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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2006, 10:41 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Please just be aware that anytime the ISO is selected above ISO 200, you will begin to see noise on the Panasonic FZ-7.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2006, 11:55 AM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
None of the mentioned cameras behave particularly well at high ISO - so none of them are going to do very well at indoor sports. There was supposed to be a new camera coming out that combines the f30's low light capabilities with a superzoom but I can't recall which camera that is. But I would not expect good indoor action results from any of the 3 cameras mentioned.
That would be the Fuji Finepix S6500fd that MtClimber mentioned earlier in this thread (which is a little bit more than the OP wants to spend on a camera).

It's got ISO speeds up to ISO 3200 available and wears a lens equivalent to a 28-300mm f/2.8-f/4.9 lens on a 35mm camera.

In a less expensive model (that still has good focal range), the S5200 has ISO speeds up to ISO 1600 available (which you really wouldn't want to use unless necessary). It's using a smaller 5MP Sensor. But, still has pretty good noise characteristics as a non-DSLR model goes (with less aggresive noise reduction compared to many newer models, so there is room for improvement using noise reduction software).

Steve has an ISO 800 image without flash in it's review samples here.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...017_iso800.jpg

The lens on the S5200 lens is twice as bright on the long end (f/3.5) compared to the newer S6500fd (f/4.9 zoomed in) to help make up for the differences between these two sensors.

The S5200 wears a lens equivalent to a 38-380mm f/3.2-3.5 lens on a 35mm camera (brighter and longer compared to the lens on the newer S6500fd). So, you could shoot at ISO 800 with it, and get shutter speeds just as fast as you could shooting at ISO 1600 with the newer S6500fd if you're zooming in much with them.

They both have some features that can be helpful for sports use. One of them in the S5200 is the "Final 3" mode, as discussed in the S5200 review conclusion section, allowing you to "precapture" more images to improve the odds of getting one that you like due to inherent shutter lag:

Quote:
Final 3 which captured 10 frames at 3/10 of a second intervals but saved only the last 3.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s5200_pg5.html


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2006, 12:42 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 978
Default

The Fuji S5200 has a maximum aperture of f3.2 at full zoom. The f3.5 is at about 7X or 8X. I don't know why this is so, but I confirmed it when taking pictures at an NBA game last week. The pictures of this camera are ok at ISO 800, but not as good as those of my newly bought S9100, whose ISO 800 pictures are not as good as those of the S6000fd. However, at full zoom, the latter two cameras have a maximum aperture of F4.9, which means that maybe they would have to use ISO 1600 to get enough light for decent shutter speeds.

I agree with Jim; in the usually dimly lit high school, junior high school, and elementary school gyms, digicams have a hard time taking sharp pics. The problem is that you need a DSLR and a bright, expensive zoom lens to make the grade, and that combination isn't cheap. If you can sit close to the court and are taking pictures of action in the same end of the court, maybe the Fujis will satisify you.
robbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2006, 12:50 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default

Actually my last post was asking which among the Canon S2, KodakZ612, the Panasonic FZ7 and the Fuji S5200 would work better for Indoor NON-sport shots like family pictures. My understanding for outdoor sport shots the Canon, Kodak, and the Panasonic might be the best choices because of the 12x zoom, but how about regular indoor pictures?
mccoady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2006, 12:58 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 978
Default

Are you within flash range (less than 15 feet usually)? If, yes, any of those camera would do ok. If you can't use flash and the room is not well lit, I would venture to say that the Fuji S5200 would be the best. Although it's not one of the cameras you mentioned, I would recommend the S6000fd for non-sport indoor shots for 2 reasons: good performance in low light, non-flash settings and a 28mm wide angle, which comes in handy for group portraits.
robbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2006, 4:02 PM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default

My choice would be the Canon S2IS. It's 12x optical zoom is great for sports action both indoors and out. I've used it a great deal for college basketball games and have had good results. Also, right now you can buy the S2IS for around $256 on the internet - a lot of camerafor the buck!
hawks1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2006, 12:33 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default

My sister and I have been emailing back and forth and she's ready to buy but wants me to pick one. I've kind of narrowed it down to the Kodak Z612 and the Canon S2 IS although I can't really explain why as my head is spinning reading about all these cameras. Why I've not included the Panasonic FZ7 on this short list I really don't know in fact my sister was ready to order this camera until I said hold the presses maybe you should look at another camera. And maybe it should still be included on this list?? I think I've told her to buy a different camera each of the last three days(lol). Some differences between the Kodak and Canon:

1. Kodak 6 megapixels vs Canon 5 megapixels

2. Kodak 2.5" LCD vs Canon 1.8" LCD

3. Kodak comes with rechargeable batteries and can't use standard alkaline vs Canon comes with alkaline batteries but can use rechargeable.

Any other differences of any significance? Any comments on the differences I've listed above between the two? My sister wanted to emphasize that she wants a point and shoot camera and most of the time would be taking regular pictures but she wants to be able to zoom for outside sport pictures.

How would each stack up printing 8x10 photos? I guess I'm leaning slightly (only slightly) toward the Kodak because of it's larger LCD screen and 6 megapixels but I"m not sure if not being able to use regular alkaline batteries would be a hindurance or not. I think it would be nice to be able to use them in a pinch or all the time if you wanted.

I realize every purchase is a personal choice but with my limited camera knowledge are there other more important differences I'm over looking between the cameras? My sister wants to order a camera today.
mccoady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2006, 10:33 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

The Canon S-2 and the Kodak Z-612 are just about equal in convenience, with the Kodak having the larger LCD. However, if video clip performance is important (and I heard the use of a video camera for the indoor event) the Canon S-2 has a much better video capability.

How do i know for sure, you might ask? Well, I own and use both cameras.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2006, 3:21 PM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default

Mtclimber forgive my stupidity what does having a camera with better video clip performance actually mean?


There would be no difference between a 5 and 6 magapixel camera when it comes to printing 8x10 prints?


You don't don't prefer the larger LCD that the Kodak has?


Is one easier to use for a novice as a point and shoot camera? I have a Canon A75 and I don't think menu and ergonomics are all that great or easy to use so don't know if the S2 is similar or not.


The Canon doesn't seem to have a sports mode like the Kodak what would you set it on for sports?

mccoady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2006, 3:25 PM   #30
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

mccoady wrote:
Quote:
Forgive my stupidity what does having a camera with better video clip performance actually mean?
These digital cameras can also capture video - not just still pictures. The Canon's video capture ability is better than the Kodak's - although still not as good as a dedicated video camera (just like video cameras still shots are not as good as those from a dedicated camera)
JohnG 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 9:29 PM.