>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Thin and light Digital Camera?
Bookmark topic
i would take a nikon, do served me well. donnow much about casio cams, but i would rather buy calculator from them instead of digi cams...
--
Posted: 2007-09-23 13:17:40
Edit :
Quote
@ JoJo learn some history my boy
, Casio released/invented the worlds first consumer digicam the QV-10, and their current products are smaller/better/cheaper than the more famous brands you promote!!
--
Posted: 2007-09-23 20:47:50
Edit :
Quote
..and I bought that QV-10. It was the first digital camera with an lcd screen as I recall. I also bought the printer that they put out with it at the same time which only printed images the size of security pass images. Cost me a an arm and a leg as I recall
edit: I also bought the follow up QV100... nothings changed uch since then!
_________________
Unless I'm very much mistaken...
reviews:
i-mate V800 K700[ This Message was edited by: masseur on 2007-09-23 20:01 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-23 20:57:46
Edit :
Quote
http://www.digicamhistory.com/1995%20A-C.html
Indeed about a $1000 Masseur, If i were choosing an SLR then JoJo's reccomendations are solid, but compacts are a whole different ball game IMO.
Casio, Fuji and Panasonic lead the way in my (aged ) experiance.
--
Posted: 2007-09-23 21:03:31
Edit :
Quote
as I recall it was about 1500 australian $ and the printer was another 600!
in the last few years I've been very happy with Sony cybershots having had the DSC-T1, T30 and now T100 which is 8.1 megapixels, 5x optical zoom, face detection etc etc and does great pics
--
Posted: 2007-09-23 21:13:05
Edit :
Quote
@mweb - EITHER way . . . I do NOT like Casio Digicams because of their POOR-flash-feature !
Nikon, Canon or Olympus will DO !
--
Posted: 2007-09-24 00:36:58
Edit :
Quote
@JuanPablo
I'll be perfectly honest with you, thin does not usually go hand in hand with 'outstanding' photo quality.
I do know quite a bit about cameras, so if you go into more depth about what you'd want out of the camera, it'd be helpful.
What sort of photos will you be taking most of (outdoor, indoor, social scenes i.e. parties, etc.)?
When you say thin, do you mean nothing protrudes out of the camera or just thin when turned off (so the lens comes out of the camera)?
Do you want punchy (bright, contrasty, saturated) photos straight out of the camera, or do you know how to post-process?
P.S. I highly recommend that you join the forums at dpreview.com They are really great for discussing cameras, and they know a lot more than us (just like we know tons about mobiles).
_________________
A wooden spoon is a spoon made from wood.
Source: Wikipedia
Winner of: Best Thread (Huge SE Portfolio), Best Post (Huge SE Portfolio), Best Signature, and 2nd Best Nickname
[ This Message was edited by: shaliron on 2007-09-24 03:02 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-24 04:00:57
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-09-24 04:00:57, shaliron wrote:
@JuanPablo
I'll be perfectly honest with you, thin does not usually go hand in hand with 'outstanding' photo quality.
I do know quite a bit about cameras, so if you go into more depth about what you'd want out of the camera, it'd be helpful.
What sort of photos will you be taking most of (outdoor, indoor, social scenes i.e. parties, etc.)?
When you say thin, do you mean nothing protrudes out of the camera or just thin when turned off (so the lens comes out of the camera)?
Do you want punchy (bright, contrasty, saturated) photos straight out of the camera, or do you know how to post-process?
Thanks. As I've said before, I don't want outstanding pics, just average to good ones
Right now I'm using a Cybershot W55 and is quite good in my humble opinion (I don't know that much about cameras)
I use my camera mainly outdoor (university), and also at some parties (not too many).
When I say thin, I meant thin turned off
I don't know how to post-process, so I'd prefer contrast, saturated pictures straight out of the camera.
Hope I helped, waiting for your suggestions
--
Posted: 2007-09-25 02:14:30
Edit :
Quote
Alright, the Sonys look alright for your needs, but if maybe you're willing to consider the Panasonic FX30.
http://www.dpreview.com/revie[....]anasonic/panasonic_dmcfx30.asp
It does look as flashy as the Sony cameras, but it is just as big/small as the Sony cameras.
What I consider to be the main advantage of this camera is that it has a wide angle lens, 28mm compared to 35/38mm on the Sony cameras. This basically means that you can capture a wider angle of view, so you can fit in more into one photo.
Eg. 28mm
35mm
See how you can fit more into a photo? It may not sound like a huge number difference, but it is quite significant in photo terms.
Also, it has a Leica lens, which many consider to be the best lenses in the business (superior to Carl Zeiss for sure) and it also has a very good image stabilisation which again is considered to be best in the business.
Then again, you could get the T100 or T200, which don't have wide angle, but they can zoom in much more than the FX30. Personally, for photos of buildings, landscapes, and social snaps, wide angle is much more useful than telephoto (zooming in).
Also, the Panasonic is much cheaper (at least in my country). I'd go for the Panasonic.
--
Posted: 2007-09-25 06:15:31
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-09-25 06:15:31, shaliron wrote:
Alright, the Sonys look alright for your needs, but if maybe you're willing to consider the Panasonic FX30.
It does look as flashy as the Sony cameras, but it is just as big/small as the Sony cameras.
What I consider to be the main advantage of this camera is that it has a wide angle lens, 28mm compared to 35/38mm on the Sony cameras. This basically means that you can capture a wider angle of view, so you can fit in more into one photo.
See how you can fit more into a photo? It may not sound like a huge number difference, but it is quite significant in photo terms.
Also, it has a Leica lens, which many consider to be the best lenses in the business (superior to Carl Zeiss for sure) and it also has a very good image stabilisation which again is considered to be best in the business.
That Panasonic seems like a good option too
I have a couple questions for you before making my desition:
1. Is Leica better than Carl Zeiss? Is a lens THAT important?
2. What about Sony's technology (Super Steady ShotŪ, Bionz(tm) processor, Clear Photo LCD PlusŪ, Face detection and other? Panasonic has similar technologies?
3. Which one produces better pictures without editing?
4. Which one is better overall (from your point of view)?
Thanks in advance
[ This Message was edited by: JuanPablo on 2007-09-25 07:06 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-25 08:03:17
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
