Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2006, 2:02 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 24
Default

Wat i would suggest is not getting emotionall ... lol .. and follow ur heart...
if u feel that the S3 is good and convinient .. go for it ...
The reviews are ment for pointing out flaws ... ... and these flaws are so small that its negligible for a regular user.

And besides this aint gonna be the last cam ur gonna buy .. technology changes ... u'll probably upgrade in 3 years ... so just buy somethin that feels right in ur hands and right for purpose.

Even i like the swivel screen feature of the S3 .. it really keep the screen protected ... and is really convinient while on tripod ..

My friend has the S2 which is also a gr8 cam ... i would really suggest the S2 ... cuz u can get it reall cheap now adays ... and theres little to non difference between S3 and S2 .... the S3 just adds Iso800 .. and wide screen feature .. which shouldnt be a problem.

Or if ur lookin for a cam that will grow with ur interests in photography .. just go and get a Dslr ... or maybe buy a cheap cam now and save for a good Dslr.

good luck Pal ... i hope u make a good choice ...
sr2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2006, 7:24 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 111
Default

SR2002, you have a unique way of putting it but you are right, absolutely!!
I had already made up my mind this afternoon . After holding the diferent Cam's and seeing what they had to offer, the Canon S3 IS is a no-brainer in my mind !
That is what I intend on getting.

Right now I am waiting on a message from "Silver Fox" concerning the La Crosse BC-900 vs the AccuManager 20 battery chargers.
After reading all the resources here on "Steves" it is completely obvious that this gentleman knows what the Hell he is talking about when it comes to the battery charger end of this equation !
Thanks for the reply and advise.
Changeling

Changeling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2006, 1:31 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 24
Default

thanks ... im glad that u found my reply usefull ... If u like the S3 .. go for it ... havent used one .. but i have used the S2 .. and its a fantastic camera.

my friend bought it for 450$ last year .. and now u get a S3 for like 350$ straight ... its a real good deal.

I use the Powerex Nimh batteries for my old ... nikon 3200 ... i have been using them for 3 years ... havent had a problem yet ... u might wanna check this brand out ...

good luck ..
sr2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2006, 2:02 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 111
Default

sr2002, thanks for the "good luck" and advise.
I looked for an S2 but didn't find any a week or so ago, Ill give it some more thought and see if I can find a new one at a good price.

Speaking of old cameras, a few years ago I won a Nikon FA with a Tamaron lens and made of something called "low dispersion" glass in a poker game. However, it doesn't work even though it looks brand new. Do you have any idea if something like this is worth anything?
Cjangeling

Changeling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2006, 7:29 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
However it doesn't have image stabilization, and it's lens isn't quite as bright at full zoom,
<- Regarding thre Fujifilm 6000/6500. Ok the first point you are completely wrong, and the second point... how do you know this?

Taken from Fujifilm.com:


Number of Effective Pixels
6.3 million pixels

CCD Sensor 1 / 1.7-inch Super CCD HR

Real Photo Technology Yes

Picture Stabilization: Yes, Mode Dial

[[Unless I'm reading that wrong and it doesn't have Picture Stabilization....?]] Why would you claim it doesn't?

monsoon777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2006, 2:06 AM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Picture Stabilization: Yes, Mode Dial
Unless I'm wrong, then what is creating confusion here is that Fuji's "picture stabilisation" is not quite the same as other brands' image stabilisation - i.e. while others try to work against the camera shake and enable you to take a usable picture at low shutter speeds, Fuji's method is to raise the ISO, leading (in most cases) to higher shutter speeds -> less blurriness in images.

They can get away with that as the high ISO (at least up to 800) in Fuji cameras really is very good, but I wouldn't call it "real" image stabilisation either - since once you get to a point where the shutter speeds fall to 1/4...1/8 seconds also at ISO 800-1600 (common enough indoors), then that particular kind of "stabilisation" really isn't much use anymore.

I think it's just that as most brands use image stabilisation to mean a completely different approach, then people don't consider Fuji's approach to be image stabilisation, and in my opinion that's a valid attitude (just as it's valid to say that Fuji isn't lying with their claim - their method is different and unconventional, and should perhaps be called something else, but for the "average user", who doesn't know and doesn't care what the camera does to achieve this, in most cases it gives the same effect - less blur in pictures, with the added bonus of less blur caused by the motion of the subject, which "ordinary" image stabilisation won't help against).
Yapyap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2006, 3:01 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
[[Unless I'm reading that wrong and it doesn't have Picture Stabilization....?]] Why would you claim it doesn't?
That's Fuji's misleading labelling. What they are refering to there is just a preset mode which tries to chose a higher ISO for a faster shutter. It doesn't add any capability to the camera; it's something you can do manually on any digital camera (set a higher ISO). It doesn't actually do anything to neutralize vibrations in camera.

The other cameras in this group have motion detectors and actively combat shake by moving the sensor or lens or other wise insure that the image is actually stabilized at the time it is recorded.

As for the brightness of the lens, I'm getting that from the specs. The Fui is listed as an f2.8-4.9, and the S3 is listed as an f2.8-3.5. What that means is that at full telephoto, the S3 is about a full stop brighter.

[Warning math ahead:
4.9*4.9=24.01
3.5*3.5=12.25
The area covered by the f/3.5 aperture is thus about twice that covered by the f/4.9.]

It's hard to say what the real world performace will be of a camera that has just come out, but if anything I think I overstated it when I suggested the S6000 might be better in low light. Looking at the specs I'm not at all convinced that will be the case. The high ISO advantage of the Fuji isn't more than about 2 stops. That is ISO 1600 would be about the same as ISO 400. If you gain a stop in lens brightness when zoomed in with the S3, and gain a couple more stops in low light with shake reduction allowing slower shutter speeds, you might do even better with the S3.

Whereas the Fuji should have a bit of an advantage is in capturing action--where you need a fast shutter, rather than a slow one, and the IS won't do much (any?) good.

So, I'm not saying that Fuji's method isn't effective in reducing blur from camera shake. Only that it's not going to do any better than these others, and really won't likely be any better in low light.

It seems like high ISO performance is often associated with low light shooting, when it's useful in other ways. Optical stabilization on the other hand, may be even more useful for low light shooting. But cameras with it don't seem to get labeled "low light" cameras.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2006, 11:32 AM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Default

Well darn, guess you guys do know what your talking about after all. Thanks for the information regarding the "image stablization" and the lens brightness.. But I'm still going to pretend it does have the previous, as I own it :blah:
monsoon777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2006, 11:47 AM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

I also have been looking at all the above mentioned cameras but am also considering the Panasonic FZ7. Since none have mentioned this camera I am wondering what you may think FZ7 lacks compared to the Canon, Fuji, Sony. The only knock I have seen relates to noise levels but owners and some reviewers seem to feel that in real world use these noise level conditions will be pretty much moot.
inazsully is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2006, 12:01 PM   #30
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Default

That panasonic has 5 stars on Amazon out of 30 reviews or so. So it ain't bad based on that. I never looked into that one my self.
monsoon777 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:48 AM.