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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:27 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Flipped-

Thanks so much for an excellent answer.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:28 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

aspire-

Here is an example photo of what the Casio Z-120 can do.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:38 PM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 57
Default

wow thats pretty impressive...after i read the reviews on CNET that gave it a 5.6 out of ten i got scared and was thinking fo not buying this camera...but i dun really know if i could trust users that post on CNET as thye might be inexpirenced ... plus ALL of the bad ratings were givin because of POOR PRINT QUALITY... dis u have any problems with the printing? and if possible what rating would yoyu give it? i will definately trust your proffesional oppinion
aspire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:42 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
flippedgazelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 930
Default

Hi Sarah

Any chance that at some point, if you have the time, you could please give us an indoor, non-flash photo comparison between the Fuji F30 and the Casio Z120? I know that Ken, Aspire and myself would all be interested in seeing that. I think because of your skill and experience, you would provide us with a sort of ceiling as to what each camera could do in that situation.

Chris

Edit - hey aspire, don't trust those CNET reviews. I constantly find them in error (or just lazy) when reviewing computer equipment and electronics. I've been in the IT/computer field for over a decade and find much at CNET - and ZD Publishing - is rubbish. Also, print quality issues are usually the result of the user, then followed by the printer. Go with what you like!
flippedgazelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:51 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 57
Default

thnx mtnclimber...yeah i was just thining that they arent so reliable beacause beased on the reviews here on steve's and some other trusted photography sites...i cant really see the z120 bieng a 5.6...as for your request towards Sarah, i think that would be a great idea since sarah seems to know alot about photography and would surley provide with a very valid and trustworthy opinion
aspire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:56 PM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41
Default

flippedgazelle wrote:
Quote:
Hey Ken

A digital camera doesn't *need* IS in the sense that you can't take a good pic w/o it. IS is simply there as a technology improvement.

The need for IS is independent of film or digital - IS compensates for the slight hand movements a person has while taking a picture. If IS could have been done on a film camera 30 years ago, it would have been. There have been gazillions of blurry film photos that could have been precluded by IS.

BTW, when properly used, IS does NOT reduce image quality. It is merely another tool to be used in select situations when the photo possibility requires it.

When you say you want good quality pictures in dark situations, do you mean with or without a flash? If without, then the Fuji F30 is, from what I have read, by far your best choice currently. I would think that good low-light performance trumps image stabilization, as you already seem to be thinking.

I don't believe the Casio Z1000 would "be a little much" for you. Casios have great LCD screens, and while 10mp is probably overkill in a p&s category - one would fear too much noise with that many pixels from a tiny sensor - Casio seems to have done a fine job with it. My only concern would be that some models have issues with LCD durability.

The Canon SD (Elph) series are great cameras, but are not as good as the aforementioned cameras in low-light, non-flash situations.
Quote:
I didn't get your name. Where in NJ are you? I am from Manalapan. I can appreciate the comment though about the Z1000 being a little much because at this point, I don't want to "futz" around with setting too much and want to basical point and shoot. I guess I didn't think about low light situations. Is this a major consideration in buying a camera? So basiacally is the Fuji the hands down winner as the all aroundP&S orthe Canon?
Quote:
Thanks- Ken
Quote:
ken6217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 8:59 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 57
Default

thnx *flipped not mtnclimber i'm sorry i mixed up the user names
aspire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 9:18 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
flippedgazelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 930
Default

Hey Ken

I'm Chris, aka flippedgazelle due to an assessment of my grace and dexterity while playing basketball.:!: I live in Sussex County, about 1/2 mile from Lake Hopatcong.

The Casio Z1000 would do just fine in Auto mode - I'm pretty confident in saying that. Just because a camera has a bunch of manual controls does not mean you actually need to use them. Check out the sample pictures at the end of Steve's review - they are taken in Auto mode.

More and more neophyte and casual photographers are becoming interested in taking indoor/low-light pics without a flash. This will be a major consideration for me in the purchase of my next camera. I much prefer to photograph in the original, ambient light than in the harsh brightness of the flash.

I'm thinking that the Fuji is indeed the "hands down winner as the all aroundP&S", although I believe that MT coudl answer that better. I currently have a Canon A620 that I bought a few months ago for $215. I had Ebay'd my 16 month old A85 for $180, so it was a very inexpensive upgrade. Had the Fuji F30 been out at that point, I would have considered ponying up the extra $$ to get it - just for its low light excellence. Even if the Fuji's outside pics aren't quite as good as the Canon's, Canon p&s cameras don't come anywhere near the F30's low-light prowess.

Attached is a 1:1, flashless, low-light picture done in Auto mode from my A620. You can see how rough it is...
Attached Images
 
flippedgazelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 9:22 PM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 57
Default

wow ...thats suprizing i would have expected way more from the A620
aspire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2006, 9:30 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
flippedgazelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 930
Default

Yup, and I can get way more from the A620. But I wanted Ken to get an idea what a low-light photo might be like "out of the box" with a Canon p&s. The SD600/700 might be a little better, but I don't think the improvement would be all that much.

Bump the ISO a little (but not over 200) and, if you have *very* steady hands or can brace the camera against something sturdy and increase the exposure, you can get something like this, which was done in even lower light:
Attached Images
 
flippedgazelle 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 1:34 AM.