Iam planning to get a new digi camera, Please suggest me a good camera...

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalS3100Overview.jsp?item=I789909&dbid=789909&urltype=overview

FinePix S3100 Data & Spec Sheets

Number of Effective Pixels
4.0 million pixels
CCD Sensor 1/2.7" Conventional CCD System (Number of Total Pixels: 4.23 million pixels) RGB Filters
Number of Recorded Pixels 2,272 x 1,704 pixels (3.87 Million), 1,600 x 1,200, 1,280 x 960, 640 x 480 pixels
File formats Still image: JPEG (Exif Ver 2.2), WAV, Movie: AVI (Motion JPEG)
*Design rule for Camera File system compliant / DPOF-compatible
Storage media xD-Picture Card (16MB to 512MB)
Recording capacity with one 16MB xD-Picture Card (included) Still images Movie
4MP(F) 4MP(N)
2MP 1MP 0.3MP 320x240 160x120
8 16
25 33 122 Approx. 98 sec.
Approx. 5.6 min.
Lens focal Length Equivalent to 39-234mm on a 35mm camera
Optical zoom 6x
Digital zoom 3.4x (at 640 x 480 pixel mode), 1.7x (1280 x 960 pixels), 1.4x (1600 x 1200 pixels)
Focus Auto focus (TTL center point fixed) - contrast type
Focus Range Normal: 2.6 ft - inf., Macro: 3.9 in. - 2.6 ft.
Aperture F 2.8/F4.8/F8.2(Wide-Angle), F3/F5.2/F8.7 (Telephoto)
Viewfinder 0.33 inch 110,000 Pixel Electronic Viewfinder (approx. 88% coverage)
Exposure control 64-zone TTL metering-multi
Exposure modes Programmed AE
Color control modes Normal
Sensitivity Equivalent to ISO 100 (automatically set between ISO 64-250 depending on the shooting mode and subject)
Shutter speed Auto/SP: 1/4 sec. - 1/1500 sec.
SP (night scene mode only): 2 sec. - 1/250 sec.
Manual (A. priority): ½ sec. - 1/1500 sec.
White balance Automatic, Manual (Fine, Shade, Fluorescent light (Daylight), Fluorescent light (Warm White), Fluorescent light (Cool White), Incandescent light)
Flash Auto flash uses flash control sensor
Effective range: 2.6ft - 11.5ft (W)/2.6ft. - 11.5 ft (T)
Flash mode: Auto, Red-eye Reduction, Forced Flash, Suppressed Flash, Slow Synchro, Red-eye Reduction + Slow Synchro
LCD monitor 1.5-inches amorphous silicon TFT (approx. 62,000 pixels, approx. 87% coverage)
Digital interface USB interface, power-input socket
Power source 4 AA alkaline batteries (included)
4 AA NiMH batteries (sold separately)
AC power adapter AC-5VH/AC-5VHS
Dimensions 3.9(W) x 3.0(H) x 2.7(D) inch
Weight 10.1 oz. (excluding battery and media)
Shooting modes Auto, manual, scene position (portrait, landscape, sports, night scene), movie
Movie recording 320 x 240 pixels up to 60sec. / 160 x 120 pixels up to 240sec.
10 fps, AVI (Motion JPEG) without sound
Video out NTSC and PAL Switchable
Playback Single frame (with 14x playback zoom), 9 multi-frame
Others Self-timer: approximately 10 sec., world time, 6 language menu interface, tripod socket, lens cap, adapter ring, low-light viewfinder function available, PictBridge compatible
Optional accessories xD-Picture card (16MB-512MB)
PCMCIA PC Card Adapter DPC-AD
Compact FlashÂ? Card Adapter DPC-CF
Image memory card reader DPC-R1
AC power adapter AC-5VH/AC-5VHS
Battery charger with battery BK-NH/BK-NH2
Wide-angle conversion lens WL-FX9/F9B
Telephoto conversion lens TL-FX9/FX9B
Soft case SC-FX 304
Travel kit (A3): large case, AA NiMH travel charger with auto adapter

You are lucky that prices have really dropped within the past few months.
If I were to invest in a digicam now, I would go for the Panasonic Lumixes.. especially with the good Leica lense and image stabilization system integrated into them now. They also have good optical zoom. If you need any more persuasion.. Lucky24 uses a Lumix :D :D.

http://www2.panasonic.com/static/models/dmc-lz1.jpg


I use Canon which is not bad either.

Our MEGA Optical Image Stabilizer Helps Eliminate Blurry Pictures
Jitter from shaky hands is one of the main reasons why cameras produce blurry images. We don't expect everyone to have hands of stone when taking pictures--that's why Lumix® cameras help solve the problem of unsteady hands with advanced MEGA Optical Image Stabilizer technology. The DMC-LZ1 has a built-in gyrosensor that detects any hand movement and relays a signal to a tiny microcomputer inside the camera, which instantly calculates the compensation needed. A linear motor then shifts the Optical Image Stabilizer lens as necessary to guide incoming light from the image straight to the CCD. You won't even notice it working--all you'll see are the outstanding results!

How much do you want to spend?

to be really honest, if i were you, i would wait for the camera phones commin out.
(Sony Ericsson K750i, Samsung D600, Nokia N90)
they are all 2mp, and the K750 also features Auto focus,,
and if you can afford to wait till next year, Sharp 903 (3mp) and Samsung P860 (5mp) is comming out. :)

He asked about digital cameras, not camera phones.

How much do you want to spend?

Around £250 (incl VAT)

He asked about digital cameras, not camera phones.
i said soon camera phones will be almost on par woth compact cameras

i said soon camera phones will be almost on par woth compact cameras

LOL!!! If everything that is not a DSLR is your definition of a compact camera then you are nuts! Don't hold your breath waiting for a camera phone with 10x zoom, adjustable shutter speed, the ability to put in on a tripod, etc...

Try this website, it's top notch!

http://www.dpreview.com/

LOL!!! If everything that is not a DSLR is your definition of a compact camera then you are nuts! Don't hold your breath waiting for a camera phone with 10x zoom, adjustable shutter speed, the ability to put in on a tripod, etc...
compact as in Sony T and P series compact :)
10x optical zoom, i wouldnt think it would every reach the market, but there are going 2x optical and 3x optical zooms,some will have autofocus, and few will even have adjustable shutter speed ;)

i said soon camera phones will be almost on par woth compact cameras

On par with really bad ones yes. Megapixels mean far less for quality than a nice big lense and ccd. I have a 6 year old 3.2MP camera, that still produces better pictures than most 'new' compact 5 MP cameras. Once you go above 2 MP, the lense counts for more than the number of pixels you have.

Sony Cybershot :)

First off.. Sunni you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Secondly. My advice has always been: Stay away from Sony, Kodak and Fuji

Stick with: Nikon, Canon, Panasonic

A few good cameras can be found on www.ebuyer.co.uk for a good price in the UK. Check they come with a valid warranty card though before you buy.

On par with really bad ones yes. Megapixels mean far less for quality than a nice big lense and ccd. I have a 6 year old 3.2MP camera, that still produces better pictures than most 'new' compact 5 MP cameras. Once you go above 2 MP, the lense counts for more than the number of pixels you have.
accually, ccd exists on Mobile phones as well. Leica will provide lenses for Nokia N91 2mp phone. It will be a matter of time before phones with Schneider, Leica, Pentax lenses. There is a 7mp camera phone in Korea currently in the Korean market. LG is depening on Pentax for their modules as well for their high megapixle phones. Future camera phones will have decent quality cameras, with decent size CCD's and decent lenses.

This is the 7mp cameraphone with 3x optical zoom and a Schneider lens.
http://ployer.com/archives/The-SCH-V770.jpg
It wont be long before GSM models with such features come out.

Dont get me wrong, i have no intension of comparing prosumer digital cameras with camera phones :)

accually, ccd exists on Mobile phones as well. Leica will provide lenses for Nokia N91 2mp phone. It will be a matter of time before phones with Schneider, Leica, Pentax lenses. There is a 7mp camera phone in Korea currently in the Korean market. LG is depening on Pentax for their modules as well for their high megapixle phones. Future camera phones will have decent quality cameras, with decent size CCD's and decent lenses.

This is the 7mp cameraphone with 3x optical zoom and a Schneider lens.
http://ployer.com/archives/The-SCH-V770.jpg
It wont be long before GSM models with such features come out.

Dont get me wrong, i have no intension of comparing prosumer digital cameras with camera phones :)

Jeez, get off it already about crappy camera phones, which is exactly what they are, CRAP.

Anybody with proper eyesight can see the immense difference between toy camera-phone photo images and real digital camera shots.

Newsflash... small is not better.

Even if the best lens makers get in on the camera phone craze, the lenses are still going to need to have some size to them to get better than 3x optical magnification. You would really look funny holding a phone with a 7 inch lens sticking out!! Oh, soooo casual!!

Jeez, get off it already about crappy camera phones, which is exactly what they are, CRAP.

Anybody with proper eyesight can see the immense difference between toy camera-phone photo images and real digital camera shots.

Newsflash... small is not better.
im trying to prove they are not crappy...
did you read a single part of my post?

Even if the best lens makers get in on the camera phone craze, the lenses are still going to need to have some size to them to get better than 3x optical magnification. You would really look funny holding a phone with a 7 inch lens sticking out!! Oh, soooo casual!!
there is optical zoom which happens internally. (ala Sony DSC-T1~T7)
This technology is already used on the Sharp 902 handset with 2x optical zoom ;)

I recommand the Panasonic Lumix FZ5.

It's around £250 (400 Euros), with good lenses, stabilization systrem, 12x optical zoom, and quite easy to use. I bought one 2 monthes ago and I'm fully satisfied. :)

Here's a review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/)

First off.. Sunni you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Secondly. My advice has always been: Stay away from Sony, Kodak and Fuji

Stick with: Nikon, Canon, Panasonic

I have a sony. picture quality is top notch.

im trying to prove they are not crappy...
did you read a single part of my post?

I did read it. You proved nothing except for your ignorance in cameras!

Koreanczyk, I've owned two. Used maybe 3 different ones. I'm sick of some of the crap it produces. Plus my patience in the Sony brand of ANYTHING is gone after having a couple stereos of that brand die on me within a month of purchasing.

http://www.pbase.com/koreanczyk

check out the crap Sony produces.

Sony's cybershots arent half bad, the one I have with Carl Zeiss glass, 7.2 megapixels makes excellent quality shots in terms of shrapness, richness of colors. As good as any DSLR by Canon or Nikon. Some of the flattest, coloristically boring phoos Ive seen have been done on the newest Canon or Nikon DSLRs. The only thing I dont like is the inability to control my DOF. As well as the low optical zoom. But thats it.

For about US$150-250 you can get one of the Canon Powershot A Series cameras. I've had an A60 and A75, but the A95 is the best. If you want a point and shoot camera with full manual controls, this is it. The Nikon Coolpix series produces good quality images, but lack the extent of manual controls found on the Canon's. I've been extremely happy with my A75 because it has allowed me to experiement heavily with manual controls (shutter speed, apeture, white balance, ISO levels, focusing, etc) Its very durable, and the battery life lasts FOREVER (thats because of the 4 AA batteries, which provide a nice grip for the hands) Here is the online forum for Powershot users: http://forums.powershot-a.com/index.php?s=

I did read it. You proved nothing except for your ignorance in cameras!

Koreanczyk, I've owned two. Used maybe 3 different ones. I'm sick of some of the crap it produces. Plus my patience in the Sony brand of ANYTHING is gone after having a couple stereos of that brand die on me within a month of purchasing.
how was i ignorant?

i'm also using A95...very good compact camera with auto and manual controls...only problem? quite noisy at higher iso's...but i'm happy:)

http://www.pbase.com/koreanczyk

check out the crap Sony produces.

Sony's cybershots arent half bad, the one I have with Carl Zeiss glass, 7.2 megapixels makes excellent quality shots in terms of shrapness, richness of colors. As good as any DSLR by Canon or Nikon. Some of the flattest, coloristically boring phoos Ive seen have been done on the newest Canon or Nikon DSLRs. The only thing I dont like is the inability to control my DOF. As well as the low optical zoom. But thats it.

I have looked at your site before. I think you have wonderful photos. However, I honestly don't think they compare in image quality with images produced on a dSLR in the hands of an experienced photographer. I'm not saying I'm a good experienced photographer (far from it most likely), but if you're comparing it with the works of most of the people on SSC with dSLRs or the various amateur photos scatter across the net, that's not a really fair comparision with what a dSLR is truly capable of IMHO.

Sunni, just forget it man... maybe one day you'll take a photography class and learn a little more about what photography is all about, not just mega-pixels :nuts:

Sunni, just forget it man... maybe one day you'll take a photography class and learn a little more about what photography is all about, not just mega-pixels :nuts:
The Sensor size, Lens quality and zoom on these cameraphones are identical to those of compact size cameras......which means u havnt read my post.

i did explain about the Schenieder and Veiss lens. About the 3x optical zoom, and the image sensors by pentax which are being applied to cameraphones

Around £250 (incl VAT)

I suggest the FujiFilm FinePix s5000/5050/5100: (old->new model)
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalS5100Overview.jsp?item=I789910&dbid=789910&urltype=overview
10 x optical zoom
4 MP
Cheapest buy is around 250€, but with some extra's you will still be under budget. Makes very good pics and you have the option to buy lenses for it. I know some dutch forummers are real happy with it. (I used :cry: to have one)

The Sensor size, Lens quality and zoom on these cameraphones are identical to those of compact size cameras......which means u havnt read my post.

i did explain about the Schenieder and Veiss lens. About the 3x optical zoom, and the image sensors by pentax which are being applied to cameraphones

You know what Sunni? Forget it, I'm not even going to waste my time on you and your assumptions that I didn't read your pipe-dream posts.

BTW, you know what? By the time your beloved camera-phones reaches even the low-end digital camera qualities of yesterday, real cameras would have advanced far beyond what picture quality than we see today with them now. There's no point in arguing with someone who has a strange obsession with camera-phones over REAL cameras.

No camera producer will ever make camera phones to equal to point and shoot market.....because then they will eliminate a whole market that way. The only way they will allow camera phones to be on par with point and shoot cameras is if they give them skyhigh pricetags. Camera phones will always fall under the low end of point and shoot cameras because that's who the camera companies want to buy these phones....amateurs who have no idea what they're doing. No pro-am or pro photographer would ever buy a camera phone to take professional photos.

EDIT: I should also add that Camera phones are ideal for people who want to take a camera out to a bar or a club and you don't really care about high quality shots, you just want to grab the moments. Situations like those is where a camera phone would come in handy. But in essence, camera phones are pretty much a novelty more than anything else.

http://www.pbase.com/koreanczyk

check out the crap Sony produces.

Sony's cybershots arent half bad, the one I have with Carl Zeiss glass, 7.2 megapixels makes excellent quality shots in terms of shrapness, richness of colors. As good as any DSLR by Canon or Nikon. Some of the flattest, coloristically boring phoos Ive seen have been done on the newest Canon or Nikon DSLRs. The only thing I dont like is the inability to control my DOF. As well as the low optical zoom. But thats it.

As a dSLR user, and seeing you´re not, I understand your reply. In the beginning I was quite disappointed with the quality, colorwise, that comes out of the camera, without post-processing. But, as I think I´ve said before on this forum, you can make the colors as splashing as Sony does by default. Yet, that is not what true photography is, but you can change the parameters for sharpness, saturation, color etc. I myself shoot in the default mode, and shoot fully Manual, usually with Autofocus, which means I set the shutterspeed, aperture, ISO, and the focus-point(s). For me, this produces top-notch images QUALITY wise. Sony camera´s are known to display colors unrealistically, because they assume the users print their photo´s right from the camera.

I don´t want to start a flame-war, but you should know what you are talking about. When I get back from my holiday from Spain, I will show you what I´m talking about, in stead of talking about it. :)

As far as camera advice goes, I´ve had a Sony DSC P-72, which was a good starter, but now I can only recommend a Canon 350D ;)

I have looked at your site before. I think you have wonderful photos. However, I honestly don't think they compare in image quality with images produced on a dSLR in the hands of an experienced photographer. I'm not saying I'm a good experienced photographer (far from it most likely), but if you're comparing it with the works of most of the people on SSC with dSLRs or the various amateur photos scatter across the net, that's not a really fair comparision with what a dSLR is truly capable of IMHO.

Sunni, just forget it man... maybe one day you'll take a photography class and learn a little more about what photography is all about, not just mega-pixels :nuts:

Beyond the DOF issue I mentioned, there really are not many differences. And what you are comparing are my photos with an experienced professional photographer. I dont think thats a fair comparison. I will mention Alex Majoli a photpgrapher for Magnum who uses point and shoots from Olympus instead of a DSLR.

As a dSLR user, and seeing you´re not, I understand your reply. In the beginning I was quite disappointed with the quality, colorwise, that comes out of the camera, without post-processing. But, as I think I´ve said before on this forum, you can make the colors as splashing as Sony does by default. Yet, that is not what true photography is, but you can change the parameters for sharpness, saturation, color etc. I myself shoot in the default mode, and shoot fully Manual, usually with Autofocus, which means I set the shutterspeed, aperture, ISO, and the focus-point(s). For me, this produces top-notch images QUALITY wise. Sony camera´s are known to display colors unrealistically, because they assume the users print their photo´s right from the camera.

I don´t want to start a flame-war, but you should know what you are talking about. When I get back from my holiday from Spain, I will show you what I´m talking about, in stead of talking about it. :)

As far as camera advice goes, I´ve had a Sony DSC P-72, which was a good starter, but now I can only recommend a Canon 350D ;)


Now you are going to lecture me on what true photography is?

DSLRs are great, dont get me wrong. However they are held up to be a some holy grail when infact the advantages over point and shoots (though there) are not as big as the pricetag would suggest. Not only are DSLRs a huge investment moneywise in bodies, they are an even bigger investment lens wise. The thousands of dollars you spen on making a proper arsenal are not really worth it.

As for co,ors done by Sony, they are realistic.

And as far as real photography goes, perhaps you should get educated in the various movements and streams in photography, be it photojournalistic to art photography before you spout your stupidities on what is and isnt "real" photography. Perhaps buy a book or two and read up on it.

P.S. Im not a DSLR user but I WAS an SLR user. And I DO know what Im talking about.

...The Nikon Coolpix series produces good quality images, but lack the extent of manual controls found on the Canon's....

Just to clarify. It all depends on the range of Nikon Coolpix models. The true P&S ones are for people who do not want to use PSAM controls and just want to snap and go, thus no manual functions. An example is Coolpix 4800. The prosumer range ones have PSAM controls and you can even set 30min BULB exposure time (using remote controller), WB, ISO, aperture etc. An example is Coolpix 8400.

*PSAM - Program, Shutter-Priority, Aperture-Priority and Manual.

DSLRs are great, dont get me wrong. However they are held up to be a some holy grail when infact the advantages over point and shoots (though there) are not as big as the pricetag would suggest. Not only are DSLRs a huge investment moneywise in bodies, they are an even bigger investment lens wise. The thousands of dollars you spen on making a proper arsenal are not really worth it.


I find this statement very hard to swallow given what pros in the field use.

I find this statement very hard to swallow given what pros in the field use.


You mean pros like Alex Majoli who used an Olympus C-8080 and C-5050 to cover Iraq and Afghanistan and who won many awards for his work? Oh, hes a Magnum photographer, and Magnum is the most prestigious agency in the business. Alex Majoli's example shows that DSLRs are NOT the only option. Point and shoots can be employed with very similar results as DSLRs.

Or you can just read this and stop trying to argue about things you dont know or from assumptions

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

What about

Canon Powershot A95
Panasonic lumix DMC-FX8
Sony DSC-P200 Silver

Now you are going to lecture me on what true photography is?

DSLRs are great, dont get me wrong. However they are held up to be a some holy grail when infact the advantages over point and shoots (though there) are not as big as the pricetag would suggest. Not only are DSLRs a huge investment moneywise in bodies, they are an even bigger investment lens wise. The thousands of dollars you spen on making a proper arsenal are not really worth it.

As for co,ors done by Sony, they are realistic.

And as far as real photography goes, perhaps you should get educated in the various movements and streams in photography, be it photojournalistic to art photography before you spout your stupidities on what is and isnt "real" photography. Perhaps buy a book or two and read up on it.

P.S. Im not a DSLR user but I WAS an SLR user. And I DO know what Im talking about.

I´m not lecturing you on anything. I´ve seen your photography, and its awesome. I´ve shot with my dad´s cam, a Sony F707, which as you´ll probably know as a Sony user, is a more upscale P&S, probably more like your camera. Comparing that to how I´m shooting now, I enjoy shooting so much more, just the edge of setting everything, and basically creating your own image in stead of pointing and shooting.

You cannot deny that Sony, and other P&S camera´s for that matter, process their images differently in-camera than a dSLR does, especially if you shoot RAW, although some p&s camera´s have the ability to shoot raw as well.

One other thing that comes out quality-wise when comparing dSLR vs P&S is the difference in performance when shooting at high ISO. I feel comfortable shooting at ISO 1600, should I need to, because I know it won´t ruin the photo.

As far as ´reading up on things´, I am fairly new to photography, so I wouldn´t mind reading a book or two about photography, do you have any advice on what books to read?

Also, why did you go to a P&S from SLR, in stead of a dSLR? Was cost the only reason? Just interested.

Actually, I was able to shoot with several types before committing, Nikon D70, Canon 20D, some P&S cameras and I found the quality of the pics to me of marginal difference. Taking into account the cost of building a proper DSLR aresnal of body plus lenses for the MINIMAL quality difference, it just made sense to go for a P&S. The way I take pictures is also more conducive to using a p&s. Carrying the whole dslr kit around with me as I did with an SLR just didnt appeal to me. With a P&S I can set up fast when a picture I want presents itself and Im interested in catching moments that are fleeing. With the Sony thats very easy and quick.

-delete

You know what Sunni? Forget it, I'm not even going to waste my time on you and your assumptions that I didn't read your pipe-dream posts.

BTW, you know what? By the time your beloved camera-phones reaches even the low-end digital camera qualities of yesterday, real cameras would have advanced far beyond what picture quality than we see today with them now. There's no point in arguing with someone who has a strange obsession with camera-phones over REAL cameras.
A pipe-dream? you think im dreaming?
I even posted a photo of the 7mp cameraphone with 3x optical zoom.

specs of the SCH-V770 CAMERAPHONE:
7.4 megapixle
3x optical zoom, 4.7x digital zoom
Shutter speed of 15sec~1/2,000sec
1/1.8" CCD
Scheneider optics.

http://kr.img.dc.yahoo.com/b0/data/news/NIS20050309142101259.jpg

I think this phones picture quality far surpasses any of these "low end cameras of yesterday".

^ guy, nobody gives a flying fuck about camera phones. Quit advertising that crap.

Koreanczyk, you said it yourself, it's a matter of convenience. If you're in an area that isn't suitable to carrying a dSLR and the whole kit of lenses lest you be mugged or shot, of course you go with a simple point and shoot.

Saying a dSLR doesn't offer better picture quality compared with a Sony Cybershot is just a completely stupid thing to say and seriously makes me question how much you do know about digital cameras.

^ guy, nobody gives a flying fuck about camera phones. Quit advertising that crap.

Advertise?
i was just proving you wrong.
And i just have proved you wrong. You just have nothing else to say,,

hp photosmart 435(my current camera)

What about

Canon Powershot A95
Panasonic lumix DMC-FX8
Sony DSC-P200 Silver

No one answered me ....pls can any one

Anniyan, try out this site

http://www.dcmag.co.uk/

The Sony Powershot series and the Pentax ones are the top brands and you can get a decent camera for under 250 !

I think unless you dont want to print big photos.. 5 mill pixel, with about 5x zoom would be a decent buy.. also check out if it has manual focussing and macro focus.. cos they might be very handy

Thanks, i decided to go for a 5 MP, but not sure which one to choose..im a beginner with lot of interest..i need a camera which is good for taking photos both in outdoor as well as indoor.

^ guy, nobody gives a flying fuck about camera phones. Quit advertising that crap.

Koreanczyk, you said it yourself, it's a matter of convenience. If you're in an area that isn't suitable to carrying a dSLR and the whole kit of lenses lest you be mugged or shot, of course you go with a simple point and shoot.

Saying a dSLR doesn't offer better picture quality compared with a Sony Cybershot is just a completely stupid thing to say and seriously makes me question how much you do know about digital cameras.


I said there is a difference but its not justified by the price of building a whole arsenal of body/lenses/accessories. A DSLR is a nice toy but there are professionals in the field using p&s cameras who realized that you dont need the phallic ego boost of carrying a huge camera with a huge lens to get exceptional photos.

so... (a question)..

with all these digital cameras, like, let's say, Canon Powershot S2IS or the others: if you go to max zoom, does the pic quality go really crap, or not at all?

I really want good quality :)

just avoid digital zoom.

All these damn numbers at dpreview.com.. it's a tiny bit confusing. So, let's, say, just compare a couple, and only a small comparison:

Canon PowerShot S2 IS
Max resolution 2592 x 1944
Low resolution 2048 x 1536, 1600 x 1200, 640 x 480
Effective pixels 5.0 million

Canon PowerShot SD500 :
Max resolution 3072 x 2304
Low resolution 2592 x 1944, 2048 x 1536, 1600 x 1200, 640 x 480
Effective pixels 7.1 million

Canon EOS 350D
Max resolution 3456 x 2304
Low resolution 2496 x 1664, 1728 x 1152
Effective pixels 8.0 million

For example: do these specs really tell you much.. like, which one is better.. or not necessarily that easy to determine just from that?

Overall, I'm leaning towards the S2 IS, I'm not sure why exactly. It has 5.0million compared with 7.1 million and others... >does 5.0 necessarily mean LESS quality? stupid question, gotta ask! Quality's important for me. I'm looking at http://www.dpreview.com . In your opinion, are there other specifications (as above) that stand out as ones to note?

oh yeah, and, cool about the digital zoom. When you recommend not using digital zoom, is that as in, don't use zoom? stupid question I know.. sorry!

the bottom line... essentially.. when I print out on photo paper sometime, say, from the S2 IS... is it going to be good quality, or noticably crappy 'from a digital camera' looking......? ;).. (and I guess: what resolution and above gets you a good quality print on paper, generally speaking)

use optical zoom. Avoid digital.

^ exactly, don't even take Digital zoom into account when choosing a camera. It's simply a computed zoom, something you could do in Photoshop.

Sunni, once again. You haven't proved a thing! You just spit out numbers and BS but is there an image taken with that camera hrmm? Quality of the photo is NOT in the MegaPixels after about 3MP, get that through your thick skull.

the thing for me, I love taking dusk/dawn shots...low light shots. You could almost say that's all I'm interested in doing, kind of!

I'm reading some reviews on dpreview.com and starting to question the whole digital thing. What's the imaging like? Are there big problems still in digital? Basically, I don't want to spend money to get worse picture quality (noise, artificial looking) than my old SLR

edit: add this quickly...out of: Panasonic FZ5, Canon S2 IS, Sony DSC-H1...
and any others you know about, which one is the best? :) And then there's the whole DSLR issue....> are they much better? Thanks

---
edit2: (after hyacinthus' next post!) ok cool! hey, glad you liked it! I gotta run.. thanks for your reply..! I'll get back to you! here it is!!
http://tinypic.com/6hicdy.jpg

hmmm... you removed your picture. It was rather nice. :)

This is a sample from Nikon D70 + Kit lens taken at 7:42pm (night) using long exposure of 192" and F16 on manual + ISO200.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2267/dsc51537bc.jpg
Above picture is just for reference.

...
edit: i'll add ths quickly...
out of:
Panasonic FZ5
Canon S2 IS
Sony DSC-H1...


Out of the 3 above, my preference is Panasonic Lumix FZ5. I have a FZ20.


...and totally any others you know about, which one is the best? :)... and then there's the whole DSLR issue....> are they much better? Thanks


If you like taking twilight/night pictures (alright no matter is a P&S or DSLR, a tripod with remote/cable release is a must), I would recommend a DSLR or at least a P&S with manual mode and allow BULB (for long exposure). If you are concerned about noise and not considering using noise-reduction software like NEAT, I would recommend a DSLR.

Yes... a DSLR is heavy comparatively. But, it's not too warm at night to carry a DSLR body, lens and tripod. I guess a guy should not complain that much about the DSLR weight since a girl like me can do it.

@fox1
Some more sample pictures for your reference in this thread http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=233405

Post #1 first 3 pics are taken using Canon 350D (DSLR)
Post #1 next 2 pics are taken using Canon 10D (DSLR)
Post #2 first 8 pics are taken using Panasonic Lumix FZ20 at maximum optical zoom (digital zoom was disabled.)
Post #8 fireworks pic was taken using Nikon D70 (DSLR)

Hope it's useful for you :)

wow..!! they're all amazing photos! especially your shot:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7127/dsc72643xl.jpg

here in Osaka, cameras are a little cheaper..

I love the shots from your Nikon D70 and the Panasonic Lumix FZ20! I'll try the FZ20's at the stores here where you can sample as much as you like!

the Canon PowerShot Pro1 also seems to be one of the best Canon P&S's?

Sunni, once again. You haven't proved a thing! You just spit out numbers and BS but is there an image taken with that camera hrmm? Quality of the photo is NOT in the MegaPixels after about 3MP, get that through your thick skull.
I mentioned it uses a Scheneider Lens with a 1/1.8" CCD,,, Scheneider is one the the top 3 optic brands in the world :sleepy: and 1/1.8 CCD is good in any pocket cameras point of view,,,,
Learn more about cameras mate;)
hmmm,,, this is the photos taken with various camera phones...

http://img228.echo.cx/img228/8261/dsc00499801x6010ik.jpg

http://img224.echo.cx/img224/5531/dsc004083dn.jpg

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/9128/dsc00254800x6009ry.jpg

http://img154.echo.cx/img154/9128/dsc00254800x6009ry.jpg

:|

:yawn:

I'm sorry, were those suppose to be impressive?

ye impressive for a camera phone DUHHH!!!!!! :bash:

:|

:yawn:

I'm sorry, were those suppose to be impressive?
they were by the 2mp sony ericsson K750i ;)
not the Samsung 7mp...cos i dont have the 7mp phone,,,,

ye impressive for a camera phone DUHHH!!!!!! :bash:

Oh yes oops, how stupid of me! But then again.. nobody here actually wants a camera phone other than Sunni!

Actually, those camera phones that can record some video turned out to be pretty useful in getting film of some of the bombers in the London Underground attack.

What about a Kodak EasyShare CX7330 with Printer Dock... its pretty cool when your in a rush hour... I have it and its been cool :D

Out of the 3 above, my preference is Panasonic Lumix FZ5. I have a FZ20.

As I said earlier in that thread, the FZ5 is the bridge you need:
- 5 MP
- Stabilization system so you can take pictures indoor without having to use the flash (better colors)
- 12x zoom
- Very good night pictures
- good lenses (Leica)
- Just the price you want to spend
- Can be very easy to use in simple modes, but you can also set everything independently in other modes.

http://tinypic.com/9qcrgw.jpg
anyone know when the FZ30 is coming to the stores... or if it's already in some stores in some places.

Here in Japan, it doesn't seem to be in the big camera stores