Digital Camera
 

I might be able to shake loose some money and upgrade from my Canon Powershot 3.2 megapixel to something with more zoom and image stablization.

My one beef is that when I turn off my flash, I get blurry results. Some cameras have a 'best shot' feature where the camera automatically shoots multiple images and selects the best.

I am looking at image stablization, 8 megapixels, and a 7x or greater zoom.

At http://www.dpreview.com/, the finalists are the Minolta A2, the Minolta A200, and the Nikon 8800.

The A200 got slightly better reviews than the A2 at DPREVIEW, but CNET gave the A2 the edge.

I don't want a true SLR, but I do want the best resolution and a better zoom.

If I decide to do without the image stabilization, I could go with the Canon Powershot Pro, which would turn out to be more expensive than the Minoltas but would have the 'best shot' feature.

Does anyone own any of these cameras? Any opinions? I would like this to be the last digital camera I own for the next 10 years.

I'm in the hunt for one myself, though I'm not going for anything as expensive as the above 3.

I own an A1. It's a lot of fun; I've since <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/at1/">upgraded</a> to a Canon AT-1.

I loved it: sensible user interface, complete control over everything you want to control (and the ability to not control anything, if you want), great results, etc. I imagine a newer model would only be better.

My only real beef, and the only reason I can think of to go to a true digital SLR, is that after a while you'll get sick of having to basically give up any influence on timing. Non-SLR digital cameras have a slow shutter response, whereas SLRs have a very satisfyingly mechanical one. (this might be something I care too much about; I also own a Zippo.)

I wouldn't worry about not having a 'best of' feature. You could reproduce it yourself by learning a little about how the photos suck/what would improve them, and then taking more shots with a range of relevant settings. I've never managed to even half fill the 2.2gb memory card I have, and you're paying pennies per photo (the cost of charging the battery.)

If you intend to make prints of your digital photos, you'd probably be best off with the A2's option for 3:2 aspect ratio. A lot of stores print digital photos fairly cheap (15-25cents for a 4x6), but they almost always do it at preset dimensions, and those dimensions are almost always 3:2. (Until you get up to 8x6, at least.)

Mine's column 4.

What about PowerShot S-70? I'm an IXUS point and shoot guy.

That's called physics. The only thing that would help that would be a more open lens. You're unlikely to find anything really open on a P&S. Why exactly is 8mpx a pirority? Unless you're printing about 12" there really isn't much point.

Jag,

Enlighten me. If I'm only P&S and only print A4 usually for posters and other times only share on the Internet how many do I need. My current unit is an ancient 1meg first model Ixus

depends on the printer largely. If your'e using a decent printer of glossy paper something about 4mpx is nice.

This is 5 megapixels (click):

<a href="http://photos7.flickr.com/10340564_0e37d64b04_o.jpg" title="Painted Desert"><img src="http://photos7.flickr.com/10340564_0e37d64b04_m.jpg" width="180" height="240" alt="Painted Desert" /></a>

Do you need more or less than that?

Well I took a look at the Konica-Minolta Dimage Z5 , it's 5 megapixel with a 12x optical zoom and image stabilization.

The price is certainly better, more in the 'wow' range.

I'm considering it.

Looks pretty cool. I'd pick up some rechargeable batteries, though.

That's one of the reason's I like this camera. I already use NIMH AA batteries for my Canon. I like being able to run into any store and pick up alkalines if I haven't charged my batteries.

I would have to buy extra lithium battery packs with some of these other cameras. I can get a 4-pack of NIMH AA batteries for about $10.

Ok, I have narrowed it down. I can get the Konica Minolta Dimage Z5 or the Z20

The Dimage Z20 costs $260 street vs the Z5 $370 street.

Both cameras are 5 MP. The Z5 has 12x vs 8x optical zoom.
The Z5 has image stabilization.
The Z20 has a built-in flash but no external mount. The Z5 has both.
I have heard good reviews on both cameras, although I did here that the Z20 feels more plastic, and that the Z20 tripod threads are plastic, not metal.

The question is am I going to miss the extra zoom and image stabilization? Is it worth $100?

I'd like more zoom than I've got. There's always that bird that's just a bit too far. I don't know much about the stabilization, but it probably would come in handy with a lot of zoom.

Is it possible to get high quality pics with a cheap standard digi? I can't afford £3000 for the SLR I want so could I get a credit card sized japanese import for a fiver off ebay and still make them look good (when accompanied by a talented eye, naturally)?

Yes. Just buy one from a camera manufacturer, not an electronics company, so you get a decent lens. You can get a $200 camera today that is better than the $1000 cameras from 5 years ago.

I use a 3.2 mp Sony that I bought off eBay for $300 (two years ago) that does slightly above-average 8x10 prints (in other words, pretty damn good for consumer). I've printed up to 18x24 at marginal quality, too. Oddly, most shots end up looking really good behind glass - not acrylic - framing.

Everything <A HREF="http://www.supdogg.com/photo.htm">here</A> was taken with that camera.

even something like this or this?

Here's a $150 camera that should take good pictures. It has a 3x optical zoom lens and is 3.2 megapixels. Kodak is no Nikon or Canon, but they have been making cameras for 100 years.
Kodak Easyshare

If you go up to the $200 - $250 level, then you start getting into the Canons, Nikons, etc. with lots of nice features like more image control options, better zoom lenses and more megapixels.

Taking good pictures is 90% photographer and 10% equipment. Look at footfootfoot and his paint can pinhole cameras.

I never heard of Jenoptic. Why are you looking on e-bay? Don't you have on-line vendors in England that will sell you new stuff under warranty?

I don't know anything about this seller, but here's a camera available to you in the UK that I would trust more than a "Jenoptic" from some random seller on e-Bay.

The Nikon is a good bet as a camera, it has 4 megapixel, a 3x optical zoom lens, which is pretty good, and the price is in the same ballpark as the "Jenoptic."

:question: I don't have a clue.

I don't want to spend that much money either, I was hoping to find a really cheap bargain for £20. I take it at that price I'm going to end up with photos like this...

...because you can buy the same gear, also new, with warranty, off ebay? Don't you have eBay shops in the US or something?

Well, for a printed photo to look really nice, you want to go with a minimum of 300 pixels/inch. My 8mp camera produces an image of 3456x2304, which is just about exactly 8x10 at 300 pixels/inch. When I want to go any larger, I have to sacrifice quality. My 3mp Olympus was great for 5x7s, but anything bigger started to look grainy unless I proceessed it with some fractal-based photo enlarging software, and even then it wasn't perfect.

Another advantage to high-megapixel cameras is the ability to crop the photo quite a bit, but still end up with a print-worthy image.

My first digital was a 2.1mp Olympus C-700UZ with 10x zoom, which was a great camera despite the low megapixels. I then upgraded to the newer 3mp Olympus C-730UZ, also with a 10x zoom, which I used until recently... I got a bonus at work, and used it to buy an 8mp Canon Digital Rebel XT. This digital SLR is awesome, though it will take me some time to master its features.

to a degree it depends how your printing, it's is a contone process you can get away with quite a bit more. But once again, how often are you printing at even 8x10? In terms of image quality a decent lens and sensor size are remarkably overlooked factors. If you think the RebelXT is nice try the 1DsMkII ;).

I do make large prints more frequently than most people, because I sell some of mine. Not a lot, but some... I've sold copies of about five 8x10s and one 11x14 in the past six months. Mostly I use the Costco print lab, because they produce good, inexpensive enlargements.

If I had more money than I knew what to do with, I'd seriously give one a go. Hell yeah.

I thought 5mp was very good to 8x10 and 8mp was very good to 11x14. One reason I want the zoom is to cut down on cropping and blowing up, which is basically doing on a computer what 'digital zoom' does.

I thought 5mp would give me 8x10's indistinguishable from film if I did not crop and blow up the image.

I find that on Ebay, items get bid up higher than can be found in Internet sites dealing with refurbished items.

Try www.overstock.com for digital cameras. They have a lot of choices of refurbished cameras.

It depends on how picky you are about clarity. It's always subject to some debate, but it is usually said that "photo quality" prints are 300dpi, as described by this link, which was just one that I quickly googled.

True, the human eye can barely detect the difference between 300dpi and 275dpi; but there is a difference, and the more you drop below 300dpi, the more it becomes noticable.

For instance, images from my old 3mp camera are 2048 x 1536, which is 5x7 at 300dpi. If I print an 8x10, it'll be 204dpi. It still looks nice, but the pixels can be seen when scrutinized. Forget about 11x14 unless you have some good software to process and enlarge the photo.

At 5mp, you should get very nice 8x10s if you don't crop, and that is more than plenty for the average user. Frankly, 3mp is more than plenty for the point-and-shoot types, as long as you don't mind slightly pixelly enlargements... it just depends on how picky you are about that sort of thing. I have lots of optical zoom on my cameras, but I still crop sometimes, when I see that a crop would make for better composition.

And note that _film_ varies a lot. 35MM Kodak "MAX" film with (according to one photographer) "grain the size of beachballs" is going to give a much lower resolution print than Fuji NPC160, for instance.

Digital won't ever be indistinguishable from film; if nothing else, the artifacts (such as grain) are different.

True, but the silver-halide grains in film are of varying sizes and shapes, and are randomly distributed. This makes "low-res" film more forgiving than low-res digital.

In digital images, the pixels are all arranged in a grid, which makes it quite easy for the eye to distinguish a "grain" when enlarged, whereas the random, varied grains in film work like camoflauge to a degree. Of course this characteristic is lost when the image is digitally scanned, since the randomness is then organized into tidy little rows and columns.

So until the resolution in digital cameras is so high as to make the concept of "grain" moot, digital and film cameras will just be two different worlds, with differing strengths and weaknesses.

Ok, now I'm confused
 

Heres the comparison . I have the two superzoom 5.0 megapixels against a 3x zoom 7.1 megapixel.

Do I spend a $100 more for the Z5 and get a very good SLR-like 5 MP or spend less and get a decent 7.1 MP Nikon?

I would get the coolpix 8700 for $481. That way I'd get the great Nikon optics an a serious zoom. Sure it's last year's model, but that's how you get the price.

Another advantage of last years model is people have used it and searching a couple of photography forums should turn up any glaring problems quickly. ;)

Not really an option. Considering the extra $50 for a 512MB card, I really can't afford much beyond $350 for the camera. It's 5 MP + zoom or 7.1 MP compact.

depends partly what to do with it and your level of photography. If you're going to want to be able to do proper manual work and the like the the 5MP one is probably the better bet. If you just want to point at stuff and click the button then the 7.1 is probably a better bet. Z5 having a max ISO is 320 is a bit wierd though. I do have a soft spot for nikon digitals below pro-level (owned 2 before I switched to Canon SLR gear) , they're nice cameras, if you can wait a little/stretch, do, it's worth it.

Over a year ago my mum bought a Nikon Coolpix 5700 on my recommendation, and it's been a great camera for her. She does some wedding photography and such, and it's always produced nice results. The swivel on the LCD gives it some intersting flexibility for over-the-head and from-the-hip shots, too.

At the time I recommended it to her, I didn't have money for a new digitial camera, but I was tempted by that one.

Well I'm still looking at the Z5. One downside to the Nikon besides the need for special batteries is that it only takes a maximum of 35 second movie clips regardless of the storage. On the plus side they are 640 x 480 clips.

I used my 3.2 MP camera at my sisters wedding and got 1 and 2 minute videos. Why did they build a more expensive camera years later that was more limited?

I'm still interested in the 8700, but it's a more limited 8MP than the Z5 is a 5MP. I guess the big question is how 8MP will make my life better than 5MP?