Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: Nick's Picks on October 15, 2007, 07:19:15 AM
-
hey all...
my daughter tossed my digital camera..and its hosed. time for a new one.
now, at least I have some hindsight and know that optical zoom is IMPO'TANT !
so, any recommendations for this or cheaper?
-
hey all...
my daughter tossed my digital camera..and its hosed. time for a new one.
now, at least I have some hindsight and know that optical zoom is IMPO'TANT !
so, any recommendations for this or cheaper?
for 350, buy a used digital rebel xt. Prices have gone way down on them. DSLR action.
Or, are you looking for a point and shoot pocket cam?
-
FWIW, I really like where this guys sits.
Its compact, 28mm lens with 10x optical zoom and image stabilization, $240 on the web.
http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/tz3_2/index.html
-
For a compact p&s, I like my Canon PowerShot SD800IS. Wish the TZ3 referenced by bgW was available when I bought...looks pretty sweet.
-
I like the Sony I just bought. $399
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8440234&st=sony+cybershot&type=product&id=1183160354020 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8440234&st=sony+cybershot&type=product&id=1183160354020)
Samples from last weekend:
(http://shim1.shutterfly.com/procgserv/47b7ce35b3127cce98548b97d0ab00000027109YasmzNrg)
(http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7ce35b3127ccebd90e66f414600000026109YasmzNrg)
(http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7ce27b3127ccebd1bb007188800000026109YasmzNrg)
Video:
http://www.vimeo.com/340677 (http://www.vimeo.com/340677)
-
that panasonic looks like the one for me. and I am finding it barely around $200.
10x optical. 7mp. all good!
-
I like the Sony I just bought. $399
Video:
http://www.vimeo.com/340677 (http://www.vimeo.com/340677)
Just wanted to say the sound quality from the T-200 is absolutely amazing!!! That Panic sounds really great!
-
I have the panasonic tz3. I've had great luck with the canon brand (6+ years on my s100 elph) but I really wanted that 10x opti zoom in a small form factor... The zoom has allowed pics I could have never gotten with a 4x or 5x zoom.
Video is good.. unfortunately no zoom while shooting (like so many). Again, the 10x while shooting video makes it worthwhile in situations where I wouldn't otherwise bother.
Two biggest gripes... Low light performance is fairly weak. I knew that going in.. It is okay while shooting video but it is lacking for stills. The IS works great but that doesn't keep performers from moving. Grain jumps up quite a bit on higher ISOs.
My other gripe is the lack of a panorama function. I can align the shots pretty well myself but the lack of a function to lock down the exposure is lame. I also really miss having pure manual and the limitation of only +-2 stops of exposure override.
If you buy at costco you can return it within 90 days if you don't like it..
-
I have a TZ-1 that I bring to shows, love 10X optical zoom. We also have a FZ-5 that is broken & needs to get sent out for repair under warranty but is a little too large to sneak into most shows.
-
Gee that's a pretty amazing sample of mega-zooming.
Obviously you do get what you pay for, so it ain't going to look like a large film hasselblatt.
But what's with grainy higher-ISO performance and low light performance, epecially when half the pic is in shadow and the rest in light.
All little cameras seems to have this issue; do you really need to move to SLR style?
-
your always gonna have noise at high iso, even with dslr's. Purchase appropriate software and adjust in post. Noiseware works magic. I promise. When I shoot at iso 3200 on my 20d, noise is a big issue. After a run through noiseware, it isn't. Magic I tell ya ;D Hell, I use it on most everything over iso200
-
Hm, hadn't considered that.
I'll haveta try that sometime.
+T
-
FWIW, I really like where this guys sits.
Its compact, 28mm lens with 10x optical zoom and image stabilization, $240 on the web.
http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/tz3_2/index.html
the one I got, pretty nice! I've taken some photos in near darkness, no blur, almost no noise. it's fast shutter time, great zoom and autofocus. I've used the Nikons, Fuji's and Canons, this is way superior, IMO.
Also, stay away from used DSLR's due to the dust problems
-
But what's with grainy higher-ISO performance and low light performance, epecially when half the pic is in shadow and the rest in light.
All little cameras seems to have this issue; do you really need to move to SLR style?
It's due to the fact that compact digital cameras have very small sensors, and therefore have much smaller light receptor sites compared to the APS-sized sensors found in most digital SLRs. I don't know enough about sensor technology to explain this scientifically, but I do know the effect is to lower the signal-to-noise ratio for each pixel (since each pixel is smaller and receives less light I presume).
Even at its lowest ISO, my Canon G7 exhibited visible noise. Drove me nuts. The last time I used it was the day before I bought a Nikon D200, and this weekend I actually traded it for my grandfather's 1984 Nikon F3HP. The F3 will still be great camera 10 years from now, but the G7 won't be much more than a Wikipedia entry.
I get objectionable noise at ISO 1600 on the D200, but I don't do much concert photography, and nearly all of the other low-light stuff I do is on a tripod at ISO 100. Still, film was never that good at ISO 1600.
-
Also, stay away from used DSLR's due to the dust problems
I've had dust in my D200 and cleaned it with no problem and no touching of the sensor. It's not like the thing gets dusty and then you have to throw it away. The only problem I see would be if the previous owner tried cleaning the sensor and damaged it in the process. If I was going to buy a used DSLR, I would have the seller take an out-of-focus, properly exposed picture of a white wall. The dust would be obvious.
-
I get objectionable noise at ISO 1600 on the D200, but I don't do much concert photography, and nearly all of the other low-light stuff I do is on a tripod at ISO 100. Still, film was never that good at ISO 1600.
A buddy of mine just bought a D300 to get better low light than his D200... The full frame DSLRs are still just too pricey...
Film is Very good, especially when you have to compare it to the cost of full frame digital.. I think you need to spend thousands on digital to equal what you can do with a cheap film based rig.
Scanning high iso film can be difficult due to the way the grain interacts at available resolutions (aliasing). Scanner resolution just isn't fine enough to accurately capture the grain so it can come out globby/mottled. Purely analog printing is best (funny thing about analog, eh?). This crop is from a shot at an SRV show 17 years ago on 1600 neg film.. Haven't done any NR on it. A modern transparency film would be even better.
-
I get objectionable noise at ISO 1600 on the D200, but I don't do much concert photography, and nearly all of the other low-light stuff I do is on a tripod at ISO 100. Still, film was never that good at ISO 1600.
A buddy of mine just bought a D300 to get better low light than his D200... The full frame DSLRs are still just too pricey...
Film is Very good, especially when you have to compare it to the cost of full frame digital.. I think you need to spend thousands on digital to equal what you can do with a cheap film based rig.
Scanning high iso film can be difficult due to the way the grain interacts at available resolutions (aliasing). Scanner resolution just isn't fine enough to accurately capture the grain so it can come out globby/mottled. Purely analog printing is best (funny thing about analog, eh?). This crop is from a shot at an SRV show 17 years ago on 1600 neg film.. Haven't done any NR on it. A modern transparency film would be even better.
It's been years, but I swear my 1600 stuff always looked really grainy!
I'd love to get the D3, but I'll be "settling" for a D300 shortly. The lowered high-ISO noise is one reason, but I also hope they've improved the accuracy of the AF system. I have to use manual focus with an 85mm at f/1.4 because its practically nonexistent the depth-of-field leaves no room for error. That affects my pictures at every ISO setting.
-
I think you need to spend thousands on digital to equal what you can do with a cheap film based rig.
yup, a good digital back will cost 1k, give or take couple hundred on body, brand, new or used, etc. A good fast zoom lens will be 1k, more if an IS. \\
Trying to shoot great concert photograpy with a P&S is futile once you realize what you can do with a quality dslr and fast quality glass. I know, I tried for years. Went back to film on my old canon ae-1, but hated the costs. Once I went the dslr route, well, WOW! Instantly hooked. Of course anyone can make bad photos with a dslr, and a good photographer can make a P&S do wonders, it goes with the person behind the lens. However, all things being equal and having a competent handler behid the camera, there is no comparisons in low light concert photog between your $350 or less p&s or your dslr with canon L series glass at f2.8. No comparison.
Think of it in taping terms. You can pull quality tapes, with a good taper, using some low cost binarauls>batt box>iriver. A good taper with dpa/schoeps/milab>sax/portico/148/apogee>722 is going to pull far superior, every time. Not to say their aren't bad tapes made with great gear, but it goes with the handler, not the gear.
Now for st**lthing, that is a different story. Do what you have to do. Some folks have better jedi skills and can bring in pro rigs, others go with the smallest simplest setup.
just saw your new post after I tried to post mine. Looks like you know what you want in the field 8)
-
i would recommend the Canon SD1000 for a good P&S for under 350
for the a really good P&S that works well in low light I would suggest the Fuji S5700 or Fuji S700 (ISO up to 1600)
The Fuji is excellent for those venues where you arent allowed to bring in a camera with a detachable lense
-
I use a Panasonic dmc-tz3 and I freaking love it. For low light i just turn off the flash set the iso lower, when it's dark i definately dont use auto-iso feature.
(http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/15/0,1425,sz=1&i=157791,00.jpg)
(http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/15/0,1425,sz=1&i=157787,00.jpg)
(http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/15/0,1425,sz=1&i=157790,00.jpg)
The proof is in the pudding as they say.... Check out my pics from Voodoo this year.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,93914.0.html
-
Nick have you ever bought a new camera yet?
For low light without flash a DSLR will outperform any compact by a big margin.
The disadvantage: size and prize of decent optics.
The Nikon D40 is good but inexpensive though.
If a compact there is one which outshines all others in low light / high ISO performance, even almost rivals DSLRs: the Fuji F31fd ( also the earlier F30, F10 and F11 )
And so does the bigger Fuji S6000fd ( S6500fd ) which uses the same, very sensitive sensor which goes up to ISO 3200 those cameras have become famous for, but in a bigger body with a bigger zoom range. ( note that the later F40, F50, also the S5700 mentioned be spreetaper and S8000fd also are also good low light cameras, but just not as good )
for general info on cameras I recommend: http://www.dpreview.com/ ( little bit Canon biased though, but any DSLR will be good, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus... )
To compare image quality, specially of high ISO:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
to get to the Fuji you must select 'all cameras' and choose the Fuji F30 ( F31 is roughly the same + some small improvements )
or also check my fotos at: http://flickr.com/photos/8003463@N03/
Most of the photos there had been taken with my Fuji F31fd, some also with my Minolta A2 and Ricoh R3. Why most with the F31? The image quality of the A2 is superior, but the F31 fits in my pocket and I can shoot without the use of the flash, if wanted unnoticed, at pretty much any light situation.
cheers,
kuuan
-
no, i have not picked up anything yet. waiting for after the holiday shuffle. maybe I can find a sweet deal on a return somewhere.
i'm cheap.
:)
-
I'll toss in another Panasonic. The LX-2. I like this one (actually I owned the LX-1 until it was stolen from me while I was on a feature shoot and some ass wipe took it), because it functions as both a point and shoot and as a full manual camera. Plus you get the 16:9 aspect ratio along with it if you want.
For Panoramic images, just use software to align things. Works great for me...
http://homepage.mac.com/wayneb/colorado_trip/images/Pano_-_P1010942_-_3858x777_-.jpg
Wayne
-
That Panasonic dmc-tz3 might be just what I'm looking for. I do appreciate manual settings when i need them (which it lacks) and other superior SLR qualities but small size is more important for my current needs.
The video mode looks decent too and the 16x9 aspect vid is nice. As long as I can zoom before rolling that's fine. I did some searching but couldn't find and anwer to this question-
Does this camera, or any P&S that does video do an auto spit at 2GB file limit or must you manually start a new file?
-
I know, I know, the Fuji I recommend doesn't look impressive. And than the small zoom range....
..however there are many photographers which use this small Fuji as a backup to their DSLR, and there are defintite reasons, e.g. high ISO performance, image quality, manual adjustments incl. A and S priority, fast operation, incredible battery life.
Since the question was, 'best' digicam under 350, specially if for low light photography, the answer is Fuji F31fd.
quote from review of the F31fd on dpreview, http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/
first line
In the fast-moving, 'bigger better faster' world of the digital compact the Fujifilm FinePix F30 will be one of the rare few that are remembered after they have gone (the nearest this throwaway business gets to a 'classic'). The reason this unassuming, blocky little camera stands out from the scores of other cameras launched last year - and why it has a mantelpiece covered in industry awards - is simple; image quality, or more specifically, high ISO performance. The F30's low light capabilities come from a combination of clever technology (Super CCD and Real Photo Processor) and a 'swimming against the tide' attitude to specification, which means a bigger sensor with fewer pixels. The F30 also, against all the odds, actually sold pretty well, going against the conventional wisdom that consumers buy on pixel counts alone. Although it has its share of faults the F30 became the benchmark by which all compact cameras in the 6-8 megapixel sector were judged. The excellent battery life and high speed performance certainly helped too.
last line
Unlike so many manufacturers that produce amazing cameras with average sensors, Fuji has an amazing sensor and - to be brutally honest - an average camera. As with the F30 this is a camera that wins a Highly Recommended only if you regularly shoot in low light - if you only ever take pictures in blazing sunshine there are competitors with far more impressive feature lists or lower prices. But you just can't take away from Fuji the fact that - at this moment in time - this unassuming little 6MP camera still sets the benchmark for image quality in the entire compact sector. It's also a surprisingly reliable 'point and shoot' model with excellent color and accurate focus/metering in most circumstances.
-
That Panasonic dmc-tz3 might be just what I'm looking for. I do appreciate manual settings when i need them (which it lacks) and other superior SLR qualities but small size is more important for my current needs.
The video mode looks decent too and the 16x9 aspect vid is nice. As long as I can zoom before rolling that's fine. I did some searching but couldn't find and anwer to this question-
Does this camera, or any P&S that does video do an auto spit at 2GB file limit or must you manually start a new file?
I don't know the answer to your question offhand, but I've found this site, and the nice people posting on it, extremely helpful:
http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/
-
Scanning high iso film can be difficult due to the way the grain interacts at available resolutions (aliasing). Scanner resolution just isn't fine enough to accurately capture the grain so it can come out globby/mottled. Purely analog printing is best (funny thing about analog, eh?). This crop is from a shot at an SRV show 17 years ago on 1600 neg film.. Haven't done any NR on it. A modern transparency film would be even better.
Hey freelunch, as an AVID SRV fan, I keyed in on the fact that it was a crop of an SRV shot before reading your post. You got me curious about the rest of the picture!!! FWIW, collecting SRV audio is what got me interested in recording on my own!!!
-
I like the Sony I just bought. $399
Video:
http://www.vimeo.com/340677 (http://www.vimeo.com/340677)
Just wanted to say the sound quality from the T-200 is absolutely amazing!!! That Panic sounds really great!
agreed. I was looking for something like this. The only thing that bothers me about it is the touch screen though. Is there a camera that is just as good, about the same size but without the touch screen part or is the touch screen really not that bad?