# Can you recommend me a camera?



## addictedmatt (Mar 10, 2009)

What do you feel is the best digital camera in the $300 range? I would like clean, sharp pics and decent macro shots. Thanks in advance!


----------



## bullfrog (Mar 10, 2009)

Bought my wife a *Canon* *Powershot SD1100 IS* - its small and takes wonderful pictures. If she lost it I'd buy the same model. $149 after rebate from J&R.

http://www.jr.com/canon/pe/CAN_SD1100ISBLU/

I'm a fan of using nimh batteries in my camera and use a *Powershot A630* - its bulky and can't fit in your pocket, but it has a wonderfully useful flip out screen and tons of customization features. I'm not sure if ou can still buy this model but there must be a newer version.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-a630/4505-6501_7-32073855.html

I would recommend either of the above very highly.

Good luck!


----------



## geepondy (Mar 10, 2009)

There are so many good choices these days, I would hesitate against any single recommendation. I would start with these two dpreview comparison threads, thread one and thread two.



addictedmatt said:


> What do you feel is the best digital camera in the $300 range? I would like clean, sharp pics and decent macro shots. Thanks in advance!


----------



## D.B. (Mar 11, 2009)

Going to mention another Canon; the SX110 IS. It goes for about $250 give or take a few dollars. 9.0MP, 10x optical zoom, IS, and fairly compact for what it offers. Has a lot of features that seem to make this worth a look.


----------



## Scottiver (Mar 11, 2009)

Can't go wrong with a Canon. I'm not up on all the latest models but I would get one with an optical viewfinder. If it's sunny out at all, it can be very difficult to see the screen. With an optical viewfinder, it's no problem.


----------



## m16a (Mar 11, 2009)

D.B. said:


> Going to mention another Canon; the SX110 IS. It goes for about $250 give or take a few dollars. 9.0MP, 10x optical zoom, IS, and fairly compact for what it offers. Has a lot of features that seem to make this worth a look.


 
I'll second the Canon SX110 IS. I have the earlier version (the SX100 IS) and it is one of the best P and S cameras I have ever used. The manual control is excellent, and the picture quality is amazing. You can't go wrong with it! :thumbsup:


----------



## powernoodle (Mar 11, 2009)

The Canon Powershot series is excellent. Not spendy, and the size of a deck of cards. I have the SD1000. Small enough to ride on your belt and you don't know its there.

Good macro, too.


----------



## greenlight (Mar 11, 2009)

I usually look for cameras that are on sale:
Photo


----------



## HarryN (Mar 11, 2009)

At the risk of being completely different, I suggest picking up a used Pentax ME Super 35mm film camera from craigslist. You can get nice ones for less than $ 100 with high quality lenses.

Use some Kodak Pro Ultra Color ASA 400 film. Have the film developed but not printed, scan it yourself, and save the rest of your money for flashlights. 

Canon and Nikon make nice cameras, but you pay a lot for the brand name IMHO, even in the used market.

Yes, we own some digital cameras and have tried more with a "goal" of DSLR. They are ok, but I still pick up either my ME Super or the 35mm Minox.

A decent camera phone these days is as good as a lot of digital cameras. Nokia makes some nice ones.

If you do decide to really go with digital, buy one that takes good pictures of YOUR family, esp. eye and hair color tones without a lot of fuss. Sitting in front of a computer fixing every color on every picture is a pain.

I can tell you that this feature is not "brand" specific, as my son has a canon that takes great pictures of us, but a more expensive canon DSLR failed completely.


----------



## addictedmatt (Mar 11, 2009)

Thanks to everyone for the help. I'm leaning towards a canon, but I will let you know what I choose. Feel free to keep the recommendations coming. :twothumbs


----------



## kitelights (Mar 11, 2009)

Need to know more about how you plan to use it and size preference to make a recommendation . 

You can do a great deal more with a super zoom a little smaller than a DSLR, but if you want to carry it in your pocket, then that's not a good fit. 

Most subcompacts are limited to a 3x zoom which is very limiting. A compact like the Panasonic TZ5 has a 10x zoom and can still fit in a pocket.

If you're not limited by size, I'd suggest the Panasonic FZ-28 super zoom. It's nearly as capable as a DSLR.


----------



## FlashKat (Mar 11, 2009)

Just about any Canon camera will be a good choice. GO CANON!!!!!


----------



## addictedmatt (Mar 11, 2009)

Ok, now I'm torn. I was going to go with a canon 5s is that a member has for sale in the marketplace, but that Panasonic FZ-28 super zoom looks pretty great. I think I'm leaning towards it now.:thinking:


----------



## D.B. (Mar 12, 2009)

The Panasonic Lumix series are a great set of cameras too. I'd recommend those right up there with Canon.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 12, 2009)

I used a FZ-8 for about a year and loved it. I just upgraded to the 28 mainly for the wide angle, but I've noticed that the newer processor does make a difference too. I really didn't need the top end of the zoom - from 12x to 18x, but it's nice to have.

I can't say enough good about them. I'm attached to the FZ-8, but I've got to sell it to justify the new one. I wasn't sure when I got the 28 if it was worth the upgrade. I'm sure now. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## geepondy (Mar 12, 2009)

Another DP link for the Super zoom reviews in which the Z28 is a co-winner. Very much worth reading the whole article.



addictedmatt said:


> Ok, now I'm torn. I was going to go with a canon 5s is that a member has for sale in the marketplace, but that Panasonic FZ-28 super zoom looks pretty great. I think I'm leaning towards it now.:thinking:


----------



## AvidHiker (Mar 12, 2009)

I would recommend a compact Canon or Sony. For most people I know, compacts seem to get the most use since they're so easily carried.



HarryN said:


> A decent camera phone these days is as good as a lot of digital cameras. Nokia makes some nice ones.
> 
> If you do decide to really go with digital, buy one that takes good pictures of YOUR family, esp. eye and hair color tones without a lot of fuss. Sitting in front of a computer fixing every color on every picture is a pain.
> 
> I can tell you that this feature is not "brand" specific, as my son has a canon that takes great pictures of us, but a more expensive canon DSLR failed completely.


 
VERY few camera phones could even approach the performance you'll get from a good quality compact in the $250-300 range. 

A dSLR is only as good as its operator. Only go this route if you know what you're doing!


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 12, 2009)

I've got an older Canon (S110) and Sony (V1), and they're still great cams. But, about a year ago I wanted a 2AA model to beat around on a trip, so I picked up a cheap Samsung (S85). For about $100 it does everything very well, has a 5X optical zoom, and even a manual mode. Only problems are it seems to prefer the extra voltage of lithium batts and does not have an optical viewfinder, which I definitely prefer. Not quite up there with the big boys, but close.

Geoff


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 12, 2009)

Usually Canon and Sony are recommended for compact digital cameras, but take a look at Panasonic before you buy something. They make pretty damn good cameras, very high quality for reasonable prices. I recently bought the DMC-LX3 and I won't go back to Canon anytime soon. The Panasonic has excellent image quality and it's much faster than any Canon I ever had. The LX3 is at the high price range for a compact digital camera because you have full manual control and some advanced options. If you only need a point and shoot camera, look at some models in a lower price range. I bet they offer more than Canon/Sony for the same price!


----------



## Saaby (Mar 12, 2009)

Slightly unconventional recommendation, but I picked up a Pentax K100D on closeout for about $250 before Christmas. It's a dSLR and, as such, can use interchangeable lenses. There are 2 versions of the kit lens. "I" came originally with the K100D and can be had for like $50 used. Since I plan to be with Pentax for awhile I went ahead and bought the newer "II" version of the lens, even though it's improvements are not really noticeable on my older camera body. 

The Pentax dSLR bodies have shake-reduction built into the body and work just fine with old lenses, so for a pretty reasonable outlay, you could get macro extension tubes and such and /really/ get into Photography.

Even though it's a little bit older body, I'm loving it! I now have the camera, the kit lens, 2 older lenses (Purchased used), and a bag, and I've still spent like under $500. 


Failing that, I'm also a huge fan of the Canon A-series cameras. Pretty small, take AA batteries, and I especially like the ones with swivel screens. Prior to my Pentax dSLR I owned a Canon A80, and then more recently, an A95.


----------



## Saaby (Mar 12, 2009)

Forgot to mention that if I was going to buy a really compact camera today, it'd probably be a Panasonic though. 


Compact: Panasonic
Mid-Size: Canon
Larger: Pentax


----------



## daloosh (Mar 12, 2009)

I am a huge Canon Powershot fan, and would be happy recommending one any day. 

I also hate Sony, for their proprietary crap, like memory sticks and plugs and connectors that are incompatible with everyone else in the world. 

However, I have seen the light and I can't say enough about the Sony Cybershot DSC-T500, because it's a 10 megapixel camera, and records HD video. I almost never bring the camcorder, with its batteries and flip out screen and all, but this thing does both! Afterwards, plug it via HDMI cable into your TV and bam! instant HD video.

daloosh


----------



## Chuck289 (Mar 12, 2009)

I just bought a Sony DSC-H50 and love it. 9.1 mp 15x zoom.


----------



## addictedmatt (Mar 12, 2009)

Narrowed down to the canon sx10 is, or the Panasonic FZ-28. The canon uses AA's, which I like, and it has the flip out screen. I've heard some rumors of jamming lenses on canon cameras. Is this something I should worry about? If it is, I will go with the Panasonic. If not, I will most likely pick up the canon.


----------



## NA8 (Mar 12, 2009)

+1 Canon. I like to right click on web pictures and look at "image properties". Many times the original camera information is there and lists which make and model was used. If you go through the various photo threads here on candlepower forums or other forums, you can check which cameras made the pictures you like best in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color balance (or just wow factor).


----------



## geepondy (Mar 12, 2009)

For people looking to get into DSLR's on a very limited budget, there are some good deals out there. I see Nikon D40's with the kit lens for considerably less then $400. For speed of operation and low light photography, I'll take the cheapest DSLR over the most expensive point and shoot.



Saaby said:


> Slightly unconventional recommendation, but I picked up a Pentax K100D on closeout for about $250 before Christmas. It's a dSLR and, as such, can use interchangeable lenses. There are 2 versions of the kit lens. "I" came originally with the K100D and can be had for like $50 used. Since I plan to be with Pentax for awhile I went ahead and bought the newer "II" version of the lens, even though it's improvements are not really noticeable on my older camera body.
> 
> The Pentax dSLR bodies have shake-reduction built into the body and work just fine with old lenses, so for a pretty reasonable outlay, you could get macro extension tubes and such and /really/ get into Photography.
> 
> ...


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 13, 2009)

Here's a pic I took tonight with my Panasonic : 






Cheers!


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 13, 2009)

Well, I'd like to add my Fuji Finepix S7000 to the mix..
It was ~$800 when I bought it in ~2003 or so, but I believe you can buy them for around $300 now.

It's an SLR-like camera with point&shoot capability - depending on how much control you desire.

It also has excellent super-macro capability down to about 1.2cm, IIRC.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm also looking at ones like the superzoom Canon sx10 or the Panasonic FZ-28. I like the optical zoom, but not sure how well these will do with close up shots of light bulbs, etc.

Erasmus, that was with your Panaxonic DMC-LX3, right? That seems to be the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of While that review makes it look to be an outstanding macro camera with a superb lens and CCD for superb closeup & low light performance, only thing I'm not liking is the 2.5 optical zoom.

I'm wondering if its best to try and find a 8-12x optical zoom that compromises between the strengths of both categories, without having to get a full blown DSL and multiple lenses....or without jumping into the Nikon D90 which is what I really want, but can't justify that $$$.


----------



## kitelights (Mar 14, 2009)

You nailed the description of the LX3 - it's very much a specialty camera.

Most shoppers want to do everything with one camera and they want to be able to loose it in their pocket. A subcompact is convenient and has the 'cool' factor and you're likely to use it, much like an EDC flashlight because you're likely to have it.

Next is a compact, some that are still pocketable, some are not, but they offer more capabilities than a subcompact. If it's not obvious, I'm a Panasonic fan and the TZ5 is pocketable with a 10x zoom and wide angle. 

Then comes the EV 'DSLR' style cameras that are typically super zooms. They are smaller and lighter weight than DSLR and can be used as a point and shoot or in full manual mode. They are very capable and unless you plan on going the photography route, they will likely meet most needs.

Last are DSLRs that are the most capable and versatile. They are generally more expensive, larger and heavier. Since the questions here are not for someone that is pursuing a photography interest, it is probably overkill, although many purchase quality DSLRs and only use them as a point and shoot. For the purpose of the interest in this particular thread, the main advantage of the DSLR would be low light capability because the sensors are much larger than on the other types.

For the non photographer (this thread) but more serious hobbyist (flashaholics) you realistically probably need to consider two cameras. One small enough for you to carry and another to do what you need it to do beyond the capabilities of the small one.

A very important step in making your decision is to handle the camera before you purchase it. The feel of it for you personally is very important.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 14, 2009)

Based on this last Holiday Review at DP, I'm now thinking of the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd which is a brand I would never have thought of buying.

Then wondering about the *Powershot SX110* with 9mp 10x zoom and newer *SX200* with 12mp & 12x zoom might be compromises between 20x zoom and LX3 Macro.


----------



## HarryN (Mar 14, 2009)

There have been 2 - 3 pictures that I found to be VERY difficult for mid range digital cameras to take:

a) Fish swimming in a round tank

We were at a small aquarium with a cylinder shaped clear tank. These particular fish would swim around the outside - round and round, and as they went, would open their mouth briefly very wide. My son was trying very hard to get a picture of this "open mouth".

There were several interesting challenges. 

a) The autofocus just could not deal with this situation, and we could no find a way to turn it off.

b) We found a way to trick the focus, so now the camera just had to shoot when you press the button. Even though we had the fastest button to shutter click mid range digital we could find (a pentax), it still was not nearly fast enough.

2) Pictures of people with fair skin

a) Eyes have a "range" of green - blue color and intensity.
Most digital sensors cannot deal with it, and photoshop is ok (if you like fixing every line)

b) RGB sensors see "into the skin"
If your subject is the least bit fair skinned, you really have to test the digital camera before you buy it. There is a tendency for it to "see" right into the depth of the skin, not really stopping until it gets to thicker, less pleasant looking tissue.

There are some makeups that you can buy now that are designed to surface reflect and help a lot.

3) Low light conditions

Mid range digital sensors can go grainy fast in low light.


Saaby's idea is also very good. There are a ton of used, high quality lenses on the market that worked for film and will work for a DSLR, esp. in the pentax line.


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 14, 2009)

In general it's true that compact digital cameras don't perform well in low light conditions, but I'm very impressed of the performance of my Panasonic LX3. A friend of mine has a 3 years old Nikon DSLR and told me my camera outperforms it in low light conditions when taking pics without flash.

Here's another one, a random street shot. Badly focussed but I like it anyway


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 14, 2009)

kitelights said:


> For the non photographer (this thread) but more serious hobbyist (flashaholics) you realistically probably need to consider two cameras. One small enough for you to carry and another to do what you need it to do beyond the capabilities of the small one.



+1

This why I have an Olympus 720SW - shock and waterproof compact - for EDC. It can go to 1600 ISO equivalent.
And a Fuji S7000 SLR-like for when I'm in my enthusiastic amateur photographer mode.  I even got a bunch of lens conversions and filters for it.. Including an infrared filter - pictures look cool and eerie.


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 14, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Erasmus, that was with your Panaxonic DMC-LX3, right? That seems to be the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of While that review makes it look to be an outstanding macro camera with a superb lens and CCD for superb closeup & low light performance, only thing I'm not liking is the 2.5 optical zoom.


That was also a concern I had when I bought it, but after all I don't zoom that much. If you really need more optical zoom, you can always buy an add-on lens.


----------



## geepondy (Mar 14, 2009)

In the Panasonic DMC-LX3 accessory list, I don't see a telephoto lens adapter, only a wide angle one. Is a telephoto lens available for this camera by Panasonic or a third party?



Erasmus said:


> That was also a concern I had when I bought it, but after all I don't zoom that much. If you really need more optical zoom, you can always buy an add-on lens.


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 14, 2009)

geepondy said:


> In the Panasonic DMC-LX3 accessory list, I don't see a telephoto lens adapter, only a wide angle one. Is a telephoto lens available for this camera by Panasonic or a third party?


You're right, Panasonic only makes a wide angle lens, but there are plenty of third party telephoto lenses if you're looking for one. Just google "DMC-LX3 telephoto"

Here's an example of a night shot :


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm not sure how well a telephoto would work with a camera that is specifically designed for low light and macro applications. I liked this well done review here, and that and the menu system seems to be the main shortcomings. I'm not interested in getting two cameras.

Still looking at those middle range ones I listed in last post.


----------



## geepondy (Mar 15, 2009)

Boy I wish I had more expendable cash because I think the LX3 would make an excellent complimentary camera for my DSLR. Although not as small as a Canon Elph, it looks small enough to slip in a pocket?

From what I read on the forums, lots of people whom the LX3's short optical length is not satisfactory towards them are choosing the Canon G10 instead but both cameras are above the OP's $300 budget.

That's a really nice photo.



Erasmus said:


> You're right, Panasonic only makes a wide angle lens, but there are plenty of third party telephoto lenses if you're looking for one. Just google "DMC-LX3 telephoto"
> 
> Here's an example of a night shot :


----------



## f22shift (Mar 15, 2009)

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/910310/
staples camera deals


the sd1100 is a great camera


----------



## kitelights (Mar 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Based on this last Holiday Review at DP, I'm now thinking of the Fujifilm FinePix F100fd which is a brand I would never have thought of buying.
> 
> Then wondering about the *Powershot SX110* with 9mp 10x zoom and newer *SX200* with 12mp & 12x zoom might be compromises between 20x zoom and LX3 Macro.


I'm not familiar with the Powershot, but I do own the Fuji. I bought it for the low light reviews. It evolved from the famous low light f30/31. Back then, Fuji didn't succumb to the mega pixel marketing game race. They held their pixel count down and used a larger sensor resulting in excellent low light capability. The newer f100fd only has a very slight edge over other cameras in its class for low light. It is a great camera for durability, excellent pictures, wide angle and 5x zoom in a compact body, but not for low light. An example would be a 100 lumen light vs a 120 lumen light.

I'm going to sell mine and keep the Panasonic TZ5 instead. I prefer the slightly smaller size of the Fuju, but the 10x zoom on the TZ5 is more important to me. If you're interested in the Fuji, there's a $100 rebate for another 2 weeks.

The new guy for small low light cameras would be the LX3 and it's too limited for most consumers. Hopefully the technology will be expanded to include a more versatile zoom.

You can get by with just one camera as long as you'll willing to accept the limitations, but you seem to be a real quality oriented guy who likes nice toys. Most people want the convenience of small, but then they realize the limitations after using them for a while and add another more capable camera.

Those are excellent shots with the LX3. My daughter is looking to spend $800-1000 for a lens to get that depth of field with her DSLR.


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 15, 2009)

The LX3 is pocketable indeed, I always have it with me. Although it's great for macro shots and low light conditions, it's also good in taking pictures during daytime. I just found out that for some reason 80 percent of my pics are taken in the dark though. There are no shortcomings in the system menu, it doesn't look fancy but it's very functional and logical. Anyway, here are some more samples : 

Sandberg (in Slovakia), the sea is gone for millions of years but the dunes are still there including seashells : 








Abandoned pipe organ : 







View on the Louvre museum and Seine in Paris : 







Spinvis, the greatest artist of the Netherlands : 







Feeding birds in a park in Paris : 






Just for the record, I'm not associated with Panasonic at all, I'm just a very satisfied customer


----------



## TITAN1833 (Mar 15, 2009)

@Erasmus what's it like at taking beam shots,I'm quite liking it so far


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 15, 2009)

The frog, the attic and the pipe organ are theoretically beamshots, because there was absolutely no light there and the pics were taken with a homemade floodlight with 6 warm white Cree XR-E's  I'll try to find some flashlights to take comparing beamshots, but I'm sure it won't be a problem for the camera.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 16, 2009)

kitelights said:


> I prefer the slightly smaller size of the Fuju, but the 10x zoom on the TZ5 is more important to me. If you're interested in the Fuji, there's a $100 rebate for another 2 weeks.
> 
> You can get by with just one camera as long as you'll willing to accept the limitations, but you seem to be a real quality oriented guy who likes nice toys. Most people want the convenience of small, but then they realize the limitations after using them for a while and add another more capable camera.



I liked everything about the TZ5 especially some good prices, except I'm not willing to give up *manual control over shutter speeds, apertures or focus*. I have used those like crazy with my old Powershot S45 (4mp 3x lens), especially with beam shots.

This has me leaning back towards the Canon Powershot SX110 uses 2 NiMH AA's, and priced at $199 delivered from Abes.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 16, 2009)

My Canon Powershot is my internet workhorse. It's only 5MP but does have IS. The controls are laid out fairly well and manual settings are easy. They're a bargain on ebay and other stores. It will never perform like a DSLR but for kicking around in my day pack it works just fine. 

Here is just a quick snapshot that I took with it yesterday...


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 16, 2009)

These are all beautiful pictures that people are posting (or they wouldn't post them). Remember my old Racoon images that I took with this aging Powershot S45 with only 3x optical zoom?






BTW, this is a pretty good review of the Powershot SX-110.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 16, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> These are all beautiful pictures that people are posting (or they wouldn't post them). Remember my old Racoon images that I took with this aging Powershot S45 with only 3x optical zoom?



Yes I do. Great picture and the low tech S45 did pretty darn good. I'm guessing the ISO was 800+ judging from the noise around the eye patches. That was captured under really difficult light conditions too.


----------



## alantch (Mar 16, 2009)

Erasmus said:


> Here's a pic I took tonight with my Panasonic :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1 from another LX-3 user. Very good and sharp compact and offers as much if not more features then some DSLRs. It may cost a bit more, but well worth every bit of it IMHO. 

A sample close-up shot of a Seoul turbo module :


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm amazed that this 9 mp Canon SX-110 with 10x optical has this impressive of macro shots. It gives a setting in macro mode of 0.6 inch. For $200 from Abes, uses 2 x AA NiMH, and the obvious 10x optical distance advantage & anti-shake, this is exactly what I was hoping to find. Check the thumbnails just to see the closeup ability:


----------



## greenlight (Mar 19, 2009)

I just bought a Sony DSC W-120 from SEARS for 100$. It is last years' camera, but it got great reviews. I still haven't figured out which mode works best, but it does take great pictures.

Here's an example:





If you're going to keep buying cameras, try not to pay too much for all of them. Everything goes on sale at some point.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 19, 2009)

Then these are two quickies also shot with AUTO mode of normal (non-zoomed), and 10x Optical zoom. Cloudy rainy day.


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 19, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Cloudy rainy day.



Sometimes that's the best for taking 'moody' kind of pictures though!


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 19, 2009)

A photo taken at night with my Fuji S7000. Using a custom white balance setting - set by holding a colored piece of construction paper while setting one of the two custom WB-settings. (That's the moon behind those clouds.)






I liked it so much, I tend to make it my avatar on some forums.


----------



## greenlight (Mar 19, 2009)

Did you really need to set the white balance in-camera? Adding green to an image isn't that difficult.


----------



## Egsise (Mar 19, 2009)

addictedmatt said:


> Narrowed down to the canon sx10 is, or the Panasonic FZ-28. The canon uses AA's, which I like, and it has the flip out screen. I've heard some rumors of jamming lenses on canon cameras. Is this something I should worry about? If it is, I will go with the Panasonic. If not, I will most likely pick up the canon.


I guess you have read this comparison... http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/verdict.shtml

I just bought Canon SX1, it costed 100€ more than SX10 but that was not a bad price for Full HD video, HDMI connection, remote control, CMOS capable of 4fps continuous shooting...(with firmware update RAW is in the list)

SX1+bag+2GB SD extreme III+8GB SDHC class 6 = 600€ 
I'll propably be eating oatmeal for the next month... :eeew:


----------



## Patriot (Mar 19, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I'm amazed that this 9 mp Canon SX-110 with 10x optical has this impressive of macro shots. It gives a setting in macro mode of 0.6 inch. For $200 from Abes, uses 2 x AA NiMH, and the obvious 10x optical distance advantage & anti-shake, this is exactly what I was hoping to find. Check the thumbnails just to see the closeup ability:




Mighty optical performance from such such a tike of a camera!


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 19, 2009)

greenlight said:


> Did you really need to set the white balance in-camera? Adding green to an image isn't that difficult.



Probably not.. But I don't like to alter any of my images whatsoever.. With the possible exception of cropping, resizing - or maybe stitching.
I like to see what I can get purely by using the camera alone.
I'm kind of a purist that way.

Maybe pretentious, I dunno.. I just hate to see an awesome photo on any site only to find out it was Photoshopped to death(or at all) in order to get it to that point.  :tired:

HDR(High Dynamic Range) might be another matter, because one still has to know how to capture the various levels to get some good output. Plus, they just look too cool, even though some may seem unrealistic. But they still came from REAL images. (And even the unrealistic ones would be considered 'painting with light' in my opinion.)


----------



## addictedmatt (Mar 19, 2009)

I think I have settled on the Nikon D40. A little above my price range, and I still have some research to do, but it looks like the winner. :twothumbs


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 19, 2009)

Sunset in Bratislava, Slovakia : 





Captured with an LX3, HDR image composed of only 2 photos.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 19, 2009)

You have some beautiful pix, Erasmus....and me thinks it's not because of the camera, although it is a nice one.


----------



## lightsandknives (Mar 19, 2009)

I too am a huge fan of the Panasonic LX3. My son just bought one, and I have the Leica D-Lux 4, a nearly identical camera. Like it's been said, they're not for everyone because of the short zoom range, but you sure can't beat the quality of images.

The Panasonic FZ28 would be a great choice in the superzoom cagetory. I have the slightly older FZ18 and it's a nice camera for all-round usage.

Here's a few Leica shots......


----------



## geepondy (Mar 19, 2009)

The D40 has some killer deals going for it if you look around but if you can't get it below $400, I'd consider either the Nikon D60 or Canon XS(what I have) if deciding to go the DSLR route. In addition to the 10 megpixel sensor you get an image stabilized lens with both the Nikon D60 or Canon XS. I believe the D40 comes with the regular non image stabilized lens.



addictedmatt said:


> I think I have settled on the Nikon D40. A little above my price range, and I still have some research to do, but it looks like the winner. :twothumbs


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 19, 2009)

Erasmus said:


> Sunset in Bratislava, Slovakia :
> [.. pic snipped..]
> Captured with an LX3, HDR image composed of only 2 photos.



Cool! Me Likey!
It looks totally fake, but yet it's not. It's made with mostly unaltered images [I hope].

Now that's what I call painting with light!

(Not that anyone cares what I think - or even should care.. After all, I'm just another wanna-be pro, enthusiastic amateur!)
Having fun is what it's all about, man! :twothumbs


----------



## addictedmatt (Mar 19, 2009)

Uhg. For some reason, I was sure it had IS. Off to check out the xs. The search continues.....


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 19, 2009)

addictedmatt said:


> Uhg. For some reason, I was sure it had IS. Off to check out the xs. The search continues.....



I'm no expert, but you might not want to base your entire purchase off of whether a camera has image stabilization or not. It might seem like a feature to not be without, but I find it highly over-rated in my limited experience with it.

For my camera that has it, turning IS on has a detrimental effect to the image quality.. It seems to get much more noisy.


----------



## addictedmatt (Mar 19, 2009)

I couldn't keep a camera still to save my life. My current camera lacks it and unless its on a table or tripod, I get blurry pics.


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 19, 2009)

addictedmatt said:


> I couldn't keep a camera still to save my life. My current camera lacks it and unless its on a table or tripod, I get blurry pics.



Maybe IS has gotten better recently. I'm not sure. Maybe ANY IS for you is better than nothing..? :shrug:

I do find that my Fuji S7000 produces better images even though my hands tend to shake a bit more these days than I want them to(fibromyalgia). Don't know what it is about that S7000, but... It still might take two shots, but one of them is likely to be a keeper! Take 3 and the chances shoot up even more! Set it to bracket, and your Golden!


----------



## Erasmus (Mar 19, 2009)

I promise I didn't use any adjustments in Photoshop for that picture of the sunset in Bratislava, I only used PS to resize it. The HDR is composed of 2 images with different exposure and processed in Photomatix.

Oh and get a camera with IS. I don't have experience with other camera's with IS but in my LX3 it makes a big difference, the IS does a great job.


----------



## Hoggy (Mar 20, 2009)

Erasmus said:


> I promise I didn't use any adjustments in Photoshop for that picture of the sunset in Bratislava, I only used PS to resize it. The HDR is composed of 2 images with different exposure and processed in Photomatix.



That's great to know.. It's a VERY stunning image!! I've been meaning to get into HDR myself, but don't know offhand if there's a good Linux program to do it. (I'd rather avoid Windows, if I can.)



Erasmus said:


> Oh and get a camera with IS. I don't have experience with other camera's with IS but in my LX3 it makes a big difference, the IS does a great job.



Poor Matt.. "Get a camera with IS - don't get a camera with IS - NO, get one with IS." :duh2:
I dunno.. If it's an Olympus 720SW, maybe don't.. Maybe this varies greatly from camera to camera..??


----------



## kitelights (Mar 20, 2009)

IS is most useful for small cameras that are harder to hold steady and cameras with longer zooms.

For more experienced photographers, it allows you to shoot at lower f/stops and slower shutter speeds without a tripod.

Being so readily available and advantageous, I can't imagine considering a new camera without it. All Panasonics have IS.


----------



## geepondy (Mar 20, 2009)

I find IS _extremely_ useful in both my point and shoot (Canon Powershot S3) and my DSLR (Rebel XS with the kit 18-55IS lens). I have shaky hands as well and can shoot down to 1/8th of a second with IS. I get much more indoor keeper shots using IS. They do recommend turning IS off if shooting with a tripod.

Again, pick a camera or lens review from www.dpreview.com and they will usually post shots with and without IS. They claim up to a four stop advantage, depending on the model.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Mar 20, 2009)

Has anyone noticed a significant increase in battery consumption using IS, or is it something you can set and forget? I figure my next cam with have to have it.

Geoff


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 20, 2009)

Hoggy said:


> Maybe IS has gotten better recently. I'm not sure.



Canon is now in their 5th version of IS. It is now a superbly performing advantage, with very little downside. It is huge improvement if zooming >3x. For superzoom 20x models, either get with newest versions of IS, or plan on using a tripod and 2 sec timer delay on all your shots.

I know there is a battery hit with it, but not sure on how much...as it varies with IS version, and model. With this SX110, I no longer care about batteries. Eneloops, baby.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 21, 2009)

I made this other thread after testing AS in this 10x Canon SX110. No way I could have had that clear of zoomed images without antishake, unless I used a tripod and 2 sec delay shot. Couple of shots I took:


----------



## D.B. (Mar 22, 2009)

Also, be aware that there are two types of image stabilization; optical and digital. SLR's are going to rely on Optical IS, which is the better of the two. Digital IS is something that is only found in smaller P&S cameras, either by itself or in conjunction with optical IS. With Digital IS, the camera essentially bumps up the ISO when you are shooting, which can affect the image quality/graininess. Regardless of what you plan to purchase, make sure it's Optical IS if the camera lists image stabilization as a feature.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 22, 2009)

D.B. said:


> Also, be aware that there are two types of image stabilization; optical and digital. SLR's are going to rely on Optical IS, which is the better of the two. Digital IS is something that is only found in smaller P&S cameras, either by itself or in conjunction with optical IS. With Digital IS, the camera essentially bumps up the ISO when you are shooting, which can affect the image quality/graininess. Regardless of what you plan to purchase, make sure it's Optical IS if the camera lists image stabilization as a feature.



DB, thanks for that. I really did not understand what kind of system is being used in this $200 SX110 model, but found the answer here at DP Review.



> *Optical Image Stabilizer
> 
> *The PowerShot SX110 IS uses a lens shift-type Image Stabilizer (IS) system to detect and correct slight camera shakes that can cause image blur. Minute vibration gyros detect lens tilting caused by hand shake. These signals – 4,000 per second – are processed by a single-chip IS controller, which discriminates between hand shake and unintentional camera movements. Shake signals are sent to the IS unit, which moves one of the lens elements accordingly to deflect the light rays and cancel out the effects of shake.
> 
> For improved accuracy and responsiveness, the moving lens element is supported on tiny ceramic spheres. In addition to minimizing friction, ceramic spheres avoid some of the problems that can affect metal systems, such as thermal expansion and magnetism. The optical IS of both models allows photographers to shoot at shutter speeds up to 3 stops slower with no perceptible increase in image blur due to camera shake.​


----------



## LEDobsession (Mar 24, 2009)

I have a Nikon D60 that I love. Its a little bit more than the d40 but it has image stabilization which they call "Vibration Reduction". You should be able to pick up the body and a 18-55mm lens in the $500 range (if I remember right) but its worth it for a good starting-out camera. I'm actually looking to upgrade to the d300 or d700 at the end of this year. But for a good DSLR, the D60 does really well in my book. I do a lot of photography and I'm really enjoying mine. A few things I want to upgrade for are more shots per second, more megapixels, and bigger screen. Here is some of what it has done for me. Nothin too fancy but a lot of fun (you can tell where I played on photoshop ):


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 24, 2009)

Some great pictures there! LOL! There is such a temptation to share our pictures, and in truth it's fun to look at them. 

It's hard to know how much camera one needs to buy, but there are certainly more features as you move up the money tree. I guess if it is a serious hobby or profession, you have the money and get enjoyment....go for it. I think most people won't need/use the features of a camera costing more than $300.


----------



## LEDobsession (Mar 25, 2009)

Couldn't help but share, since we're on the subject and all. :twothumbs


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 25, 2009)

LEDobsession said:


> Couldn't help but share, since we're on the subject and all. :twothumbs



What else are pictures for other than to show. I love looking at great photos.


----------

