What to buy?

Hi, haven't been here for awhile, and still haven't bought a digital camera yet.
I have enough airmiles to purchase these cameras, let me know what you think.
Canon A70, Canon 4 Elph, Minolta Dimage G500, or the S414, or the XT, how about the Olympus D560 or the Sony 5 MP, not sure of the model number. Alot to chose from, airmiles will be all gone if I go ahead with any purchase.
I am a amateur photograph, but I do want exceptional pictures and ease of use. Am I asking for to much?
Any help from you guys would be much appreciated.
( I have checked out some of these cameras and I get confused)
Thanks ahead
Barb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barb_48

Hi, haven't been here for awhile, and still haven't bought a digital camera yet.
I have enough airmiles to purchase these cameras, let me know what you think.
Canon A70, Canon 4 Elph, Minolta Dimage G500, or the S414, or the XT, how about the Olympus D560 or the Sony 5 MP, not sure of the model number. Alot to chose from, airmiles will be all gone if I go ahead with any purchase.
I am a amateur photograph, but I do want exceptional pictures and ease of use. Am I asking for to much?
Any help from you guys would be much appreciated.
( I have checked out some of these cameras and I get confused)
Thanks ahead
Barb

---

Hi:

Check out shutter lag on the cameras you mentioned. Sony for example tends to be very poor in that department. I used one recently with a difference of more than one second between pressing the shutter release and the picture actually being taken. Some of that may be due to a slow auto-focus system but it still creates problems for any kind of action or journalistic type of photography.

With the Minolta G500 with a shutter lag of only 1/10 of a second, I have been able to do some good action shots in a gym without flash of a basketball game. The manual over-rides of auto functions broaden the photo possibilities. With 5 megapixels, you can also crop and enlarge, to some extent without losing quality. Colour balance can be controlled in camera or through software, if necessary. New more efficient lighting in some buildings by the way, tends to be neither incandescent nor fluorescent and gives off a colour temperature in the YELLOW range.

Ronnoco

Out of those cameras, I'd say the reviews here recommend the Canon A70. It was on the PCPhotoREVIEW.com top ten list (on the Home page) for a long, long time and it also has very high ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

Out of those cameras, I'd say the reviews here recommend the Canon A70. It was on the PCPhotoREVIEW.com top ten list (on the Home page) for a long, long time and it also has very high ratings.

---

Yes I've heard that also, but, the A70 is only 3.2 MP and the Minolta Dimage G500 is 5 MP.
Thanks

How about the A80, it has most of the same features as the A70 with the pull out and twist LCD, and 4 mega pixels. I have a G2 and really like the pull out/twist lcd, it protects the LCD and helps with shots at odd angles. Another of the cameras that was recently released that I like is the 3mp Canon S1. It has a whopping 10x 2.8-4.0 optical zoom lens that is image stabilized, the same LCD as the A80, and a vga movie mode that allows up to 1gig of movie to be recorded non stop.

The problem with the LCD is that it uses up battery power, rather quickly and is useless in bright, outside lighting conditions. An image stabilized optical zoom is certainly impressive but I find that unless you are doing wild animal shots, its use it somewhat limited. I have even shot crocodiles close up with a regular lens. Zooms tend to create a too 'flat' appearance, but are certainly good for blurring out a noisy background into oblivion.

The vga 1 gig movie mode is again somewhat impressive, but for video and non-linear editing, you really need a video camera. Short action clips are only effective if the subject matter and the display media fit together perfectly. A video projector and a program that integrates stills with action clips are an ideal combination but it requires considerable MEDIA SKILLS from the producer to put an effective presentation together for showing.

No one should assume that they have those skills until they have actually tried to do it.

Ronnoco

That would be true for all LCDs wouldn't it? I like the ability to turn the screen toward the body protecting the screen and preserving battery life. IS zoom is good for many situations, including wild animals. Soccer, baseball, basketball, any sporting event where you would want to isolate your subject would benefit from that long zoom. IS helps you steady that long zoom, and allows 2 stops of light assisting in getting sharp pictures in existing light. Sometimes the effect of compressing the scene with a zoom is quite effective, and with limited zoom you wouldn't have the ability to do that. I would hardly tout the video mode as a multimedia presentation tool, it is however one of the best movie modes for a digicam out there, and includes the ability to zoom while filming. It could work great to film the blowing out of candles, opening presents, or a recitation. I don't assume anyone has any skills, but I do assume someone may like the ability to take a movie of reasonable quality now and then, without investing in a separate movie camera.

Thanks, for all of your imput. I already own a video camera, so I really don't care if the camera takes clips. I am intersted in the zoom quality. Sunday is my only day off, so I'll check out the camera stores then.
Thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EOSThree

That would be true for all LCDs wouldn't it?

Yes, it certainly would, BUT, the larger the LCD, the more battery power it would use. Backlit LCDs are both a plus and a minus...a plus in that the image is more viewable and perhaps even sharper in brighter light, which is the case with the Minolta G500, but a minus in terms of battery power used. However, a large backlit LCD is more battery hungry than a very small backlit LCD.

I like the ability to turn the screen toward the body protecting the screen and preserving battery life.

OK, I am not clear here. How does 'protecting the screen' preserve battery life?


IS zoom is good for many situations, including wild animals.

True enough, however the depth of field (focus) tends to be very shallow, and I find them useless for shooting an effective shot from the mouth along the length of a crocodile with excellent, crisp sharpness.

Soccer, baseball, basketball, any sporting event where you would want to isolate your subject would benefit from that long zoom. IS helps you steady that long zoom, and allows 2 stops of light assisting in getting sharp pictures in existing light.

I find that in soccer and basketball, using a long zoom, it is very hard, given the speed of the action to know exactly what you got in your shot, until afterward. Composition, isolation and sharpness often do NOT come perfectly together in a long zoom shot. Using software to crop is easier than trying to deal with a "cut-off body part" which makes the action shot less effective.

Sometimes the effect of compressing the scene with a zoom is quite effective, and with limited zoom you wouldn't have the ability to do that.

Yes, this is a very good point. Unless you are doing one heck of a lot of sports photography however, the ideal opportunity for this would not be a common occurence.

I don't assume anyone has any skills, but I do assume someone may like the ability to take a movie of reasonable quality now and then, without investing in a separate movie camera.

---

Well, the problem I see,...granted from a background in film and television production is that movies of reasonable quality have to be extremely well-planned in terms of a beginning, middle and ending, and of course the philosophy that you use video equipment to do videos and movie equipment to do movies,...not still cameras. Editing and using short time video clips in a presentation effectively DOES require skill, and I would characterize myself as a serious media producer attempting to produce the best quality possible in the particular photographic/video/movie situation.

Thanks for the reply and well thought out input.

Ronnoco

When the G's screen is turned around toward the body a small switch in the cavity turns the LCD off, preserving battery life. The only time I open it (turn it on) is for a quick review of a histogram that I think may be problematic. Depth of field on a long lens is the same as depth of field on a short lens, the length of the lens though shortens the ratio of DOF to the length of the lens.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ries/dof.shtml
As for sports photography, why do you see all of those long white lenses in the press box and along the sidelines? Coming from a background in television and film, you know the value of a telephoto lens, have you seen where the cameras are placed at a professional sports game? I totally agree with you, a long lens can be hard to control, and it is a lot easier to cut off a body part, so don't zoom that far, you will still be ahead at 200mm vs 50mm if you are cropping. You can enlarge to a certain extent, but at some point you will reach the limits of your media, resulting in either visible pixels or visible grain. I also agree with you that a professional video production requires much skill and a still camera is no substitute, but for "home movies" a still cam that can take good video might be just the ticket. Millions have already thought a video camera is something that they wanted for home use, and very few of them have professional skills. Thank you for the debate, I am enjoying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EOSThree

When the G's screen is turned around toward the body a small switch in the cavity turns the LCD off, preserving battery life. The only time I open it (turn it on) is for a quick review of a histogram that I think may be problematic. Depth of field on a long lens is the same as depth of field on a short lens, the length of the lens though shortens the ratio of DOF to the length of the lens.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ries/dof.shtml

I don't think so. Your quoted site is also wrong on the difference between depth of field in film cameras vs depth of field in digital cameras. I have already noticed the difference in my shots. 3mm to infinity with a 50mm closed down to about F8 versus 2 mm to infinity with a digital at F. 2.8.

Take a look at another photographers calculations:

www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof.

As for sports photography, why do you see all of those long white lenses in the press box and along the sidelines? Coming from a background in television and film, you know the value of a telephoto lens, have you seen where the cameras are placed at a professional sports game? I totally agree with you, a long lens can be hard to control, and it is a lot easier to cut off a body part, so don't zoom that far, you will still be ahead at 200mm vs 50mm if you are cropping.

Well, I have to admit that I do have a fast 200mm and a 50 to 200mm zoom as well in my bag and along with a Vivitar 285 flash unit, it is possible to get some good shots from a distance A small dish mike is also good for portable videotaping. I do however tend to avoid the press box and move to another close location. Knowing a coach, personally helps in that regard.

You can enlarge to a certain extent, but at some point you will reach the limits of your media, resulting in either visible pixels or visible grain.

True, software will help, but only to a limited extent.

Thank you for the debate, I am enjoying it.

---

Not a debate really, just some differences in approach and view. Always worthwhile.

Cheers!
Ronnoco

I just got my airmiles catalogue to-day. It offers some pretty neat cameras that I didn't realize from their website. I can choose a Olympus C-5000, or Canon A80, Minolta Dimage Z2, some other Olympus models. Also a couple of 35mm SLR cameras to consider.
I have my homework cut out for me. I do realize that the Canon does have good ratings, but I kind of like the look and feel of the Olympus C-5000 and the idea that you can change lenses.
What do you think?
Thanks again for your help in this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barb_48

I just got my airmiles catalogue to-day. It offers some pretty neat cameras that I didn't realize from their website. I can choose a Olympus C-5000, or Canon A80, Minolta Dimage Z2, some other Olympus models. Also a couple of 35mm SLR cameras to consider.
I have my homework cut out for me. I do realize that the Canon does have good ratings, but I kind of like the look and feel of the Olympus C-5000 and the idea that you can change lenses.
What do you think?
Thanks again for your help in this matter.

---

Well, I already have 35 mm SLRs and I was not looking to replace them when I bought digital. I also feel that digital SLRs are too expensive in terms of price and still not good enough in terms of quality but they are getting there. I bought the compact Minolta G500 to provide an alternative when I did not want to carry all the larger equipment and to enable me to take pictures in countries or areas where photographers are not always welcome or subject to safety and security concerns. It fulfills that role very well .

Ronnoco