :

"whoa whoa, before you insult me try explaining the need for 7+ mps'. Please."

You mean you've never seen any photos enlarged?
It must be cool to live in the Stone Age.

A note about the S3, that I forgot, and i don't feel like editing since I'm already posting: the nosie at high ISOs isn't something you can ignore. Sometimes you can work with/around it, but it's definitely there.

10/25/2006 10:58:29 PM

You still never answered my question. I see these cameras everyday, so I know how well they operate. If he's not a photographer of some sort, there is no need to own a camer that expensive, when you can by cheaper ones that perform the same way nearly. If he just want to purchase an expensive camera for his personal choice, then thats another case.

10/25/2006 11:03:32 PM

7+ megapixels is reccomended if you want anything larger than a 4x6 print. Of course... so is dye sublimation printing... but meh (also if you want it to last.)

10/26/2006 12:28:29 AM

The Kodak V610 looks great.

6 MP
10x optical zoom
4x digital zoom
Dual lens
2.8" LCD

Don't know how much it costs in the US, but where I am, it is $480.


Edit: $400 on kodak.com

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-locale=en_US&pq-path=8912





The world’s smallest 10X optical zoom digital camera
Features KODAK RETINA Dual Lens Technology
Equipped with two professional quality SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH C-VARIOGON Lenses for exceptional clarity and sharpness


Also check out the V705 http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/31/9592&pq-locale=en_US

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2006 12:39:19 AM

fwiw, panasonic lumix cameras are some of the best, next to canon they are one of the few that offer image stabilization, and at 6MP, 12x optical zoom & 2.5" LCD (and most for <$400) they are hard to beat.

i would vouch for canon or panasonic

10/26/2006 12:45:09 AM

^^^ I'm curious to see what source you are referencing when you say that 7+ MP is recommended for anything larger than a 4x6 print.

10/26/2006 12:48:44 AM

Yeah that's nonsense.

7 MP is good enough for 20x30 inches.

10/26/2006 12:55:32 AM

^^ Who said anything about a source? Oh right, people can't have opinions without referencing bullshit roundups and guides online, I forgot. I've gone through a few cameras and all the 5 and 6 megapixel cameras I've had produced alright 8x10's (not worth hanging up anywhere though) while the 7 and 8 megapixel cameras I've used produced noticeably better large prints.

Of course, megapixels aren't really as important as the lens, optical as opposed to digital zoom, actual quality of the CCD or CMOS sensor, etc. Anyways, I know you said up to 500, but take a look at the digital rebel xt from cannon. you can usually find a model with lense kit for about 650 if you look around. If you wait until black friday you can probably find someplace selling one for that 500 dollar budget of yours. Gotta love an SLR.

That's really the best time to buy a digital camera. Digital camera deals are featured at pretty much all the electronics retailers.

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 2:28 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2006 2:02:19 AM

^^no it isnt. 8mp is good for a quality 8x10, MAYBE a 10x12. You need a 20-25mp camera to take something worth printing at 20x30 or 24x36.

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 2:27 AM. Reason : p]

10/26/2006 2:27:37 AM

Ive got the Fuji S500(6mp) and I love it. I think the newest is the S7000, not sure.

10/26/2006 7:58:38 AM

no i'm not a professional photographer, however i do take pictures that need to be very clear and be able to be blown up to poster size. shutter speed must be exceptional, as in i want to be able to take a pic of something moving 170 mph and still get a clear shot. also, my old (2year old) HP was slow as hell. just the processing time. from the time i take a shot to the time it allows me to take the next one took forever. and if i had it in burst mode, it would allow me to take 6 or so one after another but then it'd sit there for a few min thinking.

time for me to roll to work, i'll look at all this shit when i get back tonight.

and while i'm thinking about it, out of the cameras that you guys might suggest, it sure as hell needs to be able to take bursts reapeatedly and effectively.

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 8:19 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2006 8:12:12 AM

Well the S5000 I have has a couple of "action" settings where you can take rapid pictures in succession.. But it only takes them at 1MP...


EDIT

I don't think you'll be able to get a digital camera which does ^ what you want.... But I'm no expert here.. Might have to settle for the old 35MM or something along those lines...

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 8:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2006 8:31:25 AM

Quote :

"8mp is good for a quality 8x10, MAYBE a 10x12. You need a 20-25mp camera to take something worth printing at 20x30 or 24x36."

hahahahahaha, such bullshit.

a 6mp dslr can make a very nice 16x20. Also, a 6mp dslr sensor retains the same or even a little bit more detail than 35mm film. You start talking 10-12mp sensors and those will rival 30+mb scans from medium format film. I've seen 30" wide prints from a D2x (12mp) that was stunning, great detail and color. I shoot mf film and 35mm-based digital every day, so I think I know what I'm talking about in this field.

Also, in sports, mp doesn't matter to many people. Hell, the Nikon D2h is a 4mp camera and a favorite of sports photographers around the world. For sports you want a FAST camera (high fps, quick AF, good high ISO performance, no shutter lag). No P&S is going to be good for sports, but it may get acceptable pictures from time to time on bright days outside.


Save up and get a dSLR, or get a film camera and a decent lens. P&S cameras just have too many limitations for getting pictures like you want.

10/26/2006 9:22:06 AM

even if i do get a digital slr, there are still so many of them out there, and i dont wanna buy one just basing on company advertising, do any of you have one that you're pretty happy with?

10/26/2006 11:55:50 AM

Ive gotten PERFECT 10x12s from a 6mp dslr. After that point (6mp), you want to worry more about storage medium, printer, removable lenses, specific settings, etc than megapixels. You can have a 10mp pocket camera, but your images will still be shitty because the lens/sensor/storage/flash/settings are shitty.

10/26/2006 12:18:27 PM

you have basically two options, Canon Digital Rebel (one of the versions) and the Nikon D50. The picture quality between them won't matter a noticeable amount. Go to best buy/circuit city/camera store and handle both of them. See which one is more comfortable to hold. Lens selection between the two is the same and price are close enough that it really doesn't make much difference, just get the one that is easier and more comfortable for you to use.

10/26/2006 2:56:01 PM

Quote :

"fwiw, panasonic lumix cameras are some of the best, next to canon they are one of the few that offer image stabilization, and at 6MP, 12x optical zoom & 2.5" LCD (and most for <$400) they are hard to beat. i would vouch for canon or panasonic"

10/26/2006 3:07:12 PM

I am in the market for a digital camera and I'm confused as well. I have two choices:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-images/B000EBK3FW/104-0735548-0010311?ie=UTF8&sort=quality&index=0&page=3#gallery

OR

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Image-Stabilized-Optical/dp/B000HATNH4/sr=1-12/qid=1161896996/ref=sr_1_12/104-0735548-0010311?ie=UTF8&s=photo

10/26/2006 5:14:01 PM

Quote :

"P&S cameras just have too many limitations for getting pictures like you want."

this is complete BS...unless you're a professional or a hardcore amateur, there's very little reason to get a DSLR...prosumer cameras are more than acceptable for even avid shooters...for p&s cameras, the two best brands are canon and panasonic

in my experience, the image stabilization is better on canons (i own a panasonic lumix dmc-fz30), but not so much that i'd spend an extra $50+ on the camera if it came down to that

simple rules of thumb:

more megapixels are better...does this mean you should spend arm+leg for 10mp camera? no...but if all other things are equal, go with the higher mp

higher optical zoom is better...digital zoom means NOTHING and is absolute crap...i, personally, would never go with a camera that has less than 10x optical zoom because i've spent too much time hating the fact that my old p&s cameras only did 3x or 4x...i would pay extra for the higher zoom

image stabilization is a must, IMO...i can't imagine circumstances where you wouldn't want it, ESPECIALLY if you're just an average shooter...worth the money for either the panasonic or canon (though, as mentioned before, i think canon is marginally better)

if you're looking at something along prosumer lines, then things like ISO settings and file formats (JPEG and RAW) come into play...my camera is limited to ISO400, which kind of sucks, but as chocolatervh pointed out to me, I can pretty much mimic higher ISO levels using photoshop, so it's not THAT bad...

if you want point and shoot without the ability to put it into manual mode, then pay attention to megapixels, optical zoom, and image stabilization...the interface is a personal preference and you'll need to check out the camera itself before you buy if it's that big of a concern

if you want something prosumer, i'll suggest the panasonic lumix dmc-fz50 (the newer version of my camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

10.1mp (about 9"x13" at 300ppi, 13"x19" at 200ppi)
12x optical zoom
optical image stabilization
ISO80 - ISO1600 (ISO3200 in high sensitivity mode)
full manual operation
movie mode (848x480) up to 30fps with audio
JPEG/RAW

those are the highlights...you can get them for about $500...if this interests you, you're welcome to try mine out and see how you like it

the only 12x optical zoom prosumer canon i know if is the powershot S3 IS, but it's only 6mp...the G7 is 10mp, but only with 6x optical...i've not used either of these cameras, so i can't comment on them

10/26/2006 5:50:39 PM

Quote :

"however i do take pictures that need to be very clear and be able to be blown up to poster size. shutter speed must be exceptional, as in i want to be able to take a pic of something moving 170 mph and still get a clear shot. "

P&S sensors and lenses lack the ability to capture detail like a larger sensor in a dSLR can.
they usually lack a quick shutter release to get "that moment" when the car is framed right.
they also can't track focus nearly as well on moving objects.

10/26/2006 6:33:28 PM

^ question for you (not sarcastic):

are you saying that my camera set at a shutter speed of 1/1000s will not take as clear a shot as a DSLR set at the same shutter speed?

i mean, it makes sense that DSLR is of a MUCH higher quality than ANY P&S, but with all settings equal, would there be THAT much of a difference?

10/26/2006 6:39:10 PM

1/1000 would be 1/1000, but the reaction time of pressing the button, camera focusing, and then actually taking a picture is a HUGE difference between a dSLR and a P&S. I've done racing pictures with both, they don't compare. The keeper rate between the two was vastly different.

The shutter delay is what I mean in quick release, not in the actual shutter speed.


1/4000th @ f4

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2006 7:13:37 PM

quagmire, reading these two articles at dpreview.com may help you with your question.

Sensor Sizes: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm
Dynamic Range: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=dynamic_range
(they are related, hence I'm linking to both).

Additionally, the situation of 'all things being equal save for _____ parameter' is extremely, if not impossible, to achieve between different camera models. So it's difficult to make such a one-to-one comparison....just way too many factors to take into account.

[Edited on October 26, 2006 at 8:29 PM. Reason : wrong link]

10/26/2006 8:28:56 PM

okay, that actually helps a lot (more confusing that i thought it would be)...let me see if this comparison is right:

my camera (the 8mp lumix) has a 1/1.8" sensor, which = ~9mm diagonal
the canon eos 30d (8.2mp) is 22.5 x 15mm, which = ~27mm, 3 times the panny, despite same mp
the nikon d70s (6mp) is 23.7 x 15.5mm, which = ~28mm, more than 3 times, with lower mp

larger diagonal length = better, right?

according to this quote, does my rationalization seem right?

Quote :

"Digital compact cameras have substantially smaller sensors offering a similar number of pixels. As a consequence, the pixels are much smaller, which is a key reason for the image quality difference, especially in terms of noise and dynamic range."

okay, so if one camera has a larger sensor size, the pixels can be larger than the same mp rating on a smaller sensor? but wouldn't larger pixels be bad? wouldn't you want smaller pixels for a clearer picture?

10/26/2006 9:57:11 PM

the panasonic DMC-Z50 seems to be the winner. now for the shopping part, ebay ranges between $550-$650, buy it now. dont see any actual auctions. anyone knows of better/cheaper places to buy.


http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=664948 they have it for $420

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=panasonic+dmc-fz50&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&lmode=online&scoring=p&sa=N&start=60 froogle results but i dont know any of those sellers and if they can be trusted. i guess better than ebay.

but that $420 is the winner so far...

10/26/2006 10:55:19 PM

do not buy from that first link...and as always, check http://www.resellerratings.com/ for an idea of how the company operates:

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller8754.html

beach camera seems to be pretty good,

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1936.html

they've got the silver version for $496

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?omid=103&ref=froogle&utm_source=Froogle&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PNDMCFZ50S&sku=PNDMCFZ50S

i, personally, don't like cameras that aren't black because they show wear more easily, but that's really just a personal preference

digital foto club has a really good lifetime rating, and they have the black version for $529.25

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller2889.html
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/from-froogle.asp?id=964672065&rf=froogle&dfdate=10_26_2006

these prices are about right, i think...when i bought my fz30 a year ago, i got it with a 1gb card and extra battery for just under $500...it should be expected that the newer version of the camera would cost about the same (actually, i think the retail is less as)

10/27/2006 10:39:37 AM

Quote :

"okay, so if one camera has a larger sensor size, the pixels can be larger than the same mp rating on a smaller sensor? but wouldn't larger pixels be bad? wouldn't you want smaller pixels for a clearer picture?"

larger physical pixels (photosites) resolve detail better because each one will get more electrons hitting it and thus need to be amplified less, thus less noise and more accurate color and clarity. The 4mp Nikon D2h honestly gets sharper and better pictures than the 6mp D50/70/100 cameras.

10/27/2006 11:27:44 AM

does that mean, then, that you can enlarge those photos more easily and with a higher degree of clarity?

10/27/2006 11:31:56 AM

yes.

10/27/2006 2:30:29 PM

well i've learned a lot in this thread



[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2006 3:44:43 PM

Soon people are going to have 40 gig mem sticks just to take 5 pics on a 50mp camera.

10/27/2006 3:48:03 PM

i've already decided i won't purchase another camera until it's twice the mp of the one i have now

10/27/2006 4:11:01 PM

good thing you told me not to buy from bestpricecameras. holy shit their review is horrible. looking at gettin it from digitalphotoclub. or should i get it from ebay?

529 from digital photo, that's not bad, they also have the accessory kit for 61 bucks which includes mini tripod, 1 gig sd card, case and cleaning kit. i could care less about all but the sd card. but do ya'll think it's worth spending extra 61 on that?

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2006 9:31:19 PM

double post. just ordered it. $529. got me a gig sd card off ebay for 16 bucks.

10/27/2006 10:00:06 PM

i hope you like it...i've really come to love my panny

10/28/2006 12:47:53 AM

Wait, quagmire, you won't buy another camera until its megapixels are twice your current one? If I understand you right, you have an 8 MP Lumix. So your next camera will be a 16 MP camera?

I don't follow this, especially since we have demonstrated above that megapixels *aren't* everything. In fact, megapixels (especially at the level they are at now) are a horrible way of determing what camera to buy. It's the classic marketing technique of getting customers to think bigger numbers = better.

"Enough already with the megapixels" - http://dansdata.com/gz059.htm

And what is your ultimate goal for your photos that would require you or compell you to shoot 16MP photos? It doesn't make any sense at all. And not to even speak about the storage issue nightmare.

[Edited on October 28, 2006 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 28, 2006 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2006 12:55:20 AM

sorry, i meant to put the smiley there to note that i was kidding

10/28/2006 10:09:02 AM

Ooh. Alright then.

10/28/2006 1:10:13 PM

cant wait till the damn thing gets here lol

10/28/2006 1:36:14 PM

got here yesterday. fucking sweet. didn't realize the zoom was manual though

11/3/2006 6:47:38 PM

ah...i wouldn't have it any other way...it saves a boatload of battery for that little bit of manual adjustment on your part

11/3/2006 7:11:04 PM

Bumping this one because I need some advice. I am looking to buy a new camera soon and have narrowed it down to 2 main models.

Canon PowerShot digital Elph

Casio Exilim

Both of the ones I am looking at have similar specs and are similarly priced.

Advice?
Thanks in advance.

11/19/2006 7:47:50 AM