Another Camera VS Camera Question..

DLL_4ever · Jan 4, 2006

Sorry to bring this up in your faces again, but i've doing a lot of lurking around dpreview.com (and here of course) the last week or so, and i'm finding so many different cameras that look great to me.. i just cant figure out which one i want..

First of all, i'll just tell you the basics about myself and what i'm looking for. My budget is $600 US MAX! I like shooting all kinds of random photos (indoor/outdoor, i love taking macro photos, human/animal portraites, architectual/natural photos, etc). I would like to get the best with the "little" money i have. I would save up more, so i could get a DSLR, but it's simply impossible with my financial situation.

Anyways, the cameras that i've been looking at so far are:
Sony CyberShot DSC-H1
Fujifilm FinePix S9000
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 / FZ20
Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D

Out of all the cameras that you guys know, which cost around (or less than) $600 US, which one would you consider to be the overall best / best value?

Thanks in advance for any help/tips/advice!

Rob · Jan 4, 2006

This is an area of the market where the competition is very tough. All the cameras you've listed are near or at the top of their manufacturer's league as the best ZLR/Prosumer/SLRlike models. I recently read a six camera shootout in Which Digital Camera and they compared all the models you've listed (I'm pretty sure, but the model numbers can be confusing and tricky to remember). They were all close except the Canon (which isn't on your list) which was reviewed as being the worst image quality.

The Sony won the contest by a point or two over the Panasonic, their features are nearly the same, but the Sony was allegedly slightly better built, brighter viewfinder, better macro and the night mode feature.

The Fuji had the best overall image quality (but they didn't like the colour balance - I actually did), but was let down by a ****y little EVF. The Minolta was written off as being quirky, but they didn't really say why. Oh and they also reviewed a funny shaped thing - an Olympus probably (knowing them) which looked like a camcorder cum submarine thing.

Hope this helps.

Rob

DLL_4ever · Jan 4, 2006

Are all DSLR cameras better than SLR-like cameras? I was talking to a guy on msn earlier about this subject, and he told me that all SLR lenses are generally better than compact/build-in lenses.. is that true?

Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D is a DSLR, and its apparently only $520, including the lens, so, should i go for that one instead of the other 3 SLR-like cameras that i mentioned?

Thanks again for your help! It is defidentally helpful :cheers:

Boltthrower · Jan 4, 2006

I did extensive research between the 7D & 5D before buying my 7D

The 7&5 pretty much have the Same features only thing I personally didn't Like about it was Size (this is my personal opinion Nothing More Nothing less)
in my hands I didn't feel like I had a complete grip on the camera felt too small to me. And the fact the vert grip isnt available for it..that maybe is what they meant by Quirky... I didnt read the article I do remember reading one article where the 5D was on the Cover of the magazine they did say it was the best bang for the buck.

I'll see if I can find the article on the 5D for ya

DLL_4ever · Jan 4, 2006

/\ thanks, but dont bother... i just realized that $520 is just for the body... and not the lens... (though i swear i read earlier that it came with the lens, but apparently it didnt/doesnt).
Anyways, with the lens, it'll be $700 US, which is way over my budget... so i guess thats no longer a choice

Rob · Jan 5, 2006

There's less of a difference now between the top end fixed cameras and the SLR cameras than there was in the past. A normal photographer probably would not be able to tell the difference in image quality that easily. However, photography is one of those things where flexibility can be a major asset. With an SLR, even a really old one like the top end Canon and Nikon models you can still use the full range of lenses.

The resale value of bodies is better as well, so I'd advise anyone to beg borrow and steal their way to an entry level digital body. Then you can get lenses individually as suits your needs. You'll change as a person over the next two or three years and as a photographer too, so it's generally a good bet to try and get something which can change with you.

The Minolta can be had for about $600 it would seem (with lens), so it's probably attainable if you can stretch a smidgen. IMO it's better to go with something with interchangeable accessories and lenses. You can at least sell it when you want to upgrade - what's going to be the value of a prosumer camera after a year or two?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=392010&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Rob

DocFrankenstein · Jan 5, 2006

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=381586&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

And you can get a
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...&Q=&sku=247091&is=GREY&addedTroughType=search

And you have like a world class camera.
If you want a cover-all zoom, then get:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...744&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

The quality will be so much better with D50

DLL_4ever · Jan 5, 2006

Rob> Nice!! How did you find that link?

DocFrankenstein> With the camera body + lens, it totals to more than $600, which is too much for me.. but thanks anyways :cheers:

DocFrankenstein · Jan 5, 2006

once you get to change lenses the cameras are so many times better

wolfepakt · Jan 6, 2006

In that same class is the Kodak P850. I have it and love it so far. (450 retail)

Not in to macros though so I dont know how it does those

SepiaTL · Jan 6, 2006

DLL_4ever said:
Are all DSLR cameras better than SLR-like cameras?

Even the cameras that look like DSLRs still have the p/s (point and shoot) characteristics. DSLRs have an advantage over any p/s because unlike p/s, DLSRs have full 35mm-sized CCDs. Pixels on a p/s are much smaller than DSLR, so they don't pick up nearly as many photons. It tends to cause a lot of noise grain in the photo, which has to be fixed in PS or PSP and never looks as good. You also have to use slower ISOs to compensate for this. Usually the max for a p/s is ISO 400.

Also, I just got a new p/s to replace an old Sony and I'm finding the on screen menus irritating.

I'm not sure how the cameras you've chosen handle this.

SLR-like cameras are definitely at the top of their category and will probably give you the best image for the money (big zoom on these is a plus). Honestly, there's just no substitute for a DSLR, but I know how it feels to have a tiny budget. Photography is just too freaking expensive! I know you said you couldn't, but if I had the chance, I'd dig my heels in and keep saving. It's definitely worth it!

Also, I can speak for Sony Cyber-Shots. Very durable, reliable cameras and nice images.

Rob · Jan 6, 2006

SepiaTL said:
Even the cameras that look like DSLRs still have the p/s (point and shoot) characteristics. DSLRs have an advantage over any p/s because unlike p/s, DLSRs have full 35mm-sized CCDs. Pixels on a p/s are much smaller than DSLR, so they don't pick up nearly as many photons. It tends to cause a lot of noise grain in the photo, which has to be fixed in PS or PSP and never looks as good. You also have to use slower ISOs to compensate for this. Usually the max for a p/s is ISO 400.

It should probably be considered that DSLRs don't all have the same size sensor. Most - the Canon 350D, 20D, all Nikons have what is called an APS-C sized sensor which is actually quite a bit smaller than "full-frame 35mm" This is, however, significantly bigger than most of the compact digitals. See picture:

Rob

Boltthrower · Jan 6, 2006

Actually looking at that Nikon D50 it doesn't look like a bad camera at all... price wise and sensor size it's just about the same size as the 7D... The price seems right

I'd do it if I was lookin for another one and I didn't have all the Minolta glass

Rose · Jan 7, 2006

Rob said:
It should probably be considered that DSLRs don't all have the same size sensor. Most - the Canon 350D, 20D, all Nikons have what is called an APS-C sized sensor which is actually quite a bit smaller than "full-frame 35mm" This is, however, significantly bigger than most of the compact digitals. See picture:

Rob

so which Digital SLR Camera has the equiv sensor size to an normal 35mm sensor?! if any...?!