Digital Camera

HeadCrusher

HeadCrusher

Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,819
2
38
Visit site
Hey guys,
I want to get a digital camera (for photos, not videos) but I don't really know where to look...

I think I'd want one with an SD card cause that seems to be the most common flash card. Three year warranty would be nice too. I know that digital zoom isn't worth shit and obivously the more pixels/the bigger the screen/the longer the battery lasts the better but other than that I don't really have a clue.

The Sony Cyber-shot and Nikon Coolpix series seem to be nice and I believe Pentax in general isn't too bad either?

I'm just looking for something to make some cool friends and family snapshots every once in a while. Don't need an SLR cam. Budget is 150 Euros.

Can anybody recommend specific modells or give me some hints on what to look out for?

Thanks!
 
hey,

check out the panasonic lumix series.. they are nice cameras too, i have a nikon d80 dslr, and a compact one, a leica dlux 3, which makes awesome pictures. and the panasonic lumix are same as the leica but with a different body and slightly different software

check out this one:
http://geizhals.at/a396377.html

very small, 12.1 Megapixel and 5x optical zoom

or this one:
http://geizhals.at/a495287.html
14.. Megapixel and 8x optical zoom

and yes.. forget digital zoom, best disable it in the camera setting :)

cheers
chris
 
I'm interested in this too.

I have an 8.0 megapixel olympus. While the photos are awesome in daylight, the nightshots suck hard.Even with lights in the scenery.
 
motomoto said:
I'm interested in this too.

I have an 8.0 megapixel olympus. While the photos are awesome in daylight, the nightshots suck hard.Even with lights in the scenery.
Click to expand...

thats typically,
basically, photography is painting with light..

a good light is essential for good photos.
and, the size of the sensor is one thing, but
the bigger the sensor is-> much more expensive

if the light is not enough you have 2 options
go up with the iso value -> that will result in a grainy picture
or, turn up the exposure time -> but that will only work if the motive you want to take a picture of is not moving...
otherwise it will get blurred, and mostly you will have to use a tripod so that the camera will be still, and who wants to carry an tripod all the time around?

and, there is also the aperture, this setting will affect how much light hits the sensor.

What i like with my small Leica Dlux 3, that you can set manually the aperture and exposure time.

many compact cameras dont allow to set these manually.

cheers
chris
 
Optical image stabilization is important for me because I couldn't hold a camera still if my life depended on it. Amazing what a difference to digital ones they make when you're moving.
 
Thanks for all the responses so far! Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread.

Chris: The Lumix series looks very nice, indeed.

Devin+Townsend.jpg


(Sorry, I'm listening to SYL now, couldn't resist... :loco:)

Anyway, the ones you suggested are over my budget. :erk: I've looked into this series a little further and found the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS11 which seems nice. Unfortunetally it's over budget as well but I might be able to make that.

Are actually all the Lumix basically Leicas? How do you know?

Mutant: That Fujifilm looks nice but basically it's to expensive and to big as well. :erk:


Any more experiences anyone?
 
hi

the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS11 seems to be also very nice, and for that price, wow!!!
go for it

Leica and Panasonic have teamed up some time ago and work together, i think Leica was forced to find a cooperation-partner in mass production to get some models out in the consumer electronic sector.

for the pure leica enthusiasts (which i am not) this was perhaps an epic fail..

The Leica Lenses are very good (see egans post, lenses are very important) so thats in my opinion a huge PLUS for the Lumix Series.

My sister in Law has a small Panasonic Lumix, i dont know which model, but i tried it out this year xmas and the pictures turned out very good, i was really impressed.
because the price of the camera was like 1/3 of what i have payed for my compact camera (of course, the housing is much better on the leica, and also the possibility to set manually the aperture and exposure time)

Grüsse in die Steiermark und danke für Devin, hehe :)
Chris
 
So I went to a shop in the city this afternoon. It was a shop that seemed to aim more at the professional photographer so I figured the people there would probably know their shit. Well, looks like they do but the cheapest camera they had there was already out of my prize range, haha. :D

In the shop I found out that the Panasonic cameras have Leica lenses only. The way I understood it I thought that Panasonic cameras where basically Leica cameras with a different logo on them. Well they are not. ;) Some of the Sony Cybershots have a Carl Zeiss lense which is also supposed to be quite good. However the girl in the shop also recommended Panasonic cameras in general and a ~380 EUR modell in particular but that's a different story, haha.

Since three of us probably got the same Hartlauer-leaflet last week anyway (Februar 2010) I might as well tell you about an offer that caught my eye: Nikon Coolpix S570. From what I've learned about digital cameras and specs so far this one seems very good to me. 12m pixels, 5x optical Zoom (28-140; the girl in the shop told me that the first number should be small and the second one large. Apparently 30-120 is somewhat of an average throughout all the cheaper models) and it was reduced from 180 to 150.

The thing about my budget is that I'd have to buy an SD-card and a small bag for the camera as well. So it's most likely going to be around 200 EUR anyway so I really don't wanna spend more for the camera than I have to... :erk: However I'll put the Fujifilm on my list as well.
 
I've got Nikon Coolpix L11. Cost around 115€ with 1 gig SD-card two years ago. The optical zoom is ok, digital sucks. Eats SD cards and battery life is decent (with good quality batteries). I bought it because it was cheap and I don't really need a camera that often so it suits me. It has also been handled quite rough (I carried it in my pocket for the first year, every day, everywhere) and has been dropped few times but still works like a charm. *Knocking on wood.*

So in a nutshell: It's cheap and bang/buck ratio is good. IMO.

I could dig up some scenery pictures taken with my camera, but I'm afraid the pictures would tell more of my inept abilities as a photographer than the quality of the camera. :lol:
 
Btw guys, do you think I should get a camera with 10 or 12 Megapixels? As far as I have seen I can get a 10 MP with generally better specs cheaper than a 12 MP with mediocre specs...
 
HeadCrusher said:
Btw guys, do you think I should get a camera with 10 or 12 Megapixels? As far as I have seen I can get a 10 MP with generally better specs cheaper than a 12 MP with mediocre specs...
Click to expand...

Megapixel count is negligible unless you're printing poster sized prints (or larger), it's all marketing hype that makes the consumer think that higher MP is better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

General Zod
Lost Camera
Replies
9
Views
358
ProgPower USA
Wishmaster
W
bryan_kilco
Cameras
Replies
10
Views
824
Bar
StefTD
S
lizard
holy shit holy shit digital camera holy shit
Replies
10
Views
245
Kayo Dot
FuSoYa
F
miel
Camera Policy Specifics
Replies
8
Views
1K
ProgPower USA
Rookie Bassist
R
Loren Littlejohn
Talk to me about dslrs
Replies
18
Views
1K
Bar
Glenn Fricker
G
Top Bottom
Back