What family camera should I buy?

[Chrissie]

Budget: I'd prefer to spend as little as possible, but could justify spending up to £350

Size: Not that fussed, as long as it will fit into my Mary Popins sized handbag!

Features:
* The more megapixels the better quality the picture, yes? So the more the better, I suppose.

* We're going to be touring California, so lots of scenic pictue opportunities. What sort of zoom will that need? I'm useless at this, aren't I?

* Image quality is important to me. Things like red eye, dark indoor shots and blurring, are frustrating to say the least. So, on a scale of 1, lowest and 10, highest, I'd say image quality is an 8.

* I'd prefer things to be mostly point and click, but if the compromise between an adequate and a good camera was to have manual controls, I'd accept them.

General Usage

* Photographing family life, son's football matches, family bbq's, holidays, local coastal and Sussex Downs scenery... (not sure if capturing some thunderstorms at night would be a whole other kettle of camera)

* I've just bought an Epson 4490 photo scanner to get all pre-digital prints on-line, and after that I'll be printing pictures for framing, albums etc.

* I want to shoot indoor and in low light, as well as the general outdoor stuff.

*See above. My son is a football player and all round sportsman. So I want to catch him in action!

Miscellaneous

* I've had disasterous experiences with Pentax and will never buy another of their products. No particular preferences of other brands, though.

*The three people have recommended to me are: Nikkon D50, Canon IXUS750 and the Canon EOS350D. The IXUS750 is the cheapest, but I'm worried I'll be sacrificing something if I go for it.

No special features needed. However, I want something that charges up and lasts a fair while, and is easy to download onto my laptop. Preferably idiot proof.

[DonSchap]

The Canon Powershot S3 - covers a lot of the bases

Give it a peek
http://dcresource.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php?masterid=17657005

And there it is... :D

[AlexMonro]

The Nikon D50 and Canon EOS350D are both Digital SLRs - Single Lens Reflex - which is generally a rather "better" camera than the IXUS750 - in the sense that they're capable of taking higher quality pictures under a wider range of conditions.

However, the main charateristic of DSLRs is that they have interchangeable lenses, and so the price of the camera usually doesn't include a lens, or only a fairly basic "kit" lens. To get the best quality out of the camera, you need to fork out for at least 2 or 3 good lenses, at several hundred, maybe thousand, quid each. This rapidly starts exceeding your budget, which would only just about cover the basic camera body, without any lens at all.

You say you don't know what zoom range you want, but you mention scenic landscapes, which often are best with a wide angle, and action sports shots, which usually need a long telephoto, so it seems like since a full DSLR is going to be beyond your budget (especially with that lens range) you're looking at a DSLR-like ultrazoom bridge (to use most of the buzzwords associated with cameras like the Canon Powershot S3 IS, Panasonic Lumix FZ7, and many similar models).

You also mention wanting to shoot indoors in low light, which is something that many of this type of cameras don't do so well, often requiring high ISO sensitivity settings which intoce noise or speccling to the pictures. Some cameras have image stabilisation, however this doesn't help with motion blur when the subject is moving, but Fuji seem to be good at making sensors with good sensitivity and relatively low noise.

So if moving subjects in low light is important, I'd recommend the Fuji S9500, which has a 28mm equiv wide angle, which will help you get landscape pictures with the feel of the wide open spaces. However, that's just on the limit of your budget, and by the time you've added a memory card (virtually no manufacturer includes a memory card big enough to be usable) and a set of rechargeable batteries (preferably 2) and charger, you're looking at another 30-50 quid on top. In which case the Fuji S5600 might be a better choice. It's only 5Mpixels against the 9500's 9MP, but that's still enough for good prints at least up to A4, and it only goes out to 38mm equiv at the wide end of the zoom.

If you're only taking static shots in low light, and the action shots are mainly in bright light, the Panasonic FZ7 might be better. It can take pictures one after the other more rapidly than the Fuji, can focus more rapidly, and has image stabilisation, which helps keep the camera steady for slow shutter speeds in low light.

The Canon S3 is a bit of an in between, and has what I consider to be an advantage over the Panasonic (shared by the Fujis) of using standard AA-type batteries, as opposed to an expensive proprietary Li-ion power pack. Rechargeable AAs and chargers are easily & inexpensively available.

All these cameras have auto exposure modes, which simplifies some things, but such versative equipment still takes a bit of work to get the best from it - not quite as much as a DSLR though!

[Vich]

Don't be bothered by pixel count. 5MP and 9MP, both serve you equally. In fact, 9MP is a lot bigger computer file and it's likely you'll reduce it anyway.

For low light, its a battle between IS (Image Stabilization) and high ISO performance (equiv. to fast film). None of the Point and Shoot (P&S) cameras have both. IS has the added advantage of helping in good lighting situations.

My vote would go for IS, since you'll get more great shots outdoors and OK shots indoors.

Luckily your son is into outdoor sports. Are they daytime too? You won't be able to take many nighttime football shots with a P&S camera anyway, and even with a DSLR, you need expensive lenses.

Don't know the current lineup of cameras too much. The Panasonic gets a lot of raves, the Canon S2 was on top but now the Canon S3 ... donno. The Fuji's (most of them) have near-DSLR High ISO performance but no IS. The new Fuju F30 got a great review here, but it doesn't zoom much. Great looking purse camera.

My sister-in-law is clueless about cameras and just got a Sony ultra-slim and just loves it. She'll get red-eye on night shots, but just loves the convenience and huge LCD display. For what it's worth. I'd never expect a slim-line to cover a football game, but Mary Poppins would love it.

[JTL]

Imagine someone recommending a 350D or D50 to a noob looking for a "point & click" "purse" camera...it boggles the mind. I'd like to know exactly how many unused SLRs are sitting on shelves right now. Think about all that money going to charity instead!

And, a comparision between the IXUS750 and a DLSR (350D and D50) is like a comparison between a tricycle and a Ferrari...both are vehicles, but that's about it...

I gotta stop reading this stuff...

[JMWallace]

Imagine someone recommending a 350D or D50 to a noob looking for a "point & click" "purse" camera...it boggles the mind. I'd like to know exactly how many unused SLRs are sitting on shelves right now. Think about all that money going to charity instead!

And, a comparision between the IXUS750 and a DLSR (350D and D50) is like a comparison between a tricycle and a Ferrari...both are vehicles, but that's about it...

I gotta stop reading this stuff...

:p giggles at JTL!!!

I am with Don, you would not be at all disappointed by the Canon Powershot S3 IS.

[cwphoto]

Just be aware that red-eye is unavoidable with cameras of this nature.:(

[Leo S]

If I remember my Mary Poppins right, you do have room for an ultra zoom compact, like the Canon S3 or Sony H2. Why not check them out in a store?

My experience photographing football - I suppose you mean real football, the sort some call soccer ;) - is that you really need a good tele, like the two cameras mentioned have. A regular 3x zoom is not enough. And with IS you should be able to take good sports pics.

The Panasonic cameras, while well built in general, are said to add much noise to low light pictures, a disadvantage in your case.

As to red eyes, they're hard to avoid, but cameras with so called pop-up flashes, where the flash rises up a bit from the lens produces less red eyes. Like the Canon, Sony and Panasonic FZ7 have. Cameras with the flash close to the lens are worse in this case.

Must add to the landscape advices: landscapes in some cases turns out better if photographed with a tele angle. So when that beautiful scenery lies before you, try different zoom settings. And try involving a subject close to the camera to increase the feeling of depht.

[cwphoto]

And with IS you should be able to take good sports pics.

IS is kinda useless for most sports pictures.

[Leo S]

IS is kinda useless for most sports pictures.

Maybe so, but I was thinking of the IS replacing the tripod Chrissie can't carry in her Mary Poppins bag. Of course the IS won't freeze the action of the players, but at a football game, if you get shutter times slower than, say 1/350 and your using focal lengths like 250-350 mm (eq), the IS makes it easier to hold the camera steadily.

I've heard you always got bright sunlight in Australia, but that's not the case in Britain or Sweden.. ;)

But if I'm all wrong, I'll take back my statement..:confused:

[cwphoto]

Maybe so, but I was thinking of the IS replacing the tripod Chrissie can't carry in her Mary Poppins bag. Of course the IS won't freeze the action of the players, but at a football game, if you get shutter times slower than, say 1/350 and your using focal lengths like 250-350 mm (eq), the IS makes it easier to hold the camera steadily.

I've heard you always got bright sunlight in Australia, but that's not the case in Britain or Sweden.. ;)

But if I'm all wrong, I'll take back my statement..:confused:

I guess it could help when zoomed all the way out for those times when she may want or need to use less than 1/500s - but at lower than 1/500s subject movement becomes an issue anyway.

I just turn it off to prolong battery life for field sports.

[Chrissie]

Wow Alex! So much information and, for a photography idiot, I understood nearly all of it! Thank you so much, I really appreciate the time and thought you've given to my query. You're quite right, the cost of lenses means that the SDLRs are outside of my budget. But I'm going to check out the Fuji and Panasonics you've mentioned. Hopefully, I'll be able to master something not too technical. Patience, is a word that springs to mind.... it's not one that normally one would associate with me, though.

:)

[Chrissie]

Imagine someone recommending a 350D or D50 to a noob looking for a "point & click" "purse" camera...it boggles the mind...

I'm a "noob"!? OMG, there's a noun just for me! Is that bad? Worse, is it contageous? *Chrissie crawls into Mary Popins bag and hides*

[Chrissie]

If I remember my Mary Poppins right, you do have room for an ultra zoom compact, like the Canon S3 or Sony H2. Why not check them out in a store?

;) *lol* I'm actually hiding inside my rather fetching Mary Popins bag at the moment. Apparently (see reply above somewhere's), I'm a "noob" (?), and it's made me all self conscious and shy.

I notice you recommend camera's different to your own. I presume that's because of my budget?

I like that you and Alex have talked in a language that a noobie like me can understand. I intend to add your rec's to the one's Alex has mentioned. Hopefully, I'll arrive at a final decision by Saturday. I need to get buying pdq... holiday looms.

[JTL]

I'm a "noob"!? OMG, there's a noun just for me! Is that bad? Worse, is it contageous? *Chrissie crawls into Mary Popins bag and hides*Sorry...my comment was meant as more of a general observation that very few people seem to actually listen to the stated requirements when giving people advice! You know, the same people who tell others that they need all-wheel-drive for their station car...or that they need a $200.00 pot to boil spaghetti in...

[Chrissie]

Sorry...my comment was meant as more of a general observation that very few people seem to actually listen to the stated requirements when giving people advice! You know, the same people who tell others that they need all-wheel-drive for their station car...or that they need a $200.00 pot to boil spaghetti in...

Don't apologise, please. I totally understood what you meant. My post was just my attempt at humour. I found you cotc attitude refreshing. I was tickled that I could lay claim to a new title. ;)

[Vich]

IS is kinda useless for most sports pictures.
Camera shake at 420mm EFL, esp. on a tiny camera, would have the major giggles that nothing below 1/500th exposure time would stop. Does this sound right to you?

Major downside I'd see is panning, a liklyhood for sports. Without the advanced mode-2 IS that disables trying to correct the pan motion, it could make for odd results.

Chrissie: Oh, Mary Popins has a large purse. Of course, how very practical. I think she pulled lamps and hat racks from it. So then, a nice superzoom would be OK. Still half the size of a DSLR, and 1/10th the size of a DSLR with 420mm (EFL) lens attached.

I must ask, are these games during daylight? If so, then one of Panasonic FZ30, Sony H5, or Canon S3 superzooms with IS would seem a natural.

All have pop-up flashes to reduce red-eye, and if its a real sticking point, the Panasonic supports an external flash that would eliminate red-eye altogether, although I don't believe it's a big issue with either of these.

It's got a couple of nice features having AA batteries and of a huge 3" LCD.

All 3 sound really Mom-friendly. I won't pretend to know much more than that, particularly what one I would recommend to someone. None of them are outright lemons and there's some trade-offs (low-light / high ISO performance, allowing external flash, LCD resolution, viewfinder usability, batteries, special lens elements for better quality, etc).

All have IS and approximately the same zoom range. Surely, any of these 3 would satisfy most of your requirement.

[cwphoto]

Camera shake at 420mm EFL, esp. on a tiny camera, would have the major giggles that nothing below 1/500th exposure time would stop. Does this sound right to you?

Yeah but you wanna be over 1/500s for field sports most of the time anyway, so IS becomes a bit redundant.

[cdifoto]

Yeah but you wanna be over 1/500s for field sports most of the time anyway, so IS becomes a bit redundant.

I would venture to say that even 1/500th is pushing it to stop most action. Maybe at the climax or rest of some movements but the peak stuff...doubt it.

Photographers don't spend $6800 on a 400mm f/2.8 PRIME lens for the sheer joy of spending cash...

[DonSchap]

will crank out a 1/3200sec 432mm f3.5 shot with IS! There is nothing that can do that, in the DSLR line up! Not even my 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ a 1.4x T/C attached. Then, I am at f/4!

If you don't think the S3 is a formidible solution... you had best rethink your suggestion. I am so convinced... I bought one, ABOUT THREE HOURS AGO! :eek:

Mary Pop-that! LOL. It is my suggestion, Chrissie and I'm stickin' by it. Yes, I am recommending something I own. :cool: Still... I hate to think I have to own every "educated" suggestion I make. :(

[cwphoto]

will crank out a 1/3200sec 432mm f3.5 shot with IS! There is nothing that can do that, in the DSLR line up! Not even my 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ a 1.4x T/C attached. Then, I am at f/4!(

...um, what bout a 300mm f/2.8 IS Don?

[JTL]

Don't apologise, please. I totally understood what you meant. My post was just my attempt at humour. I found you cotc attitude refreshing. I was tickled that I could lay claim to a new title. ;)LOL...and just look at the thread, BTW...it's a virtual geek fest! Sure a lot of people threw around a lot of fancy terms...and tried to show off their "knowledge"...but did it help you with your decision? I thought not...

Better to read some threads and PM those whose opinions seem to make sense to you...;)

[cdifoto]

will crank out a 1/3200sec 432mm f3.5 shot with IS! There is nothing that can do that, in the DSLR line up!

Only if you have enough light. ;) Of course the shutter lag would get ya...

[Vich]

I would venture to say that even 1/500th is pushing it to stop most action. Maybe at the climax or rest of some movements but the peak stuff...doubt it.

Photographers don't spend $6800 on a 400mm f/2.8 PRIME lens for the sheer joy of spending cash...Still, hand holding at 430mm will have some serious shaken goin' on for a tiny camera like that. 1/500th would be pushing it to cancel that shake.

My point ws just that IS is not useless for sports. Here's (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1643556&postcount=29)an interesting POTN post on that matter. To quote CyberDyneSystem "On longer focal lengths.. IS helps a good deal waaaaaaay beyond the 1 focal length rule." Just his opinion - I actually lack the experience to say for sure, unlike you 2 (CW and CDI).

Can see your point though, using something with better high ISO would allow for 1/2000th shutter speed. Beats IS at 1/500th, albiet lesser image quality. If you had to choose, probably better ISO performance wins because it also stops the action, but saying IS doesn't help is (gulp) false. There will be many cases were it helps at long tele, and many "action" shots where 1/500th will work just fine.

Any way you look at it, a superzoom from far-off just isn't going to measure up to a serious setupm, but might just satisfy a mom on a budget wanting a relatively compact camera for some OK shots.

[cwphoto]

Still, hand holding at 430mm will have some serious shaken goin' on for a tiny camera like that. 1/500th would be pushing it to cancel that shake.

My point ws just that IS is not useless for IS. Here's (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1643556&postcount=29)an interesting POTN post on that matter. To quote CyberDyneSystem "On longer focal lengths.. IS helps a good deal waaaaaaay beyond the 1 focal length rule." Just his opinion - I actually lack the experience to say for sure, unlike you 2 (CW and CDI).

Can see your point though, using something with better high ISO would allow for 1/2000th shutter speed. Beats IS at 1/500th, albiet lesser image quality. If you had to choose, probably better ISO performance wins because it also stops the action, but saying IS doesn't help is (gulp) false. There will be many cases were it helps at long tele, and many "action" shots where 1/500th will work just fine.

Any way you look at it, a superzoom from far-off just isn't going to measure up to a serious setupm, but might just satisfy a mom on a budget wanting a relatively compact camera for some OK shots.

I dunno Vich, there's a few hard-core sports guys over at FM who reckon it's best left off for their purposes. I leave it off for field-sports because I'm normally over 1/1000s with a monopod - the IS can be a little annoying with the stop/start and whirring etc, plus it drains the battery a fair bit.

I see your point on the P&S though for general stuff, plus if the user is super-shaky.

[Vich]

I dunno Vich, there's a few hard-core sports guys over at FM who reckon it's best left off for their purposes. I leave it off for field-sports because I'm normally over 1/1000s with a monopod - the IS can be a little annoying with the stop/start and whirring etc, plus it drains the battery a fair bit.

I see your point on the P&S though for general stuff, plus if the user is super-shaky.
One of the points raised in that potn thread was that it's not 1/1000th shutter speed. It's 1/1000th exposure time.

The shutter is actually 1/250th, with a slit created that causes a 1/1000th exposure time for each pixel. IS addresses the source of the problem, the shake. Less exposure time addresses the symptom. I know, it's splitting hairs. Also; when it goes into "tripod mode" it doesn't shut off, it actually goes into a special mode that might address minute shakes on the tripod. I don't know if this is only true on 500mm like lenses (super teles), but sounded good to me.

The whirring and battery drain - as well as seeing good results without the dang thing, is your experience talking. I'm obviously not in a position to argue the point.

Guess, for the purposes of this thread, its safe to say that IS is a good thing to have on a consumer superzoom - it's just too bad it's not combined with really good high-ISO image quality. Com'on Fuji, add some IS already!

I dunno Vich, there's a few hard-core sports guys over at FM who reckon it's best left off for their purposes.
Yeah, I've been listening to the nature folks holed up in Antarctica shooting those fast moving pinguins. I 'tinky UB right - Drrrrr! My measly 1 year of serious experience shining thru here.

Logic and deduction (and a fair amount of assumption) can only carry us so far, unfortunately down the wrong road sometimes. Ahhh well, another lesson learned. No IS needed for sports if you have a nice tripod or monopod - just maybe nice to have if a birdy lands on the ball.

[DonSchap]

...um, what bout a 300mm f/2.8 IS Don?

Aren't we talking nearly $5000 worth of glass? That's just pocket or chump-change to Chrissie with the Mary Poppins bag of tricks, right?

13280

Ain't it a glorious day?
Right as a mornin' in May
I feel like I could fly
'Ave you ever seen the grass so green?
Or a bluer sky?

Oh, it's a jolly 'oliday with Mary
Mary makes your 'eart so light!
When the day is gray and ordinary
Mary makes the sun shine bright!
Oh, 'appiness is bloomin' all around 'er
The daffodils are smilin' at the dove
When Mary 'olds your 'and you feel so grand
Your 'eart starts beatin' like a big brass band
It's a jolly 'oliday with Mary
No wonder that it's Mary that we love!

Look... it isn't rocket science. I believe the gal would be hard pressed to out live the qualities the Canon Powershot S3 IS offers. This really is some kind of camera... well worth the measily $500.

Go get one Chrissie... and let us KNOW! :D

[cdifoto]

For what it's worth, I have seen some nice results from the S2IS and S3IS cameras.

[Vich]

I had this opportunity to gaze the specs of the 3 main superzoom IS competitors (Sony, Canon, Panasonic) - am I missing any. I am curious which of these will be a more satisfying purchase.



The Canon and Panasonic have UD and Aspherical elements, one had 3 Asphericals I think.
Is the image quality about the same on these?
The Canon's LCD resolution was only 115K, where Panasonic's was double that, both 2". The Sony's a whopping 3".
Are all the IS's equal?
Look as I may, I could not find the sensor size on the Canon. I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that it was a reduced from the S2 to S3 but that just seems so unlikely. Was it?
Are they all pretty equal other than that? I think the Panasonic costs more, but are there other big contrasts?
Is one more over-processed / over-saturated than the others?
I see different ISO selections and the various reviews by Jeff seem to indicate a difference. Which of these has the best high ISO?
How's the shutter lag compare? Not just their claims, but actual experience.


I've seen pretty good images from the Canon and Panasonic, and simply haven't looked at the Sony.

Asking to fill the gap of personal knowlege and wanting to keep up, but also, I need to buy a P&S here at work. My needs are vastly different than the OP so I'll open a new thread, but really am curious.

Gut tells me they're all about equal and would make good recommendations.

[cwphoto]

Aren't we talking nearly $5000 worth of glass? That's just pocket or chump-change to Chrissie with the Mary Poppins bag of tricks, right?



No mention of dollars in your earlier statement Don:

There is nothing that can do that, in the DSLR line up! Not even my 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ a 1.4x T/C attached. Then, I am at f/4!(

Obviously there are ample solutions in the DSLR field, sure they're expensive - but they DO exist.

[cwphoto]

One of the points raised in that potn thread was that it's not 1/1000th shutter speed. It's 1/1000th exposure time.

The shutter is actually 1/250th, with a slit created that causes a 1/1000th exposure time for each pixel. IS addresses the source of the problem, the shake. Less exposure time addresses the symptom. I know, it's splitting hairs. Also; when it goes into "tripod mode" it doesn't shut off, it actually goes into a special mode that might address minute shakes on the tripod. I don't know if this is only true on 500mm like lenses (super teles), but sounded good to me.

The whirring and battery drain - as well as seeing good results without the dang thing, is your experience talking. I'm obviously not in a position to argue the point.

Guess, for the purposes of this thread, its safe to say that IS is a good thing to have on a consumer superzoom - it's just too bad it's not combined with really good high-ISO image quality. Com'on Fuji, add some IS already!


Yeah, I've been listening to the nature folks holed up in Antarctica shooting those fast moving pinguins. I 'tinky UB right - Drrrrr! My measly 1 year of serious experience shining thru here.

Logic and deduction (and a fair amount of assumption) can only carry us so far, unfortunately down the wrong road sometimes. Ahhh well, another lesson learned. No IS needed for sports if you have a nice tripod or monopod - just maybe nice to have if a birdy lands on the ball.

Vich, that's a very interesting point you raise about exposure time vs shutter speed. I'm gonna give that some more thought when I get a chance to engage my brain properly!

[Chrissie]

If you don't think the S3 is a formidible solution... you had best rethink your suggestion. I am so convinced... I bought one, ABOUT THREE HOURS AGO! :eek: ......... It is my suggestion, Chrissie and I'm stickin' by it. (

The Canon Powershot S3 does seem to have the mass vote here. However, I've also been tempted by the Fuji S9500.

Know anything about that one? If so, how would it compare with the S3 (for my particular needs, that is)? Pricewise there's about £25 ($32) in it.

I love how everyone has been so helpful here. And, I like the fact this seems to be a pretty sociable community. Almost makes me wish I was a photogeek rather than a noob!
;)

[cdifoto]

The Canon Powershot S3 does seem to have the mass vote here. However, I've also been tempted by the Fuji S9500.

Know anything about that one? If so, how would it compare with the S3 (for my particular needs, that is)? Pricewise there's about £25 ($32) in it.

I love how everyone has been so helpful here. And, I like the fact this seems to be a pretty sociable community. Almost makes me wish I was a photogeek rather than a noob!
;)

We were all noobs once... don't you worry, you'll become a photogeek soon enough! :)

[DonSchap]

If you ignore the "Image Stability" offered by the Canon S3 IS (why would you, but okay...)

The Fuji S9500 offers only 300mm to start with, where the Canon zooms to 432mm... and the size of the Fuji's output is much larger than the Canon, so each photograph you shoot at full-size will take up more memory and disk space. Is this important? I suppose it could be on extended runs or if you do not purchase a good sized xD or CF memory card. I recommend the 1GB or 2GB size. You only get a wonderful 16-MB card with either camera... which could hold as many as two (count 'em) full-sized pictures with Fuji. Three with the Canon. Give me a break! :rolleyes:

At the other end, it has a slightly wider lens at 28mm vs the Canon's 36mm. To be honest... they are close.

The Canon S3 IS offers a 2.0" LCD, where the Fuji S9500 is the smaller 1.8" size.

The Fuji weighs 8 oz more than the Canon, so that Poppin's purse-weight is going to increase with the Fuji camera.

There is a possibility that the Fuji may be better in low light situations with its 1600 ISO and f/2.8 max aperture at the "wide-end" (28mm)... but the Canon has the Fuji beat big time at the opposite end (432mm) with ISO-800 and f/3.5... where the Fuji will be at f/4.9... seriously less light in telephoto and only 300mm to show for it.

The Canon has a 1/3200 shutter and the Fuji 1/4000 shutter. No big spread.

Overall... IMO, it's a toss up, but leans toward the Canon. The nuances are hardly worth noting, at this point. Both camera's use 4xAA batteries. You can shoot roughly 140 pictures per set of batteries (I recommend "rechargables"... two sets - and keep them charged - 14 hours per cycle.)

Back to the "Image Stability"... it sure is nice... when you are zoomed out to have something to take care of camera shake. You can nullify this advantage with a tripod... but, using a tripod truly eliminates the entire portable aspect of such a small handheld camera. For the person who wants to "purse it"... toting a tripod is asking a lot, even out of a "Poppin's purse". :eek:

There's your rough comparison, Chrissie. I'd say Canon S3 IS offers the real punch with the IS... and the longer and brighter telephoto. :D

[JTL]

I actually may be the only one here that has used and test-shot all of the following cameras:

Sony H1
Canon S2
FujiS9000
Panasonic FZ20

The results couldn't have been more obvious to me...the Canon simply produced better images. The Sony images were over contrasty and the colors were fake looking (they had a distinctly "digital" look to them), the Fuji images were soft to the point of being annoying and the skin-tones from the Pany looked like bubblegum and higher-iso shots looked like water-color paintings due to overly-aggressive noise reduction...

Add in the fully articulated swivel screen and the class-leading movie mode and the S2 became the only logical choice for me. The S3 is an improved S2...with a much improved LCD panel...one of the only failings (IMO) of the S2.

What could be improved on the S3? The EVF could still use more pixels (Canon does not publish the current number...but whatever it is, it needs to be more). Other than that, it is the only UZ that would get my money right now. I wouldn't even consider any of the others...

----------------------------------------------

Look as I may, I could not find the sensor size on the Canon. I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that it was a reduced from the S2 to S3 but that just seems so unlikely. Was it?Then you weren't looking hard enough! :D Both the S2 and the S3 use a 1/2.5 sensor. ;)

[Leo S]

;) *lol* I'm actually hiding inside my rather fetching Mary Popins bag at the moment. Apparently (see reply above somewhere's), I'm a "noob" (?), and it's made me all self conscious and shy.

I notice you recommend camera's different to your own. I presume that's because of my budget?

I like that you and Alex have talked in a language that a noobie like me can understand. I intend to add your rec's to the one's Alex has mentioned. Hopefully, I'll arrive at a final decision by Saturday. I need to get buying pdq... holiday looms.

Thanks Chrissie, glad to be of some help :) !

The reason I recommend cameras other than my own is that I have two cameras - a DSLR with interchangeable lenses, and a compact so small it would get lost in your MP bag.. ;) The ones recommended are something in between. And regarding budget, althouh not a pro, my cam's are on my company...

And if you're considering the Canon S3 or Fuji 9500, I think you should look at the Sony H2, which have about the same spec as the Canon at a much smaller prize tag. The H5 at the same prize level as Canon/Fuji offers a really large screen and an extra mexapix, otherwise the same camera. Why not check out Jeff Keller's reviews, that will bring you closer to the geek level.. :D

Another standard advice is, that if the spec's of different cameras are close, you should really try them out. It's quite important to be comfortable with it. My wife is really fastidious and haven't been comfy with any camera in years until we got her a Canon Ixus. She loves it and uses it all the time. It's really individual.

But if you go for the Canon I'm pretty sure you won't regret it.

One last word regarding sports and IS, a debate I seem to have started:
- seems like the geeks, myself included, get soo off topic sometimes. Kid's "soccer", at a small field somewhere, late in the afternoon, grey clouds, no stadium lights, players moving at the speed of penquins... Hardly comparable with Indy500 or horse racing or whatever :rolleyes:

[AlexMonro]

The Canon Powershot S3 does seem to have the mass vote here. However, I've also been tempted by the Fuji S9500.

Know anything about that one? If so, how would it compare with the S3 (for my particular needs, that is)? Pricewise there's about £25 ($32) in it.

I love how everyone has been so helpful here. And, I like the fact this seems to be a pretty sociable community. Almost makes me wish I was a photogeek rather than a noob!
;)

As I might've mentioned, I have a Fuji S9500. The main things that decided it for me (after looking closely at most of the bridge cameras mentioned in this thread) were the 28mm equiv wide angle end of the zoom for landscapes (my main interest), the high ISO sensitivity for low light, and the availability of 9Mpixels (you can set it to 6MP, or even 640x480 if you want more shots on a card, but I think that just limits your options), for shots I end up wanting to print poster sized. I've actually found that I'm using the 28mm end even more than I thought I would, and only occasionally zoom in to the full 300mm. I've very rarely wished for more at the long end, but the 9MP resolution lets me crop to ~500mm equiv for medium sized prints if I want.

The S3 is probably more of a jack of all trades, and would probably be better than the Fuji for action shots, where I find the autofocus a bit on the slow side. The other niggle with the Fuji is the manual focus mode, which without a distance scale is somewhat fiddly to use. However, since landscape is my main thing, I find the S9500 a great camera for what I want, and I've got some lovely A4 prints (waiting on Photobox to complete my order for some poster prints up to 20x30" in their June special offer).

If you were more seriously into action shots, I'd say the Panasonic FZ7 would be a good choice, with fairly rapid autofocus (and a distance scale for manual focus, which the S3 also has).

Glad you found my previous post helpful, hope this is likewise! (even if I just give more options and can't tell you exactly which camera is best for you!) :)