The perfect digital camera for skiing?

[The AD]

I don't know, but looks like a good contender:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

This is the 3 MP version (Panasonic DMC-FZ3), but there's also a 5 MP (Panasonic DMC-FZ20) that is otherwise very similar. Why does this camera seem ideal for skiing? It is quite compact yet has a 12x optical zoon lens with image stabilization. Also this is a constant f/2.8 Leica lens. The bottom line is you'd probably really have to try to get a blurry shot with this camera. Apparently shutter lag is very short, too, which is very important if you want to take action shots.

At just over $300 for the 3 megapixel model this camera looks like an outstanding buy.

EDIT: The 5 megapixel is WAY bigger, too. Check out the side-by-side photo in the review. I'm sure it's a more rugged camera, but may not be quite as handy for the most people.

[Mcwop]

I don't know, but looks like a good contender:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

This is the 3 MP version (Panasonic DMC-FZ3), but there's also a 5 MP (Panasonic DMC-FZ20) that is otherwise very similar. Why does this camera seem ideal for skiing? It is quite compact yet has a 12x optical zoon lens with image stabilization. Also this is a constant f/2.8 Leica lens. The bottom line is you'd probably really have to try to get a blurry shot with this camera. Apparently shutter lag is very short, too, which is very important if you want to take action shots.

At just over $300 for the 3 megapixel model this camera looks like an outstanding buy.

I have the FZ1, which is the 2MP version.

Here are sample pics taken with the camera. The pics may appear a little darker when viewed on a PC. I processed them on my Mac and did not adjust the gamma.

To give you an idea of the zoom power, this pic of the central couloir of Cody Peak, was taken from the top of the Sublette chair at J-Hole. See the little skiers.

[Raps]

I don't know, but looks like a good contender:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

This is the 3 MP version (Panasonic DMC-FZ3), but there's also a 5 MP (Panasonic DMC-FZ20) that is otherwise very similar. Why does this camera seem ideal for skiing? It is quite compact yet has a 12x optical zoon lens with image stabilization. Also this is a constant f/2.8 Leica lens. The bottom line is you'd probably really have to try to get a blurry shot with this camera. Apparently shutter lag is very short, too, which is very important if you want to take action shots.

At just over $300 for the 3 megapixel model this camera looks like an outstanding buy.

EDIT: The 5 megapixel is WAY bigger, too. Check out the side-by-side photo in the review. I'm sure it's a more rugged camera, but may not be quite as handy for the most people.

Looks sick, just may be the one i was lookin for.....does it fit well in your pocket?

[The AD]

Looks sick, just may be the one i was lookin for.....does it fit well in your pocket?

Not sure, but it looks like it should. It's probably a little thicker than the really compact cameras just because of the big zoom lens. I've only seen pictures of the camera, however.

[Mcwop]

Looks sick, just may be the one i was lookin for.....does it fit well in your pocket?

It is a little bigger than pocket size. You could fit it in a ski jacket pocket, but it will be a little bulky.

Edit link to size pic http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...z3_inhand2.jpg

[Vinman]

Canon A80, 4MP fits nicely in a pocket, 2.4fps for sequence shots, good manual controls.

[Schralper]

2.4fps for sequence shots,

Boy 2.4 fps is way SLOW for action shots.
I mean unless your boyz have some SERIOUS hangtime or ski real sloooooww.
8 fps w/ my Nikon F5, film camera. Hoping someday soon Nikon comes out w/ an affordable 8+ fps, 5+megapixel digi SLR camera.
Which is why I also use a Sony Mini dv cam, PC120(1.5mp) and soon PC350(3.3mp), cuz as long as they're in the frame I can always pull a still out.

[Vinman]

Boy 2.4 fps is way SLOW for action shots.
I mean unless your boyz have some SERIOUS hangtime or ski real sloooooww.
8 fps w/ my Nikon F5, film camera. Hoping someday soon Nikon comes out w/ an affordable 8+ fps, 5+megapixel digi SLR camera.
Which is why I also use a Sony Mini dv cam, PC120(1.5mp) and soon PC350(3.3mp), cuz as long as they're in the frame I can always pull a still out.

NIkon F5 is SLR no? Canon A80 is pocket sized digig cam. Big difference. You aren't going to get more than 3 fps from a poket sized digi

[The AD]

NIkon F5 is SLR no? Canon A80 is pocket sized digig cam. Big difference. You aren't going to get more than 3 fps from a poket sized digi

The Panasonic claims 4 fps, but as Mcwop pointed out it's slightly larger than pocket size. The FZ3 is just slightly smaller than the FZ1, though.

[Vinman]

The Panasonic claims 4 fps, but as Mcwop pointed out it's slightly larger than pocket size. The FZ3 is just slightly smaller than the FZ1, though.

Right, I should have said not much more than 3 fps. But you get the point I was shooting for. I'm sure as the technology advances the smaller digi cams will get faster for this kind of shooting.

[The AD]

Definitely they will get faster. I imagine to the point where they will leave film cameras in the dust.

4 fps might not be enough for a pro photog, but it seems pretty good for a camera that is just over $300.

[FNG]

Nice find AD. Added to Christmas list.

[Darkside]

Right, I should have said not much more than 3 fps. But you get the point I was shooting for. I'm sure as the technology advances the smaller digi cams will get faster for this kind of shooting.

Hey dude, watch out for the Camera Nazi's around here. They seem to not understand that you only want to spend $300. A Nikon F5 is $1900 for just the body. I personally use an older Canon S30, and thousands of photos later, it's treated me pretty well.
Some photos I've taken with it (not bad for a camera that goes for $130 on Ebay):




Once upon a time I read an article with famous bike photographers, they each said that their favorite camera is whatever they have in their pocket when they see something awesome. Not their huge $5000 SLR, because the a lot of the best sports shots (especially as a casual photographer) are the spontaneous ones, not the ones that you light meter and stage.

Those Panasonics look nice, but I think you could get something smaller if you wanted. I would look at the Canon's or Nikon CoolPix (they always get top marks for image quality).

[summit]

4fps with a 7 image buffer? that blows.

I want at least a 4sec buffer.

[The AD]

4fps with a 7 image buffer? that blows.

I want at least a 4sec buffer.

Please refer to Darkside's comments above. This is a $300 camera for fuck's sake.

See how soft your skiing shot is, Darkside? It would have been much much sharper with the Panasonic. And there's no way a Canon or Nikon are going to have a better lens than the Leica that's on this camera.

[cj001f]

See how soft your skiing shot is, Darkside? It would have been much much sharper with the Panasonic. And there's no way a Canon or Nikon are going to have a better lens than the Leica that's on this camera.

Leica = Over priced german engineering. Optically Nikon (cool) & Canon (who I loathe, for other reasons) are at least the equal, and often the better of Leica. Can you say coasting?

For the price your looking for many of the ones mentioned above will work well. Just realize the limitations - readily apparent in Darkside's posted pics. Landscapes - slow speed photography will be good, action shots in low light (the ski pic) won't be. This won't change much unless your willing to spend more money.

[Schralper]

NIkon F5 is SLR no? Canon A80 is pocket sized digig cam. Big difference. You aren't going to get more than 3 fps from a poket sized digi

Yes the F5 is an SLR, but its film. I already said that. I want a 8+fps digi SLR from Nikon.
Like I said thats why I also use a Mini dv cam. Bigger than pocket size but why is pocket size such a big deal. You're paying for having it small. Use a camelbak and a 5mp Powershot. But you aint gonna get consistently good action shots w/ that slow, fps, of a camera. Come on for a lil more than $300 you can find a usable dv cam. And why not? You're not gonna be printin bigger that 5x7 w/ 3 mp. So why not just make all the pics for tv/computer use anywho? I mean unless its a big framed print who wants'em as paper?

Darkside, ok pics but NO depth of field, unless thats what you're goin for.
Skier pretty blurry from enlarging. I realize its a small cam but dont you want better shots for a lil bigger, more expensive cam? Cheap cameras are Cheap. But no worries I know people are gonna spend their money how they want. Just figure killer ski shots dont happen everyday so when they do.....

[shirk]

I am a photo jong so I have nothing technical to add. But I do love my little Panasonic DMC LC-33. I bought this camera just before my two week road trip out west to go skiing. I found it based on a previous thread about digital cameras here on TGR. It has provided many great shots for a pocket size 3.2 mp 3x optical 3x digital. I don't use the digital zoom as my over cafinated body seems to have too much hand shake. The scenery pics are great with it. The action shots are better than I expected. See below for examples of pic quality. If money was no option I would get ride of this and buy a DMC FX7K and a DMC FZ20K .

[Artie Fufkin]

I am ready to pull the trigger on a digital camera and was looking from some thoughts on the decision. Sorry for the hijack, but instead of starting a new thread I thought I would keep the digi cam info consolidated. I've done a search here and at t-tips, have checked C Net, Consumer Reports, Steve's Digi Cam, DP Review, etc.

I have settled on the Canon PowerShot SD200. It was released a couple months ago and is an updated version of the SD100/110. 3.2 Megapixels, 3X Optical, SC memory and it's SMALL.

I was going to get a Sony DSC-P73 4 Megapixels, but it had too many features. I will be using for work, skiing and travel. Though I did like that it took only 2 AAs.

I bought a Canon S410 from Worst Buy and the it had a noticeable scratch on the casing, not a big deal, but pretty lame for a new camera out of the box. I took it back and there were no more left. Then I saw the SD200.

I am a photo JONG, I will not be printing 8X10, probably at the most 4X6s. I will probably not be editing images, I am mainly looking for something that takes good pictures, reliable and that I will not hesitate to throw in a jacket or pack.

Is there any reason based on the above information that a 3.2 megapixel will not be good enough? I have a piece o shit bulky 2.1 MP camera now and from my untrained eye seemed to take decent outdoor photos.

Mucho Gracias

[ulty_guy]

i was thinking of springing for the cannon rebel digital slr for xmas. anybody here w/ personal experience on that one?

[The AD]

Is there any reason based on the above information that a 3.2 megapixel will not be good enough?

I'd say it should be plenty. That looks like a good camera for what you want to use it for. It's so small it will never be a hassle to carry around. The only thing I wonder about these really small cameras is if they are actually too small to operate easily.

[Storm11]

i was thinking of springing for the cannon rebel digital slr for xmas. anybody here w/ personal experience on that one?

The D-Rebel is an alright camera for the price. However, the 10D just dropped in price and used one's are in abundance, and I think it's a MUCH better camera than the Rebel...well worth the extra cash. Canon also just came out with the 20D (8mp, 6fps raw up to 23 shots) which I just ordered and should be here tonight. Check out KEH.com, they've got a bunch of good used stuff. Very reliable rating system as well.

[Artie Fufkin]

I'd say it should be plenty. That looks like a good camera for what you want to use it for. It's so small it will never be a hassle to carry around. The only thing I wonder about these really small cameras is if they are actually too small to operate easily.

Thanks. Yeah, I can see the small size being an issue with operation, especially with gloves on. At this point I have to go with something. If I end up getting the SD200 I'll follow up with a review.

[summit]

Please refer to Darkside's comments above. This is a $300 camera for fuck's sake.

See how soft your skiing shot is, Darkside? It would have been much much sharper with the Panasonic. And there's no way a Canon or Nikon are going to have a better lens than the Leica that's on this camera.

Oh great... a Leica snob! Where's your M6? Let's talk about digital camera bokeh!!!

Seriously. That Panasonic 3MP camera has a 1.8sec buffer. A 4sec buffer is not asking too much. My $225 current Canon S45 (released over two years ago) is 4MP and has an almost 7sec buffer for 2.5fps rate. 17 Images! Same specs for the A70 which is also 2 years old, 3.2MP.

When you start talking about 35mm:
I get 5sec out of my EOS 3 + PB-E2 (36 frames @ 7fps).
A used EOS A2 can be had for $50 on ebay and can do 5fps.

[Vinman]

Any opinions of the Fuji S7000? A friend of mine is looking at buying this camera. She just wants to take some good landscapes and some action shots of her dog as well as maybe some macros of flowers and such. I looked at the specs and it seems like a good camera for the price. Any opinions?