Yes, another newby who can't pick out his first camera.

[Boxlock]

Hi,
I've been here before. The past couple years, I seem to go threw this about every six months, I want to buy my first digicam, can't make up my mind, read a bunch of reviews, ask advice, end up more confused that when I started, wait for prices to go down, then get frustrated because the new models comming out seem so much better than the one's I've been waiting for. Don't you just hate people like me?

Budget = $500

Use = to take snapshots at family functions and weekend trips, and for closup pictures of airgun and telescope stuff, to show off in emails and post on discussion boards.

Experience level = little to none

priorites = Clearer pictures, better optical zoom, low cost of batteries and memory cards, ease of use, in that order, but good idiot proofing wouldn't hurt!

What shoud I get ?

[gibsonpd3620]

The oly c740Z (3.2 mp, 10X optical zoom0 or the C750 (4.0 mp and 10X optical zoom) can be bought for $350 and $450. The C750 also has a hot shoe for external flash and will make movies with sound. Both cameras use AA batteries. Cameras will always be introduced with better features and lower prices. You will have to wait until you die before newer, better, and cheaper cameras are introduced.

[Boxlock]

Originally Posted by gibsonpd3620

The oly c740Z (3.2 mp, 10X optical zoom0 or the C750 (4.0 mp and 10X optical zoom) can be bought for $350 and $450. The C750 also has a hot shoe for external flash and will make movies with sound. Both cameras use AA batteries. Cameras will always be introduced with better features and lower prices. You will have to wait until you die before newer, better, and cheaper cameras are introduced.

After looking up the C-750 and doing a little homework, I think with a big optical zoom, some sort of image stabilization would be nice, as would some sort of AF assist. The older C-2100 seems to have these features, but they seem to have disappeared on later models, and the C-2100 is only two megapixels. Anyone know of cameras with a three or four megapixel or larger chip with the optical zoom, image stabilization, and AF assist that don't shoot way beyond my price range? If not, would I be better off going with a smaller chip to get these features, or doing without them in favor of a bigger chip?

Oly C2100UZI can still be had refurbished for $360 and on the used market (very sparingly due to it's cult following). Don't let the low pixel count fool you either...I have many 8x10's on my walls taken with this camera (what you gain in more pixels is more detail which helps if cropping photos a lot). It's a great camera and takes excellent images, mine was used in images below!

[Boxlock]

Originally Posted by Kalypso

Oly C2100UZI can still be had refurbished for $360 and on the used market (very sparingly due to it's cult following). Don't let the low pixel count fool you either...I have many 8x10's on my walls taken with this camera (what you gain in more pixels is more detail which helps if cropping photos a lot). It's a great camera and takes excellent images, mine was used in images below!

WOW! Nice Pix! Ok, am having a hard time choosing between these three I've located:

reconditioned C-2100UZ for $370,

used Canon Pro-90, with 3MP chip and same I.S. lense, from private owner, described as LNIB, no warrenty, seller has only 2 feedback ratings, both posative. $460

and a New C-750 with 4MP chip but no I.S. for $430

[slipe]

The Canon has a 180,000 pixel EVF and the 2100UZ a 114,000 pixel EVF. One of the complaints I have heard from UZI owners is the poor EVF.

The Canon takes CF which is fast, inexpensive and comes in large sizes. The UZI uses SM which is slow and obsolete. The specs say it will take only a 64Mb card but they got the SM up to 128Mb – I suppose you could use that. It would be the minimum to use for TIFF. The big buffer in the UZI somewhat makes up for the slow card. The SD in the 750 is a little pricier but state of the art and fast.

The UZI doesn’t have raw and the Canon does. TIFF is impractical compared to raw. Raw is superior and uses a third the space. You can do all of the settings like sharpness, contrast, white balance and saturation in post processing with raw. All that matters when you shoot are exposure and focus.

I like the flip-out and tilt LCD on the Canon. It is a feature I wish was in one of my cameras.

They are both big, but the Canon is bigger and heavier.

The Canon has ISO 50 to take advantage of the IS in normal shooting where the UZI is limited to ISO100.

The Canon has a continuous focus option. I have one camera with it and one without, and it makes a big difference trying to take pictures of kids or at gatherings.

The lithium battery in the Canon that will take 300 to 800 photos is fine, but it is used now and might not give that much. The UZI uses AAs which are much cheaper to replace.

I would personally take the 3Mp and IS in the Pro-90 compared to 4Mp and no IS in the 750. But it is nice to get a new camera with a guarantee. 2Mp is a big limitation IMO. I would probably gamble on the Canon, but it is a gamble.

In my C2100, I've used SM cards up to 256mb's. The images I posted (and all that I ever took with it) were taken at high-res jpeg. Also, the C2100 & the Canon Pro-90 have the exact same IS lens (rumored but never proven that I've seen). Also, this is the first time I ever heard of an EVF complaint from any C2100 user...YMMV.

Wishing I never sold my C2100 (& if I had a choice today), I would give equal weight to buying either the C2100 or the Pro-90...but not at the expense of paying more than $60.00-US difference for one over the other.

Another C2100 image:

[slipe]

Originally Posted by Kalypso

In my C2100, I've used SM cards up to 256mb's. The images I posted (and all that I ever took with it) were taken at high-res jpeg. Also, the C2100 & the Canon Pro-90 have the exact same IS lens (rumored but never proven that I've seen). Also, this is the first time I ever heard of an EVF complaint from any C2100 user...YMMV.

Wishing I never sold my C2100 (& if I had a choice today), I would give equal weight to buying either the C2100 or the Pro-90...but not at the expense of paying more than $60.00-US difference for one over the other.

I’ve read many threads by C2100UZ owners and they often complain about the EVF. Some people will complain about the best EVF if they are accustomed to a 35mm SLR viewfinder though – so all EVF complaints aren’t valid. My Minolta has a 220,000 pixel EVF and that is marginal IMO. I wouldn’t want to use a 114,000 EVF if I could have 180,000. I have also read many times that both cameras use the Canon lens.

A 2Mp camera will display images great onscreen for posting, viewing and e-mailing. But many people do more with the images. If you don’t have to crop at all the best 8 X 10 print you can get with a 2Mp is 150PPI, which is below what a modern photo printer is capable of using. A 3Mp gives 175PPI which looks better. That is if you frame perfectly and don’t have to crop. If you want to print something larger to hang on the wall or have to crop a lot 2Mp is really marginal.

You can see the difference between a raw image converted to a high quality TIFF and JPG in output from a good photo printer. The difference is enhanced if you use filters like sharpening in an image editor or resample an image. Both enhance the JPG artifacts.

There is also the great versatility of raw. Being able to tweak the white balance for example in post processing is very handy.

And the fully articulated LCD would be of value to me as well. You can get great candids if someone doesn’t see you behind the camera pointing it at them. And you can shoot over crowds and get interesting angles like near the ground. The IS makes shooting from the less stable hold more practical.

I see a lot more than $60 difference in value.

I must be crazy then (a possibility). I have 2, 8x10's on my wall within 4 inches of each other. One was taken with a 2.1mp C2100, the other was taken with a 5mp Dimage 7i. Unless you took them out of the frames & used a loupe on them, I would bet you $500.00 that you couldn't tell which print came from which camera.

[Mike_PEAT]

Originally Posted by Kalypso

I must be crazy then (a possibility). I have 2, 8x10's on my wall within 4 inches of each other. One was taken with a 2.1mp C2100, the other was taken with a 5mp Dimage 7i. Unless you took them out of the frames & used a loupe on them, I would bet you $500.00 that you couldn't tell which print came from which camera.

The question is, how is a picture supposed to be viewed? When someone says, "I got pictures of my new baby" do you say, "Oh, let me get my loupe."

To be candid though, I can usually tell the difference (with the right scene) WITHOUT a loupe...but I have decades (combined) of photographic, graphic, professional printing, and darkroom experience. If you have a scene with lots of trees, or grass, it does make a difference.