small girl wants a small camera

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Z

ZippyDan

Platinum Member
Sep 28, 2001
2,141
1
81
requirements

1. compact point and shoot camera, size is important
2. good lens and sensor
3. at least some optical zoom
4. quality and reliability
5. $400 or LESS
6. for everyday use, traveling, partying, low-light situations will be frequent

recommendations?
also, good recommendations for a website to visit with trustworthy/detailed camera reviews? i know dpreview...
 
Last edited:
Z

ZippyDan

Platinum Member
Sep 28, 2001
2,141
1
81
thanks for that lead. the Canon S100 seems to be the undisputed champion in the sub$400 pocket camera range. I see the Sony RX100 takes the crown, but only at the $650 level.

what happens if I drop the range down to sub$300 or sub$200? which is best?
 
Sheep

Sheep

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2006
1,275
0
71
How small are we talking? I recently bought a Lumix DMC-LX5 for $350 and LOVE the thing so far. It's not the smallest camera out there but it's significantly smaller than the Canon G9 it's replacing, although the lens does extend about the same width as the G9's overall dimensions.

In addition to DPReview's reviews and forums, I found http://www.imaging-resource.com/ handy when looking for camera reviews.
 
sixone

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
If those were my requirements, I'd get the Canon SX240. More zoom is going to give her more flexibility on what she can use it for, and it's the perfect pocket size.

It may not give the same IQ as the S100, but it'll be more fun. If it's not fun, she won't use it.
 
Z

ZippyDan

Platinum Member
Sep 28, 2001
2,141
1
81
Sheep said:
How small are we talking? I recently bought a Lumix DMC-LX5 for $350 and LOVE the thing so far. It's not the smallest camera out there but it's significantly smaller than the Canon G9 it's replacing, although the lens does extend about the same width as the G9's overall dimensions.

In addition to DPReview's reviews and forums, I found http://www.imaging-resource.com/ handy when looking for camera reviews.
Click to expand...

pocket-sized (subcompact)
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
sixone said:
No one here has recommended the SX230, which is the only one of that series mentioned in that thread. The S100 isn't mentioned either.

The recommended cameras were released after that discussion, so you've linked to outdated, irrelevant information.
Click to expand...

The information scales.
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
sixone said:
Then back it up with links to relevant discussions about the specific cameras recommended, please.
Click to expand...

I will leave that for the OP to do. You do realize the F-stop is similarly skewed in the latest S100 and the new SX240 so those comments definitely make sense and are relevant to those that understand what they mean.

Only those truly needing Telephoto should get one usually. You give up a lot of low light performance and speed usually in all offerings.
 
sixone

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
alkemyst said:
I will leave that for the OP to do. You do realize the F-stop is similarly skewed in the latest S100 and the new SX240 so those comments definitely make sense and are relevant to those that understand what they mean.

Only those truly needing Telephoto should get one usually. You give up a lot of low light performance and speed usually in all offerings.
Click to expand...

All I asked for was a link. Where is it?
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
sixone said:
All I asked for was a link. Where is it?
Click to expand...

Do a search on google S95 or S100 vs SX240.

Personally all I need to see is the one lens is 2.0 and the other 3.4 or whatever to know this camera will not do for my lower light needs.

Unless a telephoto is absolutely necessary, simply stepping towards the subject with a better lens gives much better photos.
 
sixone

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
alkemyst said:
Do a search on google S95 or S100 vs SX240.

Personally all I need to see is the one lens is 2.0 and the other 3.4 or whatever to know this camera will not do for my lower light needs.

Unless a telephoto is absolutely necessary, simply stepping towards the subject with a better lens gives much better photos.
Click to expand...

Still no link.

You're comparing apples to oranges, based on info specific to a camera that wasn't recommended. Following that logic, the S100 must not be any kind of improvement over the S90.
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
sixone said:
Still no link.

You're comparing apples to oranges, based on info specific to a camera that wasn't recommended. Following that logic, the S100 must not be any kind of improvement over the S90.
Click to expand...

/facepalm.

I am not going to provide a link because one doesn't tell the whole story.

You are now being a fanboi to the SX series.

It is very easy to go to any of the camera review sites and pull up comparisons.

The specs are not going to lie though. You cannot make an F3.4 lenses better than a F2.0 in low light which is were many end up using their pocket cams.

If one has a need for telephoto (they cannot move towards their subjects easily), then low light performance usually has to be sacrificed.

The ultra tiny SD780 types would even perform better than the SX240 I believe. My wife owns that and the S95. She like the S95 more, but when she's not bringing a bag the SD780 is definitely pocketable for even someone 5' tall and 100 or so pounds.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
alkemyst said:
/facepalm.

I am not going to provide a link because one doesn't tell the whole story.

You are now being a fanboi to the SX series.

It is very easy to go to any of the camera review sites and pull up comparisons.

The specs are not going to lie though. You cannot make an F3.4 lenses better than a F2.0 in low light which is were many end up using their pocket cams.

If one has a need for telephoto (they cannot move towards their subjects easily), then low light performance usually has to be sacrificed.

The ultra tiny SD780 types would even perform better than the SX240 I believe. My wife owns that and the S95. She like the S95 more, but when she's not bringing a bag the SD780 is definitely pocketable for even someone 5' tall and 100 or so pounds.
Click to expand...

As I understand, the F number is a ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. It doesn't tell you how much light gets through. You could have two lenses with the same max aperture but one could have a much bigger front element that sends more light through it.
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Throckmorton said:
As I understand, the F number is a ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. It doesn't tell you how much light gets through. You could have two lenses with the same max aperture but one could have a much bigger front element that sends more light through it.
Click to expand...

We are talking two compacts with relatively equal lens sizes.

This isn't rocket science...a simple spin of any camera review site will clarify that the SX series gives up a TON of low light performance to the S series.

Low light and only 'some' optical telephoto was specified in the OP.
 
sixone

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
alkemyst said:
/facepalm.

I am not going to provide a link because one doesn't tell the whole story.

You are now being a fanboi to the SX series.

It is very easy to go to any of the camera review sites and pull up comparisons.

The specs are not going to lie though. You cannot make an F3.4 lenses better than a F2.0 in low light which is were many end up using their pocket cams.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you just post that this morning, instead of linking to outdated information? :confused:

I do agree with you, when you say that one doesn't tell the whole story. The choice of a camera isn't about one spec, like low light. The OP should look at the package each camera presents, and choose what's best for his "small girl".
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
sixone said:
Why didn't you just post that this morning, instead of linking to outdated information? :confused:

I do agree with you, when you say that one doesn't tell the whole story. The choice of a camera isn't about one spec, like low light. The OP should look at the package each camera presents, and choose what's best for his "small girl".
Click to expand...

To me that link was obvious to anyone that knows anything about cameras. The specs of the older models vs newer haven't changed much from a snapshot perspective. Video and Audio have improved.

The compact telephotos are a real niche fit. I picked up a Lumix ZS-10 a couple years ago for my parents since they take shots from a cruise ship where you can't get closer to off-ship subjects. Low light pics suffered, but it was a good match for their need.
 
sixone

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
alkemyst said:
To me that link was obvious to anyone that knows anything about cameras. The specs of the older models vs newer haven't changed much from a snapshot perspective. Video and Audio have improved.

The compact telephotos are a real niche fit. I picked up a Lumix ZS-10 a couple years ago for my parents since they take shots from a cruise ship where you can't get closer to off-ship subjects. Low light pics suffered, but it was a good match for their need.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Canon's models have improved by leaps and bounds over the last few years. Still plenty of room for improvement, but it's coming.
 
S

slashbinslashbash

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,945
8
81
Throckmorton said:
As I understand, the F number is a ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. It doesn't tell you how much light gets through. You could have two lenses with the same max aperture but one could have a much bigger front element that sends more light through it.
Click to expand...

You are correct about what the f number represents, as a physical aperture size. However, due to the properties of optics (which I don't fully understand, and certainly can't explain), the f number actually ends up representing the amount of light hitting the film/sensor. Yes, an f/2.8 aperture on a 200mm lens will be roughly 71mm in diameter; physically much larger than an f/2.8 aperture on a 16mm lens (5.7mm) and therefore theoretically admitting much more light. However, due to the way that the light rays bend inside the lens, roughly the same amount of light ends up hitting the film or sensor.

Any given lens at any given f-stop, mounted on the same camera with the same ISO and shutter speed settings, will give the same exposure as any other lens at that same f-stop; no matter the difference in focal length (and thus in the size of the physical aperture).

Let's say we were comparing a 16mm f/2.8 with a 200mm f/2.8. Put the camera on a tripod; take a photo with one lens mounted, then switch out lenses (keeping all exposure settings the same) and take a photo with the other one. The 200mm will of course be "zoomed in" (narrower angle of view) while the 16mm will be "zoomed out" (wider angle of view) but the exposure will stay exactly the same. (plus or minus a small rounding/fudge-factor that is built into all lenses)

That is to say, any given point of unchanging lightness or darkness will appear to be the same degree of light or dark in photos taken with either lens. So a person's face might be tiny in the 16mm photo, and fill the frame in the 200mm photo. But it will be the same level of light or dark. If it is properly exposed with one lens, it will be properly exposed with the other lens. If it is too dark with one, so will it be with the other. So will the sky, and anything else in the photo (save for things like vignetting on the outer edges of the photo -- but the center of the photo would have the same exposure).
 
S

SecurityTheatre

Senior member
Aug 14, 2011
672
0
0
Throckmorton said:
As I understand, the F number is a ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. It doesn't tell you how much light gets through. You could have two lenses with the same max aperture but one could have a much bigger front element that sends more light through it.
Click to expand...

The f-stop (aperture) is, most certainly, the measure of how much light it allows through.

The things that change are the focal length and lens diameter, but the f-number IS ACTUALLY measuring the amount of transmitted light.

An f/2.0 lens will have a specific ISO and shutter speed for a proper exposure, whether it is a 4mm lens or a 400mm lens.

This is evidenced in the old "rule of 16" or "sunny 16 rule". In direct sunlight, the shutter speed is the opposite the ISO sensitivity at f/16.

at ISO-100 f/16, exposure is 1/100
at ISO-200 f/16, exposure is 1/200
at ISO-400 f/16, exposure is 1/400

It doesn't matter what focal length, what sensor, or otherwise, ISO is a standardized sensitivity, f-number is a standardized measure of light transmission
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom