posted
I am currently looking for a digital camera. The feature that I want to use the most is the zoom. I like taking pictures of subjects that are far away (i.e. wildlife and animals) as well as scenery. While I still will always use it for taking pictures of friends, I still want a large zoom factor. However, I also do not want to spend a large amount of money. I realize that a good camera with more than a 5x zoom is going to cost me, but I would still like to not spend over $200. Also, I am really just a beginner photographer so I don't need anything real fancy.
I am currently looking at 3 possibilities: Olympus 740 (10x 3mp), Nikon Coolpix 4800 (8.3x 4mp), and Fuji S5100 (10x 4mp). I know where to get all these cameras for under $200, but I have not had the opportunity to view them in person. Friday, I am going to go to some stores to check out these cameras.
Does anyone have any of these cameras and like them? Is there another camera you would recommend I check out? Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok yeah I'm bumping a thread because I don't really want to start a new one.
I'm looking for a basic first nice camera in the $100 to $200 range.
Right now I'm finding good reccomendations for the Kodak EasyShare Z730 and the Sony CyberShot DSC-W5, but I'm open to just about anything.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've been looking at the Olympus SL series, but I've found no reviews about them and I'll be okay with most other brands.
I'm hoping to find something small and compact, optical zoom of at least 4x, easy to use (Point and shoot is enough for me.), good movie/ audio capabilities, and with that nice multifunction mode (Things like candle, fireworks, landscape, snow, etc.), and preferably with and SD card. Anything else is eh..
I don't know where to start, but I know what I want, if that makes sense.
Posts: 1215 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can you seriously get good cameras for less than $200, or just moderately good ones?"
Depends on whatcha mean by serious. The Panasonic Lumix LZ3S -- discounted to $185 at Amazon.com -- is a far better camera than point-and-shoot photographers will ever need 99% of the time. Quicktime video with audio. 6X optical zoom. With a 4X digital multiplier that retains pixels/resolution better than most. Optical Image Stabilizer with High Sensitivity Mode.
In head-to-head comparisons of picture quality by professional reviewers, the Lumix camera line has pretty much overwhelmed the competition within any given price range due to its superior Optical Image Stabilizer and High Sensitivity Mode. I wouldn't even consider a near$200-or-more camera without optical image stabilization: it makes that much of a difference in eliminating blurriness. Using a stronger zoom won't be worth anything if the resulting picture is blurred by normal hand tremors. Especially important if you like to crop pictures then blowup for better final print composition.
posted
Interestingly, the Panasonic Lumix LZ2 is also sold for $185 at Amazon. Quicktime video with audio. 6X optical zoom. With a 4X digital multiplier. Optical Image Stabilization but without High Sensitivity Mode.
And a useful Lumix price guide -- can be tuned to list by order of price -- though there better prices found elsewhere online.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently purchased a Nikon Coolpix 4600. It's really outperformed what I expected of it. The pictures are clear the the colors are bright. The CCD performs well in low-light (unlike the Canon I was also looking at), the LCD is easy to see and the camera comes with plenty of settings for various shooting conditions. You also get a Nikon lense. You can't lose with that.
You can check out some pictures I've taken with it at my gallery: http://www.primalcurve.net/gallery We picked up the camera somewhere around the 6-9 month range.
All of the images have been re-processed to 800x600 with some JPG compression so that I can have some space for other things on the site, but I have the raw images on my computer at home and they're quite stunning.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Aspectre and everyone else. This helps, I'm still not exactly sure what I want, but I'm getting there.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard good things about Fuji, and I have an Olympus myself. I love it, but the zoom is digital.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Primal, I"ve looked at all your pictures, and they're great.
I guess I'd probably like a camera with good zoom, since I would like to take pictures of 1/32nd scale model horses (yes I'm a geek), so which do you people think would be better for me, digital or not digital zoom?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Optical zoom is always better*: digital "zoom"/multiplier always increases apparent size by decreasing resolution/pixels. However, some digital "zoom"s/multipliers work better than others, ie the decrease is less.
If you are going to take still lifes using a tripod mount and flash, the camera with the stronger optical zoom will be better*.
However, if you are planning to take handheld flash shots of still-lifes, an optical image stabilizer with a weaker optical zoom will usually produce a picture that can be cropped and blown-up to better image clarity. If you are planning on taking handheld shots without flash or shots of living objects, having the high-speed (eg Lumix's high sensitivity) mode as well as the optical image stabilizer is best.
Do not mistake digital or electronic "image stabilization" with optical image stabilization. Digital/electronic "image stabilization" is an even poorer relative of optical image stabilization than digital "zoom" is of optical zoom.
* As a general rule. But different camera makers have different quality standards: eg a stronger zoom can have a much lower lens transparency from one manufacturor than the same-strength zoom from another manufacturor. Lower lens transparency means longer exposure times to collect the same amount of light. Which in turn means it's also easier to blur handheld shots, or for action shots to be blurrier. Same with using CCD chips with less light sensitivity. And there also exist chromatic abheration and other problems that lensmakers have to deal with.
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Primal, I"ve looked at all your pictures, and they're great.
I guess I'd probably like a camera with good zoom, since I would like to take pictures of 1/32nd scale model horses (yes I'm a geek), so which do you people think would be better for me, digital or not digital zoom?
Breyer, in this instance what you don't want is zoom at all. What you want is referred to as "Macro." You put the camera as close to the object as possible rather than trying to zoom in on it. The Nikon has a macro function. A lot of the closeups of Ella showcase how well that camera works on that setting.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An article on macro photography which points out that if you are serious, you are going to have to buy a SingleLensReflex camera capable of taking on separate interchangeable lenses. ie It will be a more expensive proposition than buying a point-and-shoot zoom camera.
The article also says, "Most point and shoot digital cameras have built-in macro modes...": so another site on zoom and macro.
Basicly, it depends on how serious you are about picture quality when taking macro photographs.
posted
Ok I'd heard that term when talking about these horses, so yeah you're probably right, macro. I'm not that serious, but just want something that I can get a few shots of these guys, I've also heard Nikon is good for what I want.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also mention that I use Energizer's rechargeable batteries for my Nikon. I make sure to buy the 2500mAh so that I get plenty of life out of one charge. You pay a premium, but this way I'm not always running to the store for new batteries and I'm not filling up landfills with batteries constantly. The charge times are not bad either.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think it's funny you're pointing out that this thread is a repeat when breyer purposefully bumped this thread to avoid a repeat. Sheesh.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<shrugs> I'm not a blogger. I just installed the software to see if I could do it. I intended to mess around with the templates, but I had more important things to do.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got the Panasonic FZ20(k) and it's a great little camera. I carried it all over Europe, as I just wanted a good quality point-n-click that I didn't have to worry too much about.
Turns out it was much better equiped that your average digital camera and I enjoyed using it immensely.
I'm currently putting online my diary from my recent trip to Europe http://www.kelseybrookes.net/blog/ - you can see some example photos gradually going up there.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buy a Lumix. You will NOT be disappointed (I have the FZ 20--and covet mightily the FZ 30--but all the other models mentioned are excellent on a budget.)
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the Lumix's linked here, in fact, the LZ3S looks really good. My only concern is the lack of an optical viewfinder. Having only the LCD screen to aim is troublesome, especially when trying to take pictures in bright light. Which I could be doing a lot.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am currently looking at 3 possibilities: Olympus 740 (10x 3mp), Nikon Coolpix 4800 (8.3x 4mp), and Fuji S5100 (10x 4mp).
I currently own the Fuji (or a little higher-end sister to that model) and I couldn't be happier. I know it isn't a big name-brand that Nikon or others are, but that kept me from paying name-brand price too. It has been a dream.
While all my regular SLR (non-digital) stuff is Olympus, I was leaning that way, but I'm glad I got the Fuji now. Mine is 6mp, and is an SLR digital.
posted
The Lumix LCD is good quality, even with sunlight on it, but I agree that the lack of optical viewfinder is annoying. However, IIRC when I was looking at digital cameras with great zoom lenses, none existed with an optical viewfinder.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ended up buying a Nikon Coolpix 4800. It has an 8.3 optical zoom and I found it at Sams Club for only about $170. It is actually pretty nice. If you want to use it for sports pictures though...I wouldn't suggest it because it is harder to get it to focus. However, the zoom is the main reason I bought this one and it works great for me.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're telling me I don't need zoom as much as I need macro which makes sense to me.
And at first I was going to say I have no intrest in sports, but realized that taking real horse pictures sorta counts (if they're moving).
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm in the market as well.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
