Need a cheap camera with a large lens.

[shortylickens]

Want something under $300 that still has a large lens, 37mm or bigger. Ideally in the 50mm area.

Learned a long time ago that lens size has a heck of a lot more to do with image quality than pixel count. I also learned you can have many different quality sensors that all give the same image size. Kept my DSC-P50 for many years because its taken better shots than most other folks camera phones and tiny point'n'shoot cameras with outrageous pixel counts.

I did purchase a Sony F717 and it was nice while it lasted but the damn thing died over a year ago. Apparently they had a recall on defective models but I missed it. Was using my P50 last night during a Santa parade. Couldnt get any good night shots, despite the fact they were all lit up like Clark Griswolds house. Recently took some daytime pictures of the house for friends. When editing them I realized they were a little less than stellar even though the sun was giving me plenty of light.
As an example, this is something I took when I first got the camera 8 years ago:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...lickens/asc00089-2.jpg
This is one I took the other day, at the request of a friend who wants to draw it and put it on her cards this year:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/shortylickens/House.jpg
For those of you who know what to look for, its pretty easy to see the image is a little fuzzier/out of focus and has some definite grain. Granted, you get different pics from 2 feet versus 60 feet, but the quality has always been the same with my camera. Up until recently, that is.

Looking to purchase a reasonably priced camera with a large lens and decent quality sensor. Pixel count is NOT a concern. If I could find a really good 2MP camera I would buy it. I also dont need much in the way of special functions like nightvision and such. My F717 had it and I never used it.
Need advice on brands and models. I know its popular to hate Sony right now but that nice little P50 has done a good job for many years. Of course, they could have dipped in quality and for all I know are now the scourge of camera land. I'm not particular to any one brand or style.
This isnt a christmas present so if you think I should wait until afterwards and look for some good deals I could probably do that.
I dont have much money invested in accessories so I dont need anything compatible with my current gear. Would be willing to go out and buy better batteries, memory cards, and lenses if I had to later.

Been looking at these:
Nikon P80. Its actually a little cheaper at my local store.
Sony H50. Same thing, I can find it cheaper.
Fuji S8100fd.
Kodak Z1015.
Olympus SP-570. Its a little out of my desired range, but if it gets awesome props here on Anandtech, I may dig around until I find it in the $325 and below category.
Panasonic DMC-FZ28S


For a little while I seriously considered pocket cams but I realized that if I go outside with any camera at all, I want the best quality pics possible.
Its very unlikely I'll keep a tiny camera in my pocket all day, every day. And if it takes less than ideal photos its unlikely I'll even use the thing. Thats a big waste of money. It always drives me nuts when I go to someones house and see an expensive camera sitting on a shelf, collecting dust.
Too many people get into the photography hobby because they think it will be fun or they have a gadget addiction and then decide its too expensive & time consuming. I made do with a low end model for about 8 years.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Want something under $300 that still has a large lens, 37mm or bigger. Ideally in the 50mm area.

Learned a long time ago that lens size has a heck of a lot more to do with image quality than pixel count

Lens SIZE has almost nothing to do with image quality in P&S cameras. In point and shoots, sensor size and the quality of the optics within a lens are what actually matter. If one could mount a huge 5 pound professional telephoto lens with an 100mm front diameter to a point and shoot with a tiny sensor, it would still produce horrendous images at anything over ISO 400.

Also, you should realize that most non-DSLR cameras produce SIMILAR image quality, regardless of how large they are. The relatively large 20x superzoom cameras (such as the Olympus SP-570UZ) produces images NO BETTER than many point and shoots because they still use a tiny sensor, just like compact, pockable cameras. In addition, their lenses make compromises in quality to reach the huge 20x zoom range.

That said, what you are looking for is a point and shoot with a large sensor and a good lens.

Really, what I would recommend to you before anything else is a DSLR like the Nikon D40. You can pick one up with the kit lens for about $400, and it's worlds beyond ANY point and shoot camera. Once you get a DSLR and see the quality of images even at ISO 800 or 1600, you'll never again think to compare image quality between point&shoots and DSLRs. The zoom range of the D40's kit lens is about 27-82.5mm after factoring in the D40's 1.5x FOV crop, which is quite versatile 3x zoom.

For point and shoots, the #1 camera I would recommend to you is the Panasonic LX3. It has what is quite possibly the best lens/sensor combination available in a point and shoot right now, with an optically stabilized Leica 24-60mm f/2.0-2.8 lens coupled to a relatively large (for a point and shoot) sensor. The relatively low (these days) megapixel count of 10MP mean that it produces good images even at ISO 800, a feat unheard of by most point and shoots.

However, it's a bit out of your price range at $350-400. You might be able to get it for slightly less if you find coupons or use eBay cashback.

Barring that, the Fuji F100fd, Canon SD 880 IS, and Panasonic FX37 are all good choices. The Fuji F100fd has a larger sensor than most point and shoots, so it's better than many others despite the high 12 megapixel count. The Panasonic FX37 is noteworthy for having a very desirable lens range of 25mm (approaching ultra-wide) to 125mm (medium telephoto).

Image quality from all 3 are quite good, if not quite up to the level of the LX3.

 

[Deadtrees]

996GT2 pretty much pointed out how you're wrong so I'll skip on that.

Based on what you've said, I, too, say you go for DSLR.

Also, it's true that one shouldn't go crazy about pixel count on compact cameras because their tiny sensor size can't handle it. But, 2MP is way too low.
Simply put, 'I don't care about pixel count' crowd is as silly as 'image quality = pixel count' crowd.
If you care about resolution(not pixel resolution but detail resolution,) print size, pixel count matters more than lens quality.

BTW, the first picture you linked is, in fact, quite good for a 8 year old camera but nowadays crappy camera will easily do better than that.

 

[bludragon]

Generally speaking, the bigger the image and the brighter it is, the better the image quality and the bigger the lens needs to be to gather the necessary light, so in that you are correct. Technically speaking, rather than lens size, the determining factors are sensor size and aperture as well as lens quality, sensor quality and how good the image processing is. Sensor size is effectively the size of the image the lens needs to project, and aperture is related to the brightness of the image.

As mentioned above, if you want the very best quality, a DSLR is the only way forward, but, having said that, a DSLR takes more time and effort to use properly and even if you manage to get one that fits your budget, you can expect to blow that budget completely over time as you get tempted by accessories. (Flash, zoom lens, fast lens, bag, tripod, filters, more powerful pc to process the RAW files, better lenses, better body, full frame...).

I would look at point and shoots for <$300. Given the age of your Sony, I think you will find the image quality of a modern P&S to be quite a revelation. Yes, if you zoom in and look at individual pixels on a modern compact, they're not that great, but given the number of pixels, at any normal screen resolution or print size, the images do look very good. I would suggest having a look at some of the recent round ups at dpreview and the sample pictures they post at the end of their reviews. Personally I would go with a canon compact, as they generally have good and reliable IQ and a nice user interface. Whatever you get, make sure it has proper image stabilization as it is really useful in a compact.

Once you get it, there are 2 small things you can do to make a big difference in IQ. OK, these may be obvious already, if so I apologise; The first is to make sure you half press the shutter to focus, and then hold the camera as still as possible while you full press the shutter to take the picture and keep it still while it is taking the picture. The 2nd is to understand manual setting of ISO and keep it at 100 in good light, and generally expect anything over ISO200 is going to compromise IQ.

If you really want to buy based on the size of the lens, then go to dpreview's camera database, and look at the sensor size, and the aperture range of the lens. On aperture range, the smaller the number, the more light it lets in. As a rough guide, f/2 = 2x the light of f/2.8 = 4x the light of f/4 = 8x the light of f/5.6. Also, if you see it written as f2.8 or F2.8, it is the same as f/2.8.

 

[bludragon]

BTW, all the cameras you linked have a big lens because of the zoom range. If you don't need such an extreme zoom, you will find that a smaller camera with less zoom may actually give better pictures. The reason is the design of the lens has to be compromised to fit in such a large range.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...lickens/asc00089-2.jpg

I don't have much to add to what is being said here other than that it is good to see that your healthy lifestyle includes drinking natural spring water.


Wait, yes I do. If you go the point and shoot (compact) route then get a camera with the ability to use manual controls. The LX3 mentioned above has them, the Canon G10, the Nikon P series, and probably many others as well. This will give you much greater ability to get good results out of the camera.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: shortylickens

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/s...lickens/asc00089-2.jpg

I don't have much to add to what is being said here other than that it is good to see that your healthy lifestyle includes drinking natural spring water.


Wait, yes I do. If you go the point and shoot (compact) route then get a camera with the ability to use manual controls. The LX3 mentioned above has them, the Canon G10, the Nikon P series, and probably many others as well. This will give you much greater ability to get good results out of the camera.

That wasnt me, that was someone else. Actually, it was several someone's.
People in the barracks acted like complete assholes. They'd have big parties, overflow 10 trash bins and leave it for the cleaning detail to take care of.
But I noticed all the interesting shapes & colors and figured it would be a good test of my new camera.

 

[ivan2]

I think the Pro 1 has the best image quality of them all, still beating G10 and the Panny. Look for it in the used market.