Canon A520 or Nikon 4800?

[sarah12334]

Ok, after lots of investigation, I think I've narrowed it down to these two (probably - still open to suggestions). Overall, the Canon A520 seems to get good reviews compared to the Nikon 4800, but I'm wondering if they're comparing apples to oranges, because the Nikon's criticisms seemed to be more about how it stacked up compared to other ultra-zooms, not compared to other cameras.

Both are 4 megapixel cameras, which is a bit on the low side but is still ok for me I think. The Nikon has the obvious temptation of the 8.3x optical zoom, which is more than double the optical zoom of the Canon.

The big things I seemed to notice (besides the difference in zoom) are:

- Size - Here the Canon comes out ahead as it's sleeker, smaller and more pocketable. I understand of course that a bit bigger size is the cost of a longer zoom, and the Nikon is still small enough for me.

- Red-eye - the Nikon seems to show noticeably less of it in tests.

- Low-light focusing - again, the Nikon seems to come out ahead in this test. Both have AF-illuminators and the LCDs "gain up" in low light, but the Canon's review said it has trouble focusing in low light nonetheless.

- Viewfinder - optical viewfinder on the Canon would be preferable to the Nikon's electronic viewfinder.

- Batteries - AA for the Canon is very convenient, but I can live with the Nikon using Li-Ion because of the option of using disposable ones. Battery life seems a bit longer on the Canon using rechargeables but longer on the Nikon using disposables, which is when it would really matter (i.e. when I'm travelling).

- Manual control - The Nikon has less manual controls than the Canon but that's no big deal to me since I'm looking for a point-and-shoot.

- Shutter lag - this is my chief reservation about the Nikon, as the reviews and user comments say it has long shutter lag and the Canon's reviews indicate better performance.

- Price - the Nikon is more expensive but it's still within my price range.

- Photo quality - I compared shots in the galleries. The colours are somewhat different, but on the whole, the quality of both looks pretty good to my (untrained) eye.

Bottom line: I'm really tempted by the Nikon's features and especially the 8.3x zoom, which would mitigate the fact that it's "only" a 4 megapixel camera because I could get closer on shots to begin with, requiring less cropping. The low-light performance seems much better and the redeye is much less. The Canon, on the other hand, is smaller, has an optical viewfinder, is a bit cheaper, and has faster performance.

Is that a fair summary? Am I missing something or misinterpreting? Which would you recommend?

[speaklightly]

Sarah-

You know I really like the way that name sounds. Let me share with you that I went (unfortunately) through a series of purchasing digital cameras one after the other that were just a bit better than the last digital camera in the arsenal. In the process I naturally spent a good deal of hard earned money.

What I really wanted was digital photos like the one shown below, but I thought (right or wrong) that I could get them for cheap. So it was (at least for me) one digital camera after another. And none of those digital cameras were able to give me what I really wanted.

Now understandably the digital photos that you really want to take, may indeed be quite different than the digital photos that I take. However, the point I am attempting to convey is simply this: very clearly identify the kind of digital photos that you want to take. Then clearly determine which digital camera (judged without looking at the actual price) that will produce the digital photos that you truly desire. If you were to move directly to that well determined digital camera rather than marching through a sucession of digital cameras that just DIDN"T QUITE capture what you REALLY desired in digital photos. You could save a great deal of money.

My business revolves around theater and stage digital photos like the one shown below. However, I was STUPID! With amazing regularity I marched through one after the other of progressive fixed lens digital cameras that could not quite produce the digital photos that I desired. So perhaps there is indeed a lesson here. And perhaps, you, Sarah, might save a bit of money based on my own unfortunate experiences.

So please give a bit of thought to the digital photos that you truly desire.

Sarah Joyce

Now you know why I like that name!

[sarah12334]

Sarah - and yes, I'm quite partial to the name myself :) - I hear what you're saying. That's a beautiful photo. I've seen some of the others you've posted on the site and WOW.

I think my photo needs are quite a bit different from yours though. I'm not looking to take professional quality photos; just travel pictures and snapshots of my friends and family. I don't want to have to mess with lenses, manual controls, or big unwieldly cameras. I understand that for your purposes it's worth it to go dSLR or use a more expensive, larger camera with more manual control. But I just don't think that's me.

I have been reading reviews like crazy and I figure that sooner or later I will have to compromise, as there's no camera out there that's *exactly* what I want.

That ideal camera would be: compact, uses AAs or disposable Li-Ions in addition to rechargeables, has very low shutter lag, takes great low-light photos with low redeye, automatic and easy to use, has higher optical zoom than average (5x+), has more megapixels than either of the cameras listed above, has an optical viewfinder, takes bright photos that come out sharp and nice-looking on "auto" setting... and won't break the bank.

By now I know that this perfect camera simply doesn't exist. Maybe it will in a couple of years. In the meantime I'm looking for the best compromise. I've considered a bunch of models (see other threads) and ruled out cameras like Goldilocks (too slow, too big, too small, wrong batteries, wrong features, etc.)

For example, I was seriously thinking about the Fuji E550 but it doesn't seem to focus well in low light and its flash requires popping up to use. I was considering the Pentax Optio 555, but the proprietary Li-Ion batteries and the slow performance ruled it out. I thought about the Canon S500 but it's priced kinda high and again the batteries are a problem, plus it doesn't have as much zoom as I'd like. The Panasonic LZ2 was on my top list for awhile, but the lack of a viewfinder and the poor low light performance ruled it out. And so on. And so forth.

So if you were me, what would you do?

Thanks!

[speaklightly]

Sarah-


Thanks for your reply. Yes, it is a hard decision. Now, I understand your needs more precisely. Why not take a look at the Canon SD-500. It has received awesome reviews and it might work.

Sarah Joyce

[sarah12334]

Oops. Above where I said "S500" I meant to type "SD500" - typo. My mistake. Anyway it's a bit out of my price range right now, and the proprietary rechargeables are a pain for me while travelling. The 3x zoom is kinda low, though I realize the added megapixels will allow me to crop more to compensate. But the price and the batteries are ruling this one out for me, at least for now.

Of course, I could just wait another year or two to go digital; by then, there may be more out there with the features I want, at better prices. Maybe. But my last camera (35mm point-and-shoot) was just stolen, so I have to get a new camera now anyway... so I figured it'd be a good time to go digital. If, however, there's really nothing out there worth buying, I guess I could get another film camera. It just seems silly.

[speaklightly]

yes, Sarah-

And it is solely your decision.

Sarah Joyce

[sarah12334]

Yep, I know. That's why I'm asking for advice. Between the two cameras above, if you were me, which would you recommend? Can anyone who owns one or the other weigh in?

[sarah12334]

I hate to be a pain, but anyone have any opinion here?