Digital Cameras

[johnh101]

I have had my sony cybershot 3.2mp for almost 5 years now and feel it is time to get a new one.

From your own experiences what would you recommend, I want 5+ mp and a good zoom.

Any ideas ?

[Tywais]

Depends on how much you are budgeting for your camera. A good review site: http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

I have found the Canon Powershot series to be quite good. For example the Canon Powershot S2 IS with 12X optical zoom. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/s2is.html#specs

Edited December 16, 2005 by tywais

[lopburi3]

You really need to read up to make that decision as we each have different likes and dislikes so reading several reviews of the ones that catch your eye is probably the best advise.

I highly recommend the following web site as they list all camera and all major reviews are directly linked.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

[Firefoxx]

A lot of Thais are going ga-ga over the Fuji S9500, a semi-prosumer camera. It's got a good lens, good image processing, and a lot manual controls.

However, I just can't help but *hate* this camera. I've always disliked Fuji for their false advertising in ressing up their honeycomb CCDs to higher resolutions. I've also always disliked the way they, like Sony, prefer to use memory that no one else uses (first the defunct smart card, and now XD). For this camera, I despise the way they're touting their anti-shake feature... which is nothing but upping the ISO to speed up the shutter, something which practically *any* digicam can do.

It's all marketing, but it seems to work very well here.

[britmaveric]

Me - big fan of canon digital elphs!!

[buadhai]

Whenever you're about to purchase a product like this you need to think about what you're going to use it for. I rarely make prints of photos and mainly publish them on the web or e-mail them to friends. I don't need massive megapixels. I'm a big old-fashioned guy, so I want a camera that feels like a camera. Those tiny Sony's and "Digital Elph's" look cool, but in my hands they feel awkward. I recently replaced my first generation Canon with a Canon A510. Feels good in my hands, still has way too many pixels; but has controls that are easy to use, a zoom that fits my needs and an interface that's easy to understand.

Of course, your needs may vary. But, buy for what you need, not what someone else or some reviewer thinks is cool.

[britmaveric]

Whenever you're about to purchase a product like this you need to think about what you're going to use it for. I rarely make prints of photos and mainly publish them on the web or e-mail them to friends. I don't need massive megapixels. I'm a big old-fashioned guy, so I want a camera that feels like a camera. Those tiny Sony's and "Digital Elph's" look cool, but in my hands they feel awkward. I recently replaced my first generation Canon with a Canon A510. Feels good in my hands, still has way too many pixels; but has controls that are easy to use, a zoom that fits my needs and an interface that's easy to understand.

Of course, your needs may vary. But, buy for what you need, not what someone else or some reviewer thinks is cool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So true - I love the size - easily slip it in my pocket and its there whenever I need it, and has pretty much all the features the bigger models have.

[johnh101]

But, buy for what you need, not what someone else or some reviewer thinks is cool.

Good advice.

[Steve2UK]

Whenever you're about to purchase a product like this you need to think about what you're going to use it for. I rarely make prints of photos and mainly publish them on the web or e-mail them to friends. I don't need massive megapixels. I'm a big old-fashioned guy, so I want a camera that feels like a camera. Those tiny Sony's and "Digital Elph's" look cool, but in my hands they feel awkward. I recently replaced my first generation Canon with a Canon A510. Feels good in my hands, still has way too many pixels; but has controls that are easy to use, a zoom that fits my needs and an interface that's easy to understand.

Of course, your needs may vary. But, buy for what you need, not what someone else or some reviewer thinks is cool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally agree about not needing the "massive megapixels". Unless you're planning to print near A4 size or crop/blow up a tiny part of the original image, I think anything over 4mp (and they nearly all are now) is irrelevant. Way more important (IMHO) is good optical zoom; that and lowest shutter delay figure - the bane of digital cameras compared to 35mm.

[Firefoxx]

A lot of megapixels is useless if the actual *resolution* is nonexistant. However, for pro cameras like DSLRs, a lot of megapixels is important, since the detail is there to be seen (and there is *no* delay). But as mentioned before, nearly all current consumer cameras have plenty of megapixels to spare.

Remember that you also need to budget for a big memory card, since the included one is usually good for only a few pics, and an extra battery, and maybe a carrying case. If you want to be creative, a lightweight tripod would also be good.

Compact slim cameras are great, since you can easily carry them around anywhere in your pocket. However, they lack a lot of features. The bulkier consumer cameras are not so easy to carry around, but they have features that are great in many situations. Pro DSLRs are the bulkiest, but they have the most leeway and capability to take all kinds of pics in the most demanding situations.

Most consumer cameras in a certain price bracket will take comparable pics, so the most important considerations will not be in picture quality, but in ergonomics, design, compactness, memory type, battery type, economy, speed, features, versatility, etc.

[dantilley]

Although you've probably got enough review sites here to be getting on with, I'd just like to also recommend my personal fave camera review site:

http://www.dpreview.com/

They helped me select my HP R707 (didn't even know HP made cameras) which has proved to be excellent. 5 Megapixels, a very good viewing screen and some neat features such as image advice which gives you advice on how to improve your picture after you've taken it. The menu system is excellent too. Picked this up for a very reasonable 7,000 Baht from Fortune Town.

Also good, or so I'm led to belive, is the Sony P200. Retails for about 15,000 Baht and seems to be one of the best cameras in this price range.

Hope this helps,

Dan.

[paulfr]

Although you've probably got enough review sites here to be getting on with, I'd just like to also recommend my personal fave camera review site:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Hope this helps,

Dan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure does help, Dan. Great camera site.

That is a wonderful comparison engine there .... results shown in great clarity and detail. If you know what you want, you will know exactly what camera to go buy with just a few minutes at this site.

Thanks again !!

[GoodHeart]

After a recent trip to Sukhothai, where my Canon Digital Elph pics were totally eclipsed by another parties camera, I decided it was time to trade it in and upgrade.

Does anyone know a good place to sell a digital camera in Bangkok? I would imagine some of the MBK Fortune IT, or Panthip vendors would be interested, just not sure which.

[udon]

Without knowing your budget, it's difficult to say.

[Gary A]

I have an old Sony S 85 4.1 megapixel with the Zeiss lense. I bought it while I was still in the US and I was able to leave my scanner there when I moved because the Sony has the capability to take a photo of a document and then print it perfectly. The question is what do you want to do with the camera?

I too am in the market for a smaller camera with a quick acting shutter. The old Sony takes a couple of seconds to take the picture after you push the button. I hate that!

[britmaveric]

I have an old Sony S 85 4.1 megapixel with the Zeiss lense. I bought it while I was still in the US and I was able to leave my scanner there when I moved because the Sony has the capability to take a photo of a document and then print it perfectly. The question is what do you want to do with the camera?

I too am in the market for a smaller camera with a quick acting shutter. The old Sony takes a couple of seconds to take the picture after you push the button. I hate that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try an elph - SD400 or above!!!

[dantilley]

Although you've probably got enough review sites here to be getting on with, I'd just like to also recommend my personal fave camera review site:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Hope this helps,

Dan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure does help, Dan. Great camera site.

That is a wonderful comparison engine there .... results shown in great clarity and detail. If you know what you want, you will know exactly what camera to go buy with just a few minutes at this site.

Thanks again !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No problem! I've found it very useful too.

[Buff-horns]

they are all offering more MPs but its shutter lag that is not improving so check on that factor .any action photos you take will be too late for the action .

[Gary A]

I have asked a friend of mine from the US to buy me a Sony S40 and bring it over with him. It is supposed to be quite fast as far as shutter lag. Steve's review says .1 second after AF and .2 second from point and shoot. It has a 3 times optical zoom and 4 megapixels. Looks like a nice little camera for about $150 USD.

I stayed with Sony because I have about 8 Memory Sticks for my old S85 that will work in the S40. I also like the fact that in case the rechargeable battery runs down I can use AA alkaline batteries.

[OlRedEyes]

Seems like a lot of ppl are looking at upgrading their camera. Anyone wanting to get rid of their older camera pls mail this poor farang. Don't need a cartload of pixels. Used to have a 1.2Mpixel and that was fine. Don't print., just for the net.

[kat]

I have to agree with the shutter lag issue.

I was a very serious amateur photographer about 5 years ago. I had an old Fujica SLR that I used for about 18 years - thing fell apart finally.

Since then, I have been busy with grad school, moving around,etc., that I either didn't have the funds or time to invest in another camera.

I finally decided to buy a digital camera. Last month I went to the IT convention at the Cultural Centre. After much debate, I bought a Canon A210: 5.1 pixels, 4X optical zoom, automatic and manuel depth and shutter speed - to an extent. A bit bulky, but not bad.

I used it for the first time this week. I am trying not to hate it, because I spent 14,000 baht. Fcking shutter lag - I wish I knew this!!!!

But, I am a film purist. It's taken me this long to buy a digital and I fcking hate it!

bah hambug

I'm now saving up for a Leica.

[lopburi3]

I know that delay feeling but part of the problem can be overcome if you learn to prefocus by holding the shutter button half way dawn before the time to shoot. With the newer cameras the delay is only about 1/10th of a second for shutter. Not great for sports but ok for most other things.

[Buff-horns]

I know that delay feeling but part of the problem can be overcome if you learn to prefocus by holding the shutter button half way dawn before the time to shoot.  With the newer cameras the delay is only about 1/10th of a second for shutter.  Not great for sports but ok for most other things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

trouble is when you compare this with any old 35mm compact they dont suffer from shutter lag ,so a retrograde step apart from the instant pics.

think i am going to get out my old 35mms again .

if you take pics of your kids you cant capture the fleeting moments ,too late .

[britmaveric]

Digital SLR - mind you bit dear! (400 quid +)

[Nordlys]

With the newer cameras the delay is only about 1/10th of a second for shutter.   Not great for sports but ok for most other things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. I don't really see a shutter lag to be an issue with newer digicams. I have both a film SLR and a digital SLR and focusing seems actually faster with DSLR than my 8 years old film SLR (but still a current model) using the same lens. As for shutter release lag I can't feel a difference.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Nordlys

[hughden]

If you are prepared to spend some cash on a DSLR, then shutter lag is not an issue. And with digital you can take several shots a second just to ensure you captured the moment; something you could never do with film.

[Tywais]

Yes, the new dSLR don't have the shutter lag and behave pretty much the same as film SLR. Would love to get my hands on a Canon EOS 5D with its' 35mm 12.8 Megpixel sensor but at more then $3000.00 USD it's only a dream.

However I'm quite satisfied for the moment with my Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 8Mpixel, 7X optical zoom.

Edited December 23, 2005 by tywais

[Nordlys]

And with digital you can take several shots a second just to ensure you captured the moment; something you could never do with film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course a film camera can do that too. Canon EOS1VHS can shoot at 10 frames per second continuously at this speed till you run out of the film, while the fastest Canon DSLR can shoot at maximum 8.5 frames per second but with the buffer memory being the limit as to how many frames you can shoot continuously (depending on buffer size and resolution).

Edited December 23, 2005 by Nordlys

[lopburi3]

But will a film camera it is costing you to take extra photos which are free with the digital. A lot of insentive to take more shots and pick what you want later with the computer rather than film where you need to compose and get it right the first time. Use digital to its advantage. It has a huge advantage in being able to easily save shots after the fact.

[Nordlys]

But costwise, I think it's hard to say if digital is really more advantageous over film. Like I said earlier, I do have a new, just-released DSLR which I paid four times as much as my 8 years old film SLR while the latter is higher in spec as a camera than the former. And per frame cost of memory cards is still very expensive compared to film in my opinion, so it really comes down to how many pictures you take. And it costs more to make digital print than printing out of negatives (or even positives).