Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
mathaeis
Dec 16, 2007
severely pro
I've finally been looking to upgrade my ancient digital camera (Sony DSC-S85 4MP camera) and I'm having a bit of trouble making a decision, so perhaps you all might be able to offer some insight. Best Buy was the first place I just browsed around, and I looked at the Sony Cybershot W350 and H55, the Canon Powershot SD1300 and 1400, and the Panasonic Lumix ZS5. The ZX5 was suggested to me as the super badass P&S. Sony has that sweep panorama thing, which is cool but not a deal-maker, and I think the Canon's had something, but according to the guy there the Lumix had the largest image sensor and lens, so I figured the quality would be better.

However, looking at reviews online, it seems the universal complaint (although still there are an overwhelming number of positive reviews that say the opposite) is image quality. Some people say it's absolutely unacceptable and return the camera. I'm just wondering if these people are expecting a DSLR and are too picky, or is it really that bad? A few reviews say ALL the auto modes are ABSOLUTELY useless, forcing you to manually adjust everything every single time lighting conditions change. Any idea how true that might be?

Another weird thing I noticed while playing with it in the store again yesterday was the time it took to save pictures. The Sony and Canon cameras were all pretty quick, maybe a second or two. The Lumix took about 12-15 seconds. Now, this was on internal memory, and I was told having an actual flash card in there would speed it up, but why were the others THAT much faster without a card? If a card would help, I see that memory cards now (I'm still trucking along with first gen Memory Sticks) have speed ratings, I guess 10 being the highest? Would a normal card in general fix this data saving problem, or would I need to get something like a 6 or a 10?

I'm certainly no professional photographer, but I would like to be able to take decent photos, even if for nothing else to throw on Facebook. Speed would be my next important priority, and a decent video mode would be great as well (that's gotten a TON of use on my old camera). Any suggestions or information you all could provide would be very appreciated.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mathaeis
Dec 16, 2007
severely pro

spog posted:

Always read dpreview.com (it's the best source of info)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page9.asp

It should take 2.5 seconds between shots, including focussing. Possibly that Lumix was set to RAW mode - or it was just busted.

And the speed of a memory card rarely has any effect on shooting speed. Possibly some cameras might require a card of a certain speed when shooting HD video -but I am sure the review would mention it. otherwise, just buy a bog-standard card with a decent brand.

I checked back at the store yesterday, and it seemed to be shooting perfectly fast for whatever reason. Perhaps they put a card in it. Either way, I spoke with a different employee and she sort of trash-talked the ZS5 (but also said that everyone that bought it loved it?) and suggested the Canon Powershot SX210 (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX210IS-Stabilized-Black/dp/B0035FZJM6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1278440502&sr=8-1). The colors were definitely more vibrant on the Canon (although strangely more so on the lower-end models like the SD1300), and the difference in clarity was incredible. Of course, all the online reviews seem to be completely polarized just like the previous cameras I looked at, haha.

Thanks for the link, though - I'll definitely check that out and hopefully come to a nice conclusion.

mathaeis
Dec 16, 2007
severely pro
How would you rate the S90's video mode? I see a lot of 'poors' out there, but I'm guessing that's because it only shoots at 640x480 perhaps, and nothing to do with its actual quality. Any insight? Is there something comparable to the S90 that also shoots in nice quality HD (regardless of price)?

mathaeis
Dec 16, 2007
severely pro
Just throwing this out there in case it can be of any help to others trying to make a decision. Since all the cameras I was seriously considering have at least one (potentially) glaring flaw for my personal taste, I decided to buy a bunch, test them out, and return all but one. As a way to be more thorough in my efforts, and potentially help anyone interested, let me know if there are any specific questions you might have - things you want me to test out and the like. I'm by no means a professional, so I'm sure on my own I could easily miss something that might be a deal breaker for others.

Anyways, the 4 I have coming to me are:

Canon S90
Canon SD1400
Panasonic Lumix ZS7
Casio Exilim FH100

I should have them on Tuesday, and all next weekend I will actually be at a local music festival (Friday night outside, indoors the rest of the weekend), so I figure that will be a good place to try some things out and see there limitations. So hey, request some specifics if you'd like and I'll do my best to get some test shots for you all.

  • Locked thread