I have just viewed an advertisement for a 10.1MP camera. The instruction manual, which gives details, is at:
tinyurl.com/2yhlln
It seems to be an update on my current camers, which is excellent!
I'd certainly review the specs, compare the price, and run down to the store to get one for a look (even if only to return it after testing!). Looks as though, based on my actual experience, that it'd be a better choice than the Ixus900Ti (SD900?) in terms of functionality.
|
|
|
I suspect you have looked already, but I recommend www.dpreview.com for data and comparisons. The full reviews, where available give pretty objective information especially the sample shots. Unfortunately, given the frequency of new model introductions, you are lucky to find anyone with a particular camera you are considering. The A570is gets a great review and I can scarcely believe how good it looks for the price - shows how long it is since I bought a camera (all of 2 years).
Other things being equal, I find a bit extra zoom useful (crop in composition where possible and keep more pixels in the picture), and you obviously know the value of a bigger maximum aperture - less need of the higher sensitivities that tend to highlight noise from the small CCDs in compacts.
The 'Traveller' that Fotherington T highlights (Aldi, this week, £110) is I think similar to a Vivitar X60 which might lead you to a review somewhere. I wouldn't personally take it on trust that the spec tells the story though.
When you've cracked it let us know - I want a new pocketable camera up to c. £150 and I haven't time to do the research!
|
I recommend [...] for data and comparisons.
Cameras.co.uk may be worth a squint, too - however, all these sites seem to me rather po-faced, and no substitute for a "hands on" experience.
Other things being equal I find a bit extra zoom useful (crop in composition where possible and keep more pixels in the picture)
It seems to me, from my fairly limited experience, that "digital zoom" is a waste of time compared to optical.
and you obviously know the value of a bigger maximum aperture - less need of the higher sensitivities that tend to highlight noise from the small CCDs in compacts.
See www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp for some sensor sizes. 1/2.5" (A570) is rather small compared to many these days - look at the figures from that site, and you can see.
The 'Traveller' that Fotherington T highlights (Aldi this week £110) is I think similar to a Vivitar X60 which might lead you to a review somewhere.
I think it's exactly the same camera, with a different name! It's quite new. My one is a Vivitar 8600 badged "Traveler", and is *old* - maybe a year! ;) I wish I had the later one, for no very good reason, though! The 3-year guarantee, and extras, are really worth having. It's a very good price - prices seem to've dropped by 1/3 in a year. Incredible. They say it's because people want mobile 'phones (ack, ptui!) to take their pictres on.
I wouldn't personally take it on trust that the spec tells the story though.
Neither would I - however, when buying a camera, specs. for any model are the first port of call, I think.
Other observations:
It's probably nice to have a camera that takes ordinary "domestic" "AA" or similar batteries - however, the square thing in my camera seems OK (it takes 1 hour to charge, & I've got two batteries, with a separate charger (mains or car), or charge in the camera. I haven't run out of charge yet, even taking 2GB of 30FPS video and a rake of stills. I have wondered about paying 15 squiddicks for a third battery - just in case - but have not, so far.
I don't rate a viewfinder on this sort of camera, with an LCD as well. The viewfinder is tiny, not easy to use, and detracts from the bigness of the LCD, and the layout of the controls. A friends Sony (something) has a viewfinder and an LCD screen - both very sub-optimal, IMO. It's a new camera, too. I'm quite shocked at what it is, for the price. I'd rather have my 2.8" LCD screen - you can adjust the brightness of it from "dim" (-5) to blazing (+5), which is useful and can (presumably) save the battery.
What was I going to say here? Oh yes - about MP. The "You only need 5MP" brigade, are, IMO, missing something. Often, when processing pictures, it's desirable to cut out a bit of it, and blow it up. MP count, then.
Going on the specs. is a good start. If you start to think "I'll only buy one of XXX makes", then - like car buying - it seems to me that possibilities may be missed.
|
FT wrote:It seems to me from my fairly limited experience that "digital zoom" is a waste of time compared to optical.
Quite. No use at all - you can chop pixels off when you get home. I meant optical zoom.
What was I going to say here? Oh yes - about MP. The "You only need 5MP" brigade are IMO missing something. Often when processing pictures it's >>desirable to cut out a bit of it and blow it up. MP count then.
Exactly - but the extra optical zoom from say 4x to 6x will give you lots more pixels to start with. My 'pick up and go' camera is a Panasonic FZ20 with an image stabilised f2.8 (all focal lengths) 12x zoom - only 5Mp but I usually have most off those pixels left after the final crop. The main problems with this camera are intolerable noise at anything more than ISO200, and the fact that it won't go in a jacket pocket. So when Cheddar has cracked this I'd like to know!
Edited by Manatee on 04/12/2007 at 07:37
|
"main problems with this camera are intolerable noise at anything more than ISO200"
Which is the argument against high MP and super zoom lenses on a compact. The only way they can pack the huge zoom in is with a tiny sensor resulting in noise. Some cameras can have some noise at ISO100! Or the camera removes noise and reduces image quality.
The reason digital SLR is good is the big sensor and corresponding big lenses. Even a cheap lens on a dSLR is better than most compacts. Trouble is for good zoom the lenses then get big and heavy.
|
Agreed rtj70. There's always a trade-off. For the FZ20 it's keeping to ISO200, occasionally ISO400 in good light for moving targets, and the fact that it's really not very compact. Plus points are carry one camera, no extra lenses, just a few batteries and a spare SD card.
But what price a 432mm f2.8 image stabilised lens for a full frame dslr, or even a 300mm f2.8 for the 24mm x 16mm frame dslr that I actually have?
|
|
|
>> The reason digital SLR is good is the big sensor and corresponding big lenses.
However, you won't get one for the price the OP mentioned, will you. I cannot see how you can legitimately compare the price and functionality of a £150 compact camera with a DSLR costing a lot more.
If you're going to compare Canon's G9, mentioned - a 12MP camera - has 1/1.7" CCD sensor. This is barely different from the sensor size on many other compact cameras, including the one from Vivitar. The G7 has the same sized CCD as the Vivitar one. The FZ20 actually has a *smaller* ccd than the G7!
|
The FZ20 actually has a *smaller* ccd than the G7!
Correct - about 1/2.5 inch IIRC. But that's why it can have a 12x f2.8 zoom 1.5" long! I'm not offering this camera as a solution, only to illustrate a point - it's not compact, it's obsolete, and it's only 5Mp - but the phenomenal lens (only possible because of the small CCD) means I get some great photographs, subject to its limitations. The successor FZ8 at £160 (a lot less than half what I paid for the FZ20) is a bargain that I would snap up tomorrow if I was in the market for that type of camera, but the Achilles heel of both is low light.
|
|
|
I was not for a minute suggesting the OP gets a digital SLR ;-)
What's surprising about how things have moved on though... my first digital camera was a 2MP Canon S10 and it cost £350! You can get a digital SLR today for less than that sort of money now, e.g. a Nikon D40 with 18-55mm lens is about £290!
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't rate a viewfinder on this sort of camera"
What do you do in bright sunlight, or when tracking a moving subject? It might not be often, but I wouldn't want to be without one.
|
"I don't rate a viewfinder on this sort of camera" What do you do in bright sunlight or when tracking a moving subject? It might not be often but I wouldn't want to be without one.
Agree 100%
|
>> (viewfinders on compact cameras good) Agree 100%
If I were you, I should not buy a compact digital camera, which is what you were talking about in your OP. Buy a bigger one, instead, and double (at least) your budget!
|
If I were you I should not buy a compact digital camera which is what you were talking about in your OP. Buy a bigger one instead and double (at least) your budget!
Why, you can have a camera with or without a viewfinder, take the Ixus 70 and 75, both IRO £140, very similar, the latter has a slightly bigger LCD, the former has a viewfinder and LCD, it is only the former that I would entertain.
Otherwise any camera with creative pretentions, an element of control, such as the also £140 ish A570IS should have a viewfinder by default, if it doesnt it is not really worth having IMO.
|
I disagree with a viewfinder on a cheap camera like this. You disagree and want one! No problem.
A quick look at reviews of this indicates that at least one reviewer says "the viewfinder on the IXUS 70 is so small and fiddly that it?s pretty much useless" (source: tinyurl.com/2e3vjt). I found the same to be true using a friend's Sony somethingorothersimilar with viewfinder.
This particular camera has rather a small CCD, compared with many, and low zoom capability (although better than none!) - also, it's only a P&S, with, for instance, no control over aperture or shutter speed at all.
I should have a squint down the thing before you buy. BestPricedBrands.co.uk have one at £113, free P&P.
|
I should have a squint down the thing before you buy. BestPricedBrands.co.uk have one at £113 free P&P.
Good prices! (though I have seen the 570IS cheaper) no confirmation that they are UK supplied stock though?
|
I wouldn'tve thought that any were made here - probably Chinese supplied.
BTW, the Sony with viewfinder was a Cybershot w35. The viewfinder is not very useful at all.
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 05/12/2007 at 17:10
|
|
"I don't rate a viewfinder on this sort of camera"
Absolutely. You get a smaller LCD, the control layout is not so good, and the viewfinder is tiny and ineffectual.
What do you do in bright sunlight or when tracking a moving subject?
Turn the brightness up on the LCD, of course!
It might not be often but I wouldn't want to be without one.
Reverse that. For the vast majority of photos., using a big LCD screen is far better than having a camera with a less than optimal control setup, and a tiny viewfinder that is hardly ever used anyway.
P.S. try tracking a moving subject through a tiny viewfinder, whilst groping for buttons!
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 05/12/2007 at 15:36
|
and a tiny viewfinder that is hardly ever used anyway.
I use the viewfinder 75% of the time, the dioptre correction helps, though I would miss the multiangle LCD, it is great on occasions.
|
|
|
|
>>What do you do in bright sunlight,<<
My old but fully functional Sony floppy disc digital camera has no view finder and is almost impossible to use in sunshine, i got around this in best Heath-Robinson fashion by cutting off a piece of square plastic cable conduit and gluing it to the camera to act as a viewfinder - ok, its got no lenses or glass in, but at least you can see and capture your subject accurately enough to get a decently framed photograph!
Billy
Edited by billy25 on 05/12/2007 at 15:38
|
"at least you can see and capture your subject accurately enough to get a decently framed photograph!"
I quite agree. All you really need is something to confirm that you are pointing the camera in the right direction. There are times, especially with close-ups, when the exact framing and focus matters more, but any viewfinder is better than none, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks all, I dont think i would entertains the Vivitar? produced Aldi camera.
The general view seems to be that the advantages of, say, a 12MP camera are out weighed by the cons, mainly that of noise, and what is demanded today is a lower pixel count compact with all of the contrability of a G9 or P5100 and even more features.
Well perhaps that is what the G5 I have already is, 5MP, really great quality at 100ISO and fine at ISO400, swivel LCD, dioptre corrected viewfinder, RAW handling, top panel display, very fast 4x optical zoom f2.0 -f3.0, and the battery lasts forever.
Perhaps things have not moved on so much due to the marketing driven pixel count chase.
Thinking about an A570IS or perhaps an Ixus75 to put in the pocket to supplement the G5 though not replace it.
EDIT: Ixus 70, not 75, the latter does not have an optical viewfinder.
Edited by cheddar on 04/12/2007 at 07:17
|
|
|
|
"A650IS"
That would be top of my short list - the 10Mp A640 is better in some ways, but the IS should more than compensate for any extra noise, and more zoom is always good. The swivel display is, as you already know, well worth having, but you will have to dispense with it if you want something more compact.
The 570 and 710/20 IS's are also good, and usefully smaller. I use a 710 at work, and it's a brilliant package, although left to my own devices, I tend to revert to my own A620, as I like the extra 'heft' and the swivel LCD.
I would also consider the Fuji F-series for their low-light ability, although the lack of a viewfinder has put me off so far. I also prefer cameras that use AA's, as I've always got some charged up somewhere!
At the back of my mind is the thought that, even now, few compact cameras are as good as what you already have. How about a G6? :-)
Edited by J Bonington Jagworth on 04/12/2007 at 22:49
|
How about a G6? :-)
Fair point!
G5s and G6s go for a lot second hand, the G6 is shorter though just as chunky, similar spec though 7.1MP, same lens, main difference being that the battery needs to be removed to be charged where as the G5 can just be plugged in, that being said I have a charger for the BP 511 type battery. Also the G6 is silver and I prefer the black of the G5, 7 and 9.
|
"I prefer the black"
I know what you mean. I take some pictures of shiny equipment with glass and stainless steel, and have to be very careful not to photograph a reflection of the camera. Unfortunately, even the black ones usually sport some chrome...
|
|
|
Further thoughts. If you're keeping the G5, something pocketable seems sensible (what you said, more or less) and the A720IS should fit the bill. The 570 is quite a bargain*, but has less zoom and, it would appear, slightly more noise. If size *really* matters, then consider a Casio - I think they still do one with a viewfinder, and their response speeds are astonishing.
*Although the A720IS is available for under $200 in the US - grrr!
|
|
|
|
|
|
