Please help me choose.

[catbil94]

I am looking for an easy to use camera that has a descent zoom, and takes nice action photos.

To answer the questionaire:

Budget: No more than $350 if possible
Size: Doesn't matter
Features:I most often use a zoom and would like one that is higher than 3x. I take a lot of action shots (rodeo, kids riding horses ect...)
I think image stabiliztion would be a plus for me.
Image quality: This is important to me I print alot of 4x6 & 5x7 and ocassionally 8x10's.
Manual controls: The only manual controls I use are mainly flash & Macro.
My photos that I shoot are mostly outdoor however I do use my camera indoors as well.
I tried the Canon S3IS & the Sony DSCH2 and I was very disappointed with the image quality with full zoom and action photos. It seemed the cameras didn't focus on the objects properly.
I currently have the Canon Powershot s45 and have been pleased with it for the most part but the zoom isn't quite enough for me.
I am looking at the Canon A710, what do you think? Any others that I should look at.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!!:)

[mattdm]

I don't think you're going to get much better than the models you've tried for what you're doing and at your price range. The Canon 710IS won't be better than the S3 at this, for sure. You might do a bit better with one of the Panasonic ultrazooms, but again, not a huge, huge deal better.

Really, what you want to do is one of the most expensive photographic subjects. A couple of thousand dollars would be great.

Can you post an example of a shot that gives an example of the focus problem you mention?

[catbil94]

I hope these come through right.
Do you think maybe something wasn't right with the cameras?
Thanks.

[speaklightly]

Catbil-

May we make the assumption that these photos were taken with the Canon S-3 or Sony H-2? And were they taken using the Auto Mode?

The exposure appears to me right on the money. However, the shutter speed was low and blurring occurred. In addition, you could have zoomed in on the subjects and taken advantage of the ultra zoom features. At first glance, had you zoomed in more tightly and used a higher ISO, that would in turn have given you a faster shutter speed, you would have had the photos you intended.

Speaklightly

[catbil94]

You are correct on the cameras.
The 1st 2 were the canon, the first shot was zoomed about 1/2 way maybe a little more, the 2nd shot was fully zoomed. The 1st one was taken on the action setting. The 2nd was on the auto setting fully zoomed.

The last 3 were the Sony, the 1st was fully zoomed, the last 2 were about 1/2 way or better. The camera seemed to have a harder time focusing on the subjects when fully zoomed. The last one was taken on the action setting. I can't remember what the 1st 2 were.

Is this the type of picture quality you can expect from these cameres? Did I do something wrong? I assumed on auto that I shouldn't have to make any additional adjustments, is that right?

I do have other photos but I didn't want to upload too many. If you need to see more to help me out I'll gladly email them to you or if you prefer I can post them.

Any thoughts? Thanks for all of your help, I really appreciate it.

[speaklightly]

Catbil-

I don't think that you did anything particularily wrong. You are just looking for the capabilities that only a DSLR camera can provide. So dare I say it? You really need a DSLR camera with a wide aperture long zoom lens. It is as simple as that.

That photos that you desire are tough photos to take. Only a DSLR will meet that challenge.

Speaklightly

[mattdm]

There's definitely some blur from camera movement in the 4th shot, which was taken at only 1/20th of a second -- you have to consciously work to hold the camera still at that speed.

The first is a little hard to judge, but it may have focused on the trees in the background rather than the horse and kids. Did you do the half-press and recompose thing?

Likewise in the picture below that the fine tree branches look pretty sharp to me.

The two with the two-wheeled carriage are suffering from a different problem. They're taken at ISO 1000 in order to get a high shutter speed -- which works in theory, but the downside is it introduces a lot of noise. To combat that, the camera's software engine smooths the image -- blurring out the noise, and unfortunately detail as well. At ISO 1000, lots of detail in most point-and-shoot cameras. (Many dSLRs can go up to 1600 acceptably, and definitely when resized down to this size.)

(I can't tell what ISO settings the Canon camera uses because Canon puts it in an obscure place when the camera is in auto-iso mode. The program I'm using to look at EXIF data can see it, but whatever program you used to resize the samples has discarded it already.)

[catbil94]

So what should I do? Did I return the cameras too soon without maybe getting some assitance 1st? Do you think I should re-buy one of them? If I do, can someone here help me figure it out so I can get some shots that I'm hoping to get? Or is there someplace that I can learn how to better utilize the equipment? I thought maybe the cameras were defective I've never had that type of a camera before. I really appreciate the assistance you guys have provided, I wish I would've found this sooner!!

[catbil94]

The shot that you asked if I recomposed it I was taking multiple shots in a row, I forget right at the moment what that is called. But all of the shots in that segment were like that.

So can I get a dslr in my price range even if it is used? If so what do you reccommend?

Did I make the right choce by returning the 2 cameras I tried out?

[mattdm]

Hmm. At the focal length, aperture, and distance in the first image, you really should have approximately infinite depth of field. And 1/800th of a second should freeze motion pretty well. Still, there's a lot less detail in the faces than would be nice. Not exactly sure what's going on there. The others I'm pretty sure about, though. :)

Practicing with technique could definitely help some. But an dSLR just isn't an option at your budget -- you could get a used camera body for that price, but you'd literally need another $1000-$2000 for the lenses to make this kind of thing look good.

Since you've already returned 'em, I'd say take the opportunity to look around at alternatives. If there were more outdoor stuff, I'd suggest a Panasonic as an alternative, but since clearly low-light is a big issue here, they're probably even worse. Therefore, take a look at the Fujifilm S6000fd. No image stabilization, so you'll want to practice holding it really steady -- but you need high shutter speeds anyway, so that's less of an issue.

[tcadwall]

I second the Fuji suggestion. Reading the thread that was going to be my recommendation. Nice to see someone beat me to it, so I will just second the motion. I have a S5100 and have kept it as a backup. It does a suprisingly good job in some rough situations. It focuses pretty well indoors too. In a small distance it will autofocus in pitch-black even. Even a DSLR is going to struggle capturing the action in certain lighting... Unless - as mentioned you have some very expensive glass on the front of it.

[catbil94]

Which model of Panasonic wouild you recommmend? I do about 80% or more of my pictures outdoors. I had sent the indoor ones just to show a couple that I had taken. What about the Canon 710 would that not give me more of a zoom than what I have but with a nice picture, but less zoom than the ultrazoom models? I'm thinking I may need something with image stabilization because there are times when I know I'm not the steadiest of hands. Where do you suggest I purchase a camera? It sure helps to be able to talk to people with Photography knowledge!! I haven't been able to get any help of any kind in any of the stores I was in.

[mattdm]

Panasonic is widely regarded as having the best image stabilization, and they've got it in all their cameras. The one most comparable to what you've been using is the DMC-FZ8 (available really soon now -- it replaces the DMC-FZ7; the main improvement looks to me to be a better electronic viewfinder). If you want more compact but still good zoom, look into the DMC-TZ3 (likewise an available-soon replacement for the DMC-TZ1).

Canon A710IS is a really good camera too, but I don't think it'll have the telephoto power you really want.

[John_Reed]

Which model of Panasonic wouild you recommmend? I do about 80% or more of my pictures outdoors. I had sent the indoor ones just to show a couple that I had taken. What about the Canon 710 would that not give me more of a zoom than what I have but with a nice picture, but less zoom than the ultrazoom models? I'm thinking I may need something with image stabilization because there are times when I know I'm not the steadiest of hands. Where do you suggest I purchase a camera? It sure helps to be able to talk to people with Photography knowledge!! I haven't been able to get any help of any kind in any of the stores I was in.I've gotten good long-zoom photos with my TZ1, but most of the "keepers" were taken with a "surrogate" viewfinder, namely a Red Dot Sight that I attach via the tripod mount. I personally have trouble pointing my TZ1 accurately at full zoom. Say I'm looking at a distant bird, and I want to take a quick snap shot, for some reason it's just not intuitive as to how I should hold the camera so it's pointing in the right direction to see the bird.

So I think using a viewfinder (electronic viewfinders are what point&shoot ultra-zooms use) makes it far easier and more intuitive to point in your distant subject's direction quickly. Besides that advantage, there's also the little matter of shaky hands, which I have. By placing the camera against my face to sight through the EVF, I effectively zero out the shakiness that might be caused by my shaky left hand. I've found, comparing the TZ1 to my other ultra, the FZ30, that this factor gives me an additional one or two f-stops improvement in low-end shutter speed.

If you think you'll be doing this kind of photography, I'd suggest looking at the long-zoom cameras with viewfinders and image stabilization. I think these start at the Panasonic FZ7/FZ8, FZ50, there are also the Canon S3 IS and the Sony H5, not to mention the new Olympus SP-550, an ultra-ultra-zoom camera, having a zoom range from 28mm to 504mm, AND image stabilization. Just a few choices?

[catbil94]

Thank you for all of your help, I hope you don't mind but I have just a couple more ?'s.
If I were to buy a DSLR would the canon rebel xt or the nikon d40, or the pentax k110d. I saw these at my local camera shop and would greatly appreciate your input.

[mattdm]

Thank you for all of your help, I hope you don't mind but I have just a couple more ?'s.
If I were to buy a DSLR would the canon rebel xt or the nikon d40, or the pentax k110d. I saw these at my local camera shop and would greatly appreciate your input.

Did you get to play with them? Which felt better to you?

[catbil94]

No I figured I better ask to see if one would be better than the other and go from there.

[mattdm]

All three are good cameras.

The XTi is a little more full-featured, although it has some drawbacks vs. the D40 and K100D too. The K100D has built-in image stabilization, which is really slick. As someone noted recently in another thread, the two most important factors are the photographer and the lens used.

So, really, the first thing to do is decide which one handles better for you.

Then, consider the range of lenses available and make a wishlist of what you'd like to go for. Because the D40 can only autofocus lenses which have their own motors (generally, this is nicer and pricier lenses), your selection will be a bit more narrow there. The lenses that come with the cameras aren't necessarily going to do better than the ultrazooms we've been discussing. (They certainly won't have the telephoto power.)

Compare this wishlist with financial reality, cross-check with the subjective "how does it handle" factor, and then decide.