Digital Cameras?

M

MustangOrange

100+ Posts
I am looking at buying a digital camera before going on vacation in May (see Quack's thread) & like the Canon Powershot S500. Does anyone have any experience with this camera or similar digital cameras? Recommend it?

Here are some stats about it:
Mini - 5 Megapixels - Zoom: 4.1 X Digital , 3.6 X Optical - Compact Flash - Screen: 1.5 in - Focus: Automatic

Thanks in advance...
 
I think we looked at that one before going to the Rose Bowl. After doing research and talking with sales reps who know more about them than we do, we were directed to the Canon SD300 Elph. It's 4MP but the photo quality is excellent. It has a lot of features; the one I use the most is called burst mode which allows you to take something like 4 pictures a second to catch action shots. We got it for $300 I believe. HIGHLY recommend this camera.

The only negative I can think of with this camera is its inability to focus sometimes, but that could be because I'm too close to something or I'm trying to take the picture too quickly... and I'm also not comparing this to any other camera, so i don't know if this is a normal issue for basic digital cameras.

Here are some examples of recent photos we've taken. The pole vault & flying dog pictures were in burst mode:
81708Picture_008-med.jpg

81708Picture_053-med.jpg

81708super_t_cropped-med.jpg
 
Lets start out here right...

a) What are you wanting the camera for? Point and shoot while you leave it in 'auto'? Or do you want more prosumer/advanced amateur settings?

b) What are you likely to do with the images? Cropping? High res computer display? Print size?

c) What's more important, ease of use, cost, or picture quality?

d) Do you have any other media you want it to be compatible with? CF/SD/xD cards?

e) Are the pictures mainly going to be of people @ relatively close range? Wildlife? Landscapes?
 
I'll leave the detailed suggestions for the experts, but all i can say is go for a canon camera...the picture quality of canons are by far the best.

The stats look good but I dont think you need a 5Mp camera..depends on what you want it for of course, but a 3.2Mp does the job. You may be able to save some money going for a 3.2Mp.
 
I just ordered a Canon A400 from newegg.com. Great reviews, great price, but it came in DOA. Had to ship it back yesterday. I still want a Canon, but will research more.
 
Megapixels are not the same from one camera to another and are not a good indication of picture quality. Additionally, Canon does make good cameras, but the picture quality is matched by several others including Nikon and Panasonic's Lumix series.

Go to dpreview.com and check out different cameras, full tests, and hit some different forums on there for additional info.

Bottom line is that there are great cameras out there right now, but it's your needs that should determine what to look at.
 
I bought a Pentax Optio S4i. Great camera. Mostly bought it for the size, can fit in my pocket, but a great 4MP camera all around.
 
dustin is correct.

Megapixels should not be the main criteria for comparing th photo quality of cameras. Unfortunately, the uneducated consumer believes it to be.
 
I've purchase 5 cameras in the last 4 years... I finally broke down and bought a digital SLR... It's arguably the best money I've spent on a consumer electronic device. I'm set for the next 3 years, and when I need to upgrade I just replace the body.
 
Mustang-

If all you want to do is print snapshots, the cameras you mentioned are fine. Here's a general rule of thumb:

Long print dimension in inches = 4 x (square root of megapixels) based on 300 dpi.

For example, for a 4 meg camera the biggest print you can make without losing sharpness compared to film at normal viewing distances is 6 x 8." Likewise, from a 16 Meg camera like the Canon Mark II, you could go 12 x 16." You can print bigger, you just won't have the sharpness of film.
 
Mullet, while there may be some theoretical background for your rule of thumb, there are two reasons it doesn't do any good in purchasing decisions:

1. Garbage in, garbage out. If you put a cheap zoom lens in front of a 100 megapixel image sensor, you'll end up with something that won't look near as nice as a very good lens in front of a 3 megapixel image sensor.


2. It's difficult to make meaningful theoretical comparisons of sharpness between digital and film. Slide color film has a higher resolution than color negative film. B&W film has a higher resolution than color slide film. Cheap film can suck tremendously bad. It's safe to say that point and shoot digital cameras with cheap *** lenses available now will enlarge just as well, maybe even better, than the cheap *** color negative film you get from the grocery store and put in a point and shoot film camera with a cheap *** lens.

Then there is the issue of signal noise vs film grain. At equivalent light sensitivities, there is much less signal noise on advanced image sensors than there is grain from emulsion on film. While grain/noise won't necessarily effect resolution in terms of lpmm you often run into a situation where the lower resolution image looks sharper and can appear to have more resolution if it has noticeably less noise/grain than the higher resolution image.
 
Great stuff dustin.

I currently have a Nikon D70 (SLR), Fuji 602 (prosumer), Canon Powershot (small point/shoot). Also had an Olympus 2020 (p/s) and shot a lot with a first generation Nikon D1 and also more recently, a Fuji S2 Pro (both SLR).

I really don't know the mp rating of any of the cameras. It just isn't that important any more, at least in my experience. When people ask for my advice, I warn them about the lag time after pushing the shutter button. Most digitals/auto focus take a significant time to take the pic. Lots of people miss shots because of this and they end up hating the camera. I advise people to test that when they are looking at p/s digital cameras.

From my experience, for the money, it would be hard to find a better camera than that Fuji 602. I think it has been replaced by a less expensive S7000 (around $500). They are a bit bulky for some people's needs though.
 
I agree with Dustin and Hull. I have a Canon A95, which is a 4 megapixel camera, and it takes some great shots. I was using the Canon A85 and I dropped it and broke it, so I went a step up and got a few added features for a few dollars more (I think I spent about $325).
 
I don't own a digital, but have been seeing a lot of flak about Nikon's move to make their lossless RAW format proprietary.
 
I've you're going to get a Canon Powershot, go with the SD200/300. I bought it last December before the Rose Bowl and absolutely love it. It's tiny, but still has an optical zoom. The battery life is very good and picture quality is very good. Not sure why anyone would go with a different Canon considering the SD models are smaller with the same features.

Edit: I looked up the specs and the S500 isn't significantly bigger than the SD series. Guess the S series has caught up. But I would just say make sure you go small. It's worth it.
 
"I don't own a digital, but have been seeing a lot of flak about Nikon's move to make their lossless RAW format proprietary"

PMG,

From what I can tell, Nikon is simply trying to protect most of their NEF data from third-party. Adobe is making a big deal out of this, saying that future releases of Photoshop won't be as compatible with Nikon's NEF. Whatever...
 
PMG,

I can open NEF files in Photoshop 7 as well as Google's Picasa and Nikon Capture. The appeal of Nikon Capture is that I can change the base RAW data: white balance settings, etc...without much loss.
I'm sitting on $10K+ of Nikon glass, so I'm not about to jump ship to Canon and start all over unless I absolutely have to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top