Help me buy a good non-SLR digital camera

[Oakie]

I've been asked to do some rather important photos for a member of my extended family so am taking it as a good reason/excuse to update my competent old Kodak EasyShare to something with a few more bells and whistles. (Digital of course).

I can't really afford an SLR so am looking for something a grade under that. Happy to spend $700 to $1000 and could stretch to $1200 if it's worth it.

I'm not interested in just the one with most megapixels ... 10 would be ample.
A good lens is important as is a sizable optical zoom. Also important is ease of use and of course the quality of output. I am a viewfinder boy when framing pictures so cameras with a huge LCD aren't really that important.

There is a plethora of cameras for sale and it's hard to compare them all so I need firstly, suggestions as to what to be aware of when buying a camera in this bracket and then any particular models you can suggest.

[vindy500]

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Digital-cameras/Digital-SLR/auction-254971426.htm

and add this

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Camera-accessories/Lenses/Canon/auction-254158016.htm

and youre away


Or if you want something simpler, how about one of these
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Digital-cameras/Point-shoot/10-megapixel-or-more/auction-254576003.htm

[slofox]

I like to buy digital cameras from a company that has been in cameras for a while - Canon,Nikon, Fuji etc.

I have used a couple of Fujis and found them to be pretty good. Not sure which models are current, but something with a 10x or better optical zoom is worth the candle. Perhaps one of the S series might be the go...S1500 ($500 - $600 at Bond and Bond) or bigger brother like the S200EXR ($1000 at B&B).

[Nasty]

I've been asked to do some rather important photos for a member of my extended family so am taking it as a good reason/excuse to update my competent old Kodak EasyShare to something with a few more bells and whistles. (Digital of course).

I can't really afford an SLR so am looking for something a grade under that. Happy to spend $7000 to $1000 and could stretch to $1200 if it's worth it.

I'm not interested in just the one with most megapixels ... 10 would be ample.
A good lens is important as is a sizable optical zoom. Also important is ease of use and of course the quality of output. I am a viewfinder boy when framing pictures so cameras with a huge LCD aren't really that important.

There is a plethora of cameras for sale and it's hard to compare them all so I need firstly, suggestions as to what to be aware of when buying a camera in this bracket and then any particular models you can suggest.

Check out www.dpreview.com they have information on different cameras but also have comparison viewing available.

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ30 ... with Lumix lenses they are a fantastic buy. But I do recommend the site .. best coparisons anywhere.

[vifferman]

I suggest that first you read some online review forums: type "digital camera review" into Google and browse away.

I've got a Canon S5is, and I like it. It's no longer the best, but it does more than I want, and meets the purpose: it's compact, has image stabilisation, is 10 megapixels. The reviews of it I found online were very accurate, and pinpointed it's faults, weaknesssesssesess and strengths. The main one is it doesn't do wide-angle very well; the overpriced wide-angle lens I bought for it helps, but it too has shortcomings.

But to each his own; find your own camera that meets your needs. Mine cost under $500, so for $1200 you should be able to get something pretty good.

[disenfranchised]

With that budget you could still get a SLR though.
Something like this (http://www.offtheback.co.nz/store/products/canon-eos-1000d-digital-slr--2/single-lens-kit--5)
The twin lens kit still scrapes in under $1200.

Otherwise the Canon G and SX range take pretty decent shots.
And the specs on the Fuji Fixepix EXR models are quiet good

[Oakie]

What advantages are there in getting an SLR over a non-SLR? (apart from being able to see exactly the image you will capture?)

[Forest]

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 is probably the best non-SLR camera available at the moment (that is in your price range).

However it has no built-in viewfinder, only an LCD.

[Swoop]

Canon Powershot SX110.
9.0 mega pix.
10x optical zoom.

I just love mine.

[Leviticus]

Otherwise the Canon G and SX range take pretty decent shots.


Canon G10 or New G11 are amazing cameras. I use mine more than my Canon DSLR.:2thumbsup

[Oakie]

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 is probably the best non-SLR camera available at the moment (that is in your price range).

However it has no built-in viewfinder, only an LCD.

Gotta have my viewfinder. Apart form just being a thing I am comfortable with, LCD's use a lot a battery juice.

[wysper]

Yep Canon G11 for my money.

The lieca's are nice too. But then you might as well get a panasonic. Certain model panasonic that is. I would have to check to find out. Same internals and the pana use a leica lens. The leica lenses are very nice.

[Forest]

Gotta have my viewfinder. Apart form just being a thing I am comfortable with, LCD's use a lot a battery juice.

Viewfinders are subject to parallax error - especially when you're doing close-up shots. At least with the viewfinder, you get to see the actual framing.

But it isn't up to me to change your mind.

Probably best you look at the Canon Powershot G10 or G11.

[Forest]

Yep Canon G11 for my money.

The lieca's are nice too. But then you might as well get a panasonic. Certain model panasonic that is. I would have to check to find out. Same internals and the pana use a leica lens. The leica lenses are very nice.

I own a Leica D-LUX 4. It's basically a Panasonic LX3 in a slightly different case (they share the same lens and internals, the only difference is the firmware).

I bought the Leica over the Panasonic because it will have better resale value when I'm finished with it.

[kave]

Canon or Nikon would be the go. Leica are probably a step up from those two, but are a shitload pricier. Nikon doesn't really bother advertising in New Zealand (outside of specialist photography magazines), the New Zealand importers (T.A MacAlisters) are fairly useless and dont seem to see the point. That being said, Nikon are kick-arse cameras. I personally would get something like a Nikon P6000.

http://www.nikon.co.nz/productitem.php?pid=1277-04d9c9c633

[sinned]

Check out www.dpreview.com they have information on different cameras but also have comparison viewing available.

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ30 ... with Lumix lenses they are a fantastic buy. But I do recommend the site .. best coparisons anywhere.

This site should be your first and last place to check out a camera - it is that good. Don't buy from a shop until you have checked the online review. Some stuff in shops and especially on Tardme are old models which is another reason to not buy in a hurry.

[Headbanger]

What advantages are there in getting an SLR over a non-SLR? (apart from being able to see exactly the image you will capture?)

SLR is a bastard to cart around everywhere, and unless you dedicate your life to learning what 20 trillion settings do your photos will probably be worse then your run of the mill digital camera that weighs nothing and fits in any pocket.....

[Winston001]

You've asked the right questions and have the right attitude. Huge mega pixels are unnecessary - 6MP is a large data file.

The lens quality is very important. Personally I like a viewfinder too. A large LCD does help for reviewing pics.

Digital photography for practical purposes is a mature technology. Stick to the major brand names and you can't go wrong. Metal body for strength.

I use two digital cameras: a Canon Ixus which is light, slim, and very useful. Take it anywhere. Plus a Fuji 5700. It has a 10X zoom and is quite good but because the Ixus is so portable, it gets used most of the time.

The flashes on digital cameras are not up to much.

Anti-shake (or whatever its called) is desirable according to review sites.

Finally a word of warning - manufacturers build to a price point. They cram in technology but not robustness and strength. I had an argument with Canon and they said I should have bought a camera case!! I won..... :D

[Winston001]

Couple more sites:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/

http://www.megapixel.net/html/reviews.php

and I like this site http://www.cameras.co.uk/

and just FYI.... http://www.delonixradar.com.au/new-zealand/ :D

[McJim]

I managed to bid for a camera that was being thrown out at work (coz it was obsolete) It's a Fuji Finepics s602Zoom and has loadsa cool features like 5 frames per second and essentially a lot of the bells and whistles you would expect on a digital SLR. Most important for me was the fast shutter speed and the lack of a delay between pressing the button and the picture being taken.

None on trademe at the moment though - I got mine for less than $100.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Digital-cameras/Digital-SLR/auction-254352880.htm

This is in your price range but unfortunately is an SLR

[wysper]

I own a Leica D-LUX 4. It's basically a Panasonic LX3 in a slightly different case (they share the same lens and internals, the only difference is the firmware).

I bought the Leica over the Panasonic because it will have better resale value when I'm finished with it.

Not only that.. there is something quite nice about owning the brand. Leica is an exceptional brand.

[wysper]

What advantages are there in getting an SLR over a non-SLR? (apart from being able to see exactly the image you will capture?)

I think a couple of the big pluses for a digital SLR are.

1. You have a view finder that is looking through the lens (at least you do on the good ones) oops just noticed you mentioned that.
2. You take the photo the instant you press the shutter. There is not a delay like on the point and shoots.
3. You have a choice of lenses you can use. This is not important to everyone.
(good for me because I had a Canon SLR and bought a Canon DSLR so I could use the lenses on both)
4. It should have a bigger CCD therefore giving you better images.

However.. we have had our DSLR for over 6 years. We have never printed a photo above 6x4 so having a massive mp count and the ability to print much bigger images has been not such an issue. So you may want to think about how important some of these points are to you.

[Oakie]

Thanks for that guys. All useful replies. Yes, the other thing that is important and I'd forgotten about was capturing the photo when you push the button ... not 2 seconds later. My wee Kodak is pretty good but there is a slight lag. Also flash quality ... my first digital (a Mustek) ... I would have got more light on a subject by lighting a fart. Timing the fart to the moment I wanted to take the photo was the problem though.

I can live with parallax given that you can sort of adjust for the effect when you are familiar with the camera and cropping the final product helps.

Any more advice or model suggestions gratefully accepted.

[steve_t]

Whether you get a DSLR depends on what you want to use the camera for. As some have said, DSLRs have amazing capabilities but lots of people don't need these and a lot of people do take better pictures with Point & Shoot cameras. Headbanger is right in that a DSLR is bulky and a PITA to take with you. You're best to go down to a camera store and discuss your needs/wants. Again, as some have said, megapixel counts over 6-7MP start to become redundant for the typical person's needs and become less important than the lens you're shooting with.
I'd say get a DSLR if you can, but be prepared to spend some time learning how to get great shots and get a decent bag to lug it around in :2thumbsup

[Skyryder]

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp

My choice would be one of these.


Skyryder

[onearmedbandit]

When you've made your mind up pm me and we can arrange to meet at our store.

[vifferman]

I am a viewfinder boy when framing pictures so cameras with a huge LCD aren't really that important.
Yeah, me too. My Canon has one, which is good, and what is shown in it is programmable which is even better.
Don't write off having a good LCD screen though - it's useful for setting up functions, for reviewing pictures to decide which ones to delete (and also=s on the Canon, you can edit them in the camera!), and for taking photos in awkward positions. Examples of the latter are taking photos over the top of the crowd, and taking photos of my wife's quilts on the floor; rather than standing on a ladder, I stand on a chair, hold the camera up and away from me, and turn the LCD screen so it's visible. Frame up the photo, click and I'm done.
A kewl feature of the LCD screen is you can set it so no matter which way it's facing, the image is the right way up.

For me, image stabilisation was a bonus - I bought the camera for using on a bus tour, and I didn't want to have to change lenses, and wanted something that could shoot pix on the run (or from the bus). Wish I'd had a polarising filter though (I've got one now).

One more thing - be careful what card you buy. It's more cost effective to buy larger ones, BUT.... not all card readers will read them. I bought an 8Gb card, and it proved to be a pain when I tried to get my photos backed up in Florence so I could clear the card. The internet cafe I went to was great, very well set up, but their card reader wouldn't recognise the card, so I had to plug my camera in and download from that. Very slow. And then I had to have two DVDs burnt, so that was even slower. Took me about an hour and three-quarters of faffing around, when I could've been sightseeing. :(
Two 4Gb cards would've been a bit dearer, but more practical.
One last thing (sorry for rabbitting on): check out batteries used by your prospective camera. My old Sony 3megapixel camera uses a proprietary lithium ion battery - lasts for ages, unless you use the flash a lot. When I visited the Winchester house in San Jose on the second day of our Christmas vacation in 2006, I was so enchanted by it that I took lotsa photos, mostly with flash. That was my photography done - no pix for the rest of the day.:(
The Canon S5is takes ornery AA batteries, so I bought two sets of four of the best rechargeables I could find, and always made sure both sets were charged at the start of the day. Paid off big time when I ran one set flat and could just tip them out and stick the others in.
Although you may not think you'll need it, the video function can be useful. I found at night on a trip down the Seine, it didn't matter what setting I used, I couldn't get a decent photo. Ended up videoing the trip, and (apart from some minor vertical striping due to flare and the shutter), it came out great. The sound clip function is also useful to record place names when there isn't a sign handy, so when you're reviewing your snaps weeks later, you can place them. (A built in GPS chip would be even better!)

[wysper]

I'd forgotten about was capturing the photo when you push the button ... not 2 seconds later. My wee Kodak is pretty good but there is a slight lag. A

Check out that lag. We have just bought one for our 6yo for xmas. It is an Agfa $199 including 4gb card, case, battery charger and batteries. (Thanks Snapshot Hamilton - they have a website.)
I noticed there is a delay whle the photo shows up on the lcd, but it is a delay writing to the card. Once it clicks you can move the camera, and the screen is black but when it shows the photo, it is a photo of the subject when the button was pushed. NOt a blurred movement image.
I would get used to that, but when we replace our DSLR it will be with a Canon or Leica. Not another DSLR.

[Oakie]

When you've made your mind up pm me and we can arrange to meet at our store.

Which shop?

[Oakie]

Don't write off having a good LCD screen though - it's useful for setting up functions, for reviewing pictures to decide which ones to delete and for taking photos in awkward positions.
Yeah, I use mine as you mention above. I'm just a miserable bastard though and like to save the battery juice for photo taking (apart from just finding it easier to use the viewfinder


One last thing (sorry for rabbitting on): check out batteries used by your prospective camera.
Yes. I hadn't thought about that until my daughter bought herself a new camera a few months back. Takes the proprietary battery pack only. I have a nice wee supply of rechargeables and am pretty keen to keep on using them.

[nadroj]

Thanks for that guys. All useful replies. Yes, the other thing that is important and I'd forgotten about was capturing the photo when you push the button ... not 2 seconds later. My wee Kodak is pretty good but there is a slight lag. Also flash quality ... my first digital (a Mustek) ... I would have got more light on a subject by lighting a fart. Timing the fart to the moment I wanted to take the photo was the problem though.

I can live with parallax given that you can sort of adjust for the effect when you are familiar with the camera and cropping the final product helps.

Any more advice or model suggestions gratefully accepted.

The main reason I went DSLR was to get action shots without having to anticipate with 'shutter delay' and a blank display on my Sony F828.

[Oakie]

My extensive research has led me to the conclusion that the Canon Powershot SX20 IS is the bee's knees for what I want. http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/powershot-sx20-is/canon-powershot-sx20-is-review.html The standard mall retailers do it for $899 but PriceSpy http://pricespy.co.nz/ has led me to a local shop that will do it at $698. Could do it $30 cheaper ordering on-line from Auckland but like the idea of being able tio eyeball the vendor and having somewhere to go back to if need be.

Oh. A big wahoo for the re-modelled PriceSpy site. So much functionality in there now and the filters made it possible to reduce 419 possible models to 15 which I then just read the linked expert reviews to to make my choice.

[Beemer]

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 is probably the best non-SLR camera available at the moment (that is in your price range).

However it has no built-in viewfinder, only an LCD.

I've got a pro-digital camera as well as a Panasonic Lumix. The new one is (I think) 12 megapixels and about $800. Very good cameras, very easy to use and they get great reviews. Shop around for a good price.