Camera Recommendations

[Barakka]

I'm sure this has been asked plenty, but i'm looking for recommendations on a new digital camera.

I have an old Sony Cybershot 3Mpix which has served me well for a few years, battery life was OK (took AA batteries so spares to hand) and with 256MB cards could hold plenty of shots. The problem is the quality of the photos, gonna be going to the W.Coast of USA in October and will have some good photo opportunites so want to get something decent for taking them - I want to be able to get them printed big enough to go on the wall in the lounge in some form (or at least know that I could if I wanted)

I looked at the DSLR cameras but i'm not going to kid myself that I have the time to learn how to use one properly before October So was looking at the Canon Powershot G7 - the reviews look good and looks like it can handle taking some decent shots while still being able to function well as a point and click.

So now the questions:
Is the Powershot G7 a good option ?
What other ones should I be looking at ?
Is 10 Mpix an overkill ?

[Fabula]

Originally Posted by Barakka

So now the questions:
Is the Powershot G7 a good option ?
What other ones should I be looking at ?
Is 10 Mpix an overkill ?

Is the Powershot G7 a good option ?
Yes.
Seems to be decent enough for your purposes, as you don't want to go the SLR route.

What other ones should I be looking at ?
Panasonic FZ8 is cheaper and similarly good. The technology is sufficiently mature that you are unlikely to get a bad camera, if you buy a proper brand one.
Maybe Canon PowerShot S5 IS...

Is 10 Mpix an overkill ?
Yes and no. For most uses, 3 megapixel is more than sufficient, if supported by decent optics and low noise etc.
If buying new now, 6 megapixels should be the minimum, and higher is nicer. Don't choose a camera based on megapixels alone.
But if you will be wanting to print out at sufficient size for a lounge wall, go for as high is you can!

[IBM]

Are you thinking that you might enjoy photography as more than a brief thought every now and again when you're on holiday?

If the only thing that's worrying you is learning how to use a DSLR in time, then buy one anyway, leave it on fully automatic, and just point and shoot. It's that easy, and much more satisfying to use. You can then pick up the more complex elements at your leisure.

Otherwise, I'm sure the G7 is fine. I've used a G5 in the past, and aside from the barrel getting in the way of the viewfinder, and the shutter lag, they're not bad cameras.

[stroberaver]

Originally Posted by Fabula

Is 10 Mpix an overkill ?
Yes and no. For most uses, 3 megapixel is more than sufficient, if supported by decent optics and low noise etc.
If buying new now, 6 megapixels should be the minimum, and higher is nicer. Don't choose a camera based on megapixels alone.
But if you will be wanting to print out at sufficient size for a lounge wall, go for as high is you can!

I'm confused by what you're saying. First you advise that 3mp is sufficient if it has low noise, but that if buying new, more mp is better. Yet the low mp cameras have low noise because they have a lower pixel count, and vice versa. More pixels crammed into the same space = more noise. Imho 10mp is way over the top for compact cameras due to the physical size of their sensor. All it will do is give you bigger files without any discernible increase in image quality compared to, say, a 6mp camera. Huge mp counts on compact cameras can lead to lots of noise and limited useful ISO range, and I'd be surprised if the optics on compact cameras are good enough to resolve the extra detail a 10mp sensor can (in theory) pick up.

My old 4mp compact camera gave better image quality than a friend's 6mp camera. Why? Because it had a better lens, better metering, and better processing. Megapixels has nothing to do with the image quality, so don't pay any attention to the megapixel race.

[Fabula]

Originally Posted by stroberaver

I'm confused by what you're saying. First you advise that 3mp is sufficient if it has low noise, but that if buying new, more mp is better. Yet the low mp cameras have low noise because they have a lower pixel count, and vice versa. More pixels crammed into the same space = more noise. Imho 10mp is way over the top for compact cameras due to the physical size of their sensor. All it will do is give you bigger files without any discernible increase in image quality compared to, say, a 6mp camera. Huge mp counts on compact cameras can lead to lots of noise and limited useful ISO range, and I'd be surprised if the optics on compact cameras are good enough to resolve the extra detail a 10mp sensor can (in theory) pick up.

My old 4mp compact camera gave better image quality than a friend's 6mp camera. Why? Because it had a better lens, better metering, and better processing. Megapixels has nothing to do with the image quality, so don't pay any attention to the megapixel race.

3mp is sufficient for normal use, with other things being good. But the lowest I've seen available new now is about 6 mp, so that should be the minimum to go for.
More pixels in the same space equals more noise, and no compact camera will be reasonable to use much over iso400. But newer sensors are better at coping with noise, so an older generation 6mp camera may be comparable in noise to a brand new 10mp camera, assuming both are/were decent.
Ideally I would say "go for a full frame camera like a canon 5d, as the noise levels are fantastic", but they cost a packet, and are not what the op was looking for.
The op wanted "to get them printed big enough to go on the wall in the lounge", so definately the more pixels the better. There will be some noise issues at higher sensitivities, but that is inevitable with a compact.

The camera manufacturers are pushing the megapixels as for many people it seems to be the determining factor in buying a camera. Yes, putting a 10mp sensor in a compact camera is overkill. But the newest cameras will have the best features and technology, so unless you decide to go for a Leica M8 or similar, you will sacrifice some slight noise for the better overall package.

[Barakka]

First up, thanks for the replies... when I started looking for a new camera I was considering D-SLR's and Bridge models like the FZ8 or S5 IS, and I didn't continue looking as I thought I wouldn't be able to master them in time. But now looking at them I think I want the compact size for carrying around.

Originally Posted by Fabula

3mp is sufficient for normal use, with other things being good. But the lowest I've seen available new now is about 6 mp, so that should be the minimum to go for.
More pixels in the same space equals more noise, and no compact camera will be reasonable to use much over iso400. But newer sensors are better at coping with noise, so an older generation 6mp camera may be comparable in noise to a brand new 10mp camera, assuming both are/were decent.
Ideally I would say "go for a full frame camera like a canon 5d, as the noise levels are fantastic", but they cost a packet, and are not what the op was looking for.
The op wanted "to get them printed big enough to go on the wall in the lounge", so definately the more pixels the better. There will be some noise issues at higher sensitivities, but that is inevitable with a compact.

The camera manufacturers are pushing the megapixels as for many people it seems to be the determining factor in buying a camera. Yes, putting a 10mp sensor in a compact camera is overkill. But the newest cameras will have the best features and technology, so unless you decide to go for a Leica M8 or similar, you will sacrifice some slight noise for the better overall package.

Right, think i've got this now... I can appreciate that the smaller the camera the smaller the sensor, so cramming 10mp in a smaller space is going to lead to more noise, and trying to take photos at ISO400up at 10mp on a compact is going to have a lot of noise.

So the question is, what would be the effect of setting a 10mp camera to take photos at 6mp, do you get the noise level of having a 6mp sensor the same size, or is it just using a section of the 10mp sensor so noise will be just as high as taking at 10mp ?

[Rhyth]

The G7 is a DSL-Like camera and if your not going to get creative and only shoot in auto you can save a lot of money and get a cheaper P&S camera which will deliver what you want for a quarter of the price (G7 is pushing 500GBP right?).

So I think a G7 Is overkill for what you've specified based on the fact you can get cheaper alternatives whith which to shot in auto.

[Barakka]

Originally Posted by Rhyth

The G7 is a DSL-Like camera and if your not going to get creative and only shoot in auto you can save a lot of money and get a cheaper P&S camera which will deliver what you want for a quarter of the price (G7 is pushing 500GBP right?).

In a way it's good to see the comments about the overspec of the G7, as part of the reason for choosing it was the ability to take it beyond just P&S. A lot of the reviews indicate that the G7 makes it easy to P&S but also gives good rewards when you start looking at getting more creative. My partner used to mess around with SLR cameras a few years ago (still got an old EOS film camera somewhere) so I wanted her to be able to do a bit more than P&S.

The G7 is around the 300GBP bracket, but obviously with a few decent memory cards, spare battery, case etc. it is going to be pushing the 500GBP mark.

[stroberaver]

Originally Posted by Barakka

So the question is, what would be the effect of setting a 10mp camera to take photos at 6mp, do you get the noise level of having a 6mp sensor the same size, or is it just using a section of the 10mp sensor so noise will be just as high as taking at 10mp ?

I wasn't aware there were any compact cameras that could take images at fewer megapixels than their sensors.

Nikon make a top-end DSLR which can shoot in cropped mode at higher fps, which naturally is popular with sports and nature photographers. But if you simply choose a lower size file in your compact camera, then afaik it will be using the whole image sensor, and rescaling the image in the camera to a smaller output size. Using only a portion of the sensor, like a Nikon D2Xs, actually affects the field of view of the photo.

[Whiternoise]

Originally Posted by stroberaver

I wasn't aware there were any compact cameras that could take images at fewer megapixels than their sensors.

Nikon make a top-end DSLR which can shoot in cropped mode at higher fps, which naturally is popular with sports and nature photographers. But if you simply choose a lower size file in your compact camera, then afaik it will be using the whole image sensor, and rescaling the image in the camera to a smaller output size. Using only a portion of the sensor, like a Nikon D2Xs, actually affects the field of view of the photo.

Just to address the first point, i think pretty much all cameras let you take pictures at fewer MP settings, it's their way of allowing users to cram more pictures into a memory card. They might say you get 1000 "Fine" pictures at 1200x1600 or 500 "Normal" pictures at 600x800.

I suspect the noise level will be the same, but in the same sort of vein - you may as well just take the pictures at the highest resolution and then resize in photoshop or somesuch application. That way the noise will be less noticeable (assuming you're going to print the pictures off).

I'd have a look at the Fuji E900, it's got decent enough resolution (9MP), the ISO performance is superb as with most Fuji's and it has a pretty much full Manual option. It's selling on eBay new for about £100. It's a lot like the s9500 which i have, but shrunk down and with slightly lower specs.

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/e900/
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FUJI-9-0MP-DIG...QQcmdZViewItem

[stroberaver]

Originally Posted by Whiternoise

Just to address the first point, i think pretty much all cameras let you take pictures at fewer MP settings, it's their way of allowing users to cram more pictures into a memory card. They might say you get 1000 "Fine" pictures at 1200x1600 or 500 "Normal" pictures at 600x800.

Hmm, I think you're confusing two different things. The "fine" or "normal" settings don't usually (in my experience) refer to the image size, they refer to the level of compression applied to the jpeg. Therefore a 1600×1200 image take in "fine" mode will have a larger filesize than a "normal" one because more detail has been preserved by the camera. Separate to that is the desired resolution of the final image.

But say you choose an output of 1600×1200 instead of the usual full output of, say, a 4 MP camera. My point, in response to the OP's question about noise when using a smaller output size, was that the camera still takes the image at full size, then scales it down to the desired output resolution. To not take the image at full size would require either a crop mode, which affects the field of view, or to not use every pixel across the sensor which would then require significantly more (and different) interpolation, but still wouldn't affect/reduce the noise levels any.

[Whiternoise]

Ah ok, i see what you mean

[MSIC]

Originally Posted by Barakka

The G7 is around the 300GBP bracket, but obviously with a few decent memory cards, spare battery, case etc. it is going to be pushing the 500GBP mark.

Blimey, that sounds like you're up for a serious camera!
Nikon D40 maybe? Available for around £320, or a pack inc extras for £385.
I love my new S5700 that only cost £110, and there are lots of these types (without the full pro features or changeable lenses) for under £200.

[Barakka]

Cheers for the replies everyone, went for the G7 in the end... I did keep looking but just kept coming back to it, I think the combination of features/size/quality etc. are a close match for what I need it for right now. But one thing I would say is i've learnt a hell of a lot about digital photography in the last 1-2 weeks, a lot of which spurred on by comments here.

I'm looking at this as an opportunity to see if I want to step beyond the compact world and move over to the SLR side I know this sort of cash could have bought me a decent DSLR starter kit, but I could easily spend 2 or 3 times the amount on a DSLR setup, so small steps... see if i'm any good first...