Thanks in advance for the advice!!

[brian wahl]

Well, I'm considering a new digital camera, but I'm very confused as far as which direction to go, and I'm hoping a little conversation here might steer me in the right direction.

Bit of a background. I've got a Canon PowerShot G2 (about 5 years old). It's a 4 MP "more advanced that point-and-shoot" digital cam, ancestor of the Canon G7. It has served me fairly well, but it's time to move on for several reasons.

1. Zoom. 3X is OK most of the time, but there are definitely situations where a 10 or 12X zoom would be very cool.

2. Picture Quality. The G2 was pretty dang good when it came out, and it still takes good photos, but I look through the samples on this site and other review sites and it leaves me wanting for more than my camera seems to deliver.

3. Low-light capability. I realized soon that my flash didn't do what I thought it did (boy was I wrong in my assumptions). I've toyed around with higher iso's and longer shutter speeds, but the results are pretty bad. ISO 200 and above are pretty useless on my G2, and the lack of image stabilization leaving the shutter open a bit longer not an option. More questions about this later.

4. Movie mode. I can take movies with the G2, but quality is terrible, and I'm limited to 30 seconds. I don't need to create films or anything, but I like to mess around making short clips to share with friends and for web applications.

5. Manual control functions are nested too deep in the menu system to really be used a lot. I guess this could be a non-issue if I weren't so lazy, but it seems like it should be easier to adjust things while shooting. I bought the camera hoping to use it's manual functions, but I'd say I shoot in "auto" mode most of the time.

OK, on to the standard questions:

Budget

I'm not looking to buy anything tomorrow, next week, or next month, for that matter. I'm planning on saving slowly for a while and making the best informed decision. I'll say that I'm not enough of a hobbyist to spend more than ~$600, but I'd like to keep it around $350-$500. I'm definitely willing to buy used.

Size

This is an interesting question for me. My G2 isn't tiny, but its not huge. There have been plenty of times, after seeing that I'm shooting in auto - again - that I find myself thinking, "why didn't I just get a nice tiny camera I could slip into my pocket". On the other hand, I enjoy the manual control that I theoretically have, even if I'm not using it.

I've used a few SLR and DSLR's, and I love the way they feel. I feel like I'm using a real camera, not just a toy. I suppose size isn't too much of an issue, and for what I want, I think the SLR style is nice.

Another factor is the option of several cameras between my wife and me. She would like a nice little compact point-and-shoot, and I think we might try and get something around Christmas time. I'm definitely thinking the FujiFilm F30, if we decide to buy a compact camera (mostly for her use). That way, I could continue to save up slowly and buy something a little "higher-end" for myself, and we'd have the convenience of two very different camera styles.

Features

I've touched on a few of these before, but I'll answer the std. questions.

How many megapixels will suffice for you?[b]
I'm not into the megapixel race at all. I totally understand the size and quality of the sensor makes way more of a difference than the MP count. I'm thinking 5-6 is plenty. More is definitely not a bad thing, but I'm not going to pay an extra $100-200 for a few more pixels on my photos.

[b]* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
I mentioned before. Usually 3X is enough, but I'd really love ultrazoom capability.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
I'd say 9. It matters. It seems to me this is the most important part.

Do you care for manual controls?
I'd love manual controls. Like I said before - I find myself not using them much on my G2, but I have a bit of an understanding how things work on a camera, and I'd love to get my feet wet at trying out different things. I took a photography class in college and really enjoyed using my Dad's 20-30 year old manual film camera.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Well, mostly the usual - taking snapshots at social events, trips, etc. I don't use my camera nearly as much as I'd like, and I'd really like to get into things like macro photography. I am also a musician, so I like to take shots of performances, which is where my camera (and most digital cameras) fail. Lighting is usually low, and the subject is usually too far away to use flash (and flash is sort of rude in that situation, anyway).

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
I'd be surprised if I ever print anything much bigger than 8X10 - maybe a few, but not enough to warrant me wanting a 10 MP camera.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Some, yes. Mostly a flash will suffice, but there are times when a camera with good low-light functionality would be nice.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Maybe a little, but not a ton.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
Well, I've got a Canon, and it's treated me pretty well. I don't hate any brands - I'm open to the best camera I can get for my needs/budget. I'm not a brand fanboy.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Well, I'm more interested in deciding what style of camera I'd like, but I've sort of boiled it down to 2 categories with cameras within them.

1. Super-zooms: Of course, all the popular models look appealing.
Canon S3 IS - has a great movie mode (though crippled by the 1 GB limit), takes good pictures, has image stabilization
Panasonic models (fz30/50, z7) - seem like solid cameras.
Fuji s9xxx - seems like Fuji's got the best low-light capabilities, but lacks Image Stabilization

2. dSLR's: OK, here's where I'm really, really torn. I've used one and LOVED the use of it. Loved the viewfinder, loved the manual zoom/focus, love the responsiveness, etc. What I don't love is the cost. To me, I'm not sure it's justified. I could get a used body in my budget - maybe even a used kit, but then I'll need a good lens to get the picture quality out of point-and-shoot range, which means big bucks. To get a nice 10-12X zoom lens means even more big bucks. To sum it up, I'd love to have one, but I don't think my needs/usage of it would justify getting one. I have a feeling I'd be better served by a super-zoom.

The ones I've looked into:
Canon EOS 350D (used)
Pentax K100D
Nikon D50 (used)

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
A rotating LCD would be nice - my G2 has one and I like it a lot. Image Stabilization would be nice - seems like it makes a big difference. Here's where I'm curious about something:

It seems most non-dSLR's really struggle with low-lighting because a high ISO causes way too much grain. With good IS, would it be possible to shoot in lower light at, say, ISO 200, by using a slower shutter speed? Maybe my thinking (and terminology) is wrong, but it seems like you could sort of make up for a lower ISO with the IS, since camera shake becomes a bit less of a problem.

Another note: I'm in no rush, so I could very well wait and see if any newer and better cameras are released in early 2007. It seems if Fuji would put image stabilization in their super-zooms, they'd be the perfect fit for me. Maybe I could wait and see if they put out an another s-series camera with IS.

Well, there you have it - if you read through all that I thank you, and I'm looking forward to some good discussion.

[tim11]

.......
It seems most non-dSLR's really struggle with low-lighting because a high ISO causes way too much grain. With good IS, would it be possible to shoot in lower light at, say, ISO 200, by using a slower shutter speed? Maybe my thinking (and terminology) is wrong, but it seems like you could sort of make up for a lower ISO with the IS, since camera shake becomes a bit less of a problem.
......


hmmm.......... so long a post.... well since you are not in a hurry anyway, I will just select a portion to offer some insight. And hopefully, others will take on other portions.

For still objects such as scenery shots, you can just use a tripod and select whatever shutter duration to get a decent exposure. Or hand held, you can be as steady to...let say 1/5 sec on wide with IS.
The problem is when you try to photograph moving objects. With musicians on stage you will only capture their blurry movement in 1/5 second and the only things in good focus are the drum stand and the stage. Or with running kids, in 1/5 second, they will be at the other end of the frame.

[brian wahl]

Thanks, Tim!

Yeah, looking back over my initial post - I think I wrote a book.

Sorry for my long-windedness.

Good point about shutter speed thoughts. I suppose good performance at higher sensitivities can't be worked around in some situations.

[T06]

You get what you pay for. The price is so relevant with your camera & lenses, every now & then you come across an exception, most of the time it's the persons experience that is exceptional & hence the exceptional results. That's one of my findings anyway. If your hearts into photography my way of thinking is work out how long you intend to keep whatever you want to buy & divide it by the number of days you actually think you will really keep it before it starts to collect dust. There's your true answer on how much a day it cost you, it's true value so to speak. As for sharp, there's no substitute in my book, & that spells good glass. I'm not the most experienced person you'll ever meet & the reason why I'm replying is I've done the same as you are doing now, hanging back, I never needed the best of it all, etc etc, my opinions are still the same but I wish I just went dslr so much sooner, bought the best that I could afford & then procured the best glass through the same route again. You mentioned the D50 well my reading tells me we will some new & big things in 07 from the big punters as in Canon, Nikon etc., hence the trickle effect of decreasing prices of everything less stellar in the world of megapixel race & frames per second. Not to mention the advent of the new budget dslr from Nikon. Eventually what you have mentioned as a budget price will become a reality for the D40 & a decent knock around lens until you can afford some real glass. Just a couple of ideas that I thought the same of.

[brian wahl]

T06 - you're swaying me into dSLR-land. . .

You know, that old manual camera of my Dad's that I used in college - I wonder if the lenses are compatible with any of the dSLR's out today. I'm thinking it might be a pentax, which could mean he might have some nice old lenses compatible with the Pentax K100D, which would fit into my price range. If so, I doubt he'd notice if I permanently "borrowed" them. He used to be into film photography, but not so much anymore - he's got a nice digital P&S.

I'll be there in a few weeks for Thanksgiving - I'll have to check it out.

[brian wahl]

Wow, it seems that you can score a Nikon D50 w/2 tamron lenses (28-80/3.5 and 70-300/4) for under $600.

Maybe those lenses aren't very nice, but that seems like a pretty sweet deal.

It also seems they're mostly factory demo models - so "sort of" new.

It also seems the standard 1-lens kit can be had for under $500.

. . . . on the other hand, the Canon S3 IS goes for about half that - and looks like it does pretty much everything I'd want.

[brian wahl]

bump. . .

any more thoughts?

I was in Target doing some grocery shopping last night and stopped by the camera counter for the fun of it.

I played around with a few, just to get the hang of how they felt in my hands.

Here are my thoughts:

Canon S3 IS: I liked the way this felt. Unfortunately, the batteries were dead, so I didn't get to play with the controls, but it seemed like it handled well for me.

FujiFilm S5200: I really liked the way this felt and handled. Seemed like a very solid camera. One thing I noticed - when I zoomed to full zoom, it seemed really shaky. I understand image stabalization is not magic, but it seemed like it would have been benificial. This one seemed like it had troubles focusing at full zoom.

Sony H2: Felt pretty solid, and and very responsive. I didn't really like the design of the EVF very well - just didn't fit my face quite right - the Fuji and Canon were much better in this regard.

I need to hit up a good camera store sometime and really play around with them and take a few photos.

I think I'm dismissing the idea of a dSLR for now. I talked this over with my wife, and I really don't think my level of interest in photography justifies this type of a purchase at this point. I'd like to get a prosumer/bridge type camera and really dig into it for a while. If I really get into photography, I'd feel better about making a larger investment on a DSLR, and then I'd have a DLSR plus a point-and-shoot type camera. I've learned in the past that I really like to dive in head-first, and sometimes this isn't a good thing. No need to buy a DSLR if a cheaper camera will fulfill my needs just as well.

Just a few thoughts.

[T06]

.... & what I would be looking at, heres a list of cameras that I would read up on as in reviews. These aren't in any order or preference of make, just straight up what I would consider given your preferences.
Fuji FinePix ?- F30
Kodak Easyshare ?- P712
Sony Cyber-shot ?- DSC-H2
Panasonic Lumix ?- DMC-FZ30
Nikon Coolpix ?- 8800
Canon Powershot ?- XXXX-xx

To me I'd be looking for optical zoom/, format, this is important for your pics, espesially if you want to get ypour pics enlargened/, manual/auto/, iso,/ lens, is it good quality, who makes it, etc.etc. Do a heap of reading, the info is out there & eventually you'll get a feel for the style of camera that you want. Don't jump.:)

[tim11]

* What will you generally use the camera for?
- - - -I am also a musician, so I like to take shots of performances, which is where my camera (and most digital cameras) fail. Lighting is usually low, and the subject is usually too far away to use flash (and flash is sort of rude in that situation, anyway)......

'Fuji shines where others fail' says someone.... :o
If stage shooting is top on the list, you should get an ultra zoom Fuji. The latest one is S6000fd - it has ISO to 3200. It's not compact, it's not perfect... but in lowlight if the Fuji can't do it no PnS can. Its cheaper and older sibling is S5200.

[opteron]

You may heard of it or not Nikon is rumored to release a sub-500 DSLR. If Nikon does later or sooner Canon will do too. Wait and see...

[brian wahl]

'Fuji shines where others fail' says someone.... :o
If stage shooting is top on the list, you should get an ultra zoom Fuji. The latest one is S6000fd - it has ISO to 3200. It's not compact, it's not perfect... but in lowlight if the Fuji can't do it no PnS can. Its cheaper and older sibling is S5200.

I really think one of the FujiFilm Super-Zooms might be for me. I like the body style (it fits in my hands really well), and I love that some of the models have manual zoom and focus rings. I guess the only thing that seems to hold my mind back is the lack of image stabilization, and I'm wondering how big of a deal that really is. I suppose better performance at higher ISO's makes up for it - you can use a faster shutter speed.

I'm trying to find as much info on the s9100/9600 as I can - seems like a really good camera.

[AlexMonro]

I have the S9600's predecessor, the Fuji S9500. I find it great for my main interests, which are landscape, architecture and a bit of static wildlife. Not so good for action shots, e.g. birds in flight, due to the slow autofocus, but I understand that the S9600 improves this. Things I particularly like are the 28mm equiv zoom wide end, the cable release thread on the shutter release, and the fact it uses AA batteries - NiMH rechargeables are readily and cheaply available. The manual focus is rather fiddly, there's no distance scale, just an enlarged centre section of the viewfinder.

Low light perforamance is useable, with ISO sensitivity up to 1600, though noise levels are significantly worse than a DSLR. For a low light ultrazoom bridge camera you might want to look at the S6500, which seems to use the sensor of the highly regarded F30 with the lens of the S9500.

It appears that noise reduction may have been stepped up at higher sensitivities in the S9600, leading to loss of detail. The S9500 can produce good detail at ISO100, which Photobox can upscale to produce good prints up to 20" x 30".

Other cameras in this class include the Panasonic FZ50, with image stabilisation but more noise, and the Canon S3, with image stabilisation but fewer pixels. Remember that IS doesn't help so much when the subject is moving. Higher sensitivity can help by allowing faster shutter speeds, but any ultrazoom compact will be a lot worse for noise than a DSLR, because of the smaller sensor.

[opteron]

Now it's real. Nikon announced D40 http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3418.

[brian wahl]

Now it's real. Nikon announced D40 http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3418.

Well, that makes the decision harder. . .

[brian wahl]

Thanks for the info, Alex.

I was looking at the Fujifilm s6000fd vs. the s9100 the other day. I think between the two I'd lean towards the s6000fd.

[brian wahl]

So I've been doing some more reading and browsing the net at photos from different cameras, and here are some more thoughts:

1. I'm still on the fence about super-zoom vs. DSLR

2. Of the super-zooms, I think it would come down to the Canon S3 IS or the Fujifilm S6000fd

3. Of the DSLR's, I think it would come down to the Nikon D40/50 or the Pentax K100D.

I had myself convinced that the super-zoom would be the best option, but all the photos I look at from a DSLR make me think otherwise, and I really did enjoy using one a lot more than my current p&s.

I still haven't gone to a dealer and tried out some models in person, so that is probably the next step.

Hopefully I'll get some cash for Christmas and be able to purchase something early next year.

Right now the Pentax K100D with lens kit for under $550 (after refund) is looking pretty sweet. It also seems like you can score some nice zoom lenses for the pentax cheap on ebay, since it takes such a wide variety of old lenses.

[brian wahl]

Another note about DSLR's

One thing I really like about photography is the use of the depth of field.

It seems like a DSLR gives you much more control over DOF than even a very advanced p&s digicam does, even with kit lenses.

Am I wrong here - can something like the S3 IS or the S6000fd give me really good control of DOF right out of the box?

[tim11]

Another note about DSLR's

One thing I really like about photography is the use of the depth of field.

It seems like a DSLR gives you much more control over DOF than even a very advanced p&s digicam does, even with kit lenses.

Am I wrong here - can something like the S3 IS or the S6000fd give me really good control of DOF right out of the box?

You are right. DSLR gives you much better control over DOF. Given the same focal length and same f/stop, DSLR gives you much different DOF over all DSLR wannabe.

[brian wahl]

So I went to a decent camera store yesterday to try out a few models.

I lined up these cameras and fiddled with them a bit:

Nikon D50 w/kit lens (18-55) - fit like a glove. It felt extremely natural in my hands.

Nikon D40 w/kit lens - a bit cramped. I liked the D50 a lot better.

Pentax K100D w/kit lens - too cramped - too small for my hands. I liked the viewfinder on the pentax better than the nikon, though. Plus, the anti-shake is a cool feature.

Canon S3 IS - felt like a toy in comparison, although a very cool toy. I was really leaning towards DSLR, though the canon seemed like it would be a lot of fun.

I just need to really weigh what my primary wants/needs are in a camera.

The sales guy did give me this advice, which I think is pretty good, even though he was trying to sell me the more expensive piece of gear. He said "if you're even thinking of DSLR, you should get one - if you don't you'll just be sorry later and probably end up buying one down the road"

I see his point. I'd hate to get something like the canon and then 6 months from now wish it was a D50 every time I used it.

Another factor I just found out about - my dad has a bunch of old nikkor manual lenses that would fit on the D50. I probably wouldn't use them very often, but it would be a lot of fun to play with them.

[SpecialK]

If you have access to decent Nikkor lenses, even old manual ones, the best economic sense may be to get a Nikon body to fit on the back end of them. Over time you could upgrade if there was a need.

[brian wahl]

Well, I visited a camera shop over the break for about 30 minutes or so - long enough to spend some good quality time with both the Nikon D50 and the Pentax K100d, and I really think I prefer the Pentax.

While initially, the D50 felt better, after about 5 minutes with the Pentax it felt very comfortable and intuitive to me - and being lighter it seemed nicer to handle than the nikon. The D50 felt nice, but after I handled them both for about about 15 minutes, I put them down and asked the question: If I had both of these cameras, which one would I grab over the other - the answer was the Pentax.

The other issue was with the lenses that my Dad has. I know the D50 won't be able to use its light metering capabilities, so I had to ask myself how often would I really use these old lenses. I'd probably use them once, but I'm guessing that mostly they would sit in a box somewhere.

I guess you could say the pentax is the one that just spoke to me over the Nikon.

Thanks again for all your advice!

[SpecialK]

Hi Brian:

I like my K100D. Decent handling, good images, doesn't break the bank. Rebates for another week make it very attractive. I'm sure you will like it as well. You can upgrade to the K10D someday, with the newer lenses :-) I'm still tweaking settings and I'm just now trying to decide if RAW is worth the extra time involved (both shooting and PP) and disk space.

Have fun with whatever you get.

[brian wahl]

Well, to make matters worse:

I've got a friend who owns a D50 and upgraded to the 18-200 VR lens. He said he'd sell me his 18-55 kit lens plus a Tamron AF55-200mm f4-5.6 Di II Macro Zoom, both with UV filters for $180. Both are in very good condition - he takes good care of his stuff.

What to do?

I'm still leaning towards the Pentax. I guess I sort of fell in love with the ergonomics and the shake reduction, as well as the bigger screen and brighter viewfinder.

But then again, the D50 is an awesome camera, and I could get the body cheap and have a nice starter lens setup for under $600 . . .

[SpecialK]

Hi Brian:

That is a difficult choice. I can only give my 2 cents but here it is.

Kit lenses are notoriously only fair performance from any manufacturer, and are generally a place-holder till you upgrade as most everyone else does at some point. (Actually, I got mine as the body only from the start.) Perhaps you can get $50 for it, maybe not.

Sigma makes a couple variations of 2.8 mid-range (18/24-50/70) zooms that are decent, for about $375, which gain 2 stops at the long end over the kit.

As you note, with Pentax you get the shake reduction feature which is useful in various situations. I should point out that it is not used on a tripod, when panning at slow shutter speeds, on "Bulb", 2 second timer, and one or two other modes. Boo hoo. I've never done a pan on a tripod in 30 years :-0

If you want stabilization with Nikon, it will cost a bit (or a lot) more. You could get that 18-200 VR for $999 and be done. Oops, except perhaps an ultrawide. Something for a Nikon - $500 plus easy.

For 10 more days, the Pentax 10-17 fisheye is $325 (perhaps my favorite, and it has that "wow" factor - people really do say that), 16-45 f4 is $300 (and at the low end equivalent of 24mm is very close to landscape/architecture friendly).

Please note I'm not saying Nikon is not worth it. People get so defensive when you point out that not everyone has the same needs or wants, and not all of us are going for the fancy stuff. But, will you see any real noticeable quality difference at 8 x10 size on your monitor? On 4 x 6 prints? Doubt it. Do I want to spend $1200 more (at least) for the equivalent system in another brand for my hobby. Nope.

I wanted an Xti, looked at D50/D80, went Pentax and have no regrets. What can I say?

[brian wahl]

Well I finally took the plunge last night.

Ordered a Pentax K100d w/18-55mm kit lens from Beach camera for $552. Pentax is running a $50 rebate on them for the next week or so, so the final price will be $502 - not too bad.

I also picked up a 2g 150x SD card and a tamrac explorer 1 case.

I really had to go with the one that felt right, and that was more the pentax than the nikon.

-Brian