Sorry everyone - a which camera thread!

[Allie]

Hi everyone,
Basically my parents wanted to get me a camera for Christmas, but they thought they'd let me decide which to get, for which I'm very grateful
Basically I want a compact camera, since I want to be taking this on my gap year (I'll keep it safe ) - the majority of photos will be outdoor ones, probably of friends/landscapes/activities/buildings. I'm looking at high end compacts, for basically as close as I can get to DSLR quality stuff. I think it's Sigma that do the only large sensored camera which can get to actual DSLR quality, but I don't think I really want that, for reasons I had determined but which I now can't remember
I have been looking at the Canon G10, which seems to be the compact camera of the moment - I like the manual controls which I can learn to play around with for one thing. I had been looking at a Panasonic Lumix (I can't remember which model but it has a 10x zoom whilst remaining compact) but there were no manual controls so that put me off it a little. What's making me hesitate about the G10 is really the zoom, which is half that of the Panasonic.
Can anyone recommend either of these cameras, or anything else that might be a good compromise between what I want? Also, I gather both of this are pretty hefty compacts - would that be ok for backpacking, or should I look for something smaller?
Thank you anyone for any help

 

[Mikkel]

I have had two of the earlier Powershot series cameras, and liked to work with them. The downside of a camera this size, is that it's not as compact as the smaller ones (SD990IS, Fujifilm F100fd, etc.), but the advantage is that it offers full manual controls.

At 10x zoom, you'll need a camera support of some kind.
It's also quite rare that you will utilize this zoom level.

If you want manual controls and still want to stay reasonable, then go for the powershot G-series or similar.
If you want to stay very compact, still with some manual controls, canon have just released their SD990.
If you do not need manual controls, you can also consider the f100fd.
Else, if you want better optics, sensor, etc. and do not care too much about size, then there are some very interresting offers from pentax amongst others.

On a compact, you will never get dslr quality, alone because the lenses are not up to the same quality level. But if you do not need superior image quality, then there are a world of options.

If you have not photographed seriously previously, then I suggest you start out with something that offers manual controls, but in a compact package.

Check out http://www.dpreview.com/ they just did several comparison reviews of different types of cameras.

 

[Wayland]

I have a G10 as my pocket camera and an extra two feet of zoom in my walking boots.

 

[Allie]

Thanks guys for your replies.
I hadn't seen the SD990 before - aah another to look at!
So I think I've narrowed it down to:
Panasonic LX3 - but I'm not sure about the 2.5x zoom and the lens cap (but I could handle the lens cap!)
Canon G10 - but I'm not sure about the bulk/cost (although cost I could probably stretch to)
Canon SD990 - I don't know if this could compete?
I've seen a lot of comparison between the LX3 and the G10 - it seems they're the main rivals to each other - do you have any opinions on those?

Hmm Wayland if you have the G10 maybe I should just go for that ! D'you find it lives up to what you need it for? It just seems so bulky for a pocket camera - It would be fine if I had a rucksack or coat pocket, or for parties I'd have a handbag.. So actually maybe I could handle the bulk too!

 

[Wayland]

It's smaller and lighter than my SLR so it serves it's purpose.

The images are noisier in low light than my 5D but that's to be expected.

It's very good in normal lighting.

and I'm impressed with the image stabilizer as well.

For me it handles like a real camera and makes raw files so it gets my vote.

 

[Allie]

Wow, those pictures are amazing - sadly I'm thinking that's more the photographer
Where was that last one taken?
I'm now leaning toward the G10!

 

[Wayland]

Wow, those pictures are amazing - sadly I'm thinking that's more the photographer

The photographer is always the most important component of any photo system.

Where was that last one taken?

Crompton Moor

 

[harryhaller]

Which of the above cameras would be suitable for close-ups of plants in poor (woodland) lighting conditions?

 

[bushtuckerman]

I've used another lumix camera and it had terrible noise and even worse noise reduction (smudge-o-matic), but essentially all compact cameras suffer the same problem, their smaller format optics, so you may benefit from getting the smallest good one you can find if you want to save weight (such as the Canon IXUS 870/880). Mikkel suggested the SD990 but in England they are marketed with different numbers and with the 'IXUS' moniker, so it might be the IXUS 880 in the UK, have a look.

I disagree with Mikkel on another point though, it's not a lack of good optics that hinders smaller cameras, it's their lower light gathering power, and actuall they often end up taking sharper photos due to the higer F number, and many have equally good optics to SLRs.

The G10 is good, namely because it has a wide angle lens (far more important than long zoom for you I should think if you want to photograph buildings as it will allow you to get closer). It is probably not that much lighter than the D40 however (I don't know as I haven't checked), which is Nikon's smallest DSLR and therefore able to take photos in lower available light than the G10, while also being pretty cheap (it's a few years old now but has no replacement, don't bother with the D60 unless you want to pay more).

good luck,
Ian

 

[hedgepig]

As we are talking about the G10 - I've done some comparison with my Canon 40D and I've found it to be an excellent little camera. If you are backpacking for a year and want good quality images, it's not a bad choice. You can read some of my thoughts on the camera:
Here: http://wandering-photographer.blogspot.com/2009/03/canon-40d-and-canon-g10-mini-comparison.html

Here: http://wandering-photographer.blogspot.com/2009/03/canon-40d-and-canon-g10-mini-comparison_26.html

and Here: http://wandering-photographer.blogspot.com/2009/03/canon-40d-and-canon-g10-different.html

@Harryhaller - you are going to struggle with any camera in poor lighting conditions unless you use a tripod (or buy a camera with excellent low light performance like the D700). However, the image stabilisation on the G10 is damned impressive. The following shot was taken hand held at a shutter speed of 0.6 sec!

 

[bushtuckerman]

nice shot, really like it

 

[harryhaller]

hmm!

Am I being unreasonable ? I tried a shot with my Canon A590 - at about 100m, I wanted to photograph the bark of a tree (I couldn't get nearer).I tried with auto, manual focus, tripod etc - but I couldn't get a sharp close-up of the bark using zoom. I used the "superfine" setting so it would blow up nicely - but the results are really disappointing - a bit like looking through glass covered with condensation.

Is this the point (already) when I realise that I should have bought something more expensive - or am I doing something wrong?

I noticed that on focusing it goes from 50m to infinity in two steps - presumably my tree was located between either of those two steps.

Here's the exif info for one of the various attempts - auto, tripod and timer:

Manufacturer Canon
Model Canon PowerShot A590 IS
Orientation top - left
x-Resolution 180.00
y-Resolution 180.00
Resolution Unit Inch
Date and Time 2009:03:30 14:36:33
YCbCr Positioning centered
Compression JPEG compression
x-Resolution 180.00
y-Resolution 180.00
Resolution Unit Inch
Exposure Time 1/249 sec.
FNumber f/5.5
ISO Speed Ratings 80
Exif Version Exif Version 2.2
Date and Time (original) 2009:03:30 14:36:33
Date and Time (digitized) 2009:03:30 14:36:33
ComponentsConfiguration Y Cb Cr -
Compressed Bits per Pixel 5.00
Shutter speed 7.97 EV (APEX: 15, 1/250 sec.)
Aperture 4.91 EV (f/5.5)
Exposure Bias 0.00 EV
MaxApertureValue 4.91 EV (f/5.5)
Metering Mode Pattern
Flash Flash did not fire, auto mode.
Focal Length 23.2 mm
Maker Note 2224 bytes unknown data
User Comment
FlashPixVersion FlashPix Version 1.0
Color Space sRGB
PixelXDimension 3264
PixelYDimension 2448
Focal Plane x-Resolution 58026.67
Focal Plane y-Resolution 57940.83
Focal Plane Resolution Unit Inch
Sensing Method One-chip color area sensor
File Source DSC
Custom Rendered Normal process
Exposure Mode Auto exposure
White Balance Auto white balance
Digital Zoom Ratio 4.00
Scene Capture Type Standard
InteroperabilityIndex R98
InteroperabilityVersion 0100
RelatedImageWidth 3264
RelatedImageLength 2448
ThumbnailSize 6855

I did other attempts with manual focus - about the same result - perhaps a bit better, but really disappointing.

Here's the link to the photo - this is just the "thumbnail". If you zoom into the bark it goes all muddy - I was expecting it to be crisp - I mean 100 metres ain't all that far is it?



Could a "bridge" or DSLR do better? Or am I expecting too much?

EDIT: Sorry, there isn't much point in my posting the photos - the photos that we upload to the various sites (flickr, photobucket et al) get manipulated - the photo on flickr is much smaller than my photo and has all the exif data stripped out.

 

[bushtuckerman]

There will be better insights into your problem here, but my reaction is that the bark in your photo can only be about 500 pixels wide, so the detail is already limited by that. From 100m away, yes I'd say you're expecting too much from a point and shoot. It's not that these cameras don't take good photos, it's that a good photo isn't defined by how much detail it contains, and without zooming in closer or somehow getting yourself closer to the subject (often a good way to take engaging photographs anyhow) you really are limited on the technical detail available. To get more detail from that distance you either need a high end DSLR (ignoring the fact that you can zoom in closer, they can let in more light and therefore more potential detail) or a film camera, which stores far more detail than any common digicam can handle. Of course, it's only with much more available detail/data on the film/sensor that the sharpness of your glass becomes relevant and therefore the limiting factor, excepting skill.

I wouldn't be disappointed, there's nothing wrong with the photo.

There is only one thing I can think of trying, and that's lowering the F number a bit in Aperture priority mode. I'm not sure how big F/5.5 makes the aperture on a small camera but essentially when it becomes too small the image softens due to diffraction through it. Similarly, a shot with the aperture wide open on an SLR will appear softer simply because of the narrow depth of field (only a small depth of your image will be in focus at low F/numbers).

Hope that sheds some light on the subject. Apologies if it is incomprehensible or wrong (I'm a beginner too).

 

[hedgepig]

Harryhaller - am I correct in my understanding that you were 100 metres away from the tree? If so, then you would need a good SLR with an expensive long lens to get a picture of just the bark with fine detail. In that respect you are expecting too much of your camera.

On a different note "Superfine" merely refers to the amount of compression applied to the JPEG. It doesn't affect how big you can make the picture - that is limited by the number of pixels, which is independent of the amount of compression applied to the JPEG.

Can I clarify something? When you zoomed in, did the camera remain on optical zoom or did it extend into the "digital" zoom range? Digital zoom is a killer for quality and could explain ""condensation on glass" effect you mentioned.

 

[harryhaller]

It went into digital zoom, hedgepig. If I had stayed in optical zoom (which is x4), would that then blow up better when I look at the picture on my PC?

Well, I'll try that tomorrow - thanks for that pointer, hedgepig.

I'll also try lowering the F number, Ian - that point about diffraction was interesting.

But you both agree I'm expecting too much - and I was imagining those satellites which can read the headlines of the newspaper that someone in their backgarden is reading!

 

[hedgepig]

Digital zoom in-camera is the same as "blowing up" on the PC. In both cases you are interpolating the pixels (i.e. averaging out the data between neighbouring pixels so the computer can guess what the new pixels should look like).

If you want a good close up shot of the bark then you'll need to get physically closer to it.