HankGreene
08-07-2006, 09:49 PM
I posted this morning and got some helpful feedback in my search for a camera with a high zoom in a small body. I went by Circuit City tonight, tried out some cameras, and realized that I really want something a little smaller than my available options. I've decided that for my needs, it makes sense to sacrifice the ultrazoom for a more compact design (and higher MP which can allow me to crop more). So, here's my story now...
*Budget
Hopefully less than $300, but will go higher for the right camera
*Size
Something that can fit in the pocket of my Dockers (though not my jeans).
*Megapixels
Probably happy with 4mp, but more would be nice to replace my desire for zoom with more cropping.
*Optical Zoom
Minimum 4x. Even more is great if I can keep the compact size.
*Viewfinder
Optical or EVF a must
*Image quality
8 on a scale of 10.
* What will you generally use the camera for?
Pictures of small children (need quick shot to shot time). Lots of them in regular indoor lighting conditions.
* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
No, but I would like the potential to crop a lot for close-ups.
*The rest of the story and a couple of questions...
Based on reviews here, Steve's Digicams, and dpreviews.com, both the A620 and A700 sound like great affordable cameras. All else being equal, I would prefer the 6x zoom on the A700 to the 4x on the A620. The thing is, the latter two sites mention a very slow lag time for flash shots on the A700 but not the A620. This is important to me, because I take a lot of indoor (though reasonably lighted) family shots and if I'm waiting 4-5 seconds for the flash to recover chances are very good I'll lose the shot (3 kids under 7).
The reviews say they both have the same processor and they seem to be very similar cameras, so why would the A700 be so much slower?
On a very much related note, with decent light (typical incandescent home lighting) can I get good pictures with these cameras without the flash? That would really make the slower time on the a700 largely a moot point.
When I was doing all my research on the ultrazooms, all the talk was on the importance of image stabilization and I was really sold on it. But these very well-reviewed and similar models lack this feature. If it really would make a significant difference, I would probably be willing to take the price hit for the Canon SD700, but if it would only rarely matter for my needs, that price difference is pretty large. So, just how important is image stabilization?
I've mostly focused on the Canons because they have at least 4x optical zoom, I like that they all have AA convenience, and all the reviews say they have excellent picture quality, but are there similar cameras out there that I would be remiss in not investigating further (I think the 4x zoom rules out a lot)? I hope not, all this camera research is taking its toll on me :-).
Thanks so, so much for any advice
*Budget
Hopefully less than $300, but will go higher for the right camera
*Size
Something that can fit in the pocket of my Dockers (though not my jeans).
*Megapixels
Probably happy with 4mp, but more would be nice to replace my desire for zoom with more cropping.
*Optical Zoom
Minimum 4x. Even more is great if I can keep the compact size.
*Viewfinder
Optical or EVF a must
*Image quality
8 on a scale of 10.
* What will you generally use the camera for?
Pictures of small children (need quick shot to shot time). Lots of them in regular indoor lighting conditions.
* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
No, but I would like the potential to crop a lot for close-ups.
*The rest of the story and a couple of questions...
Based on reviews here, Steve's Digicams, and dpreviews.com, both the A620 and A700 sound like great affordable cameras. All else being equal, I would prefer the 6x zoom on the A700 to the 4x on the A620. The thing is, the latter two sites mention a very slow lag time for flash shots on the A700 but not the A620. This is important to me, because I take a lot of indoor (though reasonably lighted) family shots and if I'm waiting 4-5 seconds for the flash to recover chances are very good I'll lose the shot (3 kids under 7).
The reviews say they both have the same processor and they seem to be very similar cameras, so why would the A700 be so much slower?
On a very much related note, with decent light (typical incandescent home lighting) can I get good pictures with these cameras without the flash? That would really make the slower time on the a700 largely a moot point.
When I was doing all my research on the ultrazooms, all the talk was on the importance of image stabilization and I was really sold on it. But these very well-reviewed and similar models lack this feature. If it really would make a significant difference, I would probably be willing to take the price hit for the Canon SD700, but if it would only rarely matter for my needs, that price difference is pretty large. So, just how important is image stabilization?
I've mostly focused on the Canons because they have at least 4x optical zoom, I like that they all have AA convenience, and all the reviews say they have excellent picture quality, but are there similar cameras out there that I would be remiss in not investigating further (I think the 4x zoom rules out a lot)? I hope not, all this camera research is taking its toll on me :-).
Thanks so, so much for any advice