YAPhotographyT: what digital camera for 500$?

[JohnnyRebel]

Even worse the p300 has the typical slow lens (f4.9 @ long end); compared to the olympus mentioned above which is f2.5 (f1.8 at the wide end). But aperature is not everything; the resolution of the olympus lens is quite high even at the corner (this review shows some example relative to the other 'pocket' larger sensor compact (ala s95, ..., though it does not include the larger g camera):

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XZ1/XZ1A.HTM
-
Anyways historically nikon's compact have not been very good; and the dpreview review suggest this nikon; while better than older offerings lags behind similar models from canon, panasonic and olympus.
-
Anyways I fail to see what is special about the p300 relative to the other offerings mentioned.

Here is a good side-by-side comparison of three very good options:

Panasonic LX5 vs Canon S95 vs Nikon P300

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lx5-vs-canon-s95-vs-nikon-p300-15928

The Olympus XZ-1 (at twice the price of the P300) is also a very good option.

JR

 

[iGas]

Here is a good side-by-side comparison of three very good options:

Panasonic LX5 vs Canon S95 vs Nikon P300

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lx5-vs-canon-s95-vs-nikon-p300-15928

The Olympus XZ-1 (at twice the price of the P300) is also a very good option.

JR

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page9.asp

If you look closely by moving the 100% window around in DP Review you will see that the P300 IQ failed when compare to the S95 and others.

P300 sacrifice details in both shadow and highlight area at all ISO by processing to match the competitors sharpness. And, both the S95 & XZ-1 pull far a head once you utilize the advantage of RAW mode.

 

[Tom]

Even worse the p300 has the typical slow lens (f4.9 @ long end); compared to the olympus mentioned above which is f2.5 (f1.8 at the wide end). But aperature is not everything; the resolution of the olympus lens is quite high even at the corner (this review shows some example relative to the other 'pocket' larger sensor compact (ala s95, ..., though it does not include the larger g camera):

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XZ1/XZ1A.HTM
-
Anyways historically nikon's compact have not been very good; and the dpreview review suggest this nikon; while better than older offerings lags behind similar models from canon, panasonic and olympus.
-
Anyways I fail to see what is special about the p300 relative to the other offerings mentioned.

Fast lens at a low price. And the conclusion at dpreview is it's quite a nice camera. Read the forums there and there are lots of very satisfied end users.

It isn't really similar to the xz-1 or s100 because the price is so different. I'm not saying it's a better camera, but I wouldn't buy either one of those for the prices I can find them for right now, whereas I'm tempted by the p300 for $220.

Same reason I bought a Sony a390 even though it's not the best dslr, and the Olympus e-pl1 even though it's not the best MFT. Sometimes the imperfections lead to better deals as long as the shortcomings are understood.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

..both the S95 & XZ-1 pull far a head once you utilize the advantage of RAW mode.

And how will RAW benefit the OP?

From your link:

At ISO 1600 the P300 does a good job of retaining high-contrast detail by only reducing chroma noise and leaving much of the luminance noise in. Compared to Canon’s more aggressive noise reduction the P300 retains relatively more sharpness even at high ISO settings at the expense of a 'grittier' appearance at 100% on screen.

JR

 

[iGas]

And how will RAW benefit the OP?

From your link:



JR

Did you moved the viewing window around to take a look at other area beside the martini bottle label?

Look at the paper clips, feathers, and specially yarn area at 160/100 ISO.

 

[Tom]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp300/page9.asp

If you look closely by moving the 100% window around in DP Review you will see that the P300 IQ failed when compare to the S95 and others.

P300 sacrifice details in both shadow and highlight area at all ISO by processing to match the competitors sharpness. And, both the S95 & XZ-1 pull far a head once you utilize the advantage of RAW mode.

Besides ignoring the large price difference, you are exaggerating the difference a great deal, and it isn't actually even correct. There are parts of the picture and certain isos where the p300 is sharper or as sharp as both of those.

And it's not the right way to evaluate a camera anyway. If all you care about is sharpness, NONE of these cameras is the best which means as far as YOU are concerned they are all worthless.

That's a ridiculous position to take.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Did you moved the viewing window around to take a look at other area beside the martini bottle label?

Look at the paper clips, feathers, and specially yarn area at 160/100 ISO.

I'm confident the OP has grown tired of this thread and is no longer checking in, regardless we have to keep in mind the reason for the thread. He wanted the "best" camera for under $500. This would probably be the a refurb D3100 kit with lens or a refurb D5000 and lens.

However, for his purposes the P300 is a better camera than the S95. On vacation wide-angle is more important than telephoto, and the P300 is faster and goes wider. It is also longer for telephoto. The P300 has a much better LCD display for previewing the shots, the S95 will mislead you into thinking that a shot is awesome that isn't. The P300 scene modes work great which is where a most people will be using the camera. The video is better.

I carry an S95 everywhere, but there are dissapointments - one huge example is that the LCD display always makes shots look better than they really are and is hard to tell if the camera nailed AF. I've played around with the P300 and it is a super camera. If he really wants to spend the whole $500 on one camera, then the Olympus or Panasonic are also worth considering. In the side-by-side comparison I linked, the Panasonic was the writers pick (with the P300 a close second and highly recommended). However, being shirt-pocket size means you'll take it with you and use it more.

AND, at $220 (B&H) he can buy one for himself and the wife for $500 and actually be in some of the shots.

JR

 

[brianmanahan]

I'm confident the OP has grown tired of this thread and is no longer checking in

do not be so confident! i am still very much alive and reading the thread and basically the rest of the entire internet, trying to figure out what i want in a compact camera with high zoom capabilities.

right now it's between the canon sx230 and the sony hx9v. trying to decide the two, given what seems to be the following:

sx230:
+ better IQ and low-light performance
+ cheaper
- worse battery life
- worse video features and quality

hx9v:
+ better video features and quality
+ 24mm vs 28mm
- worse IQ (smudging) and worse in low-light
- more expensive

 

[Munky]

The smudging on the Sony cameras would be a deal breaker to me.

 

[AkumaX]

Canon SX40: 24-840mm
Nikon P500: 23-810mm

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-SX40-vs-Nikon-P500

?

 

[brianmanahan]

The smudging on the Sony cameras would be a deal breaker to me.

yeah, more and more im inclined to agree

 

[you2]

That was the reason I went with the sx230; the video is not that bad (audio is also decent) but the ca can be a little annoying. With regards to video I might not be that picky so take what I say here with a grain of salt.
-
Sony post processing does really weird things on out of focus region (folks sometime call it water painting)
-

The smudging on the Sony cameras would be a deal breaker to me.

 

[you2]

These are larger cameras; so then it depends what the op wants. the hx9v/sx230 are not quite as small as the s95/p300 (they can fit in a jacket pocket easy but not a front shirt pocket for example). The below cameras are not pocketable.
-
The op can check out sizes of many of these cameras at best buy. I still feel (repetitive) that if you go with zx-1p or similar the e-pl1 is the best buy here (esp given olympus extermely high quality jpeg output). The only thing a camera like p300 or s95 has is smaller size. The one thing the e-pl1 lacks is if you go with a super zoom (then yo would have to buy another lens but the price advantage quickly drops).

For the op: the e-pl1 is an interchangeable lens camera that is out of date (hence discontinued) so it is being sold heavily discounted. Not it is nto as good as the current crop but it is leagues ahead of the newest pocket cameras.

Canon SX40: 24-840mm
Nikon P500: 23-810mm

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-SX40-vs-Nikon-P500

?

 

[AkumaX]

These are larger cameras; so then it depends what the op wants. the hx9v/sx230 are not quite as small as the s95/p300 (they can fit in a jacket pocket easy but not a front shirt pocket for example). The below cameras are not pocketable.
-
The op can check out sizes of many of these cameras at best buy. I still feel (repetitive) that if you go with zx-1p or similar the e-pl1 is the best buy here (esp given olympus extermely high quality jpeg output). The only thing a camera like p300 or s95 has is smaller size. The one thing the e-pl1 lacks is if you go with a super zoom (then yo would have to buy another lens but the price advantage quickly drops).

For the op: the e-pl1 is an interchangeable lens camera that is out of date (hence discontinued) so it is being sold heavily discounted. Not it is nto as good as the current crop but it is leagues ahead of the newest pocket cameras.

he wanted a 'compact' w/ a high zoom. they're pretty high
he says he wears a fanny pack, so i was assuming something like that would be ok (its NOT going in a jean pocket)

 

[iGas]

Besides ignoring the large price difference, you are exaggerating the difference a great deal, and it isn't actually even correct. There are parts of the picture and certain isos where the p300 is sharper or as sharp as both of those.

And it's not the right way to evaluate a camera anyway. If all you care about is sharpness, NONE of these cameras is the best which means as far as YOU are concerned they are all worthless.

That's a ridiculous position to take.

I'm not debating sharpness. What I tried to say is that the P300 lost details (blown out details) in the shadow & highlighted areas.

Sharpness can be tweak via software specially if shooting in RAW mode, but no details in highlights and shadow is unrecoverable.

 

[Tom]

I'm not debating sharpness. What I tried to say is that the P300 lost details (blown out details) in the shadow & highlighted areas.

Sharpness can be tweak via software specially if shooting in RAW mode, but no details in highlights and shadow is unrecoverable.

Put the box so it's half paper clips and half yarn. At iso 200 the p300 shows more detail in the shadowy yarn than the s95 or the xz-1. There are individual fibers visible that aren't there in the other two.

So what are you talking about ?

 

[jacqg]

I have the lumix LX5 and it's pretty good. The biggest downside that you would have with a DSLR though is the portability. Maybe try looking into micro-four thirds if you're into interchangeable lenses but they upgrade bodies pretty fast

 

[brianmanahan]

to officially complete this thread - i went with the sx40. it is sweet! 35-x zoom is the bomb. it is bigger than what i was originally looking at, but i really wanted high zoom but am not rich enough or good enough to pony up to dslr.

 

[sixone]

to officially complete this thread - i went with the sx40. it is sweet! 35-x zoom is the bomb. it is bigger than what i was originally looking at, but i really wanted high zoom but am not rich enough or good enough to pony up to dslr.

Great choice! If you're interested in shooting RAW or adding to the cam's functionality, CHDK might be good for you.

 

[Throckmorton]

to officially complete this thread - i went with the sx40. it is sweet! 35-x zoom is the bomb. it is bigger than what i was originally looking at, but i really wanted high zoom but am not rich enough or good enough to pony up to dslr.

You know how much you'd have to spend for a DLSR and lenses the equivalent to 35x on that SX40? I bet more than the average house costs!!

 

[twistedlogic]

You know how much you'd have to spend for a DLSR and lenses the equivalent to 35x on that SX40?

The SX40 has a 4.3-150.5mm lens (24-840mm 35mm equivalent because the SX40 has a 5.58 crop factor), so all you would need is a 150mm+ lens to get the same angle of view.

 

[Throckmorton]

The SX40 has a 4.3-150.5mm lens (24-840mm 35mm equivalent because the SX40 has a 5.58 crop factor), so all you would need is a 150mm+ lens to get the same angle of view.

No, you'd need a 560mm lens for the same field of view

OK, I guess you don't have to spend as much as a house, just about $1000 for the lens.

 

[swanysto]

The SX40 has a 4.3-150.5mm lens (24-840mm 35mm equivalent because the SX40 has a 5.58 crop factor), so all you would need is a 150mm+ lens to get the same angle of view.

I wonder what the quality would be like at 840mm.