Camera help please??

[Hutchins]

I need another camera for my Alaska cruise. I have a Canon PowerShot S230, which I love because it is so small, but it only has 3x optical zoom, and I know I need something more powerful as well. I have read a number of threads here and at dpreview.com. Here are my thoughts -- would somebody who knows what he/she is doing please give me some feedback?

 

I don't want to spend a fortune, but at the same time, I don't want to skimp over a few hundred bucks and be sorry later. I looked at the Canon Digital Rebel XT, but I am rejecting it because I think I don't want to be having to change out lenses. I am typically a point-and-shoot kind of girl, but I want to branch out for this trip. But I'm not sure I'm ready to branch out that much. So I have ruled out any of the cameras where I need a second lens to get the necessary zoom.

 

Which leaves cameras with at least a 10x zoom, it seems to me. Plus from everything I have read, I need some type of image stabilizer. As best I can tell, a lot of these cameras don't have very high megapixels, but I don't plan on blowing up any huge pictures anyway.

 

So ... based on that rationale, I have narrowed it down to 2 cameras: the Nikon Coolpix 8800 and the Canon Powershot S1 IS. Now, I know what you're thinking -- those 2 cameras are in very different price ranges. :eek: The Nikon is between $600 and $1000 (still not sure why there is such a wide range there), and the Canon is between $300 and $400. I really don't do a lot of photography, so I'm wondering if it is worth it for me to buy the Nikon. But if the answer is that my Alaska pictures are really going to be noticeably better (and I can get it for more like the $600 range than the $1000 range), then I might spring for it.

 

So, that's my thought process. Am I missing any factors or overlooking anything?? Thank you in advance for any help!!!

 

Nicole

[booth22]

Check out the Minolta Dimage Z3.... It has a 12X optical zoon, the fastest AF of similar cameras and the macro/super macro modes are fantastic. It's not too big either and it a breeze to use. If you are interested, I can email you some pics I've taken with it. We got ours not even two months ago as our first digital and also for our cruise this summer. I'm sure the minolta website has all the specs on it if you want to check it out. I haven't had any complaints about it as of yet... The price range i think is around $450 give or take.... Good luck!

[dsclark]

I have a SOny cp 150. it is a dinky point and shoot with 7 megs. The Zeiss optics are good for only 3x zoom. This actually good because small cameras with powerful zooms introduce optical distortion.

This camera has been discontinued and can be had for around $300. You may ask "Why am I suggesting this?". Well, Sony makes some really cool accessaries for it. I got the water proof housing (way nice!) and the lens adapter. The adpater cost under $30 and allows the use of filters. It will also take zoom lenses. In fact, Sony makes two special zoom lenses for their little camera- one is 3x. While it might night sound like much, you'll have 9x zoom, high quality and portability. The adapter installs easily and although it sticks out a bit, Sony makes a case that is weirdly shaped to accomodate an adapter clad CP150 camera.

[basser]

I am currently looking at cameras for our June AK cruise and I have narrowed it down to 3. The Minolta Z5 (updated Z3 with 12X zoom, image stabalizer, and 5 megapixels), Panasonic FZ20 (same specs. as the Minolta) and the Kodak Z7590 (10X, no image stabalization). All have a 2" screen where as the Canon only has a 1.5" I am leaning toward the Z5 because it uses AA batteries whereas the other 2 use an expensive battery.

[sk8teacher]

 

So ... based on that rationale, I have narrowed it down to 2 cameras: the Nikon Coolpix 8800 and the Canon Powershot S1 IS. Nicole

 

Both are excellent cameras and will take very good pictures. The telling factor is "feel". Go to your local Best Buy (or similar store) and see if they have the two cameras in stock. Pick them up and play with them. I would bet that one will "fit" you better than the other. Also look at ease of use, where the various buttons are, can you reach them easily, etc.

 

The one that feels most comfortable in your hands is the one you want to buy.

 

Cheers,

[whale-watcher]

Plus from everything I have read, I need some type of image stabilizer.

I actually use an inexpensive and lightweight walking sick-monopod I purchased from our local sporting goods store. Instead of a thread mount on top, it has a horizontal padded bar, and you just rest your hand and camera on this when needed. With many digital point and shoot cameras it is then possible to take some amazing close-up shots by holding the lens of the camera up to one eyepiece on a pair of binoculars (or for ultra close-ups, a spotting scope). You end up with a MUCH more magnified image than would ever be possible with a compact camera otherwise, and if you are carrying binoculars anyways, you already have most of the equipment you need.

If you are interested in this process, it is called "DIGISCOPING" (or digi-bin-ing) and much is written about it on the internet. I have used this method to take some great wildlife and bird pictures using my compact Canon SD300. Here is link to some pictures taken by a nature photographer who uses this method:

http://www.avianphotos.org/

[Hutchins]

This is great -- I knew you guys would help me!! :) I will check out all of these options!

 

Nicole

[Hutchins]

I see why you are looking at the Minolta and the Panasonic. Why are you not considering the Nikon or Canon cameras I mentioned? Is it the 12x zoom feature?

[wcal]

I was in the market for a new digital camera for my upcoming Alaska cruise. I had an earlier model Nikon Coolpix 950 and an older SLR cannon rebel. After checking out many different models I decided to get the Nikon Coolpix 8800. I am far from a good photographer but really like it a lot. Well built and takes great pictures. Has many scene modes, vibration reduction, 10X optical zoom, build in sped light, movie mode. I choose it over a digital SLR cannon rebel even though I could use my older lenses with the Digital Rebel. I guess one of the biggest deciding factors for me was the portability. No extra lenses to carry around like with digital SLR cameras.

[Lisichka]

Both are good cameras, but realize that Nikon is not your best choice if you do a lot of picture taking in low light.In my opinion, you can never go wrong with Canon (and I have owned just about every digital camera out there).

[basser]

I did consider the Canon, but I don't like its small viewing screen. I haven't looked at the Nikon, but the prices you have for it are more than I want to spend. I have read that the Panasonic will not zoom while you are taking video so that is why I am leaning toward the Minolta. That and the battery cost issue.

[bruce-r]

Too bad the S230 isn't one of the Canon camera that accepts accessory lenses.

 

A friend has the Canon Powershot S1 IS. It is a real nice camera, has the 10x optical zoom you want, and takes decent movies as well.

 

As you know, Canon makes high quality cameras.

[murmurings]

I need another camera for my Alaska cruise. I have a Canon PowerShot S230, which I love because it is so small, but it only has 3x optical zoom, and I know I need something more powerful as well. I have read a number of threads here and at dpreview.com. Here are my thoughts -- would somebody who knows what he/she is doing please give me some feedback?

 

I don't want to spend a fortune, but at the same time, I don't want to skimp over a few hundred bucks and be sorry later. I looked at the Canon Digital Rebel XT, but I am rejecting it because I think I don't want to be having to change out lenses. I am typically a point-and-shoot kind of girl, but I want to branch out for this trip. But I'm not sure I'm ready to branch out that much. So I have ruled out any of the cameras where I need a second lens to get the necessary zoom.

 

Which leaves cameras with at least a 10x zoom, it seems to me. Plus from everything I have read, I need some type of image stabilizer. As best I can tell, a lot of these cameras don't have very high megapixels, but I don't plan on blowing up any huge pictures anyway.

 

So ... based on that rationale, I have narrowed it down to 2 cameras: the Nikon Coolpix 8800 and the Canon Powershot S1 IS. Now, I know what you're thinking -- those 2 cameras are in very different price ranges. :eek: The Nikon is between $600 and $1000 (still not sure why there is such a wide range there), and the Canon is between $300 and $400. I really don't do a lot of photography, so I'm wondering if it is worth it for me to buy the Nikon. But if the answer is that my Alaska pictures are really going to be noticeably better (and I can get it for more like the $600 range than the $1000 range), then I might spring for it.

 

So, that's my thought process. Am I missing any factors or overlooking anything?? Thank you in advance for any help!!!

 

Nicole

Why not look at the Konica Minolta A2? 28-200mm lens non-interchangable lens, image-stabilisation, much lighter than an SLR. My wife and I have one each and find them excellent.

[basser]

The zoom on the Z5 is equivilent to a 400mm.

[wehavefun]

Ok, camera experts...I love taking pictures and especially night pics. I have a Cannon Rebel Digital with some Sigma lenses. Love the camera and the flexibility of the lenses but was told the other day that my pics would be so very sharp if I had a professional lense. Of course, the person saying this did not see any of my pics. but I can not get this thought out of my mind. I keep thinking I need to invest in a professional lense.

 

I am open for any and all suggestions??

 

Thank you!!

[JohnQ]

It depends on what Sigma lens you have. They make better lens cheaper than oem's. Look for the ones with ed or other higher quality glass and coatings. Tokina, Tameron also make good lens. I have Nikon and Tokina lens, but I know from research that Sigma also has. If you look at lens add in photo mag, and you see two that appear to be same size, the more expensive one will usually be faster and be the pro version of the lens.

 

As to the original question, I have Oly C-750 which is very small 10x zoom, 4 mg camera that takes good pictures and has lots of features, but no stablizer. I looked at the Panasonic when I bought but the lens and camera were almost 35slr size. But it has gotten good review, and should be good. Haven't read much about Canon and Nikon in 10x or more zoom. They must be newer. What resolution are they?

[Hutchins]

JohnQ, the Nikon is 8 megapixels and the Canon is 3.2. (That is what you were asking, right??) I looked at the Oly C-765 and thought it would be a great choice except for the lack of the IS. Several of the posts I read seemed to say that the IS is pretty important, particularly for pics taken from the ship. I don't know, but it seemed like a reasonable way to whittle my list some!

[JohnQ]

There are several websites that review cameras that give you all the info you want. I saw the Canon and Nikon and both were rated pretty high. I've been considering digital slr but not sure yet which way to go. I do find myself wanting more than 4 megs when I crop a picture and want an 8x10 or larger.

Most of those you have mentioned should give you the longer lens you want and still have an automatic camera when you want to.

[tee_wrecks]

Ok, camera experts...I love taking pictures and especially night pics. I have a Cannon Rebel Digital with some Sigma lenses. Love the camera and the flexibility of the lenses but was told the other day that my pics would be so very sharp if I had a professional lense. Of course, the person saying this did not see any of my pics. but I can not get this thought out of my mind. I keep thinking I need to invest in a professional lense.

 

I am open for any and all suggestions??

 

Thank you!!

 

While there are some major differences in "pro" lenses and "consumer" lenses those differences are usually most noticable when the lenses are used at the extremes. Pro lenses are built to much tighter specifications and utlize special glass designed to let them perform at their optimum capability even when used fully wide open or fully stopped down. Consumer lenses will almost always show some image degridation when shot wide open. Generally speaking, all lenses pro and consumer alike, are at their sharpest when used about 2 stops closed down from maximum aperature. (if your lens is an f3.5 maximum aperature it will be sharpest at about f8.) Another consideration is what your objective is for use of the pics. If you're going to display them on your computer screen or print them 4X6 or even up to 8X10, it would be very difficult to tell the difference in results between lenses.

 

Finally, consider that every lens manufacturer, even the major camera manufacturers have usually 3 grades of lenses. Sort of like Sears' ratings of "good, better, and best" with the price increasing commensurately. These days though, all lenses are designed by computers and built by robots so it's pretty difficult to get a bad one. There are just varying degrees of "good."

 

The main factor, though, is what do YOU think of your photos? Are they sharp enough for you and your ultimate usage? If so, who cares what someone else says? If you're trying to sell your images and they keep getting rejected for not being "critically sharp" then by all means consider purchasing better (read "higher priced") lenses.

 

The last thing I'll say before I get down off my soapbox is this: 99% of all the photos out there that are said to be not sharp enough are soft due to some other factor besides lens quality. Make sure your techniques are solid, avoid getting flare caused by direct light shining on your lens, and be very careful when exposing images and you should be just fine. Don't blame the lenses if you're trying to handhold your camera with a 1/2 second shutter speed.

[Gator83]

Check out the Kodak 6940 ( i think that is the number )...it is a digital with a great zoom and is cheaper than it was a few years ago. I have it and think it's great. I also shoot with a 35mm with a 300 m lens too.