Which camera for a amateur enthusiast?

[digraph]

No worries about mentioning the DSC-R1 first. That looked like the camera for me untill I saw the price. Maybe I can get one used in a few years. I bet it can make some great prints!

The only drawback I've read about the P880 is that it's REALLY big. But it's also the least expensive... so who knows which I'll end up with. All the advice I've received has been very helpful. I'm getting closer to choosing!

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

The Kodak P880 is a very goodenthusiast camera in my opinion.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p880.html

This camera was onmy number onelist; when the camera search engine displayed my results. (And that has got nothing to do with prices at all)

You can trythe camera search engine below.It is nice and extensive.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cgi-bin/m/pl.cgi?cajs

TheP880 is alsolisted on Steves' list of "Best Cameras"

http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

EDIT: Just read two big reviews about it; great camera!

[BenjaminXYZ]

I think this is only a bit of an exaggeration. What's difficult to match there is the zoom range. The image quality is good, but if you start comparing to good DSLR lenses, it can be beat. It will beat most kit lenses, though. For one thing, most kit lenses won't be as bright as f2.8 at the wide end.

But you can get reasonably priced lenses with a bit less range, or a bit different range, that match or exceed that quality. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for example, looks pretty comparable in quality to me on those tests at slrgear.com.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

That would cover a 25.5mm-105mm range in a Pentax, Nikon, or Sony/KM mount, or a 27mm-112mm range in a Canon mount for under $400.

Or, in an Olympus mount, there's the Zukio 14mm-54mm f2.8-3.5 which covers a 28mm-104mm range with what I believe to be even higher quality glass (if you are picky), for under $500.

So how important is it to cover the extra 1.5mm-4mm on the wide end? Adding another lens to match the perfomance on the telephoto end isn't as difficult, since you are talking f4.5-4.8 at the telephoto end of that lens, and some of the better kit telephotos will be comparable at the wide end of their zoom. Add a good quality telephoto super wide as well, however, and your costs are really starting to add up. But you would also then be covering a larger zoom range as well.

A lens with that range, in that quality, would however easily sell for near the price of the R1 camera (or more), for the convenience of the large zoom range alone. So it is a nice value if it's what you really want.

But if you really want some of the additional benefits of a DSLR, you don't really have to give up that much zoom range to get similar image quality (and better is possible) for a reasonable price. And for many people the quality of the kit lenses might be fine as well, even if they aren't quite as bright or don't score quite as highly on some tests.

Read the following quote taken from imaging resource, it might say it all>>>

Quote:

"About a month prior to updating this review, we launched our second website, SLRgear.com. At the core of that site are the unusually revealing lens tests we're able to perform with the help of DxO Labs' DxO Analyzer program, and some back-end graphing and presentation software that we wrote in-house. We hope to expand our use of this technology in our testing of higher-end digital cameras, to see how they stack up with available SLR/lens combinations. The Sony DSC-R1 seems highly worthy of such comparison, so we're including the results of our DxO-based tests here.

For details of how we conduct these tests, just what they reveal, and equally importantly, what they don't reveal, visit SLRgear.com, and check out the links covering these topics on the right hand side of the home page.

Meanwhile, here are the results from our evaluation of the DSC-R1. Click on one of the thumbnail images at right, to view either the full-size graph, or to launch an interactive viewer to see how blur and chromatic aberration vary as you change the focal length and aperture.

We need to make a very important note about the results seen here, before we actually discuss them. The Blur Index graphs are showing a measure of "softness" that's derived from MTF curves measured at multiple points across the image plane. This measure correlates very well with visual perceptions of sharpness, but is also quite susceptible to variations in the sharpening applied to an image. To remove this factor as much as possible in our measurements, we choose the sharpening setting for each camera that produces the most accurate edge profile, that shows the steepest slope as an edge transitions pixel boundaries, but with the least possible overshoot or undershoot on either side of the edge, caused by the sharpening algorithm. In the case of the DSC-R1, the default sharpening produced a rather large overshoot on the light sides of edges, indicating significant over-sharpening of the image. As it happens, the "low" sharpening setting on the camera produced a nearly ideal edge, with a clean, relatively steep profile, and virtually no overshoot. For this reason, we chose to shoot the DxO targets with the in-camera sharpening set to low. This results in higher values than would otherwise be the case, but the default sharpening produced artificially low ones. Based on the contour of the edge profiles, the graphs shown above right should correlate fairly well with the results on SLRgear.com, obtained with Nikon and Canon d-SLR bodies, because we chose sharpening settings on those cameras to produce the sort of clean edge profiles we see in the R1's images captured at its low sharpening setting. (This serves to illustrate quite well the difficulty of making cross-camera comparisons with the DxO data, and the care needed in doing so.)

With all the above as a caveat, when we look at the R1's optical test results, we see graphs so good that they're almost boring. Sharpness across the frame and across the aperture and focal length range is almost perfect, as shown by the exceptionally low and uniform blur numbers.

Worst-case chromatic aberration is likewise low, and the average CA numbers are lower still, indicating that what CA is present doesn't extend very far into the frame. Shading (or vignetting, as it is more popularly called) is also very low, reaching a maximum of about a third of an f-stop at the 24mm equivalent focal length and maximum aperture, but in all other cases being less than 1/4 stop.

Worst-case geometric distortion is about 0.8% barrel, at maximum wide angle, dropping rather rapidly to about 0.2% pincushion at 20mm actual/35mm equivalent focal length, rising just a bit at 50mm equivalent, and then gradually decreasing to nearly zero at maximum telephoto.

To understand just how good these results are, you'll need to visit SLRgear.com and look at some of the test results for the more expensive lenses there. Even a cursory comparison will reveal that you'd easily have to spend several thousand dollars on lenses alone to get this kind of optical performance with a conventional digital SLR."

From imaging resource. The site that owns SLRgear as well.

Thiswas also taken from the same review>>>

What would it cost to duplicate the Sony DSC-R1 conventionally?

It's of course impossible to do a direct apples-to-apples comparisons between the DSC-R1 and a kit assembled from a conventional digital SLR and a kit of lenses, but it's interesting to put together a shopping list to see roughly what it would take to achieve similar performance. Let's take a look at a Canon kit that approximates the DSC-R1's capabilities: (Note that in the following, we're including only lenses that match the optical performance of the R1's lens. There are certainly cheaper lenses that will cover the same focal length range, but their optical performance doesn't approach that of the R1.)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A3.HTM

BTW, the quality of the OLYMPUS Zuiko 14 mm - 54 mm F/2.8 - F/3.5 lens is not better in quality than the R1's C.Z. Vario Sonnar T* lens.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Reply: digraph,

Keep in mind that there are also camerasin the range (price/features)of the P880from the other manufacturers.

Canon PowerShot G7

Fujifilm Finepix S9100
(Fujifilmn FinePix S9600)

Fujifilm FinePix S6500fd

Leica V-LUX 1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30

Ricoh GR Digital

Samsung NV7 OPS

And the SONY ALPHA-A100 (Just kidding)

[romphotog]

Any prosumer camera that has a flash hot shoe will give you better

low light pics.
I have a lot of experience with the Kodak P850.
great zoom, strong flash, A/S/M priority.
In fact, you can increase its flash to +1 which is
as strong as a small external flash.

The P880 is wide angle, and will do fine. However, my choice would be the
P712.

Look at the Lumix FZ-50 or Fuji S9000 as well.

Actually, for really low light, you might want a camera that goes above
ISO400 with low noise, that would be the Canon Rebel xT.

[KALEL33]

Digraph asked about the P880 which costs less than $400 and is a very good camera. As for the cameras just mentioned

Leica V-Lux: $849 price which is larger than $500
Canon G7: $599- also more than $500
Fuji S9100: $599- again more than $500
Both Panasonic Lumix DMC cameras more than $500
Ricoh GR digital: $699
The Samsung NV7 is under his $500 ceiling, but I cant find a review. I've heard good things about them from users though. There are so many cameras just coming out now and the ones above will drop down in price in January and Febuary. If your not needing one now, some of those above would be a very good choice. If you are comfortable with the P880 it is a very good camera and would serve you well. I am waiting to see how well the G7 does on the reviews.

[BenjaminXYZ]

The P880 is wide angle, and will do fine. However, my choice would be the
P712.

Keep in mind that the P712 model does nothave a manual focus ring like the P880. It is using the "very consumer like" motor driven zoom.The P712'simage sensoris also the smaller 1/2.5" kind. The P880's 1/1.8" version is one of the better ones.

Actually, for really low light, you might want a camera that goes above
ISO400 with low noise, that would be the Canon Rebel xT.

Why do you need to get the Rebel XT to get good ISO 400 - ISO 1600 shots?

The Nikon D50, D70s, Fujifilm FinePix S6500fd (with the F30's Super CCD), and the F30 itself all have just as great an ISO performance.

Digraph asked about the P880 which costs less than $400 and is a very good camera. As for the cameras just mentioned

Leica V-Lux: $849 price which is larger than $500
Canon G7: $599- also more than $500
Fuji S9100: $599- again more than $500
Both Panasonic Lumix DMC cameras more than $500
Ricoh GR digital: $699
The Samsung NV7 is under his $500 ceiling, but I cant find a review. I've heard good things about them from users though. There are so many cameras just coming out now and the ones above will drop down in price in January and Febuary. If your not needing one now, some of those above would be a very good choice. If you are comfortable with the P880 it is a very good camera and would serve you well. I am waiting to see how well the G7 does on the reviews.

If I am not mistaken, he mentioned $500 and below. (BTW, he might be willing to come out a bit more) Those cameras Ihave listed are great options (To consider) as well.

Most enthusiast would choose such "feature packed" all in one cameramodels. (They're already togetherin the highest level of pro-sumer cameras)