Please recommend a small digital camera

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
My wife's old 3mp Canon is taking fuzzy pictures these days.

With her camera you had to hold the button for a solid second or two for it to take the picture. Are the cameras these days more instant?

I would like something with a slim form factor. I'm not sure what mega-pixel rating is good, and what is overkill. It seems you can find alot under $200 these days, but I'll spend more if it is justified.

Thanks. :)
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
there isn't any difference worth worrying about between any ultra compact within a similar price range. though the sonys have crappy PSP menus, apparently.
 
soydios

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Originally posted by: Jumpem
My wife's old 3mp Canon is taking fuzzy pictures these days.

With her camera you had to hold the button for a solid second or two for it to take the picture. Are the cameras these days more instant?

I would like something with a slim form factor. I'm not sure what mega-pixel rating is good, and what is overkill. It seems you can find alot under $200 these days, but I'll spend more if it is justified.

Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

Lens quality is more important than the megapixels. The sensors outresolve the lenses on most compacts. Canon, Panasonic, and Fuji all make worthwhile compact cameras.
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
A few good compacts to consider:

Canon A series/SD series
Panasonic TZ/FS/FX/LS series
Fujifilm F series

IMO, Panasonic offers the most feature packed cameras at great prices, with features like optical image stabilization, wide angle Leica zoom lenses, and 3 FPS full res burst shooting in many of their compacts.
 
J

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
Originally posted by: 996GT2
A few good compacts to consider:

Canon A series/SD series
Panasonic TZ/FS/FX/LS series
Fujifilm F series

IMO, Panasonic offers the most feature packed cameras at great prices, with features like optical image stabilization, wide angle Leica zoom lenses, and 3 FPS full res burst shooting in many of their compacts.
Click to expand...

I was looking at either the TZ5 or FX35 since they both have the full featured Intelligent Auto mode.

Is there a good reason why the larger TZ5 is 9mp, but the more compact FX35 is 9mp? Seems odd that the larger camera with a better lens would have a lower resolution.
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: 996GT2
A few good compacts to consider:

Canon A series/SD series
Panasonic TZ/FS/FX/LS series
Fujifilm F series

IMO, Panasonic offers the most feature packed cameras at great prices, with features like optical image stabilization, wide angle Leica zoom lenses, and 3 FPS full res burst shooting in many of their compacts.
Click to expand...

I was looking at either the TZ5 or FX35 since they both have the full featured Intelligent Auto mode.

Is there a good reason why the larger TZ5 is 9mp, but the more compact FX35 is 9mp? Seems odd that the larger camera with a better lens would have a lower resolution.
Click to expand...

Right now, I would recommend you get this camera that I just purchased myself. I had a DSLR, but it was much too big to take to college and I wouldn't have had the time to put it to good use.

The LZ8 does have the Intelligent Auto mode you mentioned...in fact, all of the Panasonic releases after July 2007 ish have this feature.

The best part though, is the price...the LZ8 is only $111 after 12% MS Cash Back: Link

As far as your TZ5 vs FZ35 question, both have the same 1/2.33" sensor, so they will produce very similar images. The only difference is that the TZ5 has a 10x zoom and some additional features over the FX35.

I'm recommending the LZ8 because it's one of the only compacts in this price range to have full manual controls, and the price is unbeatably good. It also runs on AAs so a $5 set of rechargables is all you need when you run out of juice, not some $50 replacement battery.

Also, Megapixels do not matter for image quality. When you are in the 6, 7 MP and above range, all that additional megapixels do is add image noise. The small sensors on these cameras means that pixels get more jammed together as the pixel count goes up, which contributes to image noise. This is why manufacturers have had to move up to slightly larger 1/1.8" sensors to reduce image noise in 12MP cameras compared to 8 MP cameras with smaller 1/2.33 or 1/2.5" sensors.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Here's what I want to know. Instead of giving a little camera like the LZ8 5x zoom, why not use a bigger diameter lens and smaller zoom, so that it performs a lot better in low light?
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's what I want to know. Instead of giving a little camera like the LZ8 5x zoom, why not use a bigger diameter lens and smaller zoom, so that it performs a lot better in low light?
Click to expand...

By bigger do you mean larger aperture?

If so, the LZ8's f/3.3 at wide angle is not too bad, since the best on most point and shoot cameras is f/2.8. Making a faster lens requires more difficult production, resulting in an expensive camera. That's why f/2 lenses are only found on very high end point and shoots like the Panisonic LX3.

Also, the poor low light performance is only partially due to the lens. The biggest reason is that the small sensors in P&S cameras don't fare well beyond ISO 200-400, so they have a huge disadvantage to DSLRs which can produce usable shots up to ISO 1600 and above.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's what I want to know. Instead of giving a little camera like the LZ8 5x zoom, why not use a bigger diameter lens and smaller zoom, so that it performs a lot better in low light?
Click to expand...

By bigger do you mean larger aperture?

If so, the LZ8's f/3.3 at wide angle is not too bad, since the best on most point and shoot cameras is f/2.8. Making a faster lens requires more difficult production, resulting in an expensive camera. That's why f/2 lenses are only found on very high end point and shoots like the Panisonic LX3.

Also, the poor low light performance is only partially due to the lens. The biggest reason is that the small sensors in P&S cameras don't fare well beyond ISO 200-400, so they have a huge disadvantage to DSLRs which can produce usable shots up to ISO 1600 and above.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the size of the lens, and therefore the amount of light it collects. I don't know how that relates the aperture and speed.
 
J

Jawo

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2005
4,125
0
0
I would second the Canon A series...I've had the a40, a95, a610 and they have all worked very well. Also my sister's SD800 IS takes great pictures and is the size of a deck of cards
 
9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's what I want to know. Instead of giving a little camera like the LZ8 5x zoom, why not use a bigger diameter lens and smaller zoom, so that it performs a lot better in low light?
Click to expand...

By bigger do you mean larger aperture?

If so, the LZ8's f/3.3 at wide angle is not too bad, since the best on most point and shoot cameras is f/2.8. Making a faster lens requires more difficult production, resulting in an expensive camera. That's why f/2 lenses are only found on very high end point and shoots like the Panisonic LX3.

Also, the poor low light performance is only partially due to the lens. The biggest reason is that the small sensors in P&S cameras don't fare well beyond ISO 200-400, so they have a huge disadvantage to DSLRs which can produce usable shots up to ISO 1600 and above.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the size of the lens, and therefore the amount of light it collects. I don't know how that relates the aperture and speed.
Click to expand...

The size of the aperture opening is what controls how much light enters the camera...the maximum aperture is often used as a rating of lens speed, since faster apertres mean you can shoot at higher equiv. shutter speeds. That's how it relates. It has nothing to do with the size of the lens itself. You could have a huge 200mm f/4 telephoto lens, and it is still slower than a 50mm f/1.4 that weighs 5 times less.
 
F

Flipped Gazelle

Diamond Member
Sep 5, 2004
6,666
3
81
Originally posted by: astroidea
I recommend the Sony W series.
I compared a W100 to a Canon S600, and it just blew it away in terms of detail, color, contrast, vibrance. here's a comparison of the W80 with the S800 IS
The Carl Zeiss lens with T* coatings on the sony is amazing.

Canon is good, but the sony is amazing.
Click to expand...

If you think the Sony is amazing, you should check out Fuji F20/F30 series...

Sony has some very good P&S cameras, I never understood why they are so frequently overlooked. I briefly had a W20, and it was very nice. My 2 complaints regarding the image quality were a) too much contrast - highlight clipping was worse than other cameras and b) a tad too much processed sharpness - there's too much edge haloing.

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I'm talking about the size of the lens, and therefore the amount of light it collects. I don't know how that relates the aperture and speed.
Click to expand...

There is no reason this could be done. A lens that is larger than what the sensor requires would make it easier to have a "sweet spot". Lenses typically struggle the most at the edges, in terms of clarity, distortion and vignetting. However, this lens would be heavier and more expensive to make.


 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's what I want to know. Instead of giving a little camera like the LZ8 5x zoom, why not use a bigger diameter lens and smaller zoom, so that it performs a lot better in low light?
Click to expand...

By bigger do you mean larger aperture?

If so, the LZ8's f/3.3 at wide angle is not too bad, since the best on most point and shoot cameras is f/2.8. Making a faster lens requires more difficult production, resulting in an expensive camera. That's why f/2 lenses are only found on very high end point and shoots like the Panisonic LX3.

Also, the poor low light performance is only partially due to the lens. The biggest reason is that the small sensors in P&S cameras don't fare well beyond ISO 200-400, so they have a huge disadvantage to DSLRs which can produce usable shots up to ISO 1600 and above.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the size of the lens, and therefore the amount of light it collects. I don't know how that relates the aperture and speed.
Click to expand...

The size of the aperture opening is what controls how much light enters the camera...the maximum aperture is often used as a rating of lens speed, since faster apertres mean you can shoot at higher equiv. shutter speeds. That's how it relates. It has nothing to do with the size of the lens itself. You could have a huge 200mm f/4 telephoto lens, and it is still slower than a 50mm f/1.4 that weighs 5 times less.
Click to expand...

Oh I wasn't talking about the length of a lens, but the diameter of the objective lens (I think that's what it's called). The light that goes into the camera is limited by the size of it. So the higher the aperture is set to, the faster the shutter can be right? But if the your lens is twice the diameter, doesn't that mean 4x the light gets through any given aperture size?

BTW, anyone have any suggestions for a small camera that also shoots good video? Anything better than the Samsung? http://www.amazon.com/review/p...bmissionDateDescending
 
M

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
there isn't any difference worth worrying about between any ultra compact within a similar price range. though the sonys have crappy PSP menus, apparently.
Click to expand...

I very much like those 'crappy PSP' menus :p


Originally posted by: astroidea
I recommend the Sony W series.
I compared a W100 to a Canon S600, and it just blew it away in terms of detail, color, contrast, vibrance. here's a comparison of the W80 with the S800 IS
The Carl Zeiss lens with T* coatings on the sony is amazing.

Canon is good, but the sony is amazing.
Click to expand...

Go and look at the Iso400 and ISO 800 shots...the differences are less pronounced than at base ISO. Most shots I see that P&S users take vary between 200 and 800. At 400 they are similar although i would give a sllllight nod to the Sony (although I don't think its really relevant considering the noise that exists at 400), and at 800 there are certain spots (check out the Queen) where the canon looks sharper. Of course both are pretty noisy, and I can't see minor differences really making that much of an overall difference when you have so much noise.

IMO for P&S, especially for insistence on a compact p&s, it comes to aesthetics and personal taste in menus. Of course if the OP likes the 'crappy PSP' menus (or so Fenix claims ;)), then by all means get it =)
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Is there any other compact camera with a wide angle like the 24mm Samsung? Everything else is 28mm at best. That's better than 35mm, but the wider the better
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: magomago

Of course if the OP likes the 'crappy PSP' menus (or so Fenix claims ;)), then by all means get it =)
Click to expand...

i've never used 'em. some of the camera review sites have mentioned (or more like beaten over and over again) that sony's menu system is horrendous.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I bought the NV24HD. So far so good. I haven't taken many pictures, but the video quality is surprisingly good, and the interface is the best I've ever seen on a camera. The rows of buttons on the bottom and right are great. I discovered that they're touch sensitive. You touch one lightly, and a popup tells you the name of the function above the icon. Some functions are controlled by sliding your finger across the buttons.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I'm reporting back! The NV24HD has terrible image quality and low light performance. Colors do look good. I think I'll return it and buy a Panasonic Lumix even though it's a lot bigger. If it was possible I'd rather get a camera with no zoom at all, but a big light gathering lens, and a slim form.

Note the blotchiness.
http://img.photobucket.com/alb...mosis/SDC10021crop.jpg

Again with the splotches and the noise is very apparent. Shouldn't be that way under bright fluorescent light.
http://img.photobucket.com/alb...mosis/SDC10018crop.jpg

In conclusion, don't buy that camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom