Canon, Kodak, or ?

[thegroovypad]

So 2 weeks ago I purchased a Kodak 712. Loved the zoom on the camera. Anyway, let me begin by saying that I am not a photographer and I have no idea how to take pictures. I take pictures of my kids at recitals, home, pool, gymnastics, that kind of thing. I always use the auto setting on cameras. Okay, now that that's out of the way. I didn't feel like I was getting 7 mp out of my Kodak. I did, however, really like the camera. I am a very shaky person and often end up with blurry pictures. Out of the 2 weeks using the Kodak I only had about 2 blurry pictures which is phenomenal for me. Yesterday I took the camera back to the store and exchanged it for the Canon SX100. So far after just using it today I am getting tons of blurry pictures. I'm way to shaky for the camera. I don't notice not having the extra 2x's optical zoom as much as I thought I would. The canon also is not as user friendly for me. The Kodak seemed self explanatory. I don't like the zoom on the canon. It just seems wierd to me. I'm not as unhappy with the Canon as I sound I'm just wondering if since I liked the Kodak so well that maybe I should have exchanged the 712 for the 1012. The only issue I had with the 712 was the megapixels. Was the answer to go with the 1012 to have the same camera with more megapixels? I also played with the Sony H50 in the store but I think that may have been to much camera for me. Although I loved the pictures I was getting. What do you think? I will answer the questionnaire and maybe that will help.

Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
No more than 350. My husband has a canon SLR and I just don't see the need for 2 expensive cameras.

Size

* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
Size matter a little. I don't want it to be huge but it doesn't have to be small either.
Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
I thought 7 would be enough but apparently I was wrong.

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
No less than 10.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
I'm not sure what image quality is but I do want me pictures to look good. I also want to be able to zoom in on a picture on my computer and it not be pixelated (right word?) and I would also like the option of being able to blow up to frame.
Do you care for manual controls?
I've never tried using manual controls and wouldn't even know where to begin.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
my children

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
If I like the picture well enough.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
Yes, my children are in ballet so we have recitals.
Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Yes, ballet and gymnastics.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
no preference. I've always preferred Sony.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
image stabilization definitely

[AndyfromVA]

Have you played around with the Z1012? It seems like an excellent camera. It's solid and feels great in the hand. I like the LCD and the electronic viewfinder. I love the 12x optical zoom. I haven't read any reviews yet but the reviews on the Z812 were very good and I'm guessing the reviews of the Z1012 will be similar or better.

[KCook]

I am a very shaky person and often end up with blurry pictures. Good grief, more Megapixels won't help that!!!! Optical IS fans love to put down the Vibration Reduction systems, but it sounds to me like that is what is needed. Canon and Kodak generally pass that feature up, since they do have optical IS.

My guess is that you're best camera will have a zoom that is not too small aperture, at least partly tamed noise at very high ISO, and the VR feature. Which means re-thinking your choices.

Kelly Cook

[thegroovypad]

Good grief, more Megapixels won't help that!!!!

I know more megapixels won't help that. I guess I didn't word myself correctly. I need more megapixels because when I zoom in on a picture the picture looks very pixelated (if that's the right word) and I can't zoom in on a picture to crop on my computer and keep the quality of the picture good. I just didn't feel like with the 712 that I was getting a good 7.1 megapixels that I was supposed to get. Otherwise with the rest of your post I have no idea what you're saying. That went way over my head. I'm not to smart in the camera world. :)

I haven't played with a 1012. I haven't been able to find a store around me that carries it. However, where I am now buying and returning cameras, they said they could order it for me. I LOVE the 712. I love the way it feels in my hand and I love the pictures I get with it, except when I try to zoom in and crop on my computer, that's why I was curious if I should go with the 1012 or if there was a better choice for me. I'm just not to sure if this SX100 feels right to me or if I need to give it more time.

[pas49ras]

Why did you take the Kodak back? When you crop a picture, you will start to see the pixels(noise) and more MP's can cause more noise. You need to use more optical zoom from the camera and less cropping on the computer.

[KCook]

I agree with Doug. Point-and-shoot cameras do not stand up well to severe cropping, regardless of how many megapixels. Much better to use the zoom. In fact, even a camera's digital zoom feature will give better results than cropping. In spite of all the chest beating about how awful digital zoom is.

Kelly

[thegroovypad]

Okay. So the reason my husband can take a picture, zoom in on the face with the computer, and print an 8x10 of said face is because his camera is a DSLR and has nothing to do with mp? I wasn't able to do this with the kodak. I also couldn't blow up a picture without any type of cropping or zooming with the kodak. I assume this was also because of his being DSLR that he could blow up a picture? If this is the case, I'm going back with the kodak because I loved that camera.

[AndyfromVA]

A DSLR has a much cleaner picture than a point and shoot and will stand up much better to cropping.

If you're going back to the Kodak, you really ought to check out their newer long zoom cameras, the Z812IS, Z1012IS and Z8612IS, before buying another Z712IS.

[pas49ras]

I also couldn't blow up a picture without any type of cropping or zooming with the kodak. I assume this was also because of his being DSLR that he could blow up a picture?

I'm not sure what you are implying here but by definition blowing up a picture means to crop or zoom in to make the image or a area of the image larger. You can use zoom on the camera ( preferred method ), move closer to the subject or crop the image with your photo editing software. Also, like Andy said, DSLR's have much larger sensors and allow much more cropping before you see any pixels in the picture. If you were happy with the Kodak, while I'm not sure why the Canon didn't work for you, get the Kodak and check out the newer models as Andy suggested. Sounds like you are buying local and able to return the cameras if you don't like them.

[KCook]

So the reason my husband can take a picture, zoom in on the face with the computer, and print an 8x10 of said face is because his camera is a DSLR and has nothing to do with mp? Mp does have something to do with it, just not everything. Even the DSLR does need a decent dose of Mp. If your DSLR had only 2 Mp you could not play the cropping game. But the sensor inside the DSLR is much larger, physically, than the sensor in a P&S. So the DSLR can actually take advantage of a lot of Mp to crop a lot. And still give a crisp, smooth result.

With not so much Mp, a severe crop will result in the jaggies, as you saw with the little Canon. There are P&S cameras with enough Mp to avoid that, but then you are just magnifying mush. Because of the itty-bitty sensor in the P&S.

So the way to live with a P&S is to either zoom the camera or adjust your distance to the subject, as the guys have already said. Severe cropping is a DSLR only game.

Kelly

[thegroovypad]

Thanks for all of your help. I know I sound like a camera idiot. So from all of this I've determined that I need to go with the Kodak 1012 or get another DSLR, which I would have no idea how to use. With my kids ages 9, 4, 18 months, and 6 months, getting them to hold still while I zoom to where I want or walk to them and take the picture is impossible. I need to be able to play the computer game.

[KCook]

getting them to hold still while I zoom to where I want There are a few P&S cameras with a quick zoom feature. This is a tiny button on the top deck. Tap that button and the zoom immediately (or with as much speed as it's able) goes to full telephoto. Which speeds things up a bit. Forgot just which cameras have this, of course.

Kelly

[shahmatt]

When you blow up a picture, is your complaint noise or pixelation? There's a difference you know. Pixelation is due to a low resolution, meaning low Megapixel count on your sensor. Noise, on the other hand, is a graininess of the image, and is caused by notching up the ISO (sensitivity) of the sensor in your camera.

I'm inclined to believe your problem is noise, not pixelation. My 6MP Fuji camera produces a really high resolution image. Blowing up the image is not a problem really. The 7MP Kodak has a higher MP count, so pixelation ought to be less with it.

Why are you experiencing noise? Well, its the same reason your Kodak gets you a sharper photo over the Canon. I'm pretty sure that the automatic settings on the Kodak notches up the ISO quite high, much more than what the Canon does. Higher ISO's mean your shutter speed increases, meaning you get a sharper photo. The downside is the noise level on your photo increases as well and with that the grain. The Canon is also quite capable of doing exactly the same, but on automatic, it probably keeps ISO low in order to keep noise to a minimum and preserve image quality. But since you say your photos are blurred I guess it means its keeping ISO a little too low for comfort. You could get in there and change it your self. Increase ISO to 800 or 1600, and you will see that your images are noticeably sharper.

Getting photos of kids in action, in less than ideal light, without a flash, is the toughest type of photograph. Image stabilization is useless for this type of photo, as it just keeps your camera stable for longer exposure times (slow shutter speed). But if your subject (kids) keep moving around, what you want is fast shutter speeds, to freeze the action. To get that you increase your ISO to a higher value. But you want to reduce the grain so you should look at cameras that produce LESS grain at the higher ISO levels.

DSLR's produce so much less noise at the higher ISO values. But if you want to keep it small and less expensive, I recommend looking at some of Fuji's offerings. The F100FD, is fantastic at higher ISO levels, despite the ghastly, over the top, 12 MP sensor.

[thegroovypad]

Okay, so I guess I am getting noise. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
So with the higher ISO setting on the kodak that is why I am able to take the picture better without the blurriness right? Since I shake so bad, with the kodak taking the picture faster that is why my pictures are clearer? I am going to use my Canon tonight at my daughter's ballet recital and see what happens. I will notch up my ISO setting. I got decent pictures of my younger daughter at her ballet recital on Saturday with the Kodak but to me the picture was hazy? Does that make sense. It wasn't blurry but not as clear as some of my pictures with the kodak outside which was another reason I thought maybe I needed more mp. If the canon doesn't work out I am going to consider another DSLR. Maybe a step lower than my husbands.

[shahmatt]

Yes. Higher ISO leads to a Faster Shutter Speed which leads to a Sharper photo albeit More Image Noise

See if you can view the shutter speed when taking a photo on the Canon or Kodak. The rule of thumb is, the shutter speed you need for a sharp photo should at least be equal to, or more than, the focal length.

The Kodak Z1012 has a focal length ranging from 33mm to 396mm. 33mm is when you are completed zoomed 'out' (its called the wideangle end). So at this point, the minimum shutter speed you need is 1/33 seconds. If your camera shows less than this, say 1/10, you are very likely to get a blurry shot, either from your hands shaking, or your subject moving around. To solve the problem, increase your ISO until your shutter speed is at least 1/33 or more.

If your completely zoomed 'in' (called the telephoto end, or at the 12x end), then your focal range is around 396mm, so the minimum shutter speed is 1/396. This is much faster than at the wideangle end, but then again, hand shake is so much worse when maginified. So increase the ISO until you get a shutter speed of at least 1/396 or more.

[thegroovypad]

So I finally made a decision on my camera. I bought the Sony H50 and I LOVE it! I took it to Disney last week and took better pictures than I have ever taken in my life. It takes pictures so fast that it doesn't matter that my kids are running. I also got wonderful pictures of fireworks. Thanks for everyones help. You really helped me pick the right camera for me. Maybe I will never be able to use the camera to its full potential but it is wonderful for me just as it is. I couldn't be happier.

[AndyfromVA]

I've heard some nice things about the Sony H50. The pictures I've seen look great - very sharp and detailed.

[KCook]

Err, are you still doing the severe crops in the computer with this H50 ???

Kelly

[thegroovypad]

No, no cropping. I never was cropping. I was trying to just zoom in on faces or the parts that I wanted to blow up and frame. I realized from comments here that I would need a DSLR for that and I'm not going that step. With this camera though I am able to zoom in fast enough to get the shot that I want and even if the kids are going full speed I can get the picture without the blurriness. Its absolutely wonderful! I took wonderful pictures at Disney and you should see some of my firework pictures! Now, to you guys the pictures wouldn't be amazing but if you could see some of my pictures that I have taken before, the fact that I can get a clean firework picture is amazing.

[KCook]

OH !!!!

So the problem with the Canon was that the speed of the zoom was too slow. Never ran into that one before.

Kelly

[IndianaSPEED]

Have you looked into the Panasonic TZ5 Digital Camera? It features 9.1 megapixels, 10x Optical Zoom, tons of features, SDHC support (duh!), 3" beautiful screen, 720p Video Recording, and tons of shooting preset modes. Its probably the best Point and Shoot Compact Camera out there for less than $300.00 at the moment. The camera is smaller than the Kodak Z1012 and 812 and it seems like PANASONIC is "THE" company for great 10x optical zoom compact camera's.

I had never really gave Panasonic much thought until someone suggested it on this site. Awesome Camera and it has some great Burst Mode settings.

Con's: No Viewfinder and poor audio quality recording.

[aafuss]

Own both a Canon A580 and Kodak C513 cameras-Canon's have very nice design and menus, while the Kodak shines in sharing features.

My thoughts on the 2:
The A580 is a feature reduced version of the 590IS:no IS or full manual controls :but there is a "manual" mode available that is OK but no priority options , takes nice photos and is easily held without a wrist strap.

The C513 is only 5MP, not as good picture quality and no optical viewfinder and movie mode doesn't let you use flash, but what would expect for $60 (that's how much it was).