|
hairysammoth posted:I reckon subx is on the money here: my guess would be that any non-awful contemporary P&S would be a very pleasant upgrade from both your current cameras. Just checking back to say that we will probably end up getting this Fujifilm FinePix. She wants to keep her camera budget under $200, and she is using the current camera she hates more often than she thought. This sounds like it works great, we just gotta get the cash sorted out and then we'll put in the order on Amazon.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2011 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
My sister is having a baby in a few months (I'm going to be an uncle, woo!), and I decided they need a better camera than the one they currently have. I know my way around photography cameras, so picking out a camera that takes good quality photos won't be a problem. I don't know much about video capabilities of point and shoot cameras and how they match up with todays video cameras. If they want good quality photographs as well as good quality video, is that possible with recent point and shoot cameras or are they better off getting a video camera for their videos?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
So I'm trying to find the greatest zoom that I can without breaking concert venue rules. I know the big event center by me just says "no removable lenses and no pro cameras" but I've read that a lot of places also stipulate no lens over two inches. First, does anyone know if that means two inches as the base of the lens when the camera is turned off, or two inches fully zoomed? Second, I'm currently looking at the Nikon 9100 and the L120. The 9100 I could easily get in, but the L120 seems like it just barely be under the two inches. Obviously the L120 would be preferrable if I can work it out. Anyone have any experience with this/knowledge of it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Koth posted:My sister is having a baby in a few months (I'm going to be an uncle, woo!), and I decided they need a better camera than the one they currently have. I know my way around photography cameras, so picking out a camera that takes good quality photos won't be a problem. I think most P&S cameras made recently have 720p video capability. People looking for a camera for the baby aren't looking to make great art. Just to get cute pictures of their kid to put on Facebook or email to the grandparents. I suggest getting something slim enough to fit into a pants pocket, so they can carry it around all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So I'm trying to find the greatest zoom that I can without breaking concert venue rules. I know the big event center by me just says "no removable lenses and no pro cameras" but I've read that a lot of places also stipulate no lens over two inches. First, does anyone know if that means two inches as the base of the lens when the camera is turned off, or two inches fully zoomed? Second, I'm currently looking at the Nikon 9100 and the L120. The 9100 I could easily get in, but the L120 seems like it just barely be under the two inches. Obviously the L120 would be preferrable if I can work it out. That looks a lot like a SLR camera, which is probably what their "no pro cameras" mean. Good luck teaching the $6/hr security guard the difference between a high-end bridge camera and a "pro camera". You could just get a regular DSLR, put a nifty fifty lens on it (it's pretty small), and play dumb. No sir, I don't think the lens comes off, I got it on sale at Best Buy! 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:That looks a lot like a SLR camera, which is probably what their "no pro cameras" mean. Good luck teaching the $6/hr security guard the difference between a high-end bridge camera and a "pro camera". Yeah, I've been scouring the Internet and it looks like what I want isn't feasible with current technology. It's either too large, lacks the zoom, or has poor low light performance. Nothing I can find manages to integrate those three things.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Yeah, I've been scouring the Internet and it looks like what I want isn't feasible with current technology. It's either too large, lacks the zoom, or has poor low light performance. Nothing I can find manages to integrate those three things. Ninja suit.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Stick a circular piece of tinfoil on the front of a body cap and walk through security without a lens on it, pretending you have a pancake lens. Hide a 70-210 in your underwear: down the front if you want to attract the ladies, down the back if you want a clear space left around you.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
spog posted:Stick a circular piece of tinfoil on the front of a body cap and walk through security without a lens on it, pretending you have a pancake lens. Or just try to get a photo pass 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Yeah, I've been scouring the Internet and it looks like what I want isn't feasible with current technology. It's either too large, lacks the zoom, or has poor low light performance. Nothing I can find manages to integrate those three things. The newish Olympus SZ-30MR doesn't look too threatening, has a 25-600mm equiv zoom, and is meant to be good in low light (though I can't say I've ever tried one personally). The lens is hilariously big once it's, erm, unfurled, but seems nicely innocuous when turned off:  Probe the root.  Work the shaft!  SAY THE NAME! (This is why I have to have fixed focal length optics; I'm too immature for zoom lenses.) Does the 2" restriction apply to the maximum length, or the at rest length? I was going to suggest the novelty option of a Ricoh GXR - nobody knows what the hell they are, so go in with the 28mm lens, and then swap the CCD unit with the 28-300mm body. But I figure 28-300mm won't really cut it, and besides, the zoom unit actually seems significantly slimmer than the wideangle one. Bet you'd be the only person in the joint with a GXR though, so that's fun.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 10:13
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Or just try to get a photo pass  Even people with the city paper don't get press passes to a lot of the shows at our event center (probably depends on the act, I suppose). I have a friend who works there and I once asked him where the press pit was and he was like "what?" Apparently there's a second floor balcony where press sits but they close a big curtain on it once the show starts so they can't take any pictures. hairysammoth posted:The newish Olympus SZ-30MR doesn't look too threatening, has a 25-600mm equiv zoom, and is meant to be good in low light (though I can't say I've ever tried one personally). The lens is hilariously big once it's, erm, unfurled, but seems nicely innocuous when turned off: I'm going to look into this, thanks. And yeah, I really don't know what the lens length refers to, but I'm guessing if it just looks like a standard P&S they're not going to make you turn it on and extend it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
My old Panasonic Lumix just poo poo the bed (not bad considering I bought it like 6 years ago) and the wife and I are looking for a new point and shoot to buy, like, today (we have some important stuff coming up this weekend). The S95 is a bit out of our price range, so I would like to know if I can get the following: -Is sold at a major retailer -Takes very, very fast photos (one thing she hated about the Panasonic was the good 3 seconds it would take between pressing the button and it taking a photo). Faster, the better here. -Takes decent to good pictures If someone could recommend one, I'll buy it today. Super emphasis on the speed in which you press the button and when the picture is actually taken. Double points if you can spaz out and just keep pressing it and it can take like 5 a second or something. Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
We had a discussion similar to this in a different thread. I don't think you can get a point and shoot that shoots must faster than 1 frame per second. Also, autofocus on P&Ss pretty much always suck. I don't think you'll be able to find anything without the shutter lag outside of a dslr. Sorry to be such a downer, but autofocus speed and frames per second are some of the major reasons people buy dslrs.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
The S95 takes just under 2 shots per second, the LX-5 can get up to 10 shots per second: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q42010highendcompactgroup/page2.asp but these are brand new and out of the price range.Hamburglar posted:My old Panasonic Lumix just poo poo the bed (not bad considering I bought it like 6 years ago) and the wife and I are looking for a new point and shoot to buy, like, today (we have some important stuff coming up this weekend). The S95 is a bit out of our price range, so I would like to know if I can get the following: Have you checked how much are S90's going for in decent condition?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
Just tested S90 is 1/s on large jpg and ~.75/s (2 pics every 3 seconds) in RAW (continuous shooting mode and image review off).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
spf3million posted:We had a discussion similar to this in a different thread. I don't think you can get a point and shoot that shoots must faster than 1 frame per second. Also, autofocus on P&Ss pretty much always suck. I don't think you'll be able to find anything without the shutter lag outside of a dslr. Sorry to be such a downer, but autofocus speed and frames per second are some of the major reasons people buy dslrs. Really? I just tested my GRD III, and it can shoot at 2 frames a second even in RAW - and I wasn't aware it was meant to be a class-leader in that regard. It's also got a lower-resolution continuous mode that shoots at 7.5 frames per second. Is that so unusual? I'll admit, I knew I didn't want to buy a slow camera shot-to-shot, but I hadn't thought I'd picked up one of the fastest... /edit: Here's a handy, sortable table of shutter lag and frames per second. The Nikon S8000 sounds cheap and promising; it may well be up your alley. And it seems you're right, spf3million - the fastest point & shoot camera on that chart does five shots in 6.17 seconds, and my GRD does it in just over 5 including processing to card. Seems I've got an unusually fast camera! Who knew. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ $400 on eBay, but yeah, I see your point. I always rather assumed that the Ricoh was the technological equivalent of a $300 P&S camera from one of the bigger manufacturers, what with the economies of scale and all. Seems I was being a bit unfair on the poor thing! And yes, it seems that the S8000 really does focus in under 0.2 seconds. Sounds like it's something of an aberration though; it has some weird "DSLR-like" auto-focus technique, whatever that means. I assumed it meant phase- rather than contrast-based AF, but apparently not. Lord knows how it does it. hairysammoth fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
In all fairness, that costs, what $500? I don't claim to be an expert but I doubt that anything $200 or under will be able to go much over 1 fps. Maybe there is something out there but I've never heard of it. e: ^^^ that's a nice list. I wonder if the "one photo" takes focusing into account. I highly doubt it. <0.2 seconds to focus and take a photo? I would personally be amazed. spf3million fucked around with this message at 14:29 on May 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for the fast replies. I can go for the S95 if I really have to, but if I can save a few bucks I'd love to. The thing is my friend has an iPhone and I swear I could just keep tapping my thumb as fast as possible and it just keeps taking pics. I understand this is a phone with an operating system and its own processor, but I thought since I had been out of the camera "scene" for quite a long time that speed had made huge leaps. I guess it's not important to most people.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:And yes, it seems that the S8000 really does focus in under 0.2 seconds. Sounds like it's something of an aberration though; it has some weird "DSLR-like" auto-focus technique, whatever that means. I assumed it mean phase- rather than contrast-based AF, but apparently not. Lord knows how it does it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
Hamburglar posted:Thanks a lot for the fast replies. I can go for the S95 if I really have to, but if I can save a few bucks I'd love to. Well, for cheap, I'd say the same as I suggested to Chainclaw: see if you can't get your hands on a Fujifilm F80 and see how it grabs you. (In fact, if you're still around bud, I'd love to know how you're getting on with it - I only had a couple of days with the one I tried.) It comes in as "average" in the speed stakes, but noticeably faster than the Canon S95. And it's now $150, which is silly cheap for what it offers. spf3million posted:That's cool, I'd like to see it in action. Unfortunate that it has a max aperture of f/3.5. hairysammoth fucked around with this message at 15:57 on May 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Hamburglar posted:The thing is my friend has an iPhone and I swear I could just keep tapping my thumb as fast as possible and it just keeps taking pics. I understand this is a phone with an operating system and its own processor, but I thought since I had been out of the camera "scene" for quite a long time that speed had made huge leaps. I guess it's not important to most people.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
drat, the S8000 is not available anywhere near me, same goes for the Fuji camera recommended by hairysammoth. I know the Canon S95 probably takes a great picture but I know my wife, she's gonna hate it if it's one of those deals where she has to hold down the shoot button and wait and hope the exact picture she was trying to take changes (figures she likes taking pictures of crap that moves).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:Yeah, weird eh? Seems odd to go to all that trouble on the autofocus and then slap a slow-assed lens on it. There's only so much you can do with a tiny zoom lens on a cheap P&S.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Also it's worth mentioning that most of the people I know who complain about their slow point and shoots made the mistake of just buying "x gb SD card", and bought a Class 2 or 4 speed card without understanding what a huge difference slow read/write speed makes.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:Also it's worth mentioning that most of the people I know who complain about their slow point and shoots made the mistake of just buying "x gb SD card", and bought a Class 2 or 4 speed card without understanding what a huge difference slow read/write speed makes. Nah I only buy those Ultra Sandisk cards (Ultra 2 I believe, maybe even 3). Still slow as poo poo so I'm assuming it's just because my Panasonic is pretty old. Edit: She's down with the Canon S95 because it has something called "burst mode" which is supposed to mean it takes pics fast? But now she's asking me if there's a way to "write on the pictures".  What she means is she gets annoyed not knowing where any of the pics are from (whose wedding, what part of the world, etc.) and wants to be able to name the files from the camera itself. She must have seen this feature somewhere, but I'd expect that in a $30 Polaroid FunCam(tm) and not this beast. Chumbawumba4ever97 fucked around with this message at 19:09 on May 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
Hamburglar posted:Edit: She's down with the Canon S95 because it has something called "burst mode" which is supposed to mean it takes pics fast?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Yeah I am going to go by a store and try a bunch out, but I figured the display models are gonna be all "PLEASE INSERT MEMORY CARD" when I try to see how fast they take pics.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
I ended up getting the Canon S95. It takes beautiful pics and the wife was more than happy with the speed in which it took pictures. I guess she somehow expects cameras to take pictures as fast as the old disposable ones; I told her it ain't happening. Now to figure out how to take nice pics with this thing rather than only use auto all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
Hamburglar posted:I ended up getting the Canon S95. It takes beautiful pics and the wife was more than happy with the speed in which it took pictures. I guess she somehow expects cameras to take pictures as fast as the old disposable ones; I told her it ain't happening. you will NOT be disappointed  enjoy your amazing point and shoot... I just recommend shooting raw all the time if you plan on doing any correction in Lightroom or PS.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:you will NOT be disappointed Thanks! I look forward to using it more and learning the ins and outs
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
Are there any decent nikon point and shoots out there? I have a dslr, but I really want a point in shoot for times that I dont carry my camera case around...something I can just stash in my purse or something. I was looking at the nikon coolpix S3100. since I have an expensive camera I'm not really looking into anything for over $200 bucks really. I've read very conflicting reviews about this camera, so what are your inputs?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
scorntic posted:Are there any decent nikon point and shoots out there? I have a dslr, but I really want a point in shoot for times that I dont carry my camera case around...something I can just stash in my purse or something. Why does it have to be a Nikon?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Why does it have to be a Nikon? I've only shot with nikon cameras, thats basically the only reason. The only other brand of camera I'd probably ever get is canon.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
scorntic posted:I've only shot with nikon cameras, thats basically the only reason. The only other brand of camera I'd probably ever get is canon. If this is concern for relearning a new interface, be aware that because point-and-shoots are so far from DSLRs in terms of handling that it won't even matter. The S90 has a fantastic interface compared to every point-and-shoot I've ever held, too, so that helps. And I've only ever used Nikon DSLRs (and FSLRs, too)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 08:52
|
|
|
scorntic posted:I've only shot with nikon cameras, thats basically the only reason. The only other brand of camera I'd probably ever get is canon. I'd understand that of SLRs, but the Nikon/Canon axis doesn't really exist in the Point & Shoot world. Nikon, in particular, have struggled to create truly memorable, great P&S cameras. There are exceptions, sure; but the difference is that a lot of different P&S brands share the same parts from 3rd party manufacturers. The sensors, in particular, are usually made by Sony - regardless of what brand P&S you buy. If I recall correctly, Canon do make some of their own CCDs, but Nikon don't. That's not to say you shouldn't get a Nikon, it's just that the Nikon and Canon that make SLRs are quite different from the Nikon and Canon that make point and shoots... If this is nothing to do with SLR cameras though, then ignore all that and go nuts! But seriously, Nikon doesn't have anything in the same league as the S90/S95 at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
scorntic posted:Are there any decent nikon point and shoots out there? I have a dslr, but I really want a point in shoot for times that I dont carry my camera case around...something I can just stash in my purse or something. I stick with canon for my point and shoots and nikon for my dslr. I went with canon for point and shoots going on 11 years now. The button layout and menus are similar for each one I bought so its easy to know where my controls are at. Started with a SD100 then SD780 now S95. I couldn't be happier with the S95 its small enough to put in my pocket and I can finally set it up in manual when I wanted and shoot raw. I have never been disappointed in any of my canons so far either so personally I would suggest checking out canon myself. And that SD100 still works, but the original battery is not holding a charge for very long anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
scorntic posted:nikon coolpix S3100 I'm thinking of getting one of these as well. Whats the best macro shots I can get out of a P&S thats $150ish? I'm wanting clear, full frame photos with a decent FOD of objects about the size of a penny. The Nikon coolpix 950 can do this: http://www.dpreview.com/news/9905/99050701macro950.asp Is there another model that can really get up close?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
Hamburglar posted:Yeah I am going to go by a store and try a bunch out, but I figured the display models are gonna be all "PLEASE INSERT MEMORY CARD" when I try to see how fast they take pics. I usually take a memory card with me when I go check out cameras for this exact reason. I usually know what brands I'm gonna look at and if not I bring an SD/xD/Sony charge-more-for-our-own-brand-memory stick pro.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
moss piglet posted:The Nikon coolpix 950 can do this: http://www.dpreview.com/news/9905/99050701macro950.asp I don't know about picture comparison, but dpreview.com lists the closest focus the camera can achieve in macro mode for all the models. It says the Nikon 950 has a 2 cm macro focus, which is indeed less than most. Most seem to be about 5 cm, with some being 3 cm or even 10 cm. My Mom's Nikon S4000 can also achieve 2 cm. So I'd just look on dpreview.com for cameras that interest you and look up their macro range. edit: The s3100 would apparently be a poor choice for you because it has a 10 cm minimum macro focus range, and it also lacks image stabilization, unlike the S4000, according to dpreview.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
my Canon S5 IS had a "super macro" mode which could focus from 0cm. Problem was you were locked to the widest focal length, so it wasn't really all that close up, plus shadows from the big travel zoom were hard to deal with.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 18:13
|
|
