Digital Cameras:

[Spastik_Roach]

Hey everybody.

Soon i'm gunna be in the market for a digital camera and I want your guys opinions on what I should get. My Budget is NZ 500 dollars (Preferably a bit under) which is 286 Euro, 356 US Dollars and 189 pounds.

I've got my eye on this (http://www.noelleeming.co.nz/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=44453&crumb=10003-10066-10073) because it has alot of zoom (My mum wants lots of zoom and its got to appeal to her) and it seems to be a generally good camera.

Any suggestions or opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[McReis]

Always go for a Sony, no matter what they tell you. Sony's are great, complete and easy to work with.
Technically they don't seem that much appart form others, but when you a see the pics... it just can't be compared...

[Spastik_Roach]

http://www.noelleeming.co.nz/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=39414&crumb=10003-10066-10073

This one is in my budget... zoom doesn't seem very good though...

[Matt]

Always go for a Sony, no matter what they tell you. Sony's are great, complete and easy to work with.
Technically they don't seem that much appart form others, but when you a see the pics... it just can't be compared...

As far as automatics go, I completely agree.

[nopassn]

Always go for a Sony, no matter what they tell you. Sony's are great, complete and easy to work with.
Technically they don't seem that much appart form others, but when you a see the pics... it just can't be compared...

I agree also. I've used several canon and kodaks, as well as a few other brands... I've owned 2 Sony cameras (DSC-S50 and DSC-P7) and used 3 other Sony cameras (Mavica CD-500, F717, F828) and I've got to say - the only camera that I find takes better (overall) pics is my Nikon D100 (which is SUBSTANTIALLY more camera) - bottom line: go with the Sony, you won't be dissappointed.

[Spastik_Roach]

I'll make sure I take a good look at all Sony's...

[VtecMini]

Spastik, that Fuji that you're looking at is the one I have, I think it's great. The only thing is that it only comes with 16mb of memory. Which as I'm sure you're aware, is sod all. The camera only accepts Fuji memory, which costs around twice as much as an equivalent sized SD card.

I think it's a pretty great camera for the money, it doesn't do stupidly huge resolutions, but then I don't think they're really necessary, 4 million pixels is enough for anybody. It is quite bulky and doesn't come with a bag to put it in, so you'll either have to put the neckstrap (supplied) on and have it dangling round your neck, or have a backpack or something to keep putting it in. I'd take a picture of mine with something next to it for scale... but I can't actually think how... :)

Here's a few pics I've taken with it. They're not great, but that's more down to me than the camera. A few came out rather nice.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.tyler3/stmsl/
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.tyler3/classic/

[Spastik_Roach]

Damn only accepts Fuji memory, that sucks :(

[McReis]

http://www.noelleeming.co.nz/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=39414&crumb=10003-10066-10073

This one is in my budget... zoom doesn't seem very good though...

That one has the problem of having a digital zoom and not analogic, I guess.
Try to find a store wich has an older model. Models that are no longer in production. It's usual to find them here. They get cheaper but most have Carl Zeiss lens.
Anyway, other makes dont seem to be keeping sony's pace. But if you think of another make, then Olympus is good.
I'd advise you a Sony P93 if it wasn't out of your budget. It costs a bit more, but it's a very, very good machine.

[McReis]

I agree also. I've used several canon and kodaks, as well as a few other brands... I've owned 2 Sony cameras (DSC-S50 and DSC-P7) and used 3 other Sony cameras (Mavica CD-500, F717, F828) and I've got to say - the only camera that I find takes better (overall) pics is my Nikon D100 (which is SUBSTANTIALLY more camera) - bottom line: go with the Sony, you won't be dissappointed.

What do you think of the F828? Your Nikon is a very serious machine... ;)

[nopassn]

if you'd like to see some pics taken with my cameras visit my website: www.rjdigital.net (a shameless plug, but it has a good selection of pics of different subjects in a variety of lightning situations)

[Matt]

What do you think of the F828? Your Nikon is a very serious machine... ;)

I think for the same money, you should step up to a fully manual. The F828 tries to look and act like a manual, but strips you of that oh-so-important control.

[Matt]

if you'd like to see some pics taken with my cameras visit my website: www.rjdigital.net (a shameless plug, but it has a good selection of pics of different subjects in a variety of lightning situations)

And it still doesn't have my goddamn MG pic on it!!!

[McReis]

I think for the same money, you should step up to a fully manual. The F828 tries to look and act like a manual, but strips you of that oh-so-important control.

For the kind of use that a total amatteur does, you can't ask for more.
And a manual sometimes doesn't have little gizmos of the automatics that help you to get it right all the time. And the 828 is manual enough for my photo knowledge...:)
I'm happy with it, and only wanted to know the oppinion of a conoisseur like nopassn. Not yours! :D:D:D

[nopassn]

the 828 is a serious as it gets for a manu-matic, would-be-dSLR... but if you want/need/desire the full control that is offered with a dSLR, you might as well get one, as the cost jump to dSLR from the 828 is not too huge. Especially when you are already spending that much money... but, the 828 is a nice-ass camera... I've been thinking about canning my Sony-P7 as a back-up and getting the 828... but it a lot of money for a "back-up" camera...

[nopassn]

And it still doesn't have my goddamn MG pic on it!!!

yes, well, if the would-be site designer would get off his ass, I'd have a "cars section" and then, I could get the hard drive with all those pics going and add it on... :rolleyes:

[pimento]

If you need zoom, avoid digital zoom, you can just do that in Photoshop if you have to. I have an Olympus C-750, that has a 10x optical zoom and full manual possibilities, as well as a nice auto mode. It's been replaced now buy the C-770 I think, which has proper mpeg movie recording as well. The downside is that the only memory card is takes is xD cards, and and it doesn't recharge its own batteries. Doesn't even come with rechargables in fact, and you need good rechargeables for a camera. Great picture quality though. I saw some pics taken on some pocket Canon camera once which were amazing too.

[P3RG4R3C]

http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-z10/index.html
I have this camera since summer. I'm completely satisfied with it and is very good for about €300. But you only get a 16MB SD card with it, so I bought a new one (256MB, for about 200 pictures on highest resolution and quality, and 2200 pictures on lowest resolution and quality). So, I'm very pleased with it.

[SPHFerrari]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons1is/
i started with this, the pwoershot S1 IS.

it has 3.2 megapixels, and 10 times OPTICAL zoom. as someone said dont even look at the digital zoom cuz the quality is crappy when u use it. it has all the ease of use as any point and shoot, but you can switch to full manual and control shutter speed, aperture value, and almost any other thing you will want. it provides great results i think.
heres some of my pics ive taken with it: http://supercarfreak.net/gallery/album1020
also, a feature i aprticularly like it the swivel lcd screen. it allows you to get low down shots without lying on the ground and overhead shots without climbing a ladder or jsut guessing.

before you buy anything, read up on it here:
http://www.dpreview.com/
they have great detailed reviews and you should definately read it if ur thinking of getting a particular camera. it will give u a much better idea fo what you can do with it than a store description will, and it has sample pictures for many if not all of the cameras.

now then theres a dslr, which is way out of your price range. but for those thinking of getting one, i definately recomend the canon 300D/Digital rebel. of course if your willing to pay mroe money there are also other alternatives.

[Rockefella]

I'll just repeat what SPH said about zoom. If you want zoom, you need optical zoom. Digital zoom is just like the magnifying glass in photoshop, only enlarges it. Optical is actually the use of the lenses in the camera magnifying whatever you're about to shoot.

[nopassn]

yep - digital zoom is rubbish and www.dpreview.com is an EXCELLENT site, and full of valuable info...

[SPHFerrari]

yea, my knowledge of photography and how to use my cam has multiplied since i started going to the 300D forums in dpreview. definately check it out.

[Spastik_Roach]

Thanks guys.. today i'm gunna go in to town and have a look at a few cameras. I'll take your advice into consideration :)

[Blitz_]

Well i do some part time photography for some ppl i know, and i use a traditional Nikkormat, so far ive compared it with most of the best digital cameras and the picture quality i get is still better than them.

Digital cameras are still being outperformed by the traditional cameras, more so the classic models such as the Nikkormats which are worth quite a bit, i only got my hands on one becuase my dad owned it, its worth around $8K AUS.

What im trying to say is that, the camera is only as good as the lens, dont worry about all the bells and whistles, a good lense will make sure its a good picture, along with the fact taht u have to be prety smart at taking a photo :D

Digital cameras arent what thier all hyped up to be, i watched a news report on TV the other night comparing older cameras and digital cameras, thier is very little difference, and i dont need a digital camera to check on my shots coz i never make a mistake taking a photo - well rarely anyway.

So dont think digital immediately, sure they may sound great, but u must think off all types of cameras u can by, id buying a traditional camera, but a Nikkormat, but theyll set u back alot, their da cream of the crop

[Spastik_Roach]

Nah I want a digital. I want the pics to be able to go on to my PC easily and I don't have/need/want a scanner. As long as the pics are reasonabley good quality I don't mind, I don't need absolutely perfect pics.

[nopassn]

Well i do some part time photography for some ppl i know, and i use a traditional Nikkormat, so far ive compared it with most of the best digital cameras and the picture quality i get is still better than them.

Digital cameras are still being outperformed by the traditional cameras, more so the classic models such as the Nikkormats which are worth quite a bit, i only got my hands on one becuase my dad owned it, its worth around $8K AUS.

What im trying to say is that, the camera is only as good as the lens, dont worry about all the bells and whistles, a good lense will make sure its a good picture, along with the fact taht u have to be prety smart at taking a photo :D

Digital cameras arent what thier all hyped up to be, i watched a news report on TV the other night comparing older cameras and digital cameras, thier is very little difference, and i dont need a digital camera to check on my shots coz i never make a mistake taking a photo - well rarely anyway.

So dont think digital immediately, sure they may sound great, but u must think off all types of cameras u can by, id buying a traditional camera, but a Nikkormat, but theyll set u back alot, their da cream of the crop

well, your general blanket satement doesn't work... it all comes down to what you're gonna do with the camera... if you want decent pics a 3.2+ point and shoot digi cam is fine... I don't think the full manual settings and options on my dSLR are "bells and whistles" - that's a bit over the top... as far as professional a lot of pro's use a full-frame or medium format body with a digital back these days... what you want to do with your pics really determines what kind of camera you need...

[Spastik_Roach]

I just saw a Kodak Easyshare CX7530 in a ad. 100 Dollars NZ under my budget and its got 5 megapixels, 3X optical zoom, 32mbs internal memory, SD/MMC expansion slot, 5 scene modes, continuous video with audio...

Seems like a pretty damn good deal to me!

[SPHFerrari]

3x optical is not very much. you will soon find yourself wishing you had more zoom. and 32mb is rubbish. thatll store a very small number of pics. especially on 5 mp

[Spastik_Roach]

Ok I went and had a look, I think i've narrowed it down to about 4 cameras

A Canon, A Sony Cybershot, that Fuji one I posted in the first post (I'm considering it again now because the memory is often half price at the store) and the Kodak one.

[Mdbgtft]

What i have now is the Kodak Easyshare CX7300. Cost is RM480 (69 pounds). 3.2 Megapixels, 3X Zoom. I want a new one because very fast battery finish. Only 2hrs battery died

[Spastik_Roach]

Bringing back this thread..

Just looked at a review of a Cannon Powershot A85 and it seems to be a damn good camera. Its either that or the Fuji, but the Fuji doesn't have sound with the movies :(

[henk4]

Well i do some part time photography for some ppl i know, and i use a traditional Nikkormat, so far ive compared it with most of the best digital cameras and the picture quality i get is still better than them.

Digital cameras are still being outperformed by the traditional cameras, more so the classic models such as the Nikkormats which are worth quite a bit, i only got my hands on one becuase my dad owned it, its worth around $8K AUS.

What im trying to say is that, the camera is only as good as the lens, dont worry about all the bells and whistles, a good lense will make sure its a good picture, along with the fact taht u have to be prety smart at taking a photo :D

Digital cameras arent what thier all hyped up to be, i watched a news report on TV the other night comparing older cameras and digital cameras, thier is very little difference, and i dont need a digital camera to check on my shots coz i never make a mistake taking a photo - well rarely anyway.

So dont think digital immediately, sure they may sound great, but u must think off all types of cameras u can by, id buying a traditional camera, but a Nikkormat, but theyll set u back alot, their da cream of the crop

Interesting comment, and I think on the basis of pure technical quality classic cameras are somehow still superior, of course depending on the lense quality. However, the main advantage of using digital cameras lies in the possibility to keep on shooting without having to worry about new film or slide rolls, developing costs and ultimately printing costs. An average weekend at the races will result in 1500-2000 pics and I just don't want to calculate the expenses if I had to fully develop and print only a fraction of that. In the interest of economy I am happy to sacrifice the minute qualitative superiority that good conventional cameras can still provide.

In case you want to make a small series of high quality pictures, you may want to use one, but for mass production (and at a very high quality level as well) digital cameras are greatly preferable.

[<AAA-MOD>]

Interesting comment, and I think on the basis of pure technical quality classic cameras are somehow still superior, of course depending on the lense quality. However, the main advantage of using digital cameras lies in the possibility to keep on shooting without having to worry about new film or slide rolls, developing costs and ultimately printing costs. An average weekend at the races will result in 1500-2000 pics and I just don't want to calculate the expenses if I had to fully develop and print only a fraction of that. In the interest of economy I am happy to sacrifice the minute qualitative superiority that good conventional cameras can still provide.

In case you want to make a small series of high quality pictures, you may want to use one, but for mass production (and at a very high quality level as well) digital cameras are greatly preferable.

The ultimate blending of traditional and digital is as nopassn mentioned; traditional format bodies/lenses with digital backs instead of film magazines. I moved through the digital ranks from a Nikon Coolpix 995 (3mp), to a Sony F717 (5mp), to a Canon 20D (8mp), and have assisted my brother-in-law with his business using a Hasselblad medim format and a Phase One 16mp pro-back. he would be the first to say that his biggest advantage is production costs. he's a commercial photographer and therefore every picture reuires some editing of some sort. with the film, it meant taking a lot more pictures, not knowing exactly what he was getting, and then developing and scanning.

In my opinion, without taking equipment cost into the argument, seeing as a Hasselblad is top-knotch with film or digital (but very pricey), the only legitimate argument between film and digital now is post-production. If you're shooting film and developing your own work, there's some great results to be had with chemicals/timing, etc. otherwise, digital is dealt with in Photoshop.