Camera Choice - General, Macro, Video (£200)

[Pookie Bear]

Hi there,

I don't often come in here, so please forgive my ignorance

I am looking to upgrade my current camera. I own a Panasonic DMC-TZ5 which has served admirably as my holiday and general party/family event camera. I now find myself needing more from my camera and I am little lost on how to get what I need. This also includes landscape photos and wildlife pics - you know, the stuff every amateur takes snaps of whilst they're out taking a walk!

I also collect tarantulas. I would love to get better close up photos of them - but the TZ5 doesn't get close enough or have enough detail to satisfy me. Nowhere near. In some cases there is also the added element of low light - as my collection is in my study and the light in there is poor.

My final requirement is HD video. Good quality is essential. I have started tinkering with video-making so having a decent video option would be might handy.

So, the requirements are:
Good in general (holidays/parties/events) - although I imgine this is going to pretty standard across the board.
Awesome macro capabilities (low light performance would be a big bonus)
HD video.
Cost around £200.

Thank you for any suggestions you can offer, even if it's just on the basics of camera types...compact, superzooms, bridge, DSLR (which isn't appropriate for half a dozen reasons!), etc...

 

[Pookie Bear]

Perhaps my original criteria were too stringent. Fortunately, on Saturday afternoon I got a tax rebate, so my budget has doubled.

I have been looking at the Fujifilm HS20EXR (although my friend claims the previous HS10 model is superior) and the Panasonic FZ100/FZ150. However, my price-range has now lifted me into the area of beginner DSLRs, like the Canon 1100D and the Nikon D3100.

So, do I need a DSLR, or can I still meet my criteria by getting a top of the range bridge camera?

 

[mrk]

My own choice would be (given the new budget) the entry dslr segment, it gives you room to grow down the line and attach better lenses to get better shots of your bugs (which should be killed with fire and nuked from orbit some day!).

Here's a good overview of both the D3100 and 1100D from digitalrev (who do the most entertaining reviews )

 

[Pookie Bear]

Thanks for your thoughts, K.

The top end Bridges, which are approaching the cost of entry-level DSLRs are really feature-rich, but obviously there is no space for upgrading. I just worry that if I go Bridge, I'll need to upgrade in a year's time and find that I can't afford it. If I go entry-level DSLR, I'll find myself with a camera I barely use all the functions of.

I really am torn between the two. What a pain!

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Well after eyeing up the D3100 and the 1100D for a month I have just purchased the D3100. Its a very nice camera, I'll post up something once I get out with it. No-one really as anything bad to say about it apart from the auto focus in video mode is not very fast but overall the video mode is better than the 1100D. Better image quality is better than the 1100D and more compact.

But the D3100 is more slightly expensive in the short and long run. The body is more and the lenses are a lot more. The D3100 will only auto focus with newer AF-S lenses, the range is good but they are more expensive than the cannon equivalent. But the lenses are considered to be good quality for the priced asked in the image quality department.

Guide mode is a very good feature of the D3100 and makes things easy to understand.

The D3100 is a better camera overall and is worth the extra outlay to me.

But if you want one get one soon as they are currently not in production due to half of Thailand being under water and the price is creeping up.

 

[w3bbo]

I was in the same boat and ended up buying the same camera. Very happy with it and now looking for a half decent macro lens (which cost almost as much as the camera ).