The Official S-T.N Digital Camera Thread

[greench440]

Olympus - heavy, slow, clunky, shorter battery life, not as good optics.

Canon and Nikon have risen to the top of the digital camera heap.  Sony has too many proprietary dependencies (memory stick anyone?) for me.  They may be incorporating support for more standard stuff today, but their history says the best technology they have to offer will always be in their proprietary stuff.

[1KPerDay]

The movie recording feature, while not a requirement, has been very nice. I've used it way more than I thought I ever would.

We haven't shot any "video" in a few years. We just use the digital camera now.

[Fudge]

We haven't shot any "video" in a few years. We just use the digital camera now.

Very true.  I didn't shoot any videos until I got my S3.  Now I've got a very fun digital camera that takes great videos.  I take allot of videos now because of the versatility the camera adds.  The cool thing is that you can be videoing with the S3 and take a picture at the same time.  

[Jeff]

Very true.  I didn't shoot any videos until I got my S3.  Now I've got a very fun digital camera that takes great videos.  I take allot of videos now because of the versatility the camera adds.  The cool thing is that you can be videoing with the S3 and take a picture at the same time.  

Exactly.

[maddjack]

Me likey this one ,can get it for under 300 now
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz7/

[Jeff]

That was another one I looked at. I ended up not choosing that one because it has a proprietary battery pack, and I wanted to be able to use AA batteries, so if I was in the middle of BFE and needed batteries, I could get them just about anywhere. Very nice camera though.

[Nny]

That was another one I looked at. I ended up not choosing that one because it has a proprietary battery pack, and I wanted to be able to use AA batteries, so if I was in the middle of BFE and needed batteries, I could get them just about anywhere. Very nice camera though.

But if the battery lasts for a month why would you care about double A batteries?    I had to carry like 3 pairs of double A's and a fast charger around with my last camera because it would eat through a pair like every 3 hours of taking pics...    Mine even has a nice slim charger that's about the same size (a smidge smaller) than the camera.  (excuse the dirty mirror..  )



Here's a vid of the charger with my oh so entertaining narration.

[Johnny Monsoon]

I loved my Sony Cybershot.  I loved my Canon Powershot S1IS.  I hated my Kodak's finicky autofocus, but it took amazing photos.

I'm now looking for another Kodak since the demise of my Canon.  I understand the AF issue is sorted and they come with IS now.  Every time I look at my older photos I can instantly tell which ones were from the Kodak.  I know they aren't as popular or prolific, but I've been impressed with images I've seen from every one.  Were it not for the AF woes of my Kodak, I'd still have it.  I'm not sure if it was a flaw with that particular camera or just a design flaw in general.  

Oh, and one more great Kodak feature is the docking port.  Just plunk it down and let it do its thing.  The best user interface I've ever encountered, and comes with good photosoftware.

[Jeff]

But if the battery lasts for a month why would you care about double A batteries?    I had to carry like 3 pairs of double A's and a fast charger around with my last camera because it would eat through a pair like every 3 hours of taking pics...    Mine even has a nice slim charger that's about the same size (a smidge smaller) than the camera.  (excuse the dirty mirror..  )

You have a point there. So far I haven't had the problem with my AA's being eaten. My rechargeable AA batteries, that I already had before the camera, aren't that great, but they still last a long time. I guess I put more value on the whole IF they run out, you can buy them easily, then maybe I should have.

That said, I still am happy with my S2. Ideally I would've gotten a D-SLR, but I couldn't afford it.

Jeff

[Against The Wind]

Canon powershots take great piccies.

 

[Fudge]

You have a point there. So far I haven't had the problem with my AA's being eaten. My rechargeable AA batteries, that I already had before the camera, aren't that great, but they still last a long time. I guess I put more value on the whole IF they run out, you can buy them easily, then maybe I should have.

That said, I still am happy with my S2. Ideally I would've gotten a D-SLR, but I couldn't afford it.

Jeff

I also looked at the D-SLR option, but there is a trade off for me (and most people).  The bigger the camera, the less likely I will take it with me.  While the S3 isn't small, for what it does it's a very efficient size.  Unlike my previous Minolta A2 which was bulkier and didn't go with me everywhere, I find the S3 is ideal.  We also have a powershot SD450 that is always with us because it is so small and light it easily fits in a jacket pocket or my wifes purse.

[Thunder7]

I also looked at the D-SLR option, but there is a trade off for me (and most people).  The bigger the camera, the less likely I will take it with me.  While the S3 isn't small, for what it does it's a very efficient size.  Unlike my previous Minolta A2 which was bulkier and didn't go with me everywhere, I find the S3 is ideal.  We also have a powershot SD450 that is always with us because it is so small and light it easily fits in a jacket pocket or my wifes purse.

Its funny- I understand that completely but for most of my life I have been carrying around a huge load of equipment just because thhats what I've needed. There have been so many times where I've considered a smaller camera to tote around but decided against it because I knew I'd be unhappy with the results compared to my DSLR. It would all revolve around that once in a lifetime shot that I wouldnt have been able to get at the maximum quality I've become accustomed to.

In no way am I saying that the smaller cameras wont suit anybody's needs- They just wouldnt suit mine.

[Jeff]

I hear both of you. I've wrestled with both ends of it.

On one hand, only having a small camera will not yield the best results, compared to a DSLR.

But on the other, getting results from a small camera is better than not getting any results because you didn't bring the larger, bulkier DSLR.

I wouldn't mind getting a DSLR to go with the S2, or, getting a smaller camera to go on the other end. It does seem that the S2/S3 is a good step between small camera and SLR. But the low light photos are just crap due to all the noise at ISO200 and ISO400.

Jeff

[Thunder7]

But on the other, getting results from a small camera is better than not getting any results because you didn't bring the larger, bulkier DSLR.Jeff

Oh, you're absolutely right on that one. But then the artist in me comes into play and there is no such logic involved!  

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

Fred what is your main camera you shoot with?

[Avigar]

I hear both of you. I've wrestled with both ends of it.

On one hand, only having a small camera will not yield the best results, compared to a DSLR.

But on the other, getting results from a small camera is better than not getting any results because you didn't bring the larger, bulkier DSLR.

I wouldn't mind getting a DSLR to go with the S2, or, getting a smaller camera to go on the other end. It does seem that the S2/S3 is a good step between small camera and SLR. But the low light photos are just crap due to all the noise at ISO200 and ISO400.

Jeff

I ended up getting one of each eventually... a Canon Powershot SD900 and a Nikon D80 DSLR. Yeah, I guess I'm happy for now.    

[Avigar]

Fred what is your main camera you shoot with?

So, Fred, which way do you swing? Canon or Nikon?  

[Nny]

Yeah, I hear you.  For me though, the bang for the buck is more in the smaller camera.  With how small you have to make web photos anyway I don't see the need for more than 5 mega pixels and I don't mind a bit of graininess every now and then.  I'm not a photographer and I don't care about getting it "just right".  It's kind of like audiophiles who spend 1k on headphones vs someone who buys a pair that have above average sound quality but you can't always hear when the guitarist slides his finger on accident switching chords..  the OP though was talking about a very easy to use camera which D-SLR's certainly aren't. (from a non "photophile" perspective.)

[Thunder7]

Fred what is your main camera you shoot with?

Canon EOS 30D. Lenses are as follows:

85mm 1.8 (Excellent for head and product shots)
17-40mm L 4.0
28-135mm 3.5/5.6 IS Zoom
70-200mm L 4.0 Zoom
200mm L 2.8

For those of you not aware, Canon's "L" series is their high end lenses. better optics and sturdier lenses. For what its worth, I think that Nikon's standard optics are better than Canon's. Their high end optics are both excellent as are their cameras.

50mm 1.8 and 70-300 both no longer used. The 85mm is a far better lens for my needs and the standard 70-300 zoom is a low contrast piece of junk.

[Jeff]

I get where you're going Nny, but a DSLR is no where near the comparison of an audiophile spending outrageous amounts of coin for a set of headphones. For that, you'd be shopping for something like a medium format Hasselblad (sp?) with a digital back. Those are really sweet, but just stupidly expensive.

There's no denying the bulk involved with a DSLR. A small camera will obviously win every time in that regard. But DSLRs have full auto settings too. If the photographer (term used loosely - i.e. the person behind the camera) choose, all they have to do is push one button, just like a point and shoot. But with the SLR, again if the photographer chooses, can do so much more. The versatility of a DSLR just really can't be beat.

Unless you're printing posters, I'll agree with you and say anything over 5mp is probably overkill. But then again, the flexibility you have with more megapixels is worth something. You're able to crop the photo into a composition that works better than the original may have, but still allow good printing sizes. Smaller megapixel cameras limit that.

Jeff