Advice for digital camera

[photomav]

Hi,

I own a Canon SD500 which I bought 6 years ago (wow, I just realized that now) for a whopping $450. It's a 7.1 megapixel with 3x optical zoom and 2.5 in lcd screen and it still works.

Here's a link to what the camera looks like:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd500-review/

Here are the bad things about this camera:
1. It's big and heavy compared to new ones.
2. The auto-focus takes a lifetime so I miss moments with my kids and it sometimes does not focus well.
3. The 3x zoom makes it hard to zoom in close.

I've looked at all the camera choices out there and I really can't compare them anymore. I see cameras with great features 14MP+, 8x zoom for $120 and similar cameras for $300.

My first question, is it worth replacing my camera with a new one? Would a $150 camera be better than my $450 camera?
Second, which cameras would you recommend? What do I get with the expensive ones that I wouldn't get with the cheaper ones?

Judging by the wealth of topics on this forums, I'm sure I've come to the right place;-)

Thank you,

Michael

 

[Tomasko]

That depends... what do you want to photograph? What is your budget? What do you expect from your camera?
Btw, it's not about number of pixels or zoom range. You need to take in account sensor size, sensitivity, lens quality, build quality etc. But yes, in general, compact cameras for $150 would be probably better than 6 year old ones...
However, if you want to take better pictures, have higher quality photos (technically), need more versatility and so on, I would certainly forget about all compact cameras and go for a DSLR, which can be bought today for a ridiculous low price.

 

[photomav]

It would have to be a compact one as my wife would also use it and I would like to carry it around. I agree a DSLR would be a better camera but I would view it as a secondary choice.

I would say my budget is $150 to $300.

The quality of a $300 camera would have to be substantially better than a $150 camera for me to choose that one.

Otherwise, I might be more inclided to get an outdoor/waterproof camera which would allow me to capture pictures on more occasions. Perhaps that would be the best solution.

 

[subscuck]

At the upper end of the price range are the so called "bridge cameras". They look kinda like SLRs, but they're still basically just a very nice point & shoot. They will generally yield better optical quality and are a little better if you want to shoot in full manual or aperture priority, etc. If you don't need that in a camera, you just want to point and shoot, then yes, the newest $150 cameras will be a huge improvement over a six year old camera. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on P&S's so I can't make any recommendations.

 

[photomav]

At the upper end of the price range are the so called "bridge cameras". They look kinda like SLRs, but they're still basically just a very nice point & shoot. They will generally yield better optical quality and are a little better if you want to shoot in full manual or aperture priority, etc. If you don't need that in a camera, you just want to point and shoot, then yes, the newest $150 cameras will be a huge improvement over a six year old camera. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on P&S's so I can't make any recommendations.

A P&S is what I'm looking for. My SD500 has the ability to set some settings but I've never used them. For instance, reading the review I sent you, I found out from the review I sent you that it has a continuous shooting mode

 

[subscuck]

You can learn some fascinating stuff from reading the manual, too.

 

[photomav]

After painstaking research, I decided to go with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS10. I bought for $165 and it's waterproof with 4x optical and some stabilization.

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS10 14.1 MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.7-Inch LCD (Blue): Camera & Photo

I received it today and of course the first thing I did was take some pictures with it and my 6 year-old Canon SD500. Here are some of the images.

Panasonic Lumix Normal Picture:
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Panasonic Lumix Intelligent Auto:
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Canon SD 500:
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

IMO, the 6 year old Canon SD500 captures more detail and the colors are more accurate and vibrant. The Panasonic has a wider angle but the picture is washed-out:shock:

I'm returning the Panasonic Lumix but I'm not sure if it's worth replacing my SD500 with another point and shoot. Should I wait another 6 years for technology to catch up?;-)

 

[photomav]

I know very little about photography and I was hoping folks on this forum would help guide me through this.

My search continues. I was looking at the Canon Powershot Elph 300 HS and 500HS - both close to top-of-the-line from Canon. The 300HS is the 2nd rated compact camera on CNET and thank god I read the reviews on Amazon.com by folks who own older P&S models as the picture quality is apparently deplorable when compared to those models. I can only imagine the shock I will receive with my SD500. It seems that the picture quality from all manufacturers has gone south over the past 5 years. It feels like a redux of the receivers in the 70s that were replaced by inferior products in the 80s.

My goal is to replace my SD500 with a better camera, certainly not a worse camera. If I get a picture that's twice as large in size but lacks detail and color accuracy/vibrancy, I don't necessarily view that as an improvement. To me, it would be akin to giving away a Pioneer plasma HDTV for a Standard-Def CRT and paying money for it.

I would like a wider angle, higher optical zoom and hd video but the only thing I am not willing to sacrifice is image quality - call me crazy

When I posted on this forum asking if a $150 camera would be better than my $500 6 year-old P&S, the general consensus was yes and I was of the same mind as electronics have improved and gotten cheaper the past few years. While that applies to laptops and TVs, it does NOT seem to apply to cameras.

Perhaps someone can offer an explanation. Is it the lens or the internal electronics that make such a difference?

 

[molested_cow]

I am no expert on point and shoots. Here are a few that I know work well.

Canon S95

Canon G12 ( or you can get an older G11 or G10, just as good for lower cost).

 

[photomav]

I am no expert on point and shoots. Here are a few that I know work well.

Canon S95

Canon G12 ( or you can get an older G11 or G10, just as good for lower cost).

Thanks, the G12 is a mini SLR and I would expect it to take great pictures.

I've read about the S95 and I firmly believe that it takes pictures that are as good or better than the SD500.

The only issue I have with the S95 is that it feels like a "huge" compromise for image quality. I could overlook its horrible looks and lack of color choice if it offered every feature. However here's how it stacks up compared to my camera and cheaper models:

- The zoom is limited to 3.8 compared to 3 on my old camera - I would have expected 8-10 for Canon's most expensive camera.
- It only captures 720p video while the 300 and 500HS which cost $100-$150 less capture 1080p with 5x zoom. The ability to zoom in while recording is important.
- I personally don't mind the low megapixels as Canon is being honest and admitting the real capabilities of their CMOS.
- It doesn't have a touchscreen which newer models have and which is nice for focusing on subjects when the camera is doing its own thing.

The top-of-the-line camera needs to incorporate everything, not just great image quality and so-so features.

With the S95, I feel like I'm having to compromise by paying 2.5 times more 80% of people for the sake of retaining the same image quality that I have in a 6 year old camera. I can't choose body colors, I get lower zoom, I get lower video and no touchscreen for way more money.

When I bought the SD500, I didn't compromise in any way except in a slightly heavier camera. Other than that, it had more features than any other P&S camera that Canon offered or any other manufacturer. That's why I gladly paid the premium for it.

This feels like rocket-science and I'm sure a lot of folks are trading older better cameras for newer models that capture worse pictures. In many ways, the camera manufacturers are "tricking" consumers by claiming higher megapixels while the picture quality is in fact much worse. Most folks are trading down, not up.

This would make a great article for a magazine that deals with photography. Of course, you might lose all your sponsors

 

[molested_cow]

Why would you need 1080p videos? Most of the time you watch it on your LCD screen which is usually no bigger than 22". Even if you are to blow it up on your 55" LED tvs, it's not like you are watching a 3 hour long bluray movie with 7.1 surround sound.

 

[photomav]

Why would you need 1080p videos? Most of the time you watch it on your LCD screen which is usually no bigger than 22". Even if you are to blow it up on your 55" LED tvs, it's not like you are watching a 3 hour long bluray movie with 7.1 surround sound.

Good point, there's no way you can tell between 720p and 1080p on a small screen and 720p would certainly run better on most computers without a good video card.

More concerned about the zoom function working with video. The point I was trying to make is that an absolute top-of the-line $400 P&S from Canon should not force you to give up that many features. I would not have minded 720p if the camera included a decent zoom, a touchscreen and a nice body/color that suggested that it cost more than $100.