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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 11, 2006, 1:12 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
flippedgazelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 930
Default

Sarah, thank you so much for posting the latest photo - and big thanks from all of us here to Bradley for being such a patient and cheerful model!

Considering the slow shutter, I think you did a fine job with the the sharpness of the photo.
flippedgazelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 1:58 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
I was concidering the panasonic, fuji f-30 and casio, but then the personal comments of owners tearing the cameras apart and THEN leaving 5 stars makes things really confusing..........
Read reviews from professionals who test multiple cameras and have enough knowledge to compare. Sites like Epinions is not the place to do research IMO. Steves, Digital Camera Resource, Imaging Resource, dpreview and Megapixel are good sources.

You can get a Panasonic FX 01 from Beach Camera for $210 with no tax or shipping. It has optical image stabilization and is quite small and slim – a true sub-compact. Optical qualities are very good with its Leica lens and it has a wide angle lens for getting good scenery and getting more in the photo in limited spaces. It also makes 848 x 480 pixel 30fps widescreen movies if you have a wide screen TV. High ISO is probably a red herring as your wife doesn't sound like one who would be fishing through menus to boost the ISO since she wants an easy to use camera.

The Kodak C-875 that MT mentioned is not a sub-compact and doesn't have stabilization. It has a lot of very good features like full manual exposure, aperture priority and shutter priority that your wife wouldn't likely use. It does however have a 5X optical lens and 8Mp. I doubt she has much use for the extra Mp but 5X optical is very useful. Probably not any more useful than wide angle though. The extra features don't make it any harder to use. Add the cost of a charger and NiMH batteries. Alkalines don't last very long.

Your wife might like the Kodak Easyshare system. It isn't my cup of tea but I set it up for some friends and they like it fine. For downloads it makes a folder named with the date and automatically puts the photos in it. You can link it directly to online printing services. It isn't bad for someone who doesn't want to mess with organizing. Too bad the V550 they bought isn't still readily available. It is a nice little camera.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 3:19 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I agree with slipe-

Either camera could probably handle the job. The IS in the FX-01 might be an advantage, at theexpense of a less simplified operational routine.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 4:15 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Chris and Richard-

Today's experiment came out of the fact that I had to take a series of photos earlier today of some cameras with flash because there was not enough light to do it without flash. I used the Kodak C-875 and placed a difusser on the C-875's flash unit. It was nothing more than a bit or sliverof plastic milk bottle. However, it did cut the glare from those shiny cameras quite a bit.

When I finished the camera shoot. I asked Bradley to pose for a photo with the C-875 using the same set-up. I took the photo at ISO 100 to make up for the light lost to the difusser. Bradley reported the flash was greatly suppressed and very tolerable. The resulting photo was very good and I am attaching it for you. So here is yet another interesting use of the C-875.

MT/Sarah

Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 11, 2006, 10:56 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
flippedgazelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 930
Default

Thanks for the neat pic, Sarah. I think, in addition to making the flash more tolerable for the subject, the resultant photo looks a little less flash-y.

I've toyed around with the idea of partially obscuring my camera's flash with a piece of aluminum foil, sothe lightwould disperse more widely and create (maybe) a little bit more of a natural lighting condition. Its never really progressed beyond me thinking about it, though.:|
flippedgazelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2006, 6:57 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Chris-

It is a technique that I have used before when photographing very shiny stuff, like cars, silverware, china and the like. It is a good way, as you say, of deleting the open flash appearance and it cost nothing but the scotch tape.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2006, 9:02 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

I think the best choice close to meeting the listed criteria may be the Canon SD700IS. It's just out of the price range, but available for $305 shipped from beach camera, one of the more reputable online vendors.

The others mentioned are all good compromises if budget is important. But most are either not ulta-compact, or don't have IS. The C875 is neither, but does seem to be one of the best values out there. At dcresource,com, Jeff Keller's recent review of the Nikon L5 specifically suggests the C875 as a better choice despite the lack of IS (though he has yet to publish his review of it).

Otherwise, I think the best bang for the buck in that price range in an ultracompact would be either the Fuji F20 or the Panasonic FX01.

The Fuji lacks IS but has good high ISO capabilites for very good indoor shots, with or without flash. It also generally does well out of doors. While I think the SD700IS is a bit better overall, I'd have trouble justifying spending the extra $130 over the F20.

And the Panasonics are really your only good choices with real IS in the under $250 price range. The FX01 is very nice for it's wide angle lens, which also is very sharp, and it gives very good outdoor shots (I think the best of the cameras discussed). It does offer higher ISOs but quality is very poor over ISO 200, so it's not the best for indoor, low light without flash. But the IS will still allow some good low light shots at lower ISOs by using longer shutter speeds (as long as there is littel subject motion). This is really the only one that meets all of the given criteria, including price range.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2006, 8:10 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4
Default

kenbalbari wrote:
Quote:
I think the best choice close to meeting the listed criteria may be the Canon SD700IS.* It's just out of the price range, but available for $305 shipped from beach camera, one of the more reputable online vendors.

The others mentioned are all good compromises if budget is important.* But most are either not ulta-compact, or don't have IS.* The C875 is neither, but does seem to be one of the best values out there.* At dcresource,com, Jeff Keller's recent review of the Nikon L5 specifically suggests the C875 as a better choice despite the lack of IS (though he has yet to publish his review of it).

Otherwise, I think the best bang for the buck in that price range in an ultracompact would be either the Fuji F20 or the Panasonic FX01.

The Fuji lacks IS but has good high ISO capabilites for very good indoor shots, with or without flash.* It also generally does well out of doors.* While I think the SD700IS is a bit better overall, I'd have trouble justifying spending the extra $130 over the F20.

And the Panasonics are really your only good choices with real IS in the under $250 price range.* The FX01 is very nice for it's wide angle lens, which also is very sharp, and it gives very good outdoor shots (I think the best of the cameras discussed).* It does offer higher ISOs but quality is very poor over ISO 200, so it's not the best for indoor, low light without flash.* But the IS will still allow some good low light shots at lower ISOs by using longer shutter speeds (as long as there is littel subject motion).* This is really the only one that meets all of the given criteria, including price range.


Keep checking Dell through Techbargains.com. I saw the SD 700 last week for $279.00 delivered. That camera would be perfect for your wife.
prairiewinters 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 11:50 AM.