New camera

[skb1951 Profile Private message]

Hi, I'm looking at purchasing a new point and shoot camera. I've thought about getting a SLR but don't really want to haul around different lenses. (plus, I'm not that familar with how to use all the advanced features) I've been looking at a Canon SX20 IS and a Nikon P90. Both have 12.1 mega pixels. The Canon has a 20x optical zoom and the Nikon has a 24x optical zoom. Does anyone have any comments regarding either of these cameras, or any recommendation of other cameras that I should look at. Any suggestions you have would be appreciated.

Thanks for your input.

Sue

[Robert Barnett]

Take a look at the Panasonic GH1. It comes with a great 14-140 lens and if you should ever decided you want other ones you can get them. I started with dSLR for the higher image quality and didn't want lenses either, but I quickly changed my mind.

The other things i like about the GH1 is that is awesome for video, takes excellent stills it is small and light weight and has a better image quality than a point and shoot because it has a larger sensor (though smaller than an APS-C sized dSLR)

It has a lot of great features and was designed from the ground up for video and stills and in fact the kit lens that comes with it is silent so that it's movement doesn't end up in the audio recording and and it has a constant aperature for much better exposure with less bright/dark steps.

Given that the AVCHD video is supported directly by ProShow Producer it is a really good choice.

Robert

[WBD Profile Private message]

Sue,
You may want to take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/ for camera reviews to help you deside.
Bruce

[pwholmes Profile Private message]

First of all, a camera like the Nikon D60 or a similar Canon aren't much more complicated to use than a non_SLR camera.

Secondly, the sensor on a DSLR is much larger than on a consumer camera and you will get vastly improved low-light pictures with it.

On the downside, if you want an easy to use setup, say with a Nikon D60, you'd probably want to invest in a lens like an 18mm-200mm to get the full range of wide-angle to zoom, and that costs another $700.

However, with a consumer camera you can still get wonderful pictures in good light and it's going to cost you a whole lot less.

Another thing about a DSLR is that you can buy a good flash with it, one you can bounce off the ceiling, which eliminates red-eye and that deer-in-the headlights look. I haven't investigated it, but if you found a consumer cam that allowed you to add a good $200 flash on top, that would eliminate your problems with red-eye and inside dimly lit living spaces.

One site I recommend is kenrockwell.com. He covers some consumer cameras and is a wealth of info about how to take good pictures, do megapixels really matter that much, how to take good flash pictures etc. I'm sure someone here on this site mentioned him at one time and I've learned a heck of a lot from him.

Paul

[pwholmes Profile Private message]

This is a follow-up to my last post. I went to kenrockwell.com, not having visited it for a while and saw he has a great review on the Canon S90. Ken's review is a worthwhile read.

Paul

[skb1951 Profile Private message]

Thanks for the suggested sites. I'll check them out.

[dikster Profile Private message]

Although I have a DSLR, I bought a Canon SX10is, the predecessor to the SX20is, for an African safari. I didn't want to carry and change lenses in the dusty environment. I LOVED IT! My photos were very comparable to friends on the trip who used a Sony A350 and a Nikon D90. Because of the extreme range (28-560mm equivalent) I was able to get shots they missed because they didn't have time to switch lenses.

Size and weight are now significant concerns when traveling by air.

Oddly, the smaller sensor yields better depth of field than the larger ones. The main limitation of the smaller camera is in low-light situations. It produces more noise. I use Topaz plug-ins with Photoshop CS4 (they also work with Elements) to get rid of noise and jpeg artifacts and get pretty good results.

I like my new camera so much I'm selling my DSLR.

[sheldonk Profile Private message]

Oddly, the smaller sensor yields better depth of field than the larger ones.

With a digital SLR you can control the depth of field with the aperture (lens opening). A wide aperture gives you shallow depth of field and a small aperture gives you a deep depth of field.

I much prefer a DSLR to a point and shoot for this reason. With a DSLR I can choose to focus on the subject and blur the background. When I use a point and shoot, it rarely blurs the background.

If I'm photographing a landscape, I use a small aperture (and a tripod) and I get sensational depth of field.

Depends what you're looking for in your photo. However, you have to know what settings will give you the results you want!

Ken Rockwell loves the Nikon D40 outfit. You can still get it with a 18-55mm lens for about $400.

I am personally still shooting with a Nikon D70 I bought in 2005. I have over 30,000 shots on it and it is still going strong. I have Nikons 18-55mm lens and their 55-200mm lens. Yes, I do have to change lenses sometimes, but the price was far less than their 18-200mm lens. The results are supposedly better too.

Ken Rockwell has been going on and on about film. I dusted off my Nikon N80 and shot a few rolls of Velvia 50 and had them scanned. The results are remarkable! The color is so much better than digital. People actually laugh at me for shooting "that old stuff". Let them laugh!!!

Sheldon

[debngar Profile Private message]

-snip-

Ken Rockwell has been going on and on about film. I dusted off my Nikon N80 and shot a few rolls of Velvia 50 and had them scanned. The results are remarkable! The color is so much better than digital. People actually laugh at me for shooting "that old stuff". Let them laugh!!!

Sheldon

Hi Sheldon,

It could be that because the processing company does "darkroom" adjustments when they print them. If nothing is done to RAW digital photos with regards to digital post processing, yes they can look a bit dull. That's because the tweaks applied by the camera seen on the small camera screen are removed when the images are downloaded to the computer. Some amount of post processing has to be done to RAW images to put that back. There's nothing wrong with that. People who have worked with film and digital have said it's possible to do so much more with digital than it was ever was possible with old film methods.

Photography masters' photos, such as those of Ansel Adams, were all tweaked in the darkroom. None of those kinds of pictures as you see them now, came out like that SOOC (straight out of camera).

[sheldonk Profile Private message]

Hi Debbie,

Don't get me wrong. I still believe in digital imaging. Even with film! Several years ago, I invested in a Nikon 5000 ED slide scanner. It scans my slides and creates 23 MB/16 bit tiff files. I still do post processing with these files.

I just find I now start with a file that has so much more information and color depth than my digital slr can produce. Plus I still enjoy waiting by the mailbox for my slides to come back from Dwayne's in Kansas!

Sheldon

[caganaudie Profile Private message]

You won't be sorry for buying a Canon SX20 IS

for review checkout Steves Digi Cams

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-r ... eview.html

[sheldonk Profile Private message]

Wow, that Canon is sweet! It even does 720p video!!!

The only short coming I see is it only produces jpeg images. No raw files. I also wonder how good the results can be from a lens that has 20x optical zoom.

Sheldon

[Steve21]

I don't use it, but I am familiar with the Canon G7. I think that the current model in that line is the G11. Some people will say that it's expensive, but it takes high quality pictures.

I would stay away from Sony. This might sound surprising. Sony was one of the digital camera pioneers with the Mavica line and one might think that with their acquisition of Minolta, they would really have their camera act together. Consider the Sony DSC-H9 as the perfect example of a camera to avoid. It allows you to choose the "size" of your picture. There is no control for the pixel resolution and all of the pictures are captured at only 72 dpi. Apart from that issue, you should test any Sony point and shoot to determine if it has trouble with high contrast situations. Good luck, too, with their customer support.

Hope this helps.

[alcain Profile Private messageWebsite]

you should test any Sony point and shoot to determine if it has trouble with high contrast situations. Good luck, too, with their customer support.

Support from Sony is non existent. Buyer beware...

~al

[SherryJB Profile Private message]

Hi Sue -

I have an older model of the Canon you are looking at, an S5IS, and I love it for its simplicty. Mine only has 8mpx but it is more than adequate for my consumer purposes.

I took it on a "safari" this year, and even our nieces turned out good shots. Fireworks on the 4th of July, and Christmas lights came out great using the "night scene" modes. It takes incredible landscapes, and does well with macro images. Face detection works well. Mine just shoots SD video, but the one you are looking at shoots HD, and the avis are usable in any editor.

You can buy an adapter ring and use polarizing and neutral density filters to help with glare, etc. And, you can use a hot shue flash to minimize red eye on kids and pets!

Mine does have some limitations, FPS on stills is only about 1.3, and the DSLRs are 2-3x that, flash recovery is slow, you can't use a hot shue for taking pictures, and it produces .jpgs rather than RAW.

If you're not taking pics for a living, this could be a great camera for you. I love mine, but hope to grow into a DSLR someday.

Sherry B.