Posted by JuanPablo
Hi guys
I want to buy a new digital Camera. My main priorities are:
> Design - I want a light and thin Digital Camera
> At least 3.2 MP
> Average to outstading picture quality
> 3X Optical Zoom
The only ones that seems to fill my requirements are Sony Cybershot T20, T100 and T200. Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance
Posted by arien617
Price range?
Posted by JuanPablo
On 2007-09-19 17:50:16, arien617 wrote:
Price range?
$100-500
Posted by *Jojo*
@juan - Check this site ! :
www.dpreview.com
Posted by The Lostprophet
i had a t20 and a t100 and was dispointed in both. the quality wasnt that great.
maybe look at the panasonic fx30 great little camera, wide angled len made by lecia.
Posted by JuanPablo
@ JoJo: Thanks for the link, very good site
@ The Lostprophet: Really? That sucks, cause I'm in love with those cameras right now lol
Anyway, anymore suggestions? What about Canon, Nikon and HP? Are they good?
Posted by MWEB
Thin and light equals Casio in my book, http://www.exilim.de/euro/
Posted by QVGA
Sony T200, T100
Posted by JuanPablo
Thanks everyone. Are Casio Digicams any good?
Posted by *Jojo*
On 2007-09-23 01:22:55, JuanPablo wrote:
Thanks everyone. Are Casio Digicams any good?
@one - Back then I was eager in gettin' me one of these CASIO digicams .. . until I saw it's NOT-so-impressive review in some sites . . . the PROBLEM this brand normally encounters is it's - FLASH-feature which is NOT that BRIGHT (small in it's PHYSICAL-size too), resulting to DARK-shots ;cryl:
I am NOT into Sony cybershot digicams too ! As what my grandad would always tell me then . . . when buying for a THING, get the brand which they are KNOWN for ! Like for example . . . when you plan in buying a watch . . . just choose from those with reputable-sale made through the years . . . say like: Rolex, Omega, Patek, Breitling or Tag Heuer . . . Casio was known ONLY for their digital wrist watches (sporty) and school-calculators . . while Sony, for their components, TVs etc. - NOT in cameras !
I would be suggesting therefor, just to choose amonmgst these 3: Nikon, Canon or Olympus !
Good Luck !
Posted by BobaFett
i would take a nikon, do served me well. donnow much about casio cams, but i would rather buy calculator from them instead of digi cams...
Posted by MWEB
@ JoJo learn some history my boy
, Casio released/invented the worlds first consumer digicam the QV-10, and their current products are smaller/better/cheaper than the more famous brands you promote!!
Posted by masseur
..and I bought that QV-10. It was the first digital camera with an lcd screen as I recall. I also bought the printer that they put out with it at the same time which only printed images the size of security pass images. Cost me a an arm and a leg as I recall
edit: I also bought the follow up QV100... nothings changed uch since then!
_________________
Unless I'm very much mistaken...
reviews: i-mate V800 K700
[ This Message was edited by: masseur on 2007-09-23 20:01 ]
Posted by MWEB
http://www.digicamhistory.com/1995%20A-C.html
Indeed about a $1000 Masseur, If i were choosing an SLR then JoJo's reccomendations are solid, but compacts are a whole different ball game IMO.
Casio, Fuji and Panasonic lead the way in my (aged ) experiance.
Posted by masseur
as I recall it was about 1500 australian $ and the printer was another 600!
in the last few years I've been very happy with Sony cybershots having had the DSC-T1, T30 and now T100 which is 8.1 megapixels, 5x optical zoom, face detection etc etc and does great pics
Posted by *Jojo*
@mweb - EITHER way . . . I do NOT like Casio Digicams because of their POOR-flash-feature !
Nikon, Canon or Olympus will DO !
Posted by shaliron
@JuanPablo
I'll be perfectly honest with you, thin does not usually go hand in hand with 'outstanding' photo quality.
I do know quite a bit about cameras, so if you go into more depth about what you'd want out of the camera, it'd be helpful.
What sort of photos will you be taking most of (outdoor, indoor, social scenes i.e. parties, etc.)?
When you say thin, do you mean nothing protrudes out of the camera or just thin when turned off (so the lens comes out of the camera)?
Do you want punchy (bright, contrasty, saturated) photos straight out of the camera, or do you know how to post-process?
P.S. I highly recommend that you join the forums at dpreview.com They are really great for discussing cameras, and they know a lot more than us (just like we know tons about mobiles).
_________________
A wooden spoon is a spoon made from wood. Source: Wikipedia
Winner of: Best Thread (Huge SE Portfolio), Best Post (Huge SE Portfolio), Best Signature, and 2nd Best Nickname
[ This Message was edited by: shaliron on 2007-09-24 03:02 ]
Posted by JuanPablo
On 2007-09-24 04:00:57, shaliron wrote:
@JuanPablo
I'll be perfectly honest with you, thin does not usually go hand in hand with 'outstanding' photo quality.
I do know quite a bit about cameras, so if you go into more depth about what you'd want out of the camera, it'd be helpful.
What sort of photos will you be taking most of (outdoor, indoor, social scenes i.e. parties, etc.)?
When you say thin, do you mean nothing protrudes out of the camera or just thin when turned off (so the lens comes out of the camera)?
Do you want punchy (bright, contrasty, saturated) photos straight out of the camera, or do you know how to post-process?
Thanks. As I've said before, I don't want outstanding pics, just average to good ones
Right now I'm using a Cybershot W55 and is quite good in my humble opinion (I don't know that much about cameras)
I use my camera mainly outdoor (university), and also at some parties (not too many).
When I say thin, I meant thin turned off
I don't know how to post-process, so I'd prefer contrast, saturated pictures straight out of the camera.
Hope I helped, waiting for your suggestions
Posted by shaliron
Alright, the Sonys look alright for your needs, but if maybe you're willing to consider the Panasonic FX30.
http://www.dpreview.com/revie[....]anasonic/panasonic_dmcfx30.asp
It does look as flashy as the Sony cameras, but it is just as big/small as the Sony cameras.
What I consider to be the main advantage of this camera is that it has a wide angle lens, 28mm compared to 35/38mm on the Sony cameras. This basically means that you can capture a wider angle of view, so you can fit in more into one photo.
Eg. 28mm
35mm
See how you can fit more into a photo? It may not sound like a huge number difference, but it is quite significant in photo terms.
Also, it has a Leica lens, which many consider to be the best lenses in the business (superior to Carl Zeiss for sure) and it also has a very good image stabilisation which again is considered to be best in the business.
Then again, you could get the T100 or T200, which don't have wide angle, but they can zoom in much more than the FX30. Personally, for photos of buildings, landscapes, and social snaps, wide angle is much more useful than telephoto (zooming in).
Also, the Panasonic is much cheaper (at least in my country). I'd go for the Panasonic.
Posted by JuanPablo
On 2007-09-25 06:15:31, shaliron wrote:
Alright, the Sonys look alright for your needs, but if maybe you're willing to consider the Panasonic FX30.
It does look as flashy as the Sony cameras, but it is just as big/small as the Sony cameras.
What I consider to be the main advantage of this camera is that it has a wide angle lens, 28mm compared to 35/38mm on the Sony cameras. This basically means that you can capture a wider angle of view, so you can fit in more into one photo.
See how you can fit more into a photo? It may not sound like a huge number difference, but it is quite significant in photo terms.
Also, it has a Leica lens, which many consider to be the best lenses in the business (superior to Carl Zeiss for sure) and it also has a very good image stabilisation which again is considered to be best in the business.
That Panasonic seems like a good option too
I have a couple questions for you before making my desition:
1. Is Leica better than Carl Zeiss? Is a lens THAT important?
2. What about Sony's technology (Super Steady ShotŪ, Bionz(tm) processor, Clear Photo LCD PlusŪ, Face detection and other? Panasonic has similar technologies?
3. Which one produces better pictures without editing?
4. Which one is better overall (from your point of view)?
Thanks in advance
[ This Message was edited by: JuanPablo on 2007-09-25 07:06 ]
Posted by >500
your not going to get much for $150 though. You defo wont get a t100 or t200 for that price.
Posted by shaliron
@JuanPablo
1. Is Leica better than Carl Zeiss? Is a lens THAT important?
Lenses are pretty important in cameras. A good lens means that images are clear and sharp all the way through the photo (so now blurriness in the corners).
Also, you've probably seem purple fringing. If not, just google image 'purple fringing' and you'll see what I mean. A good lens has little to no purple fringing.
And whether Leica really is the best. Well, it is considered to be very, very good, and definitely better than Carl Zeiss.
Also, because the T100 is a 'folded lens' (meaning it is inside the camera), it doesn't do as well in terms of lens quality, because folding it inside has its compromises.
2. What about Sony's technology (Super Steady ShotŪ, Bionz(tm) processor, Clear Photo LCD PlusŪ, Face detection and other? Panasonic has similar technologies?
Alright, we have to know which camera you're comparing it to, but I'll assume the T100 for now. The T200 is quite expensive, compared to the T100 and the FX30. And the T20 is not something that I'd consider.
But Super Steady Shot is just a fancy name for optical image stabilisation. Panasonic has 'Mega Optical Image Stabilisation' or 'Mega OIS', which is actually superior to Sony's technology. So Panasonic is better in reducing camera shake.
Bionz processor is just again, a fancy term for the processor which processes the photos. Panasonic has a Venus Engine III, which is its own processor. Which one is better? Well it all depends, but we'll just say they are equal for now.
Face detection for Sony is really just for people who aren't that great at cameras and is a gimmicky feature if you do know how to focus a camera. It really isn't that necessary - I wouldn't buy a camera purely for Face Detection. Panasonic doesn't have it, but for anyone who knows how to focus (hold the shutter half way down, check for correct focus, then press all the way in) it isn't necessary. FD is not foolproof, and doesn't work if poeple aren't looking at the camera, has glasses or a hat on etc.
Overall, Sony 'technology' is not going to make a huge difference between the types of photos that you can capture with each camera.
3. Which one produces better pictures without editing?
Well, they both are similar. Have a look here:
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/panasonic/dmc-fx30/
and here
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/dsc-t100/
Search something like 'beach' or 'outdoor' and just look at the photos.
I know you won't be that picky, so any minor differences in the photo quality is going to be minor.
4. Which one is better overall (from your point of view)?
The FX-30. Cheaper, wide angle, more powerful flash, and just a better camera IMO.
But you can't go too wrong with the T100 either. It does have a longer zoom (though not as wide), bigger LCD, and very stylish.
Posted by JuanPablo
Thank you very much shaliron
. I think I'm going to compare prices to make my final desition, but I'm feeling atracted to the Panasonic one
Thanks again
Posted by shaliron
Be sure to let us know which one you get