Digital Camera £200-£300

[Squid]

Im looking to spend something in the region of £200-£300 (im not a big user, so SLR prices are not for me yet). Anything you would recommend, baring in mind the following:

• I would prefer an SLR style (i.e., not SLR, but not compact..some people call it bridge), as i would like a decent optical zoom (10x plus)
• low light ISO stuff would be helpful (once i fully understand it)
• easy to use
• good macro
• image stabilisation for zoom
• I would prefer it if people could tell me why they would choose the camera they would recommend, and why it was better than the other options..

Cheers
Squid

 

[Squid]

I've been looking at these three.. any thoughts.?

Fuji 6500 - although cheaper than the £200 mark..

Canon IS S3

Sony DSCH7S - with a whacking great 15x optical zoom


Squid

 

[Darkstar]

Panasonic Lumix FZ5 or similar in the same range.

I said FZ5 mainly becase I have one. They fit the bill with you wanting a bridge camera and they also have the requested 10x zoom, plus image stabilisation. You can buy them at £250 or less and as an added bonus they also use a Leica lens.

You can see the review of the FZ5 from dpreview.com here:

http/www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/

 

[Bloo]

Before I even read your second post, I was going to suggest the Fuji 6500. A friend of mine just bought one a few months ago and took it on her trip to Antartica over Christmas. Her photos were jaw-dropping. And this from someone (her) who's not even into photograpy and only had a cheapo pocket point and shoot before.

As second vote (those inline with the above) I'd go for the Canon - my sister has a Powershot. And personally wouldn't even consider the Sony - but that's mostly because I'm against the Sony brand as a camera. Despite all the "goodie features and Carl Zeiss lens".

Each of the above cams has their own redeeming features - it comes down to what you prefer.

 

[Squid]

Thanks for the feedback..!

I had concerns about the sony one too, although since they bough Minolta (i think), things may have improved. But.. proprietary sony media sticks etc has always bugged the hell outta me..

Squid

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

For that amount of money you could probably get an entry level DSLR. At least in the states you could, I wouldn't think that the prices would be that much more over there. You could get a nice Pentax K110D, K100D, or a Nikon D40 for about that much; and they'd beat the pants off the cameras you've got on your shortlist in the image quality area. Entry level DSLR's are still very serious photography equipment, and are in many aspects more capable than some of the more expensive and higher resolutioned cameras out there (ISO comes to mind). If you want something that produces images as good as you will ever be able to make look for a DSLR.

SLC

 

[raptorrex]

For that amount of money you could probably get an entry level DSLR. At least in the states you could, I wouldn't think that the prices would be that much more over there. You could get a nice Pentax K110D, K100D, or a Nikon D40 for about that much; and they'd beat the pants off the cameras you've got on your shortlist in the image quality area. Entry level DSLR's are still very serious photography equipment, and are in many aspects more capable than some of the more expensive and higher resolutioned cameras out there (ISO comes to mind). If you want something that produces images as good as you will ever be able to make look for a DSLR.

SLC

though you can put very high quality lenses on a DSLR, if the pixel rating is low, as most entry level DSLR's are, there is now way the lenses can show their quality. imo, if you wish to get into photography as a hobby. go for an DSLR, but if you just want a good quality camera, with careful choosing there are quite a few, SLR style/compacts out there, quite capable of out performing, in quality terms, low end DSLR's.

in the days of the roll of film, your comment would have been valid, as apart from the lens and exposure system, the biggest part of picture quality was the film itself, even neg film has an equivalent pixel rating of 30MP, slide films rated over 50MP. but in digital the "film" quality is fixed. you can not change the CCD in your camera. so a 6MP DSLR will not give better quality pics than, say a 8MP SLR style/compact camera, however much you spend on the lens.
there is something else too. you can pick up a none D SLR, and lenses for a song if you look. a roll of good quality slide film and a trip to a good quality photo lab, to scan the slides to digital. and you will have pictures of a quality that simply isn't available to the digital user however much they spend.

I would say one thing to squid, from my own experience, and those i talk with, it seems that the none SLR cameras with good quality close up functions, seem to fall down in general use situations, and visa versa. this is indeed where a DSLR would really help. but you would have to spend a great deal of money to gain any advantage.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

though you can put very high quality lenses on a DSLR, if the pixel rating is low, as most entry level DSLR's are, there is now way the lenses can show their quality. imo, if you wish to get into photography as a hobby. go for an DSLR, but if you just want a good quality camera, with careful choosing there are quite a few, SLR style/compacts out there, quite capable of out performing, in quality terms, low end DSLR's.

in the days of the roll of film, your comment would have been valid, as apart from the lens and exposure system, the biggest part of picture quality was the film itself, even neg film has an equivalent pixel rating of 30MP, slide films rated over 50MP. but in digital the "film" quality is fixed. you can not change the CCD in your camera. so a 6MP DSLR will not give better quality pics than, say a 8MP SLR style/compact camera, however much you spend on the lens.
there is something else too. you can pick up a none D SLR, and lenses for a song if you look. a roll of good quality slide film and a trip to a good quality photo lab, to scan the slides to digital. and you will have pictures of a quality that simply isn't available to the digital user however much they spend.

I would say one thing to squid, from my own experience, and those i talk with, it seems that the none SLR cameras with good quality close up functions, seem to fall down in general use situations, and visa versa. this is indeed where a DSLR would really help. but you would have to spend a great deal of money to gain any advantage.

I mean no disrespect but this post is absolutely wrong. The only and I mean absolutely only thing that an 8 mega pixel non dslr has over a 6 mega pixel DSLR is image size, (ie: you can enlarge an 8 mega pixel image more than a 6 mega pixel image.) It is commonly known however that in terms of overall image quality the DSLR will blow any hybrid out of the water. Just take a look at the image galleries on some of the photography forums and you'll see for yourself.

6 mega pixel cameras don't have as much problems with digital noise in low light settings as higher resolution cameras, and they have higher ISO settings that are actually usable. Example: I have a 10 mega pixel Pentax K10D and it's ISO only goes to about 1600 and that 1600 is not always that usable without experiencing grain, however in the 6 m.p. Pentax K100D the ISO goes up to 3200 and yeilds extremely good results.

Digital passes traditional film in terms of resolution and detail capure between 6 and 8 mega pixels. And DSLR's are capable of "wearing lenses that will boost your resloution and sharpness" Non SLR's are not capable of this, and while you may be able to get good results out of these types of cameras, their lenses just aren't as good as even the basic kit lenses that come with DSLR's

I suggest that you go to www.popphoto.com and register for their forum, there you will get some more advice from other people who actually know what they are speaking about!

SLC

 

[raptorrex]

though you can put very high quality lenses on a DSLR, if the pixel rating is low, as most entry level DSLR's are, there is now way the lenses can show their quality. imo, if you wish to get into photography as a hobby. go for an DSLR, but if you just want a good quality camera, with careful choosing there are quite a few, SLR style/compacts out there, quite capable of out performing, in quality terms, low end DSLR's.

in the days of the roll of film, your comment would have been valid, as apart from the lens and exposure system, the biggest part of picture quality was the film itself, even neg film has an equivalent pixel rating of 30MP, slide films rated over 50MP. but in digital the "film" quality is fixed. you can not change the CCD in your camera. so a 6MP DSLR will not give better quality pics than, say a 8MP SLR style/compact camera, however much you spend on the lens.
there is something else too. you can pick up a none D SLR, and lenses for a song if you look. a roll of good quality slide film and a trip to a good quality photo lab, to scan the slides to digital. and you will have pictures of a quality that simply isn't available to the digital user however much they spend.

I would say one thing to squid, from my own experience, and those i talk with, it seems that the none SLR cameras with good quality close up functions, seem to fall down in general use situations, and visa versa. this is indeed where a DSLR would really help. but you would have to spend a great deal of money to gain any advantage.

I mean no disrespect but this post is absolutely wrong. The only and I mean absolutely only thing that an 8 mega pixel non dslr has over a 6 mega pixel DSLR is image size, (ie: you can enlarge an 8 mega pixel image more than a 6 mega pixel image.) It is commonly known however that in terms of overall image quality the DSLR will blow any hybrid out of the water. Just take a look at the image galleries on some of the photography forums and you'll see for yourself.

6 mega pixel cameras don't have as much problems with digital noise in low light settings as higher resolution cameras, and they have higher ISO settings that are actually usable. Example: I have a 10 mega pixel Pentax K10D and it's ISO only goes to about 1600 and that 1600 is not always that usable without experiencing grain, however in the 6 m.p. Pentax K100D the ISO goes up to 3200 and yeilds extremely good results.

Digital passes traditional film in terms of resolution and detail capure between 6 and 8 mega pixels. And DSLR's are capable of "wearing lenses that will boost your resloution and sharpness" Non SLR's are not capable of this, and while you may be able to get good results out of these types of cameras, their lenses just aren't as good as even the basic kit lenses that come with DSLR's

I suggest that you go to www.popphoto.com and register for their forum, there you will get some more advice from other people who actually know what they are speaking about!

SLC

i would not have taken offence even if you were right.

we will agree to differ on the 6 v 8mp, but the base line lenses on low end DSLR are not to put too finer point on it crap! they have no reaso to be any better, because of the low resolution digital has at that price. but there is the factor of noise on the cheaper camera ccd's to be taken into account, howeve if you get a camera from a high end brand, this is not as much a problem as with the less brand names.

as for direct resoultion, it true that these places do say that digital equals film at about 6-8mp. however, this is comparing a "scanned" 8x10 print fron a 35mm neg, usually scanned on a high end flatbed. so the neg is printed, resulting in a loss of quality, then scanned again with subsequent loss. lol and they then compare the resolution with a file image.

but if you scan a slide image in a drum scanner, the comparison changes, but as these are not common in the home, they do not feature in most discussions.

as for who knows what they are talking about? ill leave that to others, but it seems a bit arrogant to think you have the real knowledge. though i have not been directly involved in photography for about 10 years, i spent just short of 20 very involved in it, it probably true to say if you are over 30 and been in the hobby for a while, there is a fair chance, either directly or indirectly you will have dealt with me at some time. keeping purely to small format digital images, there is some time to go before the film resolution is passed. taking all things into account 16-20mp will be about the rang that digital finally equals film.

as for looking at a forum, well i know some that say redclaw crabs a aquatic and freshwater, none of which are true, so why is you forum more informative than researching information from professional people, involved in this field?

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

You're implying that entrylevel DSLR's are crap, that is simply not true. They have a lower resolution than some of the more expensive models but they are not crap, they are built in much the same manner as the multi thousand dollar pro-SLR's just with lower resolution sensors. If you really knew what you were talking about you'd also have mentioned that a computer monitor is only capable of displaying about 4 mega pixels of resolution, so an 8 or 9 mega pixel image is roughly 2x more detail than the computer screen can display. Secondly while slide film may show more photographic resolution than digital, and 35mm film may even at times show more (at lower ISO's), the limitation is in the end stock. That is the photo paper or the inkjet printer paper used to print the image. These two media are nearly identical in terms of quality potential (with digital being at least 6 mega pixels and a good printer.)

I am 26 years old and have been into photography for 11+ years now. I began learning the science if you will behind photography when I was 15. My wife majored in photography in college, we know our stuff. I've never heard of a photographer named bobbyboy though so I don't know what to tell you about that. I would like to see some of your art however; I'm always interested in that.

You would be aware that there are pro level DSLR's from Nikon and I believe Cannon that only display 4 mega pixels and are still sold today for more than $2000. The cameras I sugested have consistently recieved the highest reccomendations from all the photography reviewers, they are not low quality, just low price. As I said before having less mega pixels gives you better low light results, your shots aren't as grainy as they are when shot with today's 10= mega pixel cameras. I have a 10m.p. Pentax K10D and I wish it could perform like a K100D in lower light situations it would make shooting my fish so much better.

I know I won't convince you with this post, but in the end I don't really need to, you weren't the original poster after all. All we've done is gone way off track from what was originally asked.

I will suggest again to Squid to look at the entry DSLR's from Pentax and Nikon, they will perform better than the cameras you have mentioned, cost only slightly more, and will be limited only by your imagination. They are truly creativity tools, you will not be dissapointed with any of them.

Bobbyboy, you should look into getting back into photography, a lot has changed in the past 10 years, you have a lot of new stuf to learn about!

SLC

 

[raptorrex]

Bobbyboy, you should look into getting back into photography, a lot has changed in the past 10 years, you have a lot of new stuf to learn about!

SLC

lol i never truly left, just stepped back from the front line. but if you have the equipment, try to do an image test on a, lets say 15 year old 35-70mm zoom, then do the same test on a 18-35mm digi lens. the results will shock you. the actual image resolution of some of the new lenses, would not have been accepted in the time of film.

i fully accept that digital photography is and will remain the better medium to work in. but until someone can make an enlargement from the equivalent of a 6mm square section of a digi image that can be blown up to 12x16, or in the case of well exposed velvia perhaps bigger. ultimate resolution will stay with the film. lol though by next year, you will be right, but will need to spend close to £2000 just for the camera body. atm a good film camera and a high quality lab, can achieve just as good a quality images for under £100, as you can get for £1000 on a DSLR. another thing i recently got a Nikkor 300mm F4 ed lens for £100 could you get a AF lens of that quality for so little? my 20 odd year old tamron 70-210mm f3.5 sp lens is still better quality than most top end lenses, and cost about £50 if you can find one. as i said imo if there was a true improvement in quality from digi i would jump at it, that has not come yet.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

You do know that your old 35mm lenses will still work on a DSLR. In fact it is said that they yeild better results because a DSLR's image sensor only exposes within the sweet spot of a 35mm SLR's lens. I've got a boatload of old Pentax prime lenses and they are exceptional. I'm not that sure if Nikon has been that kind to their customers, as to allow for a lot of backwards compatibility. Pentax has and you can use all their old lenses on their newest DSLR's, Even old screwmount lenses will work with an adaptor.

Also with film specific lenses on a DSLR you get a crop factor, Nikon and Sony and Pentax and some Cannons have a 1.5x crop factor which turns a set focal length in film format 1.5 times longer in Digital format. i.e.: a 200mm film lens turns to a 300mm lens on a DSLR. Cannons high end cameras have full frame sensors at 16 megapixels, their sensors are the same size as a 35 mm frame so you should know that you do not need to wait till next year as you have said.

Their are also 4/3rds cameras which have a crop factor at I believe 2x as well.

Either way the original question had nothing to do with film versus digital, and if you are going to argue that the "hybrid" cameras that were originally mentioned are as good or better than entry level DSLR's you are sorely mistaken. Good cameras, yes. Better than even low end DSLR's, no way!

SLC

 

[Squid]

Crikey.. I appreciate the input from both sides ;-) and will ensure that I take it all into consideration. Before i make a purchase i always get opinion from a number of different sources, this being one of them. I will also read magazines and speak to people in the shops and make a decision as to how knowledgeable they are too. In other words, thanks to you both... (I will get splinters sitting on the fence like that)..

However, you have to remember that i am not a serious photographer, it's not just about megapixels, ISO and lense quality (although i understand the importance) and there are other considerations for somebody like me. Now I don't want a compact camera, but i don't necessarily want to carry a larger bag with all the lenses i might need (i believe the cameras are bigger too), i have to consider just how big a print in wish to make, and i also have to consider that somebody like me who wants to take a decent snap but may not be patient enough to ensure that i take care of an expensive camera and the exchange of lenses/scratches etc. Digital SLR's are also said to have a bit more of a learning curve and are less point and click.

Also.. the fuji is £175... good value. With the entry level DSLR cameras, how would the optical zoom levels compare, or would i need to also buy an additional lens in order to achieve this level of zoom. It's confusing for a beginner when DSLR talks in 'millimeters' and the non-DSLR talks in x10 and x12 etc.... the comparisons become more tricky. The Pentx K110 is £279.99 and only as a 3x optical zoom, and so does not meet the requirements unless i buy another lens, which will push up the price and mean more stuff carrying ;-)

What other considerations are there when choosing between DSLR and non-DSLR..

Squid

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I will say that the K110D would have a 10.7x zoom at a focal length of around 300mm (digital specific lens) or 200mm (old 35mm format lens). You can find 35mm film lenses on ebay and elsewhere for really nothing. These lenses will give you an infinately better quality than the lens that is on the fujifilm camera. (when I refer to 35mm film lenses I mean to refer to cameras that use 35mm film not a 35mm focal length)

Also the K110D is a smaller sized DSLR, I'm not for sure on this but I'd guess that the sizes are very similar between it and the Finepix 6500. As for carying around the lenses, I don't carry around all my lenses unless I'm going on a photo trip like to the zoo or up the canyon or something, usually you have one lens that is a really good all around lens that you take everywhere. For me it is the 18-55 mm kit lens that came with the camera (I've got the Pentax K10D, I paid over $1000 and it has the same kit lens as the k110D will have). depending on what you want to use your camera for you will not find a lot of use for the 300mm (10X) focal length. I use that kind of glass for shooting animals in large enclosures at the zoo, nothing else really, maybe if you are a sports fan it could be useful at a football match, where you could get a decent shot from the stands or something, for sports you'll also really want an SLR. 55mm zoom like the kit lens is really quite substantial in most everyday applications.

The Fujifilm has face detection technology, it will make shooting portraits easier because it detects a face and adjusts focusing to it, The Pentax expects you to be able to recognise the face yourself and make sure it is in focus .

The saying that DSLR's have a considerable learning curve doesn't really apply to the K100D, K110D, Nikons all the way up to the D200, and Cannons all the way up to I believe the EOS 5D. These cameras all have automatic modes and scene modes that will make all your settings for you, the other thing is that in these scene modes you can make adjustments to the settings on the camera to achieve a different effect. But the Pentax K110D can certainly be used as a point and click camera when necessary!

With regards to taking care of a DSLR, I have a few things to point out! The camera body comes with a body cap that fits over the hole where the lens is normally affixed, this keeps dust and dirt out while the lens is not attached, the lenses come with caps for both ends for the same reason. keeping them clean is not that tricky. A huge advantage that you may have overlooked is that while it is not common to scratch a lens (they really are more durable than you may think), if you do then you can replace it because it is interchangeable. With the Fuji 6500, the lens is permanently attached so if it gets damaged the camera is rendered useless.

When it all boils down, the difference between a DSLR and a "Hybrid" is tied up in image quality, and creative potential. You gan get some great snapshots for sure with the fuji 6500, but with the Pentax you will be able to get some stunning art. It takes practice and learning to do it, but in the meantime you will have one mean snapshooting camera.

Have a look at www.dpreview.com to see what they have to say about the different cameras, they are generally respected as the "authorities" on all things digital photography related and have great, in-depth reviews on cameras. There are reviews on both cameras there, and both recieved "Highly reccomended" ratings. there are also some image galleries with shots taken with both cameras there. Keep in mind that with the Pentax you will need to read the review for the K100D because the K110D and K100D are identical with the exception being that the K110D has no shake reduction.

If it were me, I'd definately go with the K110D and find some very cheap pentax compatible lenses on ebay. You could get a really nice setup for next to nothing (in photography terms of course). Then I'd go out and take as many pictures as I could and learn how to get the maximum amount of performance I could out of my new camera!

SLC

 

[Squid]

Thanks SLC.. I appreciate the time you have put into the response.

I have started looking at dpreview.com recently and find it really useful.. If they have an in-depth review they show actual results and not just opinion which is of course very helpful..

Food for thought.. i will have a look into it all..

Thanks again..
Squid