need help to choose between digital cameras..

alexandr

alexandr

kosmonaut
slightly off-topic, but i'll give it a shot - don't know where else to ask.

i'm about to by my first digital camera (actually its a gift for my girlfriend..), but i don't know shit about it.

i've searched around and i got a couple of good deals on theese two cameras, but i don't know wich one to go with;

Canon Ixus I - 4 Megapixels - 5,7x optical zoom - pictbridge

or

the sony dsc-p150 - 7,2 megapixels - 3x optical zoom - carl zeiss vario-tessar lens - info lithium battery.

pricewise the ixus is about 66% of the sony, but because of the pixels etc the sony seems like a better camera for the future. but do i need 7.2 megapixel? will the optical zoom be a feature i will enjoy more than having 3.2 million extra pixels??

does the sony/ixus have other functions i need to know about? and wich camera/brand is known better for its GUI?

thanks for helping a newbie out!

cheers,
alex.
 
You will notice the difference in the clear and detailed image with the Sony. A higher quality image.

There is a web site that reviews camera and you can do a side by side comparison
http://www.dpreview.com/
 
Don't know anything about cameras.... except that mine handles up to 2.0 megapixels... and that's more than I need. I set mine up to take pictures with a resolution of 1024 by 768 pixels (the max is 1600 by 1250, I believe). The pictures taken are big enough to fill up my 12" PowerBook's screen (max resolution: 1024 by 768).

What does your girlfriend need a camera for? If she's just a regular Jane... a 2.x megapixel camera with 3X (or better) optical zoom should do the trick.
 
Best bang for the buck comes from Nikon cameras. Their CCD sensors are some of the best out there bar none. I was a die-hard Olympus supporter (cheap, used to be designed well, and took good pics) until we bought a Nikon Coolpix 3200. The images from the Nikon are the best I've seen from any digital out there.

Cannon's digitals are probably the next best thing to a Nikon. Some of the worst pictures I've seen from digital cameras come from Sony devices. I would stay FAR, FAR away from any Sony digital camera.

Other ways to put it are the Nikon is like a Mac, the Cannon is like a Dell (high end one), and the Sony is like a bargain basement PC (E-Machines). If cars are your thing, then the Nikon is like a BMW/Porsche/Bently, the Cannon is like a Lincoln/Cadillac, and the Sony is like a Yugo/Kia/Hotwheel.

What are you going to be using the camera for? That'll dictate the MP required. For just general use, even a 3.2mp camera is more than enough. If all you're going to do with the pics are archiving and 4x6 prints, then anything over 3.2mp or 4mp would be a waste.

I'd suggest you look into a 3.2mp or 4mp camera. The Nikon Coolpix 3200 (3.2mp) which I have and HIGHLY recommend is $199 with free shipping from the Apple Store. 6 months ago we paid $249 (on sale) for that same camera at Best Buy. The Coolpix 4200 (4.2mp) is $349 and the Coolpix 5000 (5mp) is $399 [both free shipping].

-----

On a side note, the camera manufacturers will try and tell you that their camera will do such and such a size print, but it's BS. Sure, they'll do that size...but not at a high quality. Case in point...Nikon claims 11x14 pics from their 3.2mp camera.

In reality, there's no way. To get a good print at 11x14 (300dpi) you would need a 13.86mp camera.

There's a simple formula for figuring it out the MP you'll need for a print size:

Long print dimension in inches = 4 * (square root of megapixels)

So say you have a 3.2mp camera. The square root of 3.2 is approximately 1.788. The formula would look like this:

x = 4 * ( 1.788 )
x = 7.15"

So a 5x7 is the biggest print you can make from a 3.2mp camera without losing sharpness (compared to film). A 4mp camera would give you a good 6x8 print, and a 7.2mp camera would give you a good 8x10.

You can do an 8x10 from a 3.2mp or 4mp camera, but it won't be as sharp as the one from the 7.2mp camera or from a 35mm camera.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
 
Just upgraded my 4 megapixel cannon a few weeks ago for a new minolta g600 6MP. The only thing I didn't like about my old cannon was that most night shots where very grainy due to the poor lighting(duh) but somehow this new G600 cleans that part up spectacularly, and it is fast to shoot and fast to startup...which is probably one of the biggest annoyance in digital photography. Plus you can find one for around $300 bucks in many places, hard to beat, awesome camera. This is my first Minolta so still learning it quirks but it's fit and finish is very nice... well see how it last after I drop it a couple times. One of my favorite features is that you can that it accepts dual memory cards... so once the first fills up it starts filling up the second so no slow down in shooting for me.
 
since i don't know about those specific models here is my opinion about some general info in digital photography that might help with the decision.

I personally dont like sony for a few reasons, but with digital still cameras the biggest reason is that they use a proprietary memory card.

if you are going to be printing images here are some general specs to keep in mind:
--an 8x10 at 300 dpi works out to be roughly 6 megapixels
--on an average inkjet printer about 125-150 dpi would look ok, but you will be able to see some pixelization (square blocky look).
--some printers have memory card slots directly on them so that you can bypass the computer all together. if you have one of these printers, find out what slots are on it and that could be a deciding factor for what camera model you get.

some about memory cards:
--multimedia cards (MMC) and secure digital (SD) cards are real common cards and will probibly be around for a while. most of the time they can both be used in the same slot. the SD card is supposed to have more data integrity than the MMC. the SD card also has a lock feature so if you have images on it that you want to keep you can lock it so you cannot write more files or delete ones that are already on there.
--memorystick is sony's own memory card. becuase it is not a standard they could decide to stop using it tomorrow (unlikely but possible).
--Compact Flash (CF) is another common card type. been around for longer than any of the previously mentioned cards, and these days are used more by pro cameras than consumer cameras, but not entirely.
--XD is a much newer card i am mentioning. I have no experience with these cards first hand and don't know much about them. what i do know is that they are supposedly even smaller than the SD/MMC ones.
--the memory card size you will need is also going to be directly related to the megapixel size that the camera shoots. the reason why i say this is that the larger megapixel images require more space on the memory card for each image. for example, a 3 megapixel image may only take up 1mb on the card if it is a jpeg. a 6 megapixel image may take up 2 mb of space. if these number are a rough estimate then a 512mb memory card would hold about 256 images from a 6 megapixel camera. that for most people would probibly be enough for an entire vacation.
--i personally like the CF cards. the reason i say this is that even though by comparison they are huge, in reality they are still pretty small. the SD/MMC cards are the size of a quarter or a guitar pick. in my opinion they are too small. they are easy to loose or drop out of your pocket and not know it. so logic would also say that the XD cards are even worse for this.

Some about the zooms:
--optical zoom is the way to go as compared to digital zoom. optical zoom is much clearer because it uses optics to do it instead of generating the zoom from the exsisting digital image.
--digital zoom in my opinion should not even exsist. it is the same thing as taking the non-digital zoomed image and cropping it in the computer. or to put it in tradition photography print-type of terms. say you have an 8x10 print. you wan to get a picture of just the person that is a small spot in the middle of the picture. you take your scissors out and gut a 4x6 out of the 8x10. you end up with a smaller print but the rest of the trash is not there. you do not end up with more detail or a larger picture. this is exactly true for a digital zoom.
--now for a bit of misleading marketing terms that are used to make the product sound better and put it in terms that more people can think they understand, but usually dont anyways. the term "3x" or "10x" zoom means very little. the reason i say this is that a lens with the "mm" rating of 30mm-90mm is a 3x zoom, but so is a 60mm-180mm lens. the 30-90 zoom will be better for wide angle and group shots. the 60-180 lens would be better for sitting on the sidelines of a soccer game and getting your son zoomed in closer. also, using those two examples above, with both of them zoomed all the way out to the full mm length of the lens, the 180mm will bring in the soccer player twice as close as the 90mm lens. that could be the difference between getting your son and half of his team in the shot or just your son taking that game winning kick without half of the feild being in the shot.


alright i am getting writters cramp so here is the end.
 
thanks alot for all of the answers, i really feel i stand ALOT stronger now.

i am gonna have to take the decision in-store on monday (i'm shopping tax-free at an airport), but now at least i know a bit more what to look for. the explanation about optical zoom vs. digital zoom was great!(thanks jeffo!) - that is kinda one of the things i would definetly not take notice of, i would just tick off "have zoom" and be satisfied :)

i will keep you posted on what my decision will bring, i know there isn't really a great selection to choose from, but it is great pricewise. and i'm looking to buy a camera "a bit over the top" for my use anyway(since i can afford it at the moment, and since it is tax-free), so whatever i choose i might come out being satisfied..

cheers,
alex.
 
Take a picture of someone walking past with each of the cameras. I don't know the cameras in question, but shutter response time is one of the ways to decide which one to go with. No amount of pixels will do you any good if the shutter response is so poor you miss the shot.

Also keep in mind that some cameras claim lots of resolution, but through interpolation. I saw a 6megapixel camera the other day here in Cairo for around $100. I checked it out - it was a 2 megapixel sensor with interpolation. Forget how many megapixels the box says, check out the native resolution of the sensor itself.
 
The SONY DSC-P41 has been chosen by my daughter because it has enough pixels (4M, with optical zoom), it it light... and so gooood looking (her choice, not mine :D )
 
mdnky said:
Some of the worst pictures I've seen from digital cameras come from Sony devices. I would stay FAR, FAR away from any Sony digital camera.
Click to expand...

mdnky: I am not sure what Sony camera created those bad pic's you saw, but my Sony and my honey's Sony gives us outstanding high quality pictures. It might have something to do with the person working the camera. ;)
 
Jeffo said:
--an 8x10 at 300 dpi works out to be roughly 6 megapixels
Click to expand...

7.2 is the minimum requirement for that size at 300dpi and that's considering optical pixels (no interpolation). The equation I gave was a simple (short) way of doing it, the other (long) way is as follows:

(side1 * dpi) * (side2 * dpi) = pixels required

(8" * 300dpi) * (10" * 300dpi) = pixels reuired

2400 * 3000 = 7,200,000 (aka. 7.2 mp)​

Drug store/grocery store labs (Walgreens, Kroger, Meijer, Walmart, etc.) who'll print from digitals will use 300dpi. So if you're looking to replace a 35mm camera with a digital and expect to get similar quality pictures, then use that #.

-----


Cheryl,

Had to deal with many Sony digitals over the years, never did find one that took great quality pictures. Some took ok pics, but never great. Their sensors aren't the highest of quality and it shows if you compare pictures from theirs to other cameras. In fact, I'd be willing to put money on it if we took pics with your Sony and my Nikon of the same thing at the same time, the ones from the Nikon would be noticeably better (color, clarity, etc.).

I'd be willing to be money because our main office has a 'fleet' of various sony models. None of them can compete with the color and clarity of pics that the old Olympus D-220 I had could take, and that thing doesn't even compete with the Nikon.

Then again, I am a bit of a perfectionist on those types of things. Of course, I've never meet any one who's a die hard supporter of Sony's digital cameras either. I have meet an abundance of people who are die hard supporters of Nikon. Kinda like the whole Mac / PC thing to a point.
 
Jeffo said:
...
--now for a bit of misleading marketing terms that are used to make the product sound better and put it in terms that more people can think they understand, but usually dont anyways. the term "3x" or "10x" zoom means very little. the reason i say this is that a lens with the "mm" rating of 30mm-90mm is a 3x zoom, but so is a 60mm-180mm lens. the 30-90 zoom will be better for wide angle and group shots. the 60-180 lens would be better for sitting on the sidelines of a soccer game and getting your son zoomed in closer. also, using those two examples above, with both of them zoomed all the way out to the full mm length of the lens, the 180mm will bring in the soccer player twice as close as the 90mm lens. that could be the difference between getting your son and half of his team in the shot or just your son taking that game winning kick without half of the feild being in the shot.
....
Click to expand...

The focal length is just half of the information, you also need the detector size to know what you can do with your camera. Smaller detector have the same angle with a shorter focal as a larger detector. Larger detectors are more light sensitive.
 
ok, time for a short update.
i didn't buy the sony, neither the ixus. to intimitated by you no-sony-guys i guess ;)

anyway. i searched around for a nikon for a while, but suddenly it (the coolpix 5200) turned up waaaay down in a test a norwegian newspaper did.. only 3 out of 6 eyes on the dice.
winner was the pentax optio x, it got 6 out of 6, and as far as i know it looks like great value for the money(and i can even get it alot cheaper, since i live in paris, not norway). so i have kinda decided to go with that one..

specs; Pentax Optio X

so, before i go ahead and buy the damn camera ;), have anybody had siginificant experiences (good/bad) concering this model? or pentax in general? do they work well with macs - will that cause a problem?

thanks, appreciate all the answers!

alex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top