Printable View
It is time to replace my old, slow, but trustworthy Kodak digital camera. These are the options I am exploring:
Panasonic DMC FZ1S
Awesome lense and 12X optical zoom nice price
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/sc/204853...amera+on-1.gif
or
Minolta Dimage Xt
Really Small - fits in ski jacket pocket for quick pics
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/sc/212487...amera+on-1.gif
Any other suggestions. And if you have a link to pics taken with your suggestion - that would be appreciated.
Of the two you posted the Minolta wins going away. It's all about megapix until you to around 5mp. The optical zoom is nice, but without the mp it's worthless. Also rmemeber that speed is critical if you want to capture action shots. This really creates a divergance in that small cams that you can slip in a jacket are usually lousy at action. If you're really looking for something to always have with you get the most mp in the smallest package.
I have had the Nikon Coollpix 5000 for two years now and find it to be a great blend at 5 mp and decent zoom. It's not really quick enough to grab great action shots, but you can use it's burst features to try and get lucky. If I had to do do it over I'd by something tiny...a cannon elph...and then save for something BIG like a D1 oir what not.
The 5000 is slow for action and digital zoom is lame...
http://www.biglines.com/photos/pbpic5449.jpg
Sometimes you get lucky...
http://www.biglines.com/photos/pbpic5318.jpg
http://www.audizine.com/news/event_c...ca_0702_49.jpg
5 mp is nice
http://www.biglines.com/photos/pbpic5273.jpg
http://www.biglines.com/photos/pbpic5269.jpg
Here are some more pics I shot with the Nikon Coool Pix 5000.
So...buy the most mp you cna get in the smallest cam...zoom is nice but if you have the mp you can shoot high res and use cropping to get the same effect.
Have a look at the sony p10 5mp , 3x zoom and small
every digi I have seen/used has a bit of a delay before the pic is taken = not so good for action shots..
This holds true until you get to the new high end cams...many of which are designed to shoot 5fps+ until the memory card is full. Most lower end cams do suck at action.Quote:
Originally posted by sluffhunter
every digi I have seen/used has a bit of a delay before the pic is taken = not so good for action shots..
Truth thanks for the suggestions. I am leaning towrd the Minolta cause of size and decent pic quality. So I am taking your advice buy a small camera, and get a better one later. actually Panasonic is releasing the FZ1 in more mpx.
While the panasonic is only 2mpx, the lense is so good that image quality is spectacular. Here is an example:
http://image.pbase.com/u33/bowdood/m...7.P1030686.jpg
Unfortunately the camera is bigger (though not huge), which means I have to carry the backpack at all times to lug it.
Hey nice Audi pics! Have to show my friend who races cars.
I bought the Minolta Xt. Fast camera and fits in my pocket. Image quality is solid. Here is a link to sample pics if interested:
Sample Pics
Nice...looks like the Minolta was the right choice. Pics are crisp and clear and the size of that cam has me jealous...I'm looking to get into something really small to carrry with me at work, in the car, skiing, all the time. I love my Coolpix but if I'm not solely out to shoot pics it's a bit big to carry.
.mac ? for ya...I always seem to end up with my pics getting fubar'd when I upload to a .mac web page. Half the pics end up with some sort of digital distotion. Have you had any issues or do you ahve any suggestions?
Have not experienced that problem. I just drag em and drop em. Are you optimizing them for the web? Are the file sizes large? I wonder if the pic is beyond certain dimensions that .mac might be resizing them.Quote:
Originally posted by truth
Nice...looks like the Minolta was the right choice. Pics are crisp and clear and the size of that cam has me jealous...I'm looking to get into something really small to carrry with me at work, in the car, skiing, all the time. I love my Coolpix but if I'm not solely out to shoot pics it's a bit big to carry.
.mac ? for ya...I always seem to end up with my pics getting fubar'd when I upload to a .mac web page. Half the pics end up with some sort of digital distotion. Have you had any issues or do you ahve any suggestions?
Yeah the Minolta is smaller than my wallet. It will be great in the front pocket of my ski jacket.
http://www.photocatch.com/templates/...B-33B4285590F2
Pic with the Nikon Cool Pix 775
as for the camera, its super slow and it needs to re-charge the flash for about 5 seconds between shots, which may not seem like much, but its a pain in the ass.
its decent for stills like the one above though.
I'm a big fan of the Canon Elph series. I've got a lower model S200 but it takes amazing stills. It's very durable(stainless steel walls and no pop up flash), rechargeable battery that lasts fairly long, and I keep it in my jacket most of the season. Pretty easy software to work with. Like everyone else stated, the action shots leave a little to be desired.
It's got two major pluses for a skier: durable and compact.
B)
That is what my wife uses. Good stuff, and what I used to take these Jackson Hole picturesQuote:
Originally posted by Mtn Man
I'm a big fan of the Canon Elph series. I've got a lower model S200 but it takes amazing stills. It's very durable(stainless steel walls and no pop up flash), rechargeable battery that lasts fairly long, and I keep it in my jacket most of the season. Pretty easy software to work with. Like everyone else stated, the action shots leave a little to be desired.
It's got two major pluses for a skier: durable and compact.
B)
I use one that really sucks for taking any sort of ski/action shots. No zoom, unpredictable delay on the shutter.
Ya want it?
What are you going to be using the pictures for? Are you planning on printing them? Submitting them for publication?
I still use my trusty old 1.3 megapixel Olympus D-400. Every picture I've ever posted on either board or on my website has been taken with this camera. Most pictures placed on the web show best at 640x480 or so. You'll be shrinking down any picture you take with a large megapixel camera.
I've found that light, conditions, and timing are more important than any amounts of megapixels. If you plan on using the camera for web type applications I wouldn't worry too much about pixel capability. If I was buying another camera, (which is all too soon) I'd probably go for optical zoom length over pixel capability.
Or, just wait a while till the digital SLR's come down in price.
BobMc
PS, I am by no means an expert nor claim to be one. I just enjoy screwing around with them a bit.
Like the new Canon digital SLR based on the Rebel? Looks pretty sweet for the price: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/Quote:
Originally posted by BobMc
Or, just wait a while till the digital SLR's come down in price.
http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/images/ricoh_g3.gif
One of these is a good solution to shutter delay. The Ricoh Caplio G3 is billed as the fastest digital camera in the world. Ricoh reckon that the longest delay between pressing the tit and the camera exposing the picture will never be longer than a tenth of a second. I've got one and it works pretty well.
Will freeze action like this
http://www.badroo.alivewww.co.uk/deu...2/pondskim.jpg
or this
http://www.badroo.alivewww.co.uk/deu...guettefire.jpg
or you can play with the shutter settings and get night shots like this.
http://www.badroo.alivewww.co.uk/avensis.jpg
3,2megapixels - not expensive. Maybe $250.