canon sony panasonic or fujifilm?

[mky]

I'd like to get your opinion about a 10x zoom camera at approx. same price. Which manufacturer do you think has the best one? thanks

 

[mky]

the camera must take quality pictures in automatic mode

 

[evo5gsr]

Get the Canon S3/5, preferably S3.

 

[deudeu]

It all depends on how much you want to spend. It is my understanding that Panasonic has the better lenses and that Canon deals better at high ISOs. A friend of mine has the panasonic lumix dmc-fz8. I played with it and i find it to be a nice camera, if you have nice light. For about $300 i think that it is a good buy. If you want to go even further in the zoom you also have the dmc-fz18 with an 18x for just thirty extra bucks.
So I personnally like Panasonic on compacts and bridges because of their lenses.

 

[Early]

I'd like to get your opinion about a 10x zoom camera at approx. same price. Which manufacturer do you think has the best one? thanks

I can't swear by it, but I think all those 10X-12X's are made in China by the same manufacturer. It probably wouldn't matter whose brand it is. I have one of those myself, a Minolta Z6. I chose that because it allows use of an on camera flash which helps eliminate red eye and save on camera batteries. My daughter recently bought a Sony, very similar to the Minolta, but doesn't take the flash. They both take excellent pictures, but both are prone to noise as it is with all those type of cameras with a long zoom range.

 

[~Stella~]

I have this one: http://www.6ave.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PANDMCFZ50BK

I've been very happy with it, though that price is ridiculous - check elsewhere for a better deal. I'm fairly new at this, so I haven't handled other cameras, but the reviews on this one are quite good across the board.

 

[mky]

I can't swear by it, but I think all those 10X-12X's are made in China by the same manufacturer. It probably wouldn't matter whose brand it is. I have one of those myself, a Minolta Z6. I chose that because it allows use of an on camera flash which helps eliminate red eye and save on camera batteries. My daughter recently bought a Sony, very similar to the Minolta, but doesn't take the flash. They both take excellent pictures, but both are prone to noise as it is with all those type of cameras with a long zoom range.

i had the same feeling many times with lots of other non related to cameras products

 

[Early]

i had the same feeling many times with lots of other non related to cameras products

I recently notice Olympus has an 18x on the market. I didn't look into it, but I imagine the extra is increased at the wide end of the range.

 

[mky]

studied a little bit more and canon seems to be on the first place

 

[Big Mike]

Why not just get a real camera?

 

[mrodgers]

Why not just get a real camera?

Ever think that everyone is not rich?

Big Mike, I love your posts and love how helpful you are all over this forum. And I love your name (hint, guess what my name is? ). But think about what you just said there .

A "real" camera to me and probably many others would cost thousands after paying all the interest....

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

If i was buying one, i would go with panasonic. I used to work in retail selling them, and being around them all day, panasonic was my #1, they seemed to be the quickest, best battery life, great IS, and great picture quality. One camera i always loved was the panasonic dmc-tz3. It was small enough to fit in my pocket, but still had a big 10x optical zoom, and a 3 in. screen.

 

[Battou]

Why not just get a real camera?

:lmao: Good one.

Ever think that everyone is not rich?

Big Mike, I love your posts and love how helpful you are all over this forum. And I love your name (hint, guess what my name is? ). But think about what you just said there .

A "real" camera to me and probably many others would cost thousands after paying all the interest....

I'm not rich and I have a real camera....several of them actually, Two Canon SLR's, a range finder and an advanced P-Shooter. I make less than half of minimum wage and yet these as well as several other elements of photo gear (including but not limmited to a couple traditional P-shooters and dedicated scanner) has been aquired with out budget sacrifice.

 

[mrodgers]

:lmao: Good one.



I'm not rich and I have a real camera....several of them actually, Two Canon SLR's, a range finder and an advanced P-Shooter. I make less than half of minimum wage and yet these as well as several other elements of photo gear (including but not limmited to a couple traditional P-shooters and dedicated scanner) has been aquired with out budget sacrifice.

It's all relative. I make quite a bit more than minimum wage. But I provide a home for 2 young daughters and a wife. I provide food for them. I provide warmth in the winter. I provide clothing so they are not naked (though perhaps it would be better for me not to provide that for the wife ). I provide transportation for them to get to school, the doctors, and all the other stuff they go to. My wife stays home to raise the kids.

The economy is going downhill quite rapidly for families of the worker class. Fuel prices are climbing, food prices are climbing, household utilities are climbing, every thing is climbing except for the working class's wages, at least where I am at.

I would hazzard a guess that the majority here are either, by themselves without the cost of a family, put money, work, and materialism over their children and send them off somewhere else all day to be raised, or are above the working class and reaping the benefits that companies deny the workers to give to the management.

I'm not rich either and I have a real camera. My camera does the same thing as the "real cameras", it takes photographs. It can work in full automatic same as the "real cameras". It can also work in full manual mode and everything else in between just like the "real cameras". Only my real camera only costs $200.

 

[Battou]

It's all relative. I make quite a bit more than minimum wage. But I provide a home for 2 young daughters and a wife. I provide food for them. I provide warmth in the winter. I provide clothing so they are not naked (though perhaps it would be better for me not to provide that for the wife ). I provide transportation for them to get to school, the doctors, and all the other stuff they go to. My wife stays home to raise the kids.

The economy is going downhill quite rapidly for families of the worker class. Fuel prices are climbing, food prices are climbing, household utilities are climbing, every thing is climbing except for the working class's wages, at least where I am at.

I would hazzard a guess that the majority here are either, by themselves without the cost of a family, put money, work, and materialism over their children and send them off somewhere else all day to be raised, or are above the working class and reaping the benefits that companies deny the workers to give to the management.

I'm not rich either and I have a real camera. My camera does the same thing as the "real cameras", it takes photographs. It can work in full automatic same as the "real cameras". It can also work in full manual mode and everything else in between just like the "real cameras". Only my real camera only costs $200.

Well to be perfectly blunt, you hit the nail on the head for me, I am single, no kids, and walk to work. My brother and I live together in a house that is paid for so the only bills to speak of are utilities. Never the less we share a point in the fact that one does not need thousands of dollars to own a real camera. I have invested less than $1500 on my photography gear (all of it). My EF was just short of $200 and my AE-1 was seventy something, my glass costs me thirty or forty a pop and if I so desired there is AF enabled and L-glass on my mount that will cost me less than a hundred (I just have not felt the need yet).