|
Thanks. I ended up getting the s100 on amazon for 380. The better video and wide angle appeals to me. Plus if I'll be traveling the GPS thing looks pretty cool. I'm kind of nervous about the lens error thing I've been reading about, but I'll have a month and a half before I move to give it a workout.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
David Pogue is dropping hints about a stunning new camera - seems like it's probably the RX100. I'm seriously considering placing an order on Amazon just so I can be in line when it comes back in stock and, hell, even flip it for a profit, but probably just keep it. I bet it'll be hard to find this camera initially.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
DJExile posted:In other news, THE TOUGH TG-1 IS HERE. IT IS ALSO IN MY HAND. IT MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN IN MY PANTS Where's that review, huh?  Just kidding. How's the display under sunlight? How's the image compare to your other cameras? Does the GPS require downloading map data like some other cameras?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 11:43
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:Where's that review, huh?  Display is fine under the sun. I hadn't really noticed before but in playing around with it some more it is a pretty wide lens. I think 25mm equivalent. Maybe it just seems wider to me too because nothing extends from the body, it's all contained. Images seem fantastic so far but I haven't pulled anything to my computer. I just got it back from the shop. The sealing is everything they advertised. Ran it through the sink, dropped it in a friend's pool, no problems.  I'm going out today to get a ton of shots with it and will give you guys a full writeup either tonight or tomorrow I PROMISE. It's been a busy rear end week but I should be either free tonight or tomorrow since I've got a 5 hour flight. Maybe I'll write a review from 35,000 feet on that fancy pants wifi they have on planes now. I haven't played with the GPS at all yet. I'll get on that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Coming at you live from 36,000 somewhere above Tornado Alley The GPS system is ready to roll right out of the box. You can update information from your computer but it doesn't seem necessary. It actually will give you your coordinates right from the camera, and even includes a tiny digital compass at the bottom of the screen. Very cool. I didn't leave it on too long so I can't tell you yet how much a toll it takes on the battery. Screen is plenty bright and I had no problems in the sun. There are seriously something like 30 shooting modes and filters on this thing. Basic AUTO, P, Sports, Low Light, and a couple custom settings are nice, then poo poo gets crazy. Under the "SCN" section on the dial, you're presented with the following modes. All come with basic descriptions and you need to hear some of them. They're hilarious: Portrait, Beauty ("Brings your subjects to life to create dynamic portrait pictures", I have no idea), Landscape, Night Scene, Night Portrait, Indoor, Candle, Self Portrait ("Lets you take a picture of yourself while holding the camera", I swear to god that's what it says  ) Sunset, Fireworks, Cuisine ("For still life photography. Vividly reproduces colors of fruit, vegetables, flowers, etc."), Documents, Beach & Snow, Underwater Snapshot, Underwater Wide 1, Underwater Wide 2, Underwater Macro, Pet Mode - Cat ("Camera automatically takes a picture when a cat's face is detected. I tested this on Winston and holy poo poo it works really well), Pet Mode - Dog (same thing as cat, haven't tested it), Snow, Panorama, 3D Photo ("Pictures to display on a 3D TV or monitor", HDR.Then, because that's not nutty enough, there is the "Magic" setting on the dial. These are the crazy art filters that Olympus seems to enjoy. Pop Art, Pin Hole, Fisheye, Drawing (takes 2 photos, one standard, one in this really neat B&W 'sketch', I'll post an example), Soft Focus, Punk (black image on pink background), Sparkle (adds a cross flare on any light source), Watercolor (loving LSD mode or something holy poo poo), Reflection, Miniature (sort of a tilt-shift), Fragmented, and Dramatic (basically HDR). A lot of these can be used in video as well, which is a fun time. I do miss the "Grainy Film" filter that the DSLRs run though. That was cool. I probably won't use a lot of the filters but some of them are pretty cool, I have to admit. One minor annoyance, they automatically set the flash back to Auto every time you move between one of these modes. It stays off on Program, so at least I can default back to that. I-AUTO so far has done a great job of recognizing what you're shooting and adjusting to it. Recognizes landscapes very well and usually puts the aperture somewhere between f/8 and f/13. In most lower light and portraits it will automatically default to f/2.0 or f/2.8. When you move to the W/B section of Program or a Custom setting, it actually scrolls through a series of mini preview windows at the bottom of the screen, showing you what each setting would see. Very neat. There are two CWB settings you can use as well. Zoom is a little slow, which is probably to be expected since everything's contained in the body, and nothing telescopes out. There is digital zoom beyond 4x and it actually doesn't deteriorate quality by much. Neat. Buttons are all laid out well. The mode wheel is a little difficult to change with wet hands but not annoyingly so. Battery life seems pretty solid. Took about 100 pictures yesterday, maybe 30 with flash, and 2 videos of about 30 seconds each. Battery seemed to be at about 2/3 capacity afterwards. That seems fine by me. EXAMPLE PHOTOS. All of these are straight out of the camera, no crop.  Cat Mode  It would fire any time Winston would look at it. Very cool. Reflection  Dramatic. This was taken right after the previous one. Apparently I grew one hell of a goatee in those 15 seconds.  Fragmented. I have to say this is a hell of a lot of fun.  Punk. "Drawing" took this picture:  and turned it into this:   Landscape. I'll try to get some underwater shots when I can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
There's something wrong when the special effects that are thrown in for free on a P&S are more imaginative than the ones included in the hugely expensive Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
spog posted:There's something wrong when the special effects that are thrown in for free on a P&S are more imaginative than the ones included in the hugely expensive Photoshop. Ordinarily I look past things like these but I have to say I'm really enjoying a lot of them. Sadly you can't run video on "Fragmented" because that would be trippy as hell. "Drawing" is fantastic when you have something pretty high-contrast. Even "Mirror" is worth some laughs. They're probably not anything i'm going to use for serious pictures, but for dicking around and having some fun, they're great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:David Pogue is dropping hints about a stunning new camera - seems like it's probably the RX100. Pogue confirmed it's the rx100 edit: The rx100 is within budget but the cheapass in me is hoping for the s100 to drop to 300 bucks. lostleaf fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Greetings P&S thread. I'm looking to get a new camera to replace my God-awful, lovely Kodak. It was something my parents got for me for X-Mas, and honestly, it's the worst camera I've ever owned. Worse than the first digital camera I got back in 2002. I've read the OP and the last couple pages, so I know that the S95/S100 are the popular choices, but I'd prefer to spend a little less. What's the consensus on the SX210? Obviously it must be missing some features the S-series have to be $100 less...from my limited understanding of camera specs, it seems the SX has a small maximum aperture size, which would reduce its capabilities in low-light conditions, right? (Oh God, I hope I'm not sounding like an idiot...  )VVVEdit: Fixed...by which I mean I fixed what I typed, because I meant the SX210.VVV DrBouvenstein fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I've read the OP and the last couple pages, so I know that the S95/S100 are the popular choices, but I'd prefer to spend a little less. What's the consensus on the SX100?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Greetings P&S thread. I'm looking to get a new camera to replace my God-awful, lovely Kodak. It was something my parents got for me for X-Mas, and honestly, it's the worst camera I've ever owned. Worse than the first digital camera I got back in 2002. I think the consensus is that it's much worse than the previous SX200 and the newer SX230, in terms of general image quality and especially in terms of lower light functionality. An Sx230 is $199 new and much less second hand. I can imagine you don't need to get the SX250, but 210 is not a great choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
ma i married a tuna posted:An Sx230 is $199 new and much less second hand. I can imagine you don't need to get the SX250, but 210 is not a great choice. Where are you finding an SX230 new for $199? A refurb direct from Canon is $209... So basically, I'm debating between an SX230 or an S95...I'm guessing the thread consensus will be S95? FTR, this will just be for basic photography from trips, general walking around "ooh, that's neat" shots, friend and family gatherings, etc... I just really like having that large optical zoom on the SX series. Many times with my older cameras I've wanted to take a picture of something and can't because of a crappy zoom...of course, I guess that large zoom is pointless if the sensor, lens, and aperture can't make it look good at a high zoom level, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
weird, I looked on amazon before that post and now prices appear to have jumped up. My guess would be it'll be back to $199 in the next few weeks, if you can hold off your purchase, you can probably get it for that. If you're inbetween SX230 and S95, the S95 is the better camera. The difference isn't huge though, and the feature set might sway you towards SX230. S95 will be better indoors, using auto mode (which is on recommended) and slightly better image quality. SX230 has HD video and a much larger zoom. It can also do slow-motion SD video, which is a very cool gimmick. On auto it tends to crank up ISO for no reason, but it's capable of taking very good pix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
I had signed up a while back for the X10 sensor replacement list, and just wanted to update anyone with an X10 that it looks like they have their poo poo together with the replacements. I got the email saying to mail it to NJ over the weekend, shipped it out Monday, they emailed me today (Thursday) in the morning saying they'd received the camera and this afternoon saying they'd shipped it back to me via Fedex. I'll post again when I get it back to see how the new sensor does, and see if they cleaned the dust out of the lens like I asked...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
How's the ELPH 300? Girlfriend wants something for our upcoming vacation. Requirements are ~$200, very portable, user friendly, no glaring flaws. She's running a half-marathon so decent sports photography performance would be a big plus. Don't really care about ultra-low-light performance or extreme zoom or anything like that. She basically wants something that performs as well as my phone, but isn't my phone, so she has an excuse to spend money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:How's the ELPH 300? Girlfriend wants something for our upcoming vacation. Requirements are ~$200, very portable, user friendly, no glaring flaws. She's running a half-marathon so decent sports photography performance would be a big plus. Don't really care about ultra-low-light performance or extreme zoom or anything like that. She basically wants something that performs as well as my phone, but isn't my phone, so she has an excuse to spend money. What exactly is she looking for in terms of "sports performance"? Most of the time, when you want to shoot sports, you need a long and bright lens. Most P&S cameras are weaker on the long end of their zoom. If you just want shots as people take off from the marathon and such, it might be OK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:12
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:How's the ELPH 300? Girlfriend wants something for our upcoming vacation. Requirements are ~$200, very portable, user friendly, no glaring flaws. She's running a half-marathon so decent sports photography performance would be a big plus. Don't really care about ultra-low-light performance or extreme zoom or anything like that. She basically wants something that performs as well as my phone, but isn't my phone, so she has an excuse to spend money. Almost no P&S cameras are what you'd call 'good' for sports photography, and Canon is worse than some. One of the major things to consider is autofocus speed, which is an area where DSLRs are miles and miles ahead. But that's talking about real sports photography - capturing a precise moment half a football field away in painstaking detail. For a picture of your girlfriend running, the ELPH will most likely be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:I had signed up a while back for the X10 sensor replacement list, and just wanted to update anyone with an X10 that it looks like they have their poo poo together with the replacements. I got the email saying to mail it to NJ over the weekend, shipped it out Monday, they emailed me today (Thursday) in the morning saying they'd received the camera and this afternoon saying they'd shipped it back to me via Fedex. I'll post again when I get it back to see how the new sensor does, and see if they cleaned the dust out of the lens like I asked... Looks like they sent a whole brand new camera! Haven't gotten the chance to test it, but that's cool of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
How are you liking the X10 anyway? Since I broke my s90 I've been thinking about what I want out of a point and shoot. The canon S series is awesome but I missed how great my old g9 felt in my hands and liked that I could shoot with the camera up to my face thanks to the view finder. I was considering the Canon g1x but I decided I don't like the fly by wire zoom; it's always jankey. I think I'm attracted to the X10 because seems like a camera that can used like/shoot like a slr or rangefinder instead of a slower point and shoot. I'm not really interested in systems with interchangeable lenses; at that point I may as well just lug around my slr. I just want an all in one system that I can jam in a big pocket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
I like it a lot. Great handling and build quality, love the manual zoom and the controls are good with the firmware now giving it two customizable buttons. The rangefinder look is sweet, but I never use the optical viewfinder. I'm slightly colorblind so I like that it puts out great looking color/skintones on its own, with great JPEGs too for my eye-fi card (great at parties, shoots JPEGs straight to my phone so I can email people pictures they like). The built in flash does good fill by default, and the camera is decent enough in low light anyways (only goes down from f2.0 to f2.8 at the long end) with noise only really starting to show up at ISO 1600. It's small enough that I can cram it in my pocket to use as a meter for my meter-less medium format camera. The panorama mode works well for a gimmick, though most of the EXR trickery seems only mildly useful. Really the only downside for me was the cost; I paid $500 new for mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
After reading this thread I'm super pumped to buy the s100, thanks guys! edit: anddd I went and bought one oof expensive Harry Potter on Ice fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Well this is a huge bummer, I'm by no means a good photographer but having the s100 be limited to iso80 for any time above 1 second loving sucks. Why did they do this? Everything else is great... Time to return it.. I love messing around camping and this was a big letdown. Any recommendations for something in the similar price range that can do this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
Harry Potter on Ice posted:Well this is a huge bummer, I'm by no means a good photographer but having the s100 be limited to iso80 for any time above 1 second loving sucks. Why did they do this? Everything else is great... Time to return it.. I love messing around camping and this was a big letdown. Any recommendations for something in the similar price range that can do this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
Harry Potter on Ice posted:Well this is a huge bummer, I'm by no means a good photographer but having the s100 be limited to iso80 for any time above 1 second loving sucks. Why did they do this? Everything else is great... Time to return it.. I love messing around camping and this was a big letdown. Any recommendations for something in the similar price range that can do this? I am curious why you need this functionality?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
spog posted:I am curious why you need this functionality? I'd find it pretty restricting to only be able to use the weakest available ISO setting while shooting long exposures. Shooting on a dark night?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/t...&ref=technologyquote:Now you know why the time is ripe for the new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100. It’s a tiny, pants-pocketable camera that will be available in late July for the nosebleed price of $650. Read the article. I'm not sure how to take it. Maybe someone can go over sensor sizes with me again, but I'm confused at what he's bragging about here. According to BHphotovideo.com, the sensor size is 13.2 x 8.8mm, but a Sigma DP2x, for roughly the same price, is 20.7 x 13.8mm. That's tremendously better, isn't it? Why all the fuss about this camera then? the fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jun 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
More zooms and apertures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
the posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/t...&ref=technology It's hype plain and simple. The sensor in that camera is Nikon CX sized and is not much later technology thus it gives comparable results. That means it is indeed better than most compacts, but for the price I don't really see the point, yet. Yet? Well, there is the interesting twist that the camera is similar in size to Canons S90/S95/S100 line. It also offers a better sensor and brighter lens. If it weren't for the price it would be a nice kick in Canon's rear end. Given Canons track record in this market segment, don't expect them to come up with any miracles though. We'll probably see some lukewarm rehash. That said if you got the money, and they don't botch it up in the last minute, then Sony's solution seems to be shaping up as the go-to shirt-pocket camera. Here's a more level-headed preview courtesy of DPreview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/ Edit: Not smaller. Duh! VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Canon already put out the G1X, which has a slightly larger sensor than m4/3 but worse lens than that Sony (basically a suped up G12). I haven't heard people being that enthusiastic about it though. I've handled both cameras, actually just this lunchtime actually - and the G1X is a god drat tank compared to the Sony RX100. It's really much closer to a S100 size wise. That said your point still stands; people aren't really enthused about it, probably because the price on both cameras is completely ridiculous. You can get an entry level dSLR kit for the same amount of money. And with that you will have something that crushes both cameras from usability and IQ standpoints ,let alone lens selection, expandability etc. And in case of the G1X the size & weight difference vs entry level dSLR isn't even that big. I mean not from a "size in mm", but practical standpoint. You can't pocket it, unless you're wearing cargo pants or a thick jacket. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
Yeah I think the point is that people are looking for something more portable and (at least from my standpoint) less intrusive. I like shooting "from the hip" at gatherings, capturing spontaneous moments, and being invisible while doing it. A giant SLR doesn't help, not to mention it weighs on my neck after a few hours. I want a portable camera that takes solid photos and functions in low light (because once that flash goes off, everyone notices). The point is, I'd rather spend $700 on a p/s digital with a prime lens than an entry level dSLR. I already have this one, anyway, but I'd like to get a digital version at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:I'd find it pretty restricting to only be able to use the weakest available ISO setting while shooting long exposures. Shooting on a dark night? I'm curious what subject there is that is okay for 2s exposure, but cannot allow you to use 8s the posted:Maybe someone can go over sensor sizes with me again, but I'm confused at what he's bragging about here. According to BHphotovideo.com, the sensor size is 13.2 x 8.8mm, but a Sigma DP2x, for roughly the same price, is 20.7 x 13.8mm. That's tremendously better, isn't it? Why all the fuss about this camera then? Apart from the afore-mentioned hype, the Sigma really dropped the ball with the software and the performance was crap (both slow to take images and poor final quality) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/23
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
spog posted:I'm curious what subject there is that is okay for 2s exposure, but cannot allow you to use 8s Avoiding star trails, for one. I can easily seeing him needing more than 30 seconds to get a great "Milky Way" shot of the sky when he's limited to ISO 80. And then he's into streaking territory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Harry Potter on Ice posted:Well this is a huge bummer, I'm by no means a good photographer but having the s100 be limited to iso80 for any time above 1 second loving sucks. Why did they do this? Everything else is great... Time to return it.. I love messing around camping and this was a big letdown. Any recommendations for something in the similar price range that can do this? Two things... 1. Is that even the case on Manual mode? 2. How about using CHDK to be able to let you set all those things, even ones outside of the limits Canon pre-defines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
David Pogue seems to love the Sony RX100 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/personaltech/a-pocket-camera-even-pro-photographers-can-love-state-of-the-art.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
S100 is down to $325 at Adorama. Very tempting. http://www.adorama.com/ICAS100BK.html Although this probably means we're getting something new soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:S100 is down to $325 at Adorama. Very tempting. $365 when I just added it. What's the release cycle like? I just lost my s95 and am looking to get a replacement. I've got 4-5 weeks that I can wait, and would of course prefer to not buy an s100 if they're about to replace it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Sad Panda posted:$365 when I just added it. I stripped the affiliate link thinking it would still work, but I guess you can't do that: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03773/Canon-PowerShot-S100-Black-price.html It shows up as $325 when you go through canonpricewatch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Sad Panda posted:What's the release cycle like? I just lost my s95 and am looking to get a replacement. I've got 4-5 weeks that I can wait, and would of course prefer to not buy an s100 if they're about to replace it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
I stopped in to see what the thread thought of the RX100; I can't wait to play around with one. I don't think I'll actually buy it, because that's just a poo poo-ton of money, but who knows? It reminds me a lot (and Sony, too, apparently, given the name) of the Sony DSC-R1 I used to have. It's an attractive proposition in terms of a pocketable point&shoot backup to my K5, but one with whose image quality I wouldn't really be too unhappy with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 13:41
|
|
