# Digital 'Still' Camera Recommendations



## fluffybear

Mrs. Fluffybear has been hinting about wanting a new digital 'still' camera for Christmas and I'm looking for some recommendations & opinions. I have looked at a couple of different brands and styles and they are either far to expensive ($1500+) or far to complicated. We currently own a simple Sony 7 megapixel camera which we had for quite a while (maybe 6 or 7 years) and while we have been happy with it for the most part, Mrs. Fluffybear is not happy with the picture quality in low light. We do not necessarily need a point and shoot system but then again I would prefer not having to take a year long training course on how to use the camera either..

We would like to stay in the below $800 price range (even that is probably going to get me a few nights on the couch) but I am always willing to look at something over that since it is for Mrs. Fluffybear and hopefully will not have to be replaced anytime soon..


----------



## photostudent

The larger, APS sized sensors, on a DSLR just gather more light and give better performance in demanding lighting. My current Pentax KX, (under $500), gives excellent exposure in normal room light with no harsh flash. If size is an issue, mirrrorless cameras like the Sony NEX would give similar performance.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

The answers lie in your answers to the following questions:

1) Of course...how much are you willing to spend?
2) Do you use your cameras outdoors, indoors, or both for the most part?
3) How "automatic" do you want your camera to be?
4) Is image quality critical, important, or nice to have?
5) Do you plan to make a fair number of 5 X7 or 8X10 photos?
6) Would you like the convenience of auto settings, but also flexibility of manual controls if needed?
7) How important is the size of the camera overall?
8) Do you have the need for attaching large zoom or other lens units?
9) With built-in zoom...is 10-15X zoom adequate?
10) Would you prefer a quality glass lens and metal construction for the camera over plastic lens and camera body despite costing $100 more?

In my case, I have used reams of cameras (including professional) over the years, and have gotten to the point where I no longer wanted to putz with manual controls most of the time nor a bulky DSLR.

After months of research, I ended up with one of the highest rated point and shot cameras that just came out (an upgrade to Canon's previous #1 point-and-shoot model) - the Canon Powershot S95. Retail $399 - got mine for under $350.

My answers to the questions above were up to $350, yes to all the other questions except #8, which was no. This camera met all those requirements. I have taken numerous photos this weekend while traveling indoors where the flash did not even activate due to the super-sensitive 10.1 megapixel light sensor on this unit - images are stunning.

Don't get mislead by all the megapixel numbers. A good 10 megapixel camera can take better photos based on a better light sensor and quality lens.

Happy camera shopping.


----------



## harsh

Typically, it doesn't get much better than Sony in low light conditions. They are apparently quite proud of their BIONZ processor with respect to low light.

Chips don't gather light -- lenses do. The best way win that battle is with a much larger lens. Noise reduction is also a key player in low light. IIRC, CMOS is best for low light.

Look for cameras that claim low light performance among their features. The reviews are going to be helpful here too; steves-digicams.com is a favorite of mine.


----------



## fluffybear

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The answers lie in your answers to the following questions:
> 
> 1) Of course...how much are you willing to spend?
> 2) Do you use your cameras outdoors, indoors, or both for the most part?
> 3) How "automatic" do you want your camera to be?
> 4) Is image quality critical, important, or nice to have?
> 5) Do you plan to make a fair number of 5 X7 or 8X10 photos?
> 6) Would you like the convenience of auto settings, but also flexibility of manual controls if needed?
> 7) How important is the size of the camera overall?
> 8) Do you have the need for attaching large zoom or other lens units?
> 9) With built-in zoom...is 10-15X zoom adequate?
> 10) Would you prefer a quality glass lens and metal construction for the camera over plastic lens and camera body despite costing $100 more?


1) I would like to stay under $800 if possible 
2) Indoor and Outdoor use
3) Something more automatic is always better
4) Image quality is important
5) Expect most of our images to be 4x6
6) Yes
7) Size doesn't matter
8) I would not mind having this ability as it would allow me to hook it up to our telescope, etc.. but it is not critical.
9) yes
10) I don't have a problem with spending the money for quality



hdtvfan0001 said:


> In my case, I have used reams of cameras (including professional) over the years, and have gotten to the point where I no longer wanted to putz with manual controls most of the time nor a bulky DSLR.
> 
> After months of research, I ended up with one of the highest rated point and shot cameras that just came out (an upgrade to Canon's previous #1 point-and-shoot model) - the Canon Powershot S95. Retail $399 - got mine for under $350.
> 
> My answers to the questions above were up to $350, yes to all the other questions except #8, which was no. This camera met all those requirements. I have taken numerous photos this weekend while traveling indoors where the flash did not even activate due to the super-sensitive 10.1 megapixel light sensor on this unit - images are stunning.
> 
> Don't get mislead by all the megapixel numbers. A good 10 megapixel camera can take better photos based on a better light sensor and quality lens.
> 
> Happy camera shopping.


Thank You for the information, I have thought about Cannon but was burned by one of their camera before we obtained our Sony so every time I look at one, the thoughts of the lens sticking int he closed position keep coming up. 
I might take a drive over to Best Buy and look at one though


----------



## Phil T

"photostudent" said:


> The larger, APS sized sensors, on a DSLR just gather more light and give better performance in demanding lighting. My current Pentax KX, (under $500), gives excellent exposure in normal room light with no harsh flash. If size is an issue, mirrrorless cameras like the Sony NEX would give similar performance.


I also have a Pentax KX that does real well in low light. Pentax just came out with some new models so you may be able to find a KX at a good clearance price.


----------



## Cholly

The December issue of Consumer Reports has reviews of digital cameras of all types, ranging from basic through subcompact, compact, advanced and SLR. You should find a number of cameras listed that wiil meat your needs.


----------



## Groundhog45

Here's a couple of other sites to check:

Digital Camera HQ

Ken Rockwell

I'm looking at the Canon S95 also. Hoping to get a good deal sometime between black Friday and cyber Monday.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

A couple added notes...

Don't get too hung up on the megapixel count. Once you get to 10 or more, you're in great shape....in fact, many 12-14 megapixel cameras do not take photos with images as good as 8-10 megapixel cameras. The number is secondary to other considerations, such as the sensor size.

Another consideration...and you have to do some homework on this topic...is that some of those $149 - $199 point-and-shoot cameras actually have plastic lenses in them, and sometimes a plastic camera body as well. Neither is desirable for multiple reasons.

Seek sample photos online if you can find them - it gives you a better idea on what to expect when you purchase your camera. In my case, I wanted a camera with image quality that could support 8X10 images anytime I wanted them, although most will not be enlarged.

Finally, don't just look at 1-2 reviews. I've actually seen 3 reviews for the exact same Sony model camera - 1 rated it outstanding, and the 2 others good and poor. Exact same camera/model. Those reviews can be subjective, and are not always reviewing the camera in terms of in-depth capabilities and real-world use.

Here are just a couple places that seem to provide reviews with more content of value to compare:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM01.HTM


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Just to wet the appetite....

I thought I'd include a couple sample photos I took with my new Powershot S95 this past weekend in New Orleans.

I neglected to mention that the S95 supports RAW, JPEG, or BOTH (same time) formats, and also it has a fully manual setting for those wanting to custom adjust their camera instead of using auto or semi-auto settings.


----------



## Richierich

Nice Pictures Fanboy (Unbelievably Well Defined Shots with such Clarity for such a small camera) and I am sure you will be bringing that Bad Boy (Canon Powershot S95) with you to Vegas when we go and I just bought the Sony Cybershot DSC-W370 with Panaramic Shots so we will be taking pictures like crazy at the 2011 CES.

You will be taking Pictures of the Electronics (as that is your job) and I will be taking Pictures of the Exhibits and the Eye Candy occupying the Booths (as that is my job) and then we can trade pictures.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Typically, it doesn't get much better than Sony in low light conditions.


That's not really true. You have to get down to the specific specifications of each model. There are plenty of Sony's that don't cut it, while some do well.



> Chips don't gather light -- lenses do.


Actually, the light sensor (size and type) and lens (several Sony's have plastic ones) both play critical roles in the quality of non-flash images.



> The best way win that battle is with a much larger lens. Noise reduction is also a key player in low light. IIRC, CMOS is best for low light.


The lowest F stop and largest lens both play into the results. CMOS is no guarantee of low light best results...its just older in being used in cameras. Newer technologies are available today, and actually work as well if not better, such as the Canon DIGIC 4 image processor technology.


----------



## Richierich

All I know is HDTVFAN0001 had a Very Good Camera and mine is also VERY Good but I was told by Reviews that my camera would not do Low Light Conditions Indoors and when I bought it I was Shocked at how much better it was than my other Sony DSC-T33 which was a precursor to this model.

They are both Great Cameras and I am Not a Professional Photographer nor do I want to be one but this Camera takes such Great Pictures are 5 Meg Resolution that I will never go higher and everyone who has seen my pictures can not believe it but it is all about Technological Advances.

I just wanted a Point and Shoot Camera that was Simpler and Cheaper than my Minolta Camera so when I go skiing I can just put it in my pocket and take a photo when I want without alot of bulkiness inside my jacket.


----------



## dpeters11

fluffybear said:


> I might take a drive over to Best Buy and look at one though


When you do buy a camera, make sure you know about restocking fees. Best Buy charges 15% for opened cameras. Though restocking fees on that kind of item, they don't want someone basically checking one out for a trip then returning it when they come back.


----------



## RasputinAXP

If Staples has what you need, they have a generous return policy. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## TBlazer07

With regards to point and shoot cameras ... if you have small children (and/or grandchildren as in my case) I have yet, in over 20 years of buying, trying and selling digital cameras found a "point and shoot" camera with short enough "lag time" (time between pressing the button and the picture being taken) to CONSISTENTLY catch a fast smile or any "quick" action you want to catch. This problem (lag time) has never been overcome in a P&S camera. Even the fastest one is too slow.

If you want to take those kind of pictures the only kind of camera to get is a DSLR. For more "normal" picture taking a P&S will do real well but if you want to CONSISTENTLY and without effort (prefocusing or just getting lucky) to take pictures of little kids (or generally fast "candid" action) get a DSLR. Actually it's best to have both. I have a small P&S that I can stick in my pocket for general shooting (actually my iPhone 4 is coming real close to replacing that) and a Nikon D60 when I want to catch that "special moment" that comes and goes in a fraction of a second that you will be waiting for your P&S to focus and fire.


----------



## Drucifer

fluffybear said:


> Mrs. Fluffybear has been hinting about wanting a new digital 'still' camera for Christmas and I'm looking for some recommendations & opinions. I have looked at a couple of different brands and styles and they are either far to expensive ($1500+) or far to complicated. We currently own a simple Sony 7 megapixel camera which we had for quite a while (maybe 6 or 7 years) and while we have been happy with it for the most part, *Mrs. Fluffybear is not happy with the picture quality in low light.* We do not necessarily need a point and shoot system but then again I would prefer not having to take a year long training course on how to use the camera either..
> 
> We would like to stay in the below $800 price range (even that is probably going to get me a few nights on the couch) but I am always willing to look at something over that since it is for Mrs. Fluffybear and hopefully will not have to be replaced anytime soon..


The article is a little dated (last year) CNet Reviews of Low Light Camera, but I would check if there are any new model out for this Christmas.

For e.g. the Canon S90 newer model is S95.


----------



## Drucifer

hdtvfan0001 said:


> 1) Of course...how much are you willing to spend?
> 2) Do you use your cameras outdoors, indoors, or both for the most part?
> 3) How "automatic" do you want your camera to be?
> 4) Is image quality critical, important, or nice to have?
> 5) Do you plan to make a fair number of 5 X7 or 8X10 photos?
> 6) Would you like the convenience of auto settings, but also flexibility of manual controls if needed?
> 7) How important is the size of the camera overall?
> 8) Do you have the need for attaching large zoom or other lens units?
> 9) With built-in zoom...is 10-15X zoom adequate?
> 10) Would you prefer a quality glass lens and metal construction for the camera over plastic lens and camera body despite costing $100 more?





fluffybear said:


> 1) I would like to stay under $800 if possible
> 2) Indoor and Outdoor use
> 3) Something more automatic is always better
> 4) Image quality is important
> 5) Expect most of our images to be 4x6
> 6) Yes
> 7) Size doesn't matter
> 8) I would not mind having this ability as it would allow me to *hook it up to our telescope*, etc.. but it is not critical.
> 9) yes
> 10) I don't have a problem with spending the money for quality


Your describing a DSLR with interchangeable lenses.

In that case, I would have you check Canon EOS Rebel Series.

BTW, Once you go with a fixed high-zoom, you lose the low light. So if you want both telephoto and low light, you must go with an interchangeable lens system or you could buy two fixed cameras - one with a high zoom and the other with low light.


----------



## Richierich

I agree with Tblazer that if you can afford it get both.

As far as I am concerned I was tired of lugging around a large camera under my ski jacket with it's bulkiness and wanted something small that I could put in my pocket and barely be aware it was there but then I could pull it out and take Great Pictures of us skiing, etc.

I have a nice SLR but I don't use it anymore because this Great Little Camera does everything I want and is so easy to just put in your pocket without it being a burden to carry around and if you do Upgrade your SD Card get one that is Fast as that helps in getting ready to shoot the next picture.

I got a SanDisk 16 GB High Speed Card and it works great and takes a Ton Of Pictures and my Sony has Panaramic Ability which HDTVFAN0001's does not so take things like that into consideration (compare the two or another one that you like and see the differences). Maybe Panaramic Pictures don't interest you so things like that can help you decide.

Bestbuy.com is no longer carrying the Sony DSC-W370 but you can find it by going to Froogle.com and entering DSC-W370 and then sort on Total Price Lowest First which is a great internet site for shopping.

My Sony DSC-W370 is selling right now on different sites found with Froogle.com at $160 to $180 including shipping.

Mine is 14 Megapixels but I don't care because I never shoot with more than 5 Megapixels and the pictures look great. You only need to go above that if you want to blow the pictures up really big.


----------



## Herdfan

TBlazer07 said:


> With regards to point and shoot cameras ... if you have small children (and/or grandchildren as in my case) I have yet, in over 20 years of buying, trying and selling digital cameras found a "point and shoot" camera with short enough "lag time" (time between pressing the button and the picture being taken) to CONSISTENTLY catch a fast smile or any "quick" action you want to catch. This problem (lag time) has never been overcome in a P&S camera. Even the fastest one is too slow.
> 
> If you want to take those kind of pictures the only kind of camera to get is a DSLR.


This past summer, we went on an Alaskan cruise and one of the excursions we went on was a whale watching boat. We were all up on deck waiting for the whales to breech and when they did, I was able to get some great pics with my Canon DSLR. See the picture, press the button, get the picture. All those with P&S's were griping about not getting good shots, where I got some great shots.

The speed of the DSLR made a huge difference.

Plus I was able to change to a telephoto lens when needed. And that is another great feature of DSLR's. You can get the body with the stock lens, and then next year, get a different lens if you need it. Optical zoom is always better.


----------



## Richierich

Yes, that is a Great Example of when a DSLR is much better than a P&S along with the ability to change telephoto lens for faraway shots such as I do in Hawaii of Waterfalls.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> I agree with Tblazer that if you can afford it get both.
> 
> As far as I am concerned I was tired of lugging around a large camera under my ski jacket with it's bulkiness and wanted something small that I could put in my pocket and barely be aware it was there but then I could pull it out and take Great Pictures of us skiing, etc.
> 
> I have a nice SLR but I don't use it anymore because this Great Little Camera does everything I want and is so easy to just put in your pocket without it being a burden to carry around and if you do Upgrade your SD Card get one that is Fast as that helps in getting ready to shoot the next picture.
> 
> I got a SanDisk 16 GB High Speed Card and it works great and takes a Ton Of Pictures and my Sony has Panaramic Ability *which HDTVFAN0001's does not *so take things like that into consideration (compare the two or another one that you like and see the differences). Maybe Panaramic Pictures don't interest you so things like that can help you decide.


Actually that is not true. Panorama photos can be created with the S95, and I also am using a 16GB SD fast card.

If someone wants interchangable lenses and the like...a DSLR is more for them...


----------



## Richierich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually that is not true. Panorama photos can be created with the S95, and I also am using a 16GB SD fast card.
> 
> If someone wants interchangable lenses and the like...a DSLR is more for them...


If I recall correctly from reading the Specs it does not do Panarama but it does do "Fisheye" Photos. Anyway they are both Great Point and Shoot Cameras that take Fantastic Digital Photos and it Blows Me Away that such a little camera can do so much for such a little price.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

fluffybear said:


> Mrs. Fluffybear has been hinting about wanting a new digital 'still' camera for Christmas and I'm looking for some recommendations & opinions. I have looked at a couple of different brands and styles and they are either far to expensive ($1500+) or far to complicated. We currently own a simple Sony 7 megapixel camera which we had for quite a while (maybe 6 or 7 years) and while we have been happy with it for the most part, Mrs. Fluffybear is not happy with the picture quality in low light. We do not necessarily need a point and shoot system but then again I would prefer not having to take a year long training course on how to use the camera either..
> 
> We would like to stay in the below $800 price range (even that is probably going to get me a few nights on the couch) but I am always willing to look at something over that since it is for Mrs. Fluffybear and hopefully will not have to be replaced anytime soon..


I printed out the current recommended cameras from Consumer Reports. You might find this useful.

I have a Canon T1i and I love it. It's also in your price range.

I also love www.dpreview.com. They have great reviewes and explainations.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MicroBeta said:


> I printed out the current recommended cameras from Consumer Reports. You might find this useful.
> 
> Mike


Good information Mike.

I've used their content a number of times - I'm sure folks appreciate that info.

One small thing of note...Consumer Reports, unfortunately, lags about 3-6 months behind all of the equipment is available in the market....they don't always have the latest and greatest included in their reviews...so some makes/models are not included in their lists as tested items.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> If I recall correctly from reading the Specs it does not do Panarama but it does do "Fisheye" Photos. Anyway they are both Great Point and Shoot Cameras that take Fantastic Digital Photos and it Blows Me Away that such a little camera can do so much for such a little price.


Actually, that's not quite correct....panorama photos are supported with the Canon Powershote S95. Its listed on page 112 of the User Manual. Fisheye views are also supported.

Those are good examples of features that some folks will find important, while they may not matter to others. You're right that it pays to examine all those kinds of things, as well has how the cameras are constructed - which is tough doing online only. I checked out over 15 models with them in my hands.

Yeah...these cameras are amazing with what they can do. Having seen some photos from yours as well, I have to wonder why most folks would want to carry bulky DLSRs anymore...except if they need those 300mm tele lenses and the like.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Good information Mike.
> 
> I've used their content a number of times - I'm sure folks appreciate that info.
> 
> One small thing of note...Consumer Reports, unfortunately, lags about 3-6 months behind all of the equipment is available in the market....they don't always have the latest and greatest included in their reviews...so some makes/models are not included in their lists as tested items.


That's true but the link I included for Digital Photo Review is pretty up to date.

AAMOF, it's a UK site and they usually have the European version of hardware before we get it here. The review for the T1i is actually for the 500d. 

However, this particular roundup buy CR is pretty up to date and actually has the latest Canons. I'm not sure about the other manufacturers.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually, that's not quite correct....panorama photos are supported with the Canon Powershote S95. Its listed on page 112 of the User Manual. Fisheye views are also supported.
> 
> Those are good examples of features that some folks will find important, while they may not matter to others. You're right that it pays to examine all those kinds of things, as well has how the cameras are constructed - which is tough doing online only. I checked out over 15 models with them in my hands.
> 
> Yeah...these cameras are amazing with what they can do. Having seen some photos from yours as well, I have to wonder why most folks would want to carry bulky DLSRs anymore...except if they need those 300mm tele lenses and the like.


I really like Canon's Stitch software. It works very well and can take a couple of panoramic pictures and "stitch" them together. I have a couple where you can't see where they overlap unless you're looking real close. Canon has some great accompanying software. Then again most of the manufacturers do.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MicroBeta said:


> I really like Canon's Stitch software. It works very well and can take a couple of panoramic pictures and "stitch" them together. I have a couple where you can't see where they overlap unless you're looking real close. Canon has some great accompanying software. Then again most of the manufacturers do.
> 
> Mike


Agree...the software that comes with their cameras is top notch.

The ability to go even beyond standard camera still panorama and create a 360 image if needed is amazing stuff, and very well done by Canon.

I also like the way their equipment is constructed - solid and from good materials. Even more important, being able to do all of the adjustments (if desired), including full manual mode changes with the Powershot S95 allows it to do *almost* anything a bigger, heavier, bulkier DSLR can do.

I've started experimenting with adjusting the F Stop, shutter speed, ISO settings, white balance, and other settings, just to see how they impact results. The Auto setting actually does an amazing job for most photos.

Having the ability to shoot RAW, JPEG, or both RAW and JPEG is something rarely offered in any sub-$1500 camera, and provides the ability to so some professional-caliber editing if desired. The more I've used this camera, the more I've been impressed.


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah...these cameras are amazing with what they can do. Having seen some photos from yours as well, I have to wonder why most folks would want to carry bulky DLSRs anymore...except if they need those 300mm tele lenses and the like.


Why, because NO P&S comes close to a DSLR in speed to catch fast action. I really wish they did, but they don't which is why I have both types. I HATE carrying around the DSLR but it NEVER fails to catch a "moment" when it is needed where the P&S might easily miss it due to it's lag time.

And a 29-180 zoom lens is perfect, rarely would a 300mm be needed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> Why, because *NO P&S comes close to a DSLR in speed to catch fast action*. I really wish they did, but they don't which is why I have both types. I HATE carrying around the DSLR but it NEVER fails to catch a "moment" when it is needed where the P&S might easily miss it due to it's lag time.
> 
> And a 29-180 zoom lens is perfect, rarely would a 300mm be needed.


Really?

Hmmm....I guess 1/1600 of a second won't catch action shots then huh? 

Sorry to disappoint...but some P&S cameras actually support speeds well beyond what is needed for fast action....I can actually set mine up to 1/3200 of a second if required, and it defaults to 1/1600 in Auto mode *if* desired. I bet you can't run fast enough to blur things at that speed. 

Having used numerous larger bulky 35mm, 4X5, and DSLR cameras myself over the years...I can only see one reason left to tote around one of the bigger cameras....large detachable lenses. While Sony makes a P&S now that supports more than one detachable lens, the DLSR is better suited for that purpose. By the way...I used 300mm detachables all the time "in a past life".


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Really?
> 
> Hmmm....I guess 1/1600 of a second won't catch action shots then huh?
> 
> Sorry to disappoint...but some P&S cameras actually support speeds well beyond what is needed for fast action....I can actually set mine up to 1/3200 of a second if required, and it defaults to 1/1600 in Auto mode *if* desired. I bet you can't run fast enough to blur things at that speed.
> 
> Having used numerous larger bulky 35mm, 4X5, and DSLR cameras myself over the years...I can only see one reason left to tote around one of the bigger cameras....large detachable lenses. While Sony makes a P&S now that supports more than one detachable lens, the DLSR is better suited for that purpose. By the way...I used 300mm detachables all the time "in a past life".


I prefer my DSLR over my P&S. The lenses from my Canon 35mm fit the T1i. I like the ability to change lenses for different applications.

Like the three previous Canon SLRs I've had, the modes and functions are basically the same...small learning curve.

Every once in a while I still use the P&S but I've yet to find one that can match the versatility (e.g. lenses, filters, flashes) of an SLR. Of course I realize that versatility comes at a cost in both bulk and money which, for now, I don't mind putting up with. 

Mike


----------



## Steve

TBlazer07 said:


> Why, because NO P&S comes close to a DSLR in speed to catch fast action.


Correct. We're not talking about shutter speed, but shutter lag, which is the time from pressing the shutter button to image capture. Could be the difference between catching the frisbee in the dog's mouth, or not.

E.g., on a Canon Digital Rebel DSLR measured lag is .159 seconds and on the G12, Canon's _top of the line_ P&S, it's .7 seconds, on average.


----------



## Herdfan

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry to disappoint...but some P&S cameras actually support speeds well beyond what is needed for fast action....I can actually set mine up to 1/3200 of a second if required, and it defaults to 1/1600 in Auto mode *if* desired. I bet you can't run fast enough to blur things at that speed.


I think you are missing his point. It's not that the camera isn't fast enought to catch action shots, but that there is a lag between pressing the button and the picture being taken. A half second delay not be important when you are taklng a picture of the family or the Grand Canyon, but in my situation described above with the whales, once they breeched, there was no more than a couple of seconds of them above water. Once you pointed the camera, you needed the shot to happen immediately, not in a half second.

So yes, the shutter speed can be 1/3200, but if that 1/3200 happens a second after the action, then what good was it?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Herdfan said:


> I think you are missing his point. It's not that the camera isn't fast enough to catch action shots, but that there is a lag between pressing the button and the picture being taken. A half second delay not be important when you are taklng a picture of the family or the Grand Canyon, but in my situation described above with the whales, once they breeched, there was no more than a couple of seconds of them above water. Once you pointed the camera, you needed the shot to happen immediately, not in a half second.
> 
> So yes, the shutter speed can be 1/3200, but if that 1/3200 happens a second after the action, then what good was it?


Understood.

Various P&S cameras have different "lag" between shots. In my case, its 1/9th of a second...not much....but yes....that may come into play in certain situations if rapid photo sequences are required.


----------



## Steve

My daughter bought the new Nikon D3100 DSLR this week-end, about $675 at Best Buy with 3x zoom lens. Looks like a keeper. Very nice "hand feel", and even though it's Nikon's "entry level" DSLR, it uses their latest CMOS sensor and it's got every bell & whistle I'd ever need, including 1080p video (with continuous autofocus) and "live view", so you can lock up the mirror and compose your images on the LCD screen, if you prefer. They just had a baby, so they were primarily interested in a camera that could capture "the moment". This one can shoot at a respectable 3 shots per second in "drive" mode, with autofocus.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> My daughter bought the new Nikon D3100 DSLR this week-end, about $675 at Best Buy with 3x zoom lens. Looks like a keeper. Very nice "hand feel", and even though it's Nikon's "entry level" DSLR, it uses their latest CMOS sensor and it's got every bell & whistle I'd ever need, including 1080p video (with continuous autofocus) and "live view", so you can lock up the mirror and compose your images on the LCD screen, if you prefer. They just had a baby, so they were primarily interested in a camera that could capture "the moment". This one can shoot at a respectable 3 shots per second in "drive" mode, with autofocus.


Very cool.

During my extensive P&S search...I also considered the Nikon Coolpix P7000, which also just was released recently like my Canon Powershot S95.

Had I not gone the S95 route, the P7000 was a close 2nd choice, and had very good reviews too.


----------



## Steve

I like the D3100 so much I'm tempted to pick one up for myself, but I think I'm gonna wait. This is the one I'll most likely get if the reviews are good. I like these "rangefinder" cameras, because they offer DSLR image quality and speed, but in a form factor just a little bigger than P&S, so I don't have to think twice about whether or not I want to take a camera with me. Olympus and Sony also offer cameras in this form factor.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> I like the D3100 so much I'm tempted to pick one up for myself, but I think I'm gonna wait. This is the one I'll most likely get if the reviews are good. I like these "rangefinder" cameras, because they offer DSLR image quality and speed, but in a form factor just a little bigger than P&S, so I don't have to think twice about whether or not I want to take a camera with me. Olympus and Sony also offer cameras in this form factor.


I looked at the whole Lumix line, and was honestly not impressed - build construction quality looks cheap and flimsy when I held and tried out 3 different models myself...and I'd agree that the form factor seemed a bit "awkward"...but that might just be me.

In speaking with 2 different retailers (instore) on the Panasonic line (a brand I've always liked by the way), they both told me similar things - they sell a fair number of them, but mostly based on price....but there are better cameras out there for only a bit more $$$.

I think your general recommendations to actually go hold them, try them, and determine how you'll use them - all to finalize a choice - is very sound advice.


----------



## Steve

The GF2 is not one of the P&S Lumix's. It's a pro-model. It's predecessor, the GF1, is one of DPReview's "Highly Recommended" cameras.



hdtvfan0001 said:



> I looked at the whole Lumix line, and was honestly not impressed - build construction quality looks cheap and flimsy when I held and tried out 3 different models myself...and I'd agree that the form factor seemed a bit "awkward"...but that might just be me.
> 
> In speaking with 2 different retailers (instore) on the Panasonic line (a brand I've always liked by the way), they both told me similar things - they sell a fair number of them, but mostly based on price....but there are better cameras out there for only a bit more $$$.
> 
> I think your general recommendations to actually go hold them, try them, and determine how you'll use them - all to finalize a choice - is very sound advice.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> The GF2 is not one of the P&S Lumix's. It's a pro-model. It's predecessor, the GF1, is one of DPReview's "Highly Recommended" cameras.


I know...but since 90% of the conversations here centered around P&S...keeping things apples-to-apples...

The OP is not looking for an expensive nor bulky solution.


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I know...but since 90% of the conversations here centered around P&S...keeping things apples-to-apples...
> 
> The OP is not looking for an expensive nor bulky solution.


For the record, the "DSLR inage quality" GF1 is not bulky, and is available in the OP's "up to $800" price range.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> For the record, the "DSLR inage quality" GF1 is not bulky, and is available in the OP's "up to $800" price range.


Compared to the latest P&S....I've heard a number of folks refer to them as "bulky".

I personally don't see them as such, but even a number of reviews I've read cite "more bulky" as a comparison trait. I also looked at the new Canon G12, which would likely be "more bulky" compared to my Canon S95...but I would have no problem enjoying either one. A number of the Nikons are also a different form factor, but would be pleasing for me to use.


----------



## Drucifer

When you go too small, you run the risk of camera shake. For me, I prefer some bulk and a neck strap for low light.


----------



## Groundhog45

This thread has a lot of good info. I hope you guys will post any links to good prices that might pop up during the black Friday - cyber Monday weekend.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Drucifer said:


> When you go too small, you run the risk of camera shake. For me, I prefer some bulk and a neck strap for low light.


Certainly the smaller form factor of P&S cameras is more of a challenge with motion-related misfires on photos than with larger cameras...which is why image stabilization is a nice feature in mine and other newer P&S cameras. It doesn't guarantee results, just improves the odds by compensating for less-than-professional users.

Higher shutter speeds also help toward that.


----------



## lflorack

I am very definitely an amateur photogropher but wanted something a bit more than a 'simple' point and shoot camera. My research led me to the Cannon S90 (predecessor to the S95). I have found it to be a very good camera that takes excellent low-light pictures as well as 'normal' pictures too. Most (if not all) SLR's will be better in some way, but I'm very pleased witht this camera.

If you are interested -- remembering that I'm very much an amateur, -- go here to see some of the photos I've taken with the S90. I recommend using the slideshow option.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

lflorack said:


> I am very definitely an amateur photogropher but wanted something a bit more than a 'simple' point and shoot camera. My research led me to the Cannon S90 (predecessor to the S95). I have found it to be a very good camera that takes excellent low-light pictures as well as 'normal' pictures too. Most (if not all) SLR's will be better in some way, but I'm very pleased witht this camera.
> 
> If you are interested -- remembering that I'm very much an amateur, -- go here to see some of the photos I've taken with the S90. I recommend using the slideshow option.


Very cool to meet another satisfied Canon Powershot fan.

The S90 was rated very high for quite some time too, and the S95 I got added HD video and a few other little goodies...but is not all that unlike yours.

Nice photos by the way.


----------



## lflorack

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Very cool to meet another satisfied Canon Powershot fan.
> 
> The S90 was rated very high for quite some time too, and the S95 I got added HD video and a few other little goodies...but is not all that unlike yours.
> 
> Nice photos by the way.


Thank you!

I just got back from a 15-day European/Trans-Atlantic cruise. Using my S90, I took about 850 shots. When I get some time, I'll categorize them and put them up on Flickr too.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

lflorack said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I just got back from a 15-day European/Trans-Atlantic cruise. Using my S90, I took about 850 shots. When I get some time, I'll categorize them and put them up on Flickr too.


Appreciate the share.

As you have seen firsthand...these cameras take some amazing photos. In only a few weeks using mine, I have seen just how versatile and powerful these Canon Powershots can perform.

I included a few in post # 10 from a recent jaunt to New Orleans.

The friends who were with us repeatedly commented that they could not believe the quality of the images with these P&S devices.


----------



## TBlazer07

Steve said:


> I like the D3100 so much I'm tempted to pick one up for myself, but I think I'm gonna wait. This is the one I'll most likely get if the reviews are good. I like these "rangefinder" cameras, because they offer DSLR image quality and speed, but in a form factor just a little bigger than P&S, so I don't have to think twice about whether or not I want to take a camera with me. Olympus and Sony also offer cameras in this form factor.


 "Rangefinder" camera ..... that's a term from waaaay back.  Other than the fact they have interchangeable lenses, do they have the shutter lag of a P&S or that of a DSLR?

Is there a website that lists the actual lag time of P&S cameras?


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Really?
> 
> Hmmm....I guess 1/1600 of a second won't catch action shots then huh?
> 
> Sorry to disappoint...but some P&S cameras actually support speeds well beyond what is needed for fast action...





Steve said:


> Correct. We're not talking about shutter speed, but shutter lag, which is the time from pressing the shutter button to image capture. Could be the difference between catching the frisbee in the dog's mouth, or not.
> 
> E.g., on a Canon Digital Rebel DSLR measured lag is .159 seconds and on the G12, Canon's _top of the line_ P&S, it's .7 seconds, on average.


Exactly the point I was trying to make. Don't get me wrong ... P&S cameras take excellent photos .... just not the one of my Grandson getting his first hit in little folks baseball or catching his first football pass.  I'd much rather carry my Canon P&S in my pocket then 1.6lb Nikon around my neck. They also make some nice light weight ~50-220mm tele-zoom lenses that also work fine as a normal lens so all you really need is the 1 lens.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> Exactly the point I was trying to make. Don't get me wrong ... P&S cameras take excellent photos .... just not the one of my Grandson getting his first hit in little folks baseball or catching his first football pass.  I'd much rather carry my Canon P&S in my pocket then 1.6lb Nikon around my neck. They also make some nice light weight ~50-220mm tele-zoom lenses that also work fine as a normal lens so all you really need is the 1 lens.


Some of the P&S cameras have "rapid fire" shooting capabilities as well...they vary...its a configurable for those who want it. I agree with you that having a P&S that does 95% of what a large bulky DSLR can do, but instead it fits in your pocket...is a big plus.


----------



## Cholly

TBlazer07 said:


> Is there a website that lists the actual lag time of P&S cameras?


try www.Steves-digicams.com


----------



## Steve

Cholly said:


> try www.Steves-digicams.com


Also DPreview.com, in the Performance section. Ditto for Imaging Resource.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

fluffybear said:


> Mrs. Fluffybear has been hinting about wanting a new digital 'still' camera for Christmas and I'm looking for some recommendations & opinions. I have looked at a couple of different brands and styles and they are either far to expensive ($1500+) or far to complicated. We currently own a simple Sony 7 megapixel camera which we had for quite a while (maybe 6 or 7 years) and while we have been happy with it for the most part, Mrs. Fluffybear is not happy with the picture quality in low light. We do not necessarily need a point and shoot system but then again I would prefer not having to take a year long training course on how to use the camera either..
> 
> We would like to stay in the below $800 price range (even that is probably going to get me a few nights on the couch) but I am always willing to look at something over that since it is for Mrs. Fluffybear and hopefully will not have to be replaced anytime soon..


Have you succeeded in finding anything to your liking?

One thing to keep in mind...this coming week with Black Friday shopping might be a great time to find a good deal on a new camera. Good luck on your search!


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Some of the P&S cameras have "rapid fire" shooting capabilities as well...they vary...its a configurable for those who want it. I agree with you that having a P&S that does 95% of what a large bulky DSLR can do, but instead it fits in your pocket...is a big plus.


 Rapid "FIRE" is not rapid "FOCUS." 2 entirely different things. Rapid fire doesn't refocus, you have to "fix" the focus before the first shot. If the subject moves location you get lots of blur and the initial focus still has the lag. It's the FIRST shot you miss, which is the important one


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> Rapid "FIRE" is not rapid "FOCUS." 2 entirely different things. Rapid fire doesn't refocus, you have to "fix" the focus before the first shot. If the subject moves location you get lots of blur and the initial focus still has the lag. It's the FIRST shot you miss, which is the important one


They're not the same, but they're also not that different, depending on the specs. The purpose/needs for taking sequential photos drives which works best. Most folks don't require machine-gun photography.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

TBlazer07 said:


> Rapid "FIRE" is not rapid "FOCUS." 2 entirely different things. Rapid fire doesn't refocus, you have to "fix" the focus before the first shot. If the subject moves location you get lots of blur and the initial focus still has the lag. It's the FIRST shot you miss, which is the important one


Maybe I'm not understanding you but that's not true for all cameras. When my T1i is set to "AI Servo AF..., focusing will be continuous during continuous shooting." (the quoted text is from the manual).

Of course this means that in continuous mode it will only do 3.4fps, but it does continually focus during shooting.

Mike


----------



## Steve

MicroBeta said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding you but that's not true for all cameras. When my T1i is set to "AI Servo AF..., focusing will be continuous during continuous shooting." (the quoted text is from the manual.


I think TBlazer was responding to the capability of most point & shoot cameras in his response, as opposed to dSLR's. The newer ones have the ability to refocus during continuous shooting, as you point out. I was surprised to see the new D3100 can even continuously autofocus while capturing 30fps HD video, as well as in drive mode.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Steve said:


> I think TBlazer was responding to the capability of most point & shoot cameras in his response, as opposed to dSLR's. The newer ones have the ability to refocus during continuous shooting, as you point out. I was surprised to see the new D3100 can even continuously autofocus while capturing 30fps HD video, as well as in drive mode.


Then I did misunderstand. Sorry.

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07

MicroBeta said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding you but that's not true for all cameras. When my T1i is set to "AI Servo AF..., focusing will be continuous during continuous shooting." (the quoted text is from the manual).
> 
> Of course this means that in continuous mode it will only do 3.4fps, but it does continually focus during shooting.
> 
> Mike





Steve said:


> I think TBlazer was responding to the capability of most point & shoot cameras in his response, as opposed to dSLR's. The newer ones have the ability to refocus during continuous shooting, as you point out. I was surprised to see the new D3100 can even continuously autofocus while capturing 30fps HD video, as well as in drive mode.


Right, the discussion was how a DSLR is many times faster then a P&S which allows it to do what you are describing, so yes, you are confirming what I said.

HDTVFAN was saying how a P&S can do what a DSLR can and I was disputing that "just because" a P&S can do multi-shots there is no way it can keep up with the speed of a DSLR.

I'm in the process of eBaying my Nikon D60 kit (tired of lugging around a DSLR) and am looking for the "fastest" P&S and from what I have found nothing comes close (but they are getting better, as the new Panasonic LX5 is at about .4 sec for lag time compared to .15 for an average DSLR where most of the Cannon P&S's are at about .65+. Fortunately my grandkids are older and don't move around as much any more which was the purpose of the DSLR! :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TBlazer07 said:


> HDTVFAN was saying how a P&S can do what a DSLR can and I was disputing that "just because" a P&S can do multi-shots there is no way it can keep up with the speed of a DSLR.


Not at all what I stated.....

My point was that some P&S cameras can do much of what a DSLR can do - not everything. In some cases, their manual modes even emulate the very same settings you can adjust with $3000 DSLR's, like white balance, F stop, shutter speed, etc.

Doing all this with a unit 1/5 the size and weight of many DSLR's is quite appealing to many...in fact...many of the professional expert reviews make reference tot he fact that their preference is to use the latest advanced P&S units in stead of toting around their bulky / heavy DLSR's for most purposes.


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Doing all this with a unit 1/5 the size and weight of many DSLR's is quite appealing to many...in fact...many of the professional expert reviews make reference tot he fact that their preference is to use the latest advanced P&S units in stead of toting around their bulky / heavy DLSR's for most purposes.


Agree. The folks I know who own pro-quality DSLR's also own a good point & shoot for situations where they don't want to schlep around a large camera.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> My point was that some P&S cameras can do much of what a DSLR can do - not everything. In some cases, their manual modes even emulate the very same settings you can adjust with $3000 DSLR's, like white balance, F stop, shutter speed, etc.


Pretty much _any_ camera out there over $99 (P&S or DSLR) will allow you to adjust those manual settings. The most important difference between DSLR's and P&S's is the physical size of the image sensor (NOT the megapixel count), which allows the camera to capture more light per pixel with less image noise than the smaller, higher-density sensors used in the P&S's. This results in sharper, clearer pictures, suitable for wedding album blowups, e.g., or other high quality reproduction needs. "Pro" image-quality (not build-quality) cameras can now be had for $600-$800.

And of course for sports or action photography, you can add DSLR autofocusing speed to the list of differences, as well as the ability to use interchangeable lenses, which are generally sharper and have the ability to capture more available light than compact camera zoom lenses.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> Agree. The folks I know who own pro-quality DSLR's also own a good point & shoot for situations where they don't want to schlep around a large camera.
> 
> Pretty much _any_ camera out there over $99 (P&S or DSLR) will allow you to adjust those manual settings. *The most important difference between DSLR's and P&S's is the physical size of the image sensor (NOT the megapixel count), which allows the camera to capture more light per pixel with less image noise than the smaller, higher-density sensors used in the P&S's. *


Absolutely right Steve - *the most important info to consider *with the P&S cameras (or any camera for that matter) in the digital world.

There's so my over-hype around "X" number of megapixels, but that is secondary to the *image sensor size *and quality of lens.

A number of P&S cameras have plastic lens units and 2,3,4 or 5 megapixel sensor counts. Result - noisy images, especially indoors. They may look good on a 2" - 3" preview LCD on the camera itself...but try blowing them up to 5X7, 8X10, or larger...the shortcomings show up.

My P&S (Canon Powershot S95) is very rare with a 10.1 megapixel sensor - unheard of in most point and shoot cameras today, and much more common in the bigger and more expensive DSLR units. For that reason, it has the capacity to take stunning indoor flash-free and flash images with exponentially less noise and much better image quality than most other P&S cameras. It's also a reason why it carries a heftier price tag. 

Thanks Steve, for articulating the most critical points for camera shoppers. Generally, the retail stores won't share those details as they try to sell someone that "$179 P&S camera on sale".


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> The most important difference between DSLR's and P&S's is the physical size of the image sensor (NOT the megapixel count), which allows the camera to capture more light per pixel with less image noise than the smaller, higher-density sensors used in the P&S's.


Physics dictates that the only way to gather more light is to use a bigger lens. If anything, you're spreading the same light over a larger area.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> Physics dictates that the only way to gather more light is to use a bigger lens. If anything, you're spreading the same light over a larger area.


Larger sensors allow for larger lenses for the same angular view on a smaller sensor. As you've already pointed out, a larger lens gets you more light gathering capabilities.

Mike


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> My P&S (Canon Powershot S95) is very rare with a 10.1 megapixel sensor - unheard of in most point and shoot cameras today, and much more common in the bigger and more expensive DSLR units.


While 10.1 as a count might be rare, Kodak offers 11 P&S camera models in excess of 10.1MP; five are rated at 14MP.

All but one camera in the current Olympus consumer product line is rated 12MP or better. The odd man out is rated at 10MP (the X-560WP is their waterproof model).

The S95 may well take better pictures than all of them, but that only proves that pixel count is a fairly lousy metric.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> While 10.1 as a count might be rare, Kodak offers 11 P&S camera models in excess of 10.1MP; five are rated at 14MP.


You obviously are confused about *how they measure *light sensors...by their size....that's just how folks get confused about the megapixel hype too.

Based on the sensor and lens sizes...an "8 megapixel camera" can actually take digitial images with less noise and better quality overall than a "14 megapixel camera".


----------



## harsh

MicroBeta said:


> Larger sensors allow for larger lenses for the same angular view on a smaller sensor.


The newer cameras typically _aren't_ coming with "faster" lenses and the average zoom rating is now >4x so your point is largely missed.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You obviously are confused about *how they measure *light sensors...by their size....that's just how folks get confused about the megapixel hype too.


I was trying to discount pixel count as opposed to promoting it.

I wasn't speaking to pickup size at all as you seemed to be advancing the theory that the 10.1MP rating on your S95 was why it was so wonderful.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I was trying to *discount pixel count *as opposed to promoting it.
> 
> I wasn't speaking to pickup size at all.


That's not the way it read...if that's the case...then we're on the same page where sensor size is a key factor.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> The newer cameras typically _aren't_ coming with "faster" lenses and the average zoom rating is now >4x so your point is largely missed.


A fast lens has nothing to do with zoom. "Fast" means the apature is wide enough to allow a higher shutter speed for proper exposure. IOW, the wider the f-stop the "faster" the lens.

A 50mm, f1.2 lens is "faster" than a 50mm f2.8. Therefor a larger sensor will allow for a "faster" lens than a smaller sensor of the same resolution/pixel count/mega-pixels (or whatever marketing term you want to use).

Mike


----------



## Steve

harsh said:


> Physics dictates that the only way to gather more light is to use a bigger lens. If anything, you're spreading the same light over a larger area.


Of course the "lens" is bigger. The "image receptors" on pro cameras are larger than those found on P&S's, much like 1080p picture elements on a 65" display are physically larger than 1080p picture elements on a 40" display.

Most "pro" DSLR image sensors measure between ~ 16x24mm and 24x36mm. Sensors found in today's highest quality P&S cameras, like the *Canon G12*, are either 1.1/7" or 1.1/8", or ~ 6x8mm at best. So imagine how small 10 million image receptors have to be to fit on the *G12's *48 sq mm of surface area, compared to to the size they can be when enlarged to fit 384 sq mm to 864 sq mm. Not even close.


----------



## harsh

MicroBeta said:


> A fast lens has nothing to do with zoom.


Lens speed is dependent on zoom ratio and most people use some level of optical zoom, so it has a lot to do with zoom.

My eight year old 4x zoom digital camera has a F rating of 1:3-3.6 on its 1/1.8" CCD where the Powershot S95 (for example) has a F rating of 1:2-4.9 on its 1/1.7" CCD. While the Canon's "wide out" F rating is higher, the bigger zooms bring markedly less light.

Why do they feel the need to use these inverted fractions when referring to F rating and pickup size?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> Lens speed is dependent on zoom ratio and most people use some level of optical zoom, so it has a lot to do with zoom.
> <snip>


Lens speed has *ZERO* to do with zoom ratio (whatever that is). It has solely to do with lens opening. The minimum f-stop (the ratio of lens opening to focal length) is the key here. A wider aperture allows more light and thus a "faster" shutter speed. Thus, a wider aperture allowed by a larger senser allows for the use of higher shutter speeds. Wider aperture is "faster".

This is completely independent of zoom (other than the minimum f-stop usually goes up as you zoom in making the lens "slower").

Mike


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> Of course the "lens" is bigger. The "image receptors" on pro cameras are larger than those found on P&S's, much like 1080p picture elements on a 65" display are physically larger than 1080p picture elements on a 40" display.


Given that the F rating of a lens is independent of pickup size, I'm not sure where you're going.


----------



## Steve

MicroBeta said:


> Lens speed has *ZERO* to do with zoom ratio (whatever that is). It has solely to do with lens opening. The minimum f-stop (the ratio of lens opening to focal length) is the key here. A wider aperture allows more light and thus a "faster" shutter speed. Thus, a wider aperture allowed by a larger senser allows for the use of higher shutter speeds. Wider aperture is "faster".
> 
> This is completely independent of zoom (other than the minimum f-stop usually goes up as you zoom in making the lens "slower").


I think what Harsh means here is that the minimum aperture of a lens will change, depending on where it's zoomed. That's why a zoom lens aperture ratio is quoted as "3.5-5.6", e.g. "3.5" refers to the amount of light a lens can capture at its widest angle, and "5.6" when zoomed to maximum telephoto.


----------



## Steve

harsh said:


> Physics dictates that the only way to gather more light is to use a bigger lens. If anything, you're spreading the same light over a larger area.





Steve said:


> Of course the "lens" is bigger. The "image receptors" on pro cameras are larger than those found on P&S's, much like 1080p picture elements on a 65" display are physically larger than 1080p picture elements on a 40" display.
> 
> Most "pro" DSLR image sensors measure between ~ 16x24mm and 24x36mm. Sensors found in today's highest quality P&S cameras, like the *Canon G12*, are either 1.1/7" or 1.1/8", or ~ 6x8mm at best. So imagine how small 10 million image receptors have to be to fit on the *G12's *48 sq mm of surface area, compared to to the size they can be when enlarged to fit 384 sq mm to 864 sq mm. Not even close.





harsh said:


> Given that the F rating of a lens is independent of pickup size, I'm not sure where you're going.


This has nothing to do with how much light the _camera _lens lets through.

It has all to do with how much of that light coming through those 10 million _sensor _lenses can pick up without electronic amplification, which is how the P&S's compensate for having to make the pixels so tiny.


----------



## harsh

MicroBeta said:


> This is completely independent of zoom (other than the minimum f-stop usually goes up as you zoom in making the lens "slower").


You say it is completely independent and then parenthetically offer that it is indeed dependent. Which is it? Given the example that I offered, zoom may play a significant role in the effective F rating of a lens. With the larger lenses, the effective F rating is less dependent on the zoom ratio.

Many photographers use optical zoom at one time or another, so its impact on performance shouldn't be dismissed.


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> It has all to do with how much of that light coming through those 10 million _sensor _lenses can pick up without electronic amplification, which is how the P&S's compensate for having to make the pixels so tiny.


If the F rating of the lens is the same, you're dividing the same amount of light over a larger area, right?

You can't argue more light=better pictures if you're actually seeing the same amount of light per pixel. The advantage to larger pickups must lie somewhere else.


----------



## Steve

harsh said:


> If the F rating of the lens is the same, you're dividing the same amount of light over a larger area, right?


For the last time, it's not the amount of light hitting the light receptors on the image sensor, it's the size of those receptors and their ability to capture it with the most detail and the least amplification noise possible.



> You can't argue more light=better pictures if you're actually seeing the *same* amount of light per pixel. The advantage to larger pickups must lie somewhere else.


You're seeing less light per pixel, because the P&S pixel is physically smaller (up to 1/20th the size) and therefore can't capture as much light as the DSLR pixel. It's like the difference between trying to capture the same amount of water using a shot glass vs. using a bucket, so whatever water spilled using the shot glass needs to be added back later by the camera's electronics.

IOW, what the P&S cameras do is electronically "amplify" whatever light they've captured, to compensate for what was lost in capture due to pixel size. This "amplification" adds noise and reduces image quality.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

harsh said:


> If the F rating of the lens is the same, you're dividing the same amount of light over a larger area, right?
> 
> You can't argue more light=better pictures if you're actually seeing the same amount of light per pixel. The advantage to larger pickups must lie somewhere else.


I'm not sure what you mean by the F rating but the f-stop is the ratio of the widest opening and the focal length of the lens. So a 50mm f1.2 lens has a 41.7mm opening (50/1.2). Additionally, closing down on the f-stop doesn't reduce the angle of view (it's actually negligible) but will reduced the amount of light and the depth of field. As you can see increasing the aperture for a given focal length changes the amount of light getting to the focal plane (sensor or film).

If we consider a large and small sensor with the same resolution, you can have a much wider lens larger sensor and get the same viewing angle. This means you physically get more light to the sensor then you would with a smaller sensor. That coupled that the fact that larger sensor has larger pixel area (for the same resolution) further increases the the potential light gathering.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

MicroBeta said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by the F rating but the f-stop is the ratio of the widest opening and the focal length of the lens. So a 50mm f1.2 lens has a 41.7mm opening (50/1.2). Additionally, closing down on the f-stop doesn't reduce the angle of view (it's actually negligible) but will reduced the amount of light and the depth of field. As you can see increasing the aperture for a given focal length changes the amount of light getting to the focal plane (sensor or film).
> 
> Mike


Thanks Mike....that's why the fast F2.0 lens here, coupled with the large size sensor...leads to the outstanding Powershot S95 results (especially in a P&S).

I understand your information...but in all honesty...the average consumer and even a number of amateur photographers are often confused (and in some cases when shopping...mislead) by the explanations given.

Some folks hear "a camera has 14 megapixels and a 15X zoom"and they translate that into "that's almost the best that I can get", when in fact, there is so much more to it...that same camera may yield, in fact, far more inferior digital images than a 10 megapixel camera with a large light sensor.

There are numerous good articles all over the Internet on this topic....which reiterate what Mike and I are both saying...here's just one:

http://www.wizardjournal.com/new-gadgets/camera-megapixel-confusion.html

In the end...a number of folks need to take the time to learn a bit on this subject before buying a new digital camera.


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thanks Mike....that's why the fast F2.0 lens here, *coupled with the large size sensor*...leads to the outstanding Powershot S95 results (especially in a P&S).


Your S95 doesn't have a "large size sensor". At 43 sq mm's of surface area (red sqare below), it's about the same size as most other current P&S sensors. By comparison, the 10 megapixel sensor found in the $500 Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS (blue square) is over 328 sq mm's.










What Canon, Nikon and Panasonic did do with the G12, S95, P7000 and LX5 respectively is resist the temptation to use 12-14 megapixel sensors. By choosing to go with 10 megapixels instead, they sacrificed a bit of resolution, but the slightly larger sensor cells are able to pick up a bit more light.

All is not lost for folks who already bought 12-14 megapixel P&S's, however. You can improve the ability of your cameras to pick up more light with less noise by simply setting the camera to record at a lower resolution. So if your camera is a 12 megapixel Nikon S8100, e.g., by setting it to 3264x2488 resolution instead of it's maximum 4000x3000 resolution, you effectively turn that sensor into a "virtual" 8 megapixel sensor that can capture the same amount of light, but with less "noise". Not quite as good as a "real" 8mp sensor, but better than a 12 mp sensor. Resolution will be reduced, so you won't be able to blow those photos up to 24x30 enlargements... you'll just have to settle for 16x20's.  They'll take up less disk space, tho!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> Your S95 doesn't have a "large size sensor".


Apparently you must know something other reviewers and the manufacturer don't know then...becuase your explanation totally contradicts the product information and numerous reviews form the experts that cite the S95 as having one of the largest sensor size of any P&S, as do several reviews on the product I cited in earlier posts.

It also contradicts what Mike was saying.

If you're comparing this P&S with $2000-$3000 DSLR's...that would be totally bogus.

Me thinks your information is amuck...there are many more examples out there that tell it like it really is...

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s95-review



> High Sensitivity system combines *a larger-than-average 10 Megapixel CCD, a fast lens*, and the DIGIC 4 image processor


http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10081918canonpowershots95.asp



> Shoot in darker situations with f/2.0 aperture and the HS System
> The PowerShot S95 includes Canon's HS System - *a combination of a high-sensitivity 10.0 Megapixel CCD sensor and powerful DIGIC 4 processing, which provides exceptional low light performance *even better than that of its predecessor. The HS System enables the camera to support a maximum ISO of 3200 at full resolution and works to reduce the occurrence of noise at all ISO speeds for high quality images. Users can also set their own parameters in Auto ISO mode, with the ability to limit the maximum ISO speed they want to employ during shooting.
> 
> *Using Low Light mode, the camera can also achieve an extended ISO range from ISO 320 to ISO 12800*, capturing images at 2.5MP resolution


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Apparently you must know something other reviewers and the manufacturer don't know then...


Not larger than its competitors', as I explained above, but _*larger than average*_ for a P&S, which is marketing speak, because the difference is minor. Many of today's less expensive point and shoots use a 1/1.8" sensor (5.3 x 7.1mm). The S95 uses a 1/1.7" (5.7 x 7.6) sensor. The *$500* Canon EOS XS slr uses a 14.8 x 22.2 mm sensor. *All facts.* Once again, the difference in size is show here, red being the 1/1.7" sensor:










There's nothing wrong with the s95's image quality, but it's simply not going to be as good as the XS's for a $100 more. Simply boils down to whether you want a camera you can slip into your pocket, or one you need to hang around your neck.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> _*Simply boils down to whether you want a camera you can slip into your pocket*, or one you need to hang around your neck._


_
It always does... comparing P&S and conventional DSLR's to each other is a waste of time.

My whole point about the market speak is that 80% of folks going into a camera store, a retailer, or looking online....get the market hype about megapixels, and have no idea what it all means or what really matters. I saw this over 10 times myself at different locations in person. Sales people trying to use the megapixel lure.

I also saw and observed plenty of misleading information on the camera construction itself - plenty of the "name brand" units are made up primarily of cheap plastic and are poorly constructed. One retailer told me that out of 100 returned cameras over a 90 day period...3/4 of them were returned because they started to "fall apart from all the plastic". Canon and Sony seem to do a better (overall) job, while Panasonics, especially the Lumix line, are disappointing in that area. While just about all units have at least some plastic, closer inspection reveals significant quality differences.

Last...but not least...is the fact that many of the P&S cameras use plastic (and slow) lens construction...not good either.

Best advice....do alot of online research first - and look at 10 or more reviews from different sources if you can on the units you are considering, inclusing purchase sites from actual buyers. While it is occasionally surprising to see the wide range of what you'll read about, these help make buying decisions.

One other camera I considered had a number of negative ratings (a Nikon), only to find the reason for all those down-side views revolved around a specific feature that I would never use anyway. Digging deeper...I found that except for that one item, almost everyone thought the unit was well constructed and did great imagery. It came in 2nd in my considerations...having looked at it twice in person...I did not like the form factor when using it....but still a very good camera._


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It always does... comparing P&S and conventional DSLR's to each other is a waste of time [...]


Not in the OP's "under $800" price range. If the highest image quality and the ability to capture action are the primary consideration for week-end photographers, today's hobbyists are fortunate in that there are now plenty of very affordable DSLR's and "rangefinder" cameras to choose from.


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It always does... comparing P&S and conventional DSLR's to each other is a waste of time [...]


Not in the OP's "under $800" price range. If the highest image quality and the ability to capture action are the primary consideration for week-end photographers, today's hobbyists are fortunate in that there are now plenty of very affordable large sensor DSLR's and "rangefinder" cameras to choose from.


----------



## harsh

Thanks to Steve for helping us move us past the expert opinions and punditry by replacing them with cold, hard numbers.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

fluffybear said:


> We would like to stay in the *below $800 *price range...





Steve said:


> Not in the OP's "under $800" price range. If the highest image quality and the ability to capture action are the primary consideration for week-end photographers, today's hobbyists are fortunate in that there are now plenty of very affordable large sensor DSLR's and "rangefinder" cameras to choose from.


I contend that getting a decent DSLR *under $800 *will be a challenge, especially if one expects to take advantage of what a DSLR brings to the table...interchangable lenses to start with. Yes, you can find some "OK" units, but nothing more than base/nominal equipment.

At that price point, I don't think they are much in play for the OP.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thanks Mike....that's why the fast F2.0 lens here, coupled with the large size sensor...leads to the outstanding Powershot S95 results (especially in a P&S).


As I alluded to earlier, the lens is only that "fast F2.0" when there's no zoom involved. At 3.8x zoom that becomes a not-so-fast F4.9.


----------



## Steve

If anyone is looking for a sub-$800 DSLR, my daughter just bought the new Nikon D3100 for $675 at Best Buy, with lens. I've been putting the camera through it's paces for a couple of weeks now, and it's spectacular! It also features "live view" (the option to compose pictures on the LCD screen instead of the viewfinder), and 1080p HD video capture _with continous autofocus_. It's also the smallest DSLR I've ever used.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Steve said:


> If anyone is looking for a sub-$800 DSLR, my daughter just bought the new Nikon D3100 for $675 at Best Buy, with lens. I've been putting the camera through it's paces for a couple of weeks now, and it's spectacular! Unlike most DSLR's, it also features "live view" (the option to compose pictures on the LCD screen instead of the viewfinder), and 1080p HD video capture _with continous autofocus_. It's also the smallest DSLR I've ever used.


Don't most of the current DSLRs have live view? They started showing up a couple of years ago and I thougt the bulk of the current crop have it.

Mike


----------



## Steve

MicroBeta said:


> Don't most of the current DSLRs have live view? They started showing up a couple of years ago and I thougt the bulk of the current crop have it.


You're right. Fixed my post. Last time I did my research a couple of years ago, it wasn't common. But I just checked a few and see they mostly all have it, including the bargain Canon T1i's. That's _another _great camera to consider for the week-end hobbyist, BTW. About $650 with lens.


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> Many of today's less expensive point and shoots use a 1/1.8" sensor (5.3 x 7.1mm).


A few (like my trusty old Minolta S404) are 1/1.8", most P&S cameras use a 1/2.3" pickup. Looking at the respective websites, Fujifilm, Kodak, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic and Nikon (with the exception of the P7000) all use 1/2.3" (or smaller) pickups in their P&S lines. Canon has two lines (S and G series) that use the 1/1.7" pickup. The rest use a 1/2.3" pickup.

I think it is fair to say that the 1/1.7" pickup is large by today's P&S camera standards.


----------



## Steve

harsh said:


> A few (like my trusty old Minolta S404) are 1/1.8", most P&S cameras use a 1/2.3" pickup. Looking at the respective websites, Fujifilm, Kodak, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic and Nikon (with the exception of the P7000) all use 1/2.3" (or smaller) pickups in their P&S lines. Canon has two lines (S and G series) that use the 1/1.7" pickup. The rest use a 1/2.3" pickup.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that the 1/1.7" pickup is large by today's P&S camera standards.


Correct, though it's only a 15% difference in sensor surface area. The real improvement, IMHO, is the fact the 1/1.8" sensors try to pack on more megapixels (12-14) than the 1/1.7" pick-ups (10), which further exacerbates "noise", though it does improve resolution. It's a delicate trade-off.

So in bright light, at low ISO's, the 12mp sensor might produce sharper pictures, but in available light, at higher ISO's, the 10mp sensor might provide pictures that are less "grainy", for want of a better term. That's why I recommend that unless folks with 12-14 mp P&S's want to make poster-sized prints, I would set those cameras to the next lower than maximum image size, to improve the sensor's ability to collect light, at the expense of some resolution.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> A few (like my trusty old Minolta S404) are 1/1.8", most P&S cameras use a 1/2.3" pickup. Looking at the respective websites, Fujifilm, Kodak, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic and Nikon (with the exception of the P7000) all use 1/2.3" (or smaller) pickups in their P&S lines. Canon has two lines (S and G series) that use the 1/1.7" pickup. The rest use a 1/2.3" pickup.
> 
> *I think it is fair to say that the 1/1.7" pickup is large by today's P&S camera standards*.


Exactly.

That small difference can make a big difference in low-light and/or image quality when enlarging. Yes, the Nikon P7000 is also a nice camera, and was my 2nd choice...only the form factor turned me off...otherwise...it has great specs too.


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> Correct, though it's only a 15% difference in sensor surface area. The real improvement, IMHO, is the fact the 1/1.8" sensors try to pack on more megapixels (12-14) than the 1/1.7" pick-ups (10), which further exacerbates "noise", though it does improve resolution. It's a delicate trade-off.


I haven't been able to identify any current cameras that use a 1/1.8" pickup. The 1/1.7" pickup is almost double the area of the commonly used 1/2.3" pickup.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I haven't been able to identify any current cameras that use a 1/1.8" pickup. *The 1/1.7" pickup is almost double the area of the commonly used 1/2.3" pickup*.


Yup - a key differentiator...which is the size in my S95.


----------



## dmurphy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I contend that getting a decent DSLR *under $800 *will be a challenge, especially if one expects to take advantage of what a DSLR brings to the table...interchangable lenses to start with. Yes, you can find some "OK" units, but nothing more than base/nominal equipment.
> 
> At that price point, I don't think they are much in play for the OP.


I respectfully disagree.

You can even pick up the Canon Rebel T2i with a 'kit' lens for less than $800.

http://store.uniquephoto.com/e/index.php/canon-eos-rebel-t2i-ef-s-18-55mm-is-kit-4462b001.html

The T2i is, for all intents & purposes, an OUTSTANDING DSLR. Is it a pro-grade camera? No.

But between a P&S and a T2i, I'd take the T2i any day.

The 18-55 Image Stabilized "kit" lens that comes with the T2i is actually quite good - it's an order of magnitude better than the 18-55 non-IS lens that came before it.

The sensor in the T2i is basically the same as in the 60D. Its the same size, 18mp, 1080P video sensor that Canon has been using across the line.

For the price, you can't beat it.

Disclaimer: I just sold off my Rebel XSi and bought an EOS 7D. Amazing camera, and offered a few things that the T2i didn't that I was willing to pay for (more frames per second, more autofocus points, etc.)

But if you're debating between the S95 and the T2i, the T2i wins on every count (except, of course, for physical size.)


----------



## Steve

harsh said:


> I haven't been able to identify any current cameras that use a 1/1.8" pickup. The 1/1.7" pickup is almost double the area of the commonly used 1/2.3" pickup.


Ya. They phased them out the past couple of new camera years once the 1/2.3" sensors were ready for prime time, because manufacturing a camera with a zoom is less expensive with a smaller sensor. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens optics need to be to achieve the same zoom ratio.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

dmurphy said:


> But if you're debating between the S95 and the T2i, the T2i wins on every count (except, of course, for physical size.)


Totally agree - the TSi is indeed a fine camera.

Comparing the two - including the drastic price differences...is fruitless, as they serve two entirely different photography markets.

If you're going to have a DSLR, you need all the things commonly used to take advantage of its features...inlcuding multiple filters and lens units. I also contend that you need alot more than a lens kit to render the TS2i worthwhile, bring the price far over $1000 when you finish that process.

Having seen a close friend go through that very purchase experience...he ended up with over $1175 when he was finished, and I would not remove a single optional item he purchased if I was getting a TS2i myself.


----------



## Steve

If you don't mind a camera around your neck instead of inside your pocket, the Rebel XS DSLR is available for $485.

I'm personally holding out for the newly announced GF2. Almost P&S-sized with DSLR sized image sensor and quality. Should be around $900 with zoom. It's predecessor, last year's GF1, is now being sold for $650 with zoom. A pro photographer friend of mine absolutely loves his.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> I'm personally holding out for the newly announced GF2. Almost P&S-sized with DSLR sized image sensor and quality. Should be around $900 with zoom. It's predecessor, last year's GF1, is now being sold for $650 with zoom. A pro photographer friend of mine absolutely loves his.


I didn't care for the Lumix line build quality at all. Multiple retailers told me they get "plenty Lumix units returned".

That surprised me, as in general...I'm a Panasonic productt farn.

Also....based on blog posts I've read...a number of the previous generation units were returned based on poor materials and construction. Perhaps the G2 will be improved in that area.


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I didn't care for the Lumix line build quality at all. Multiple retailers told me they get "plenty Lumix units returned".


I sold cameras while working my way through school, and retailers like to push the cameras they have the highest profit margins on. I've used my friend's GF1. It's built like a Leica, which is the highest compliment I can give any camera.

From the DPReview review of the GF1: _"it feels dense and solid, and the fit and finish are superb - overall it is, especially as here in the all-black version, a very classy camera, and one you can't help pick up and play with."_


----------



## phrelin

Over the years we have had Nikons and Canons. But right now we're using two Lumix models and they are really great, much to my initial surprise.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> From the DPReview review of the GF1: _"it feels dense and solid, and the fit and finish are superb - overall it is, especially as here in the all-black version, a very classy camera, and one you can't help pick up and play with."_


Like I mentioned earlier...multiple reviews are a must view...

http://www.digitaltrends.com/digital-camera-reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz100-review/

Most of the negatives I've read on the Lumix line come from actual buyes/users in blogs...not the advertising-paid websites that promote certain manuacturers...


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> From the DPReview review of the GF1: _"it feels dense and solid, and the fit and finish are superb - overall it is, especially as here in the all-black version, a very classy camera, and one you can't help pick up and play with."_





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Like I mentioned earlier...multiple reviews are a must view...
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/digital-camera-reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz100-review/


Not sure what you're referring to, since that's not a GF1/GF2 review. It's a review of a camera with a 1/2.3" (4.16 x 6.16 mm) sensor, as opposed to the GF1's 13.5 x 18mm sensor. :scratchin



> Most of the negatives I've read on the Lumix line come from actual buyes/users in blogs...not the advertising-paid websites that promote certain manuacturers...


Ya. No ads on the review you pointed me to above, either. :lol:

RE: DPReview and their competitors, being a life-long camera buff, I've followed most of them since their inception, and DPReview is about as objective as they get. They generally don't hold back when they are unhappy about something. If you look at the conclusion page of almost any one of their reviews, there are usually as many "cons" listed as "pros".


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> Ya. No ads on the review you pointed me to above, either. :lol:
> 
> RE: DPReview and their competitors, being a life-long camera buff, I've followed most of them since their inception, and DPReview is about as objective as they get.


I've found DPReviews to be very inconsistent in terms of depth and accuracy. That's neither here nor there. The point is...I'd never consider one source for info.


----------



## CoriBright

I've just upgraded my Canon S51S with the newest SX30IS and am very happy. For a Point & Shoot I don't think it can be beaten. It's got 35x optical zoom (I always have digital zoom disabled) and does HD Video in Stereo. To go along with it I have a Rebel XSi and a tiny little SD3500. Why all three? Well concerts with don't allow cameras, you can easily smuggle the SD3500 inside a purse (or bra), the Rebel is great for a true DSLR and the SX is not counted as a professional camera so for concerts where cameras are allowed it's the perfect unit.


----------



## lflorack

lflorack said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I just got back from a 15-day European/Trans-Atlantic cruise. Using my S90, I took about 850 shots. When I get some time, I'll categorize them and put them up on Flickr too.


As I mentioned earlier (above) , I have added the first 14 pix of over 1000 taken with our S90 and posted them *here*.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

CoriBright said:


> I've just upgraded my Canon S51S with the newest SX30IS and am very happy. For a Point & Shoot I don't think it can be beaten. It's got 35x optical zoom (I always have digital zoom disabled) and does HD Video in Stereo. To go along with it I have a Rebel XSi and a tiny little SD3500. Why all three? Well concerts with don't allow cameras, you can easily smuggle the SD3500 inside a purse (or bra), the Rebel is great for a true DSLR and the SX is not counted as a professional camera so for concerts where cameras are allowed it's the perfect unit.


Congrats....the 30IS is a nice P&S camera for just the things you indicated you want to use it for...


lflorack said:


> As I mentioned , I have added the first 14 of over 1000 taken on our cruise and posted them *here*.


Very nice photos....that looks like one heck of a great trip you enjoyed!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

lflorack said:


> As I mentioned earlier (above) , I have added the first 14 pix of over 1000 taken with our S90 and posted them *here*.


Nice pictures.

My wife and I did a Mediterranean cruise for out 25th anniversary. It's the best vacation we've ever taken. 

Mike


----------



## gilviv

The Canon Rebel series cameras are a great product. I have been in the business for 30 years and have always used Canon pro equipment, but when the misses asked for her OWN camera I got her the Canon Rebel Xsi w/ a 35-200 zoom lens. She loves it and I have to say she takes some incredibly beautiful images with it!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

gilviv said:


> The Canon Rebel series cameras are a great product. I have been in the business for 30 years and have always used Canon pro equipment, but when the misses asked for her OWN camera I got her the Canon Rebel Xsi w/ a 35-200 zoom lens. She loves it and I have to say she takes some incredibly beautiful images with it!


Agree.

Canon is also cited as making some of the best P&S cameras out there right now.


----------



## Laxguy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Totally agree - the TSi is indeed a fine camera.
> 
> If you're going to have a DSLR, you need all the things commonly used to take advantage of its features...inlcuding multiple filters and lens units. I also contend that you need alot more than a lens kit to render the TS2i worthwhile, bring the price far over $1000 when you finish that process.


Well, no, you don't *need* additional lenses, and you don't need filters at all. Eventually one wants additional gear, but this makes a great starter kit.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> Well, no, you don't *need* additional lenses, and you don't need filters at all. Eventually one wants additional gear, but this makes a great starter kit.


Respectifully disagree.

Kinda like a Rolls with a Bose audio system in it...if you're gonna get an above-average camera without the common "accesories", you're only enjoying part of its capabilities.


----------



## Laxguy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Respectifully disagree.
> 
> Kinda like a Rolls with a Bose audio system in it...if you're gonna get an above-average camera without the common "accesories", you're only enjoying part of its capabilities.


My point is "need". Initially, you don't need anything but what comes in the box. Yes, additional lenses will be desired, a good flash unit, a polarizer, lens hoods, not to mention a good case, more flash cards, a flash card reader, a new computer, er....:lol: Unlike a poor audio system, you don't have to uninstall or reinstall. Just add stuff when you can afford it.

I am facing somewhat similar decisions re D*.... in another thread.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Respectifully disagree.
> 
> Kinda like a Rolls with a Bose audio system in it...if you're gonna get an above-average camera without the common "accesories", you're only enjoying part of its capabilities.





Laxguy said:


> My point is "need". Initially, you don't need anything but what comes in the box. Yes, additional lenses will be desired, a good flash unit, a polarizer, lens hoods, not to mention a good case, more flash cards, a flash card reader, a new computer, er....:lol: Unlike a poor audio system, you don't have to uninstall or reinstall. Just add stuff when you can afford it.
> 
> I am facing somewhat similar decisions re D*.... in another thread.


There is something to be said for building a system of photography components over time. It's a lot of outlay to do it all at once...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## dmurphy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Respectifully disagree.
> 
> Kinda like a Rolls with a Bose audio system in it...if you're gonna get an above-average camera without the common "accesories", you're only enjoying part of its capabilities.


Frankly, a kit like this:

Rebel T1i w/ 18-55 & 55-250 lenses

is more than enough camera for most people. $799 for a GREAT DSLR that also shoots 1080p video & both a wide-angle and telephoto lens. Excellent deal.

PLUS, you can throw in a Pixma Pro9000 printer for $49 after rebate with this deal. That's a steal for a $400+ printer.

Really.

For me, I've gotten bit by the bug and have some Canon "L" lenses and such, but I started with a Rebel series as well, and it was excellent.


----------



## dmurphy

Mike Bertelson said:


> There is something to be said for building a system of photography components over time. It's a lot of outlay to do it all at once...I'm just sayin' :grin:
> 
> Mike


Agreed!

And, I've found that value - especially on the lenses - remains VERY high over time, compared to other electronics.

My last two DSLR's -- a Rebel XT & Rebel XSi -- were sold via eBay or Craigslist for about 70% of purchase price - that's a great residual after several years of use. Lenses do even better.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Mike Bertelson said:


> There is something to be said for building a system of photography components over time. It's a lot of outlay to do it all at once...I'm just sayin' :grin:





dmurphy said:


> Frankly, a kit like this:
> 
> Rebel T1i w/ 18-55 & 55-250 lenses
> 
> is more than enough camera for most people. $799 for a GREAT DSLR that also shoots 1080p video & both a wide-angle and telephoto lens. Excellent deal.
> 
> PLUS, you can throw in a Pixma Pro9000 printer for $49 after rebate with this deal. That's a steal for a $400+ printer.





dmurphy said:


> Agreed!
> 
> And, I've found that value - especially on the lenses - remains VERY high over time, compared to other electronics.


That was kinda my original point...optional lens kits are really not optional for many users. Gotta have some fun with the camera after all... 

Then again...I don't have 10 HD DVRs like some folks either. :lol:


----------



## dmurphy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That was kinda my original point...optional lens kits are really not optional for many users. Gotta have some fun with the camera after all...
> 
> Then again...I don't have 10 HD DVRs like some folks either. :lol:


Sure, but you can get in the game with two really outstanding lenses AND the camera for under $800 ... To me, that's the starter kit, and anything beyond that is optional. Those two lenses - the Canon 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS - are really outstanding for the price... optically very, very sharp, excellent image stability, and coverage from wide angle to pretty deep telephoto. Good stuff all around!

Much more flexible, versatile, and infinitely more expandable than a P&S.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

dmurphy said:


> Sure, but you can get in the game with two really outstanding lenses AND the camera for under $800 ... To me, that's the starter kit, and anything beyond that is optional. Those two lenses - the Canon 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS - are really outstanding for the price... optically very, very sharp, excellent image stability, and coverage from wide angle to pretty deep telephoto. Good stuff all around!
> 
> *Much more flexible, versatile, and infinitely more expandable than a P&S*.


Of course...with a bulkier, heavier, less mobile camera and significantly higher pricetag too. The best P&S cameras can be purchased for less than 1/2 the price of the lowest-priced good DSLR cameras.

The two have never been intended for the same market, as has been repeatedly stated before...so comparisons are fruitless.


----------



## Laxguy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The best P&S cameras can be purchased for less than 1/2 the price of the lowest-priced good DSLR cameras.


Whoa! I don't mean to be disagreeable to you or with you, but the best compact [P$S] cameras are more expensive than decent DSLRs. Of course, I'd be happy if you could get the top compacts for $350.00.....

FTR, I have 3 Canon DSLRs and one compact-ancient, a Canon g-3, all of four Megapixels but it's a fine piece of equipment. There's a place for all of 'em, and even my iPhone's little 'camera'.....

I am hoping you might be able to advise me on my dilemna over new service.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> I'd be happy if you could get the top compacts for $350.00.....


Got mine for $309, and routinely have seen them <$350. 


> FTR, I have 3 Canon DSLRs and one compact-ancient, a Canon g-3, all of four Megapixels but it's a fine piece of equipment. There's a place for all of 'em, and even my iPhone's little 'camera'.....


We're on the same page on that....*they all *have a place.

I've used DSLR's and almost any kind of 4X5, SLR, and other type of camera out there at one time or another over the past 25+ years. Ahhh...the good old days of pushing film speed and developing paper.... :lol:

If you would have asked me even 2 years ago if I'd use any kind of P&S camera, I would have likely said "no thank you".

That segment of cameras has really blossomed in the past 12-18 months, and now represents a big share of the camera market - mostly due to the technology advances you can find in them these days (and of course the attractive price points ).

I've read probably 30 reviews from top professional experts in the camera field who seem to have one common theme... "For professional work, I'll take my DSLR any day. For all other photography... I'll use my high-end P&S and save all the weight to lug around, with excellent results as well."

Perhaps its a sign of getting older, but given the choice, and having now sampled the latest P&S capabilities....I no longer have the appetite or need for the bigger DSLR, despite how admittedly neat & powerful those units are.

Ironically, I can go fully manual with all settings on my P&S, in case I have a moment of insanity to do so... :lol:


----------

