|
Took the plunge on the RX100 again  I think between zooming with my feet and improved RAW support, I'll stick with it this time.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Took the plunge on the RX100 again It's pretty amazing what that little camera can put out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm looking for a camera for my girlfriend for a Christmas present (we're apart over the holidays this year so I'm able to take advantage of some sales). Basically she has been looking for a rugged point and shoot that is waterproof. I was looking at the Olympus TG820 and the Fujifilm XP170. The reviews I saw for these are kind of mixed to bad though.. Any suggestions on what other cameras I should be looking at? I'm pretty limited by budget.. I'd like to keep it under $250.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Hey guys, I'm looking for a camera for my girlfriend for a Christmas present (we're apart over the holidays this year so I'm able to take advantage of some sales). A lot of the earlier everything-proof cameras like those two do indeed seal out water and stuff well, but the lenses aren't fantastic. Still, if you just want something fun for the beach or pool, they'll do fine. The new Oly Tough TG-1 is drat near bombproof and has an awesome f/2.0 lens, but I think it runs around $340 new. It's worth looking for a used or refurbished one though. Still, I absolutely love mine and for dicking around at the lake and such it's a blast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Yeh I kind of gave up on the 820 and XP170. When looking into the TG1 (about 70 bucks over my budget) I came across the Panasonic TS4.. which is about 20 bucks over my budget but seems to be a pretty solid camera. Anyone have any experience with this camera? I liked the Wifi feature of the Fuji XP170 but that's pretty gimmicky I think, might just be a pain to upload from the camera. I dont think any of the other rugged-type cameras have a wifi option built in, do they? Edit: Hey DJExile, does your TG-1 have the 'ticking' problem I've been reading about during video filming? (http://youtu.be/jTEQZoTMX8o) dahkren fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Edit: Hey DJExile, does your TG-1 have the 'ticking' problem I've been reading about during video filming? (http://youtu.be/jTEQZoTMX8o) Wow, no I've never heard that. That's nuts. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Phiberoptik posted:I want to get a gift for my girlfriend for christmas. She wants to use it to take pictures for a makeup blog, general family/friend photos, and messing around. Looking to spend about $100-200 preferably. Is there anything good in this range? I just bought a Canon S100 for $250 on Amazon. This is my first camera, and I'm really impressed so far. The ring outside the lens is interesting and convenient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
My girlfriend has the S95 and I found the ring really awkward as someone who only has DSLRs. If I really want to mess with myself I set it to control something like shutter speed. The haptics don't quite match the way the software responds either. The clicks don't quite feel right and the camera lags behind the controls. I guess I'm just used to mechanical controls like a zoom and focus ring of a DSLR. Instant and smooth. But the S90/95/100 is a fantastic point and shoot if you treat it like a point and shoot and not a DSLR like the fellas over at Canon seemed to aim for when installing that ring feature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:My girlfriend has the S95 and I found the ring really awkward as someone who only has DSLRs. If I really want to mess with myself I set it to control something like shutter speed. The haptics don't quite match the way the software responds either. The clicks don't quite feel right and the camera lags behind the controls. I guess I'm just used to mechanical controls like a zoom and focus ring of a DSLR. Instant and smooth. But the S90/95/100 is a fantastic point and shoot if you treat it like a point and shoot and not a DSLR like the fellas over at Canon seemed to aim for when installing that ring feature. That delay also irritates the crap out of me. Especially as, in some cases, turning the ring does nothing: You take a photo, review it and think you can go wider and so turn the ring a couple of clicks. Simple and just way a pro would like it to be? Well no, because the preview was still on the screen and so the camera ignored the turns of the ring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
Honestly I've rarely used the ring on my S90, and usually shoot P. Its killer features are really RAW, a decent sensor, and a good lens.
Spime Wrangler fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Honestly, I just like the ring because it's easier to flip between apertures on the fly when I'm experimenting with different exposures (again, first camera) than going through another tedious menu. I don't have a DSLR to compare it to but I'm sure it's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
 RX100
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
I just picked up the Richard Franiec grip for my RX100. It makes the camera go from "oh god I'm gonna drop this" to something that you'd actually feel comfortable using without a lanyard or strap. The grip itself is small, sturdy, and matches well with the camera. It's held in place with what looks like industrial-strength double sided sticky tape, and has locked the grip in place after about five minutes. Definitely worth the $35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Ahh, I'd totally planned on buying one of those when I got the RX100 but forgot all about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
You know it comes with a wrist strap...right?  I'm just laughing ... it never occurred to me this would be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
I know, but I'm not crazy about the strap. I don't really use them with my DSLRs either, unless I'm shooting a lengthy event.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
I'm thinking of taking the plunge and getting my first proper camera to go on holiday to London after finding my ipod touch and ipad camera useful but extremely lacking over christmas and new year. Though from a quick look at this thread I'm guessing the Canon sXX is recommended (I'd be more likely to go for the 95 rather than the 100) but I'm wondering if there's any opinions on Polaroid's digital camera + printer offerings? Polaroid Z2300 (10mp): http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B008GVXL1A/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1 Polaroid Two (5mp): http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00280D430?qid=1358284746&sr=8-8 They look (relatively) cheap and cheerful, but could be they're cheap and gimmicky rubbish. edit: Mostly I'd just be using it to stick stuff up on flickr and facebook, not looking to really do anything fancy with it. Anime_Otaku fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
If you're mainly looking to upload to flickr and facebook, why buy a camera that has a printer built in? I don't have personal experience with them, but I can assure you it won't hold a candle to Canon's Sxx series. Or other cameras in the same price range that don't have a printer built in. It's a camera you buy specifically for the novelty of printing instantly. If that's what trips your trigger, sure, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
That's actually a really good point, I think the Polaroid just hit my gadget button and overrode my common sense. Now looking at the Fujifilm X10 which I found on Amazon for £299 while the S95 is £299.90, not that I'd quibble over the 90p but the RRP for the Fuji is about £20 higher and the rating is about the same (both 4 1/2 stars but the Canon has more ratings) is the Fuji worth considering, it looks like it's better on paper at least but I am wondering if here's anything less quantifiable to be wary of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Anime_Otaku posted:That's actually a really good point, I think the Polaroid just hit my gadget button and overrode my common sense. I think the X10 is going to have nicer image quality and a better shooting experience (it's got an actual viewfinder to use, for example), but the S95 (which is a few years older) is going to be a bit more pocketable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Thanks. Looks like I may have to see what shops are near me that stock them or the replacement model just to see what I think of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I just picked up the Richard Franiec grip for my RX100. It makes the camera go from "oh god I'm gonna drop this" to something that you'd actually feel comfortable using without a lanyard or strap. The grip itself is small, sturdy, and matches well with the camera. It's held in place with what looks like industrial-strength double sided sticky tape, and has locked the grip in place after about five minutes. Definitely worth the $35. The comments on that are fantastic. "I'm sure it increases the functionality, but it ruins the design aesthetic so your camera won't look as cool when you're using it!" Dipshits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:The comments on that are fantastic. I thought they'd be good for a few laughs, but I left disgusted at the human race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
quote:Original RX100 seems like a camera from Leica, the grip makes it looks like a camera made by Panasonic. I would say "what the gently caress" but as soon as I saw it was on Steve Huff's site I was expecting something almost word for word the same as this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Anime_Otaku posted:That's actually a really good point, I think the Polaroid just hit my gadget button and overrode my common sense. They're both really good cameras. I like the Fuji better myself. It might have a few more quirks but it sure is nice to hold. Checking them out in store is definitely the best way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
There were several other LeicaVirgin posts of idiocy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Anime_Otaku posted:That's actually a really good point, I think the Polaroid just hit my gadget button and overrode my common sense. I'm guessing you're in the UK? If so you might want to consider a refurb direct from fuji, full 12 months warranty. http://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/refurbished-digital-cameras I've never owned a canon S series so I can't compare them like for like, but I do love my X10. So much so I've got an XF-1 being delivered today for my other half (Same sensor, similar lens, smaller body). Though note the comment above "it's got an actual viewfinder to use", while is true, I've found the viewfinder on the X10 isn't really usable/useful in most use cases with the parallax and no focus points. Though the newly announced X20 fixes that and more! And on that note about the viewfinder, the XF-1 might actually be a better buy of the two. Though I won't know until it gets here.....hurry up! \/\/ Edit... My in depth review of it so far - I love it! MeKeV fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jan 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing about the XF-1, looks really nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
Posting to say I love my X10 as well. So much that somebody needs to buy it from me cheap so that I can buy an X20...
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Does anyone have experiences with really low-budget point & shoots? The Canon A2300 and Nikon Coolpix S3300 for example. Are these kinds of cameras at all servicable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
edit: Decided to go with the ELPH 300 HS based on checking a few cameras out in store and reading some comparisons/reviews. I'm currently looking for a good point and shoot to take stock photos of products. Small to medium sized objects (think CDs and DVDs to magazine-sized books). Since most cameras advertise on taking shots of people or landscapes, I'm not sure what to look for. I use a small photo tent and lighting, and need to capture details--mostly small wear, scratches, etc. I currently use a really old Canon PowerShot SD780IS, which takes good photos but has issues with color balance and blur, and I should probably upgrade anyway. I bought a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H90 a while back, which I thought would be an upgrade, but turned out to terrible for my photos. After that, I'm really not sure what to look for in a camera other than a manual mode with a lot of options. Looking to spend less than $200 or so. I'll stick with the Canon PowerShot series for now. I'm assuming that for the most part, a higher model means it's newer and better version? Looking on Amazon, many of the best sellers aren't the newest models, despite being comparable in price (the Powershot Axxxx series for example). What is the difference between the A series, the EPLH (100HS, 300HS etc), and the S series? Keyboard Kid fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
So I'm still looking to get my first camera, I've decided that the XF-1 is a bit expensive for me and really more than I really need at the moment, ideally I'm thinking the max would be £150 and I'm looking for a compact so I can just stick it the case in a pocket when I'm not using it, rechargeable battery would be preferable too. The refurbished Fuji's look good though I am obviously open to suggestions
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
I'm looking to pick up a camera and am looking at the Canon S90/95/100/110. What's the deal with the different versions? I've heard that some older versions are better than the newer ones, but it's never been too convincing. What's the lowdown on which of the series is best? For reference, I probably will not be a very intensive user of my camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
I don't think any older model is "better" (though some people hate specific new features like touch-screen controls...), but often the issue is that the incremental upgrade isn't really worth it for most people over the substantially higher price. So 110 is "best", but 90/95 is probably good enough for you (if you're not going to be an intensive user of it).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I don't think any older model is "better" (though some people hate specific new features like touch-screen controls...), but often the issue is that the incremental upgrade isn't really worth it for most people over the substantially higher price. So 110 is "best", but 90/95 is probably good enough for you (if you're not going to be an intensive user of it). IIRC the 95 has HD video and the 90 does not, so that is a significant upgrade if you are a video user. but otherwise, I'd agree with Teethgrinder - you might as well get the one that you can afford and not worry you are getting lesser
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
The S100/110 can only do long exposures at ISO 80.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:The S100/110 can only do long exposures at ISO 80. Using CHDK gets around that, but yes that is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
derp
aleph1 fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
Amazon has the S100 for $249. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSh...oom+%28Black%29
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
I have an unusual question for this thread: I'm looking for something that's a step up from a webcam for video purposes. I remember a few years back that many point and shoot cameras could be used as a webcam, but trying to find out what models these days have this feature is nearly impossible. If any camera does have this feature, they sure as hell don't advertise it. Here's my situation, just in case someone has a better idea of what to do. I'm a (volunteer, less-than-amateur) audio/video guy for an annual charity gaming marathon (AGDQ for those who know it), and we stream the event live. In the past, we used webcams such as the Logitech C920, but we'd like to use something with a bit more quality and low light performance. Audio quality is irrelevant (don't use it). Since we pay for everything out of pocket, we can't justify just buying some $1000 camera kit for the job. I was hoping to find some solution that's somewhere in the middle, thus point and shoot cameras. Requirements: 720p 30fps, can handle being run 24/7 (not recording, just streaming). Wishlist: 720p 60fps (we already stream at 60fps, might as well), can lock/manual focus in some form. Also, I'd like to point out that we're trying to avoid HDMI, as HDMI video capture would require more hardware in our streaming machine. We can deal with it if it's a really good deal (and has clean output), but ideally it'd be something that runs on USB. Does anyone have any solid recommendations for such a camera? If a point and shoot isn't the best option, what should I be looking for, or at least where should I ask on SA for better ideas?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 06:10
|
|