What cam for ......
- Thread starter teaboy5
- Start date
Assuming nobody has one, what parts of that review are cause for concern? Is there any reason why you're thinking about not buying one?
*EDIT* The reason I ask that is I've found that it's better to come to your own conclusions rather than rely solely on the opinions of others. I can see a few things that would potentially put me off the camera, and I'm wondering what you're line of thinking is here.
*EDIT* The reason I ask that is I've found that it's better to come to your own conclusions rather than rely solely on the opinions of others. I can see a few things that would potentially put me off the camera, and I'm wondering what you're line of thinking is here.
Last edited:
It depends on what you're after from a camera.
If you want a decent point and shoot then it's not the right choice. If you're looking for a DSLR, this isn't one. It's somewhere between the two (these type of cameras are referred to as bridge cameras, i.e. they bridge the gap between p&s and DSLR's). If you feel you've grown out of your point and shoot and it's lack of functions is limiting you but you're nervous about leaping into the expensive world of DSLRs and lenses then this is a good choice.
As for the camera (I have one), it produces great results. For around £400 you get a 9mp sensor and 28mm to 300mm (Equiv.) zoom and you get lots of SLR functions and feel. To get this zoom range from a DSLR it would cost you a couple of hundred quid more if you got a couple of kit lenses (which can be iffy in optial quality). The quality of the lens is supurb (for the money), it does suffer from a bit of pincushion distortion at the wide end (this can be easily remedied in Photoshop) and is a little soft at the telephoto end but generally it's an amazing bit of glass for the money (BTW the lens is fixed and cannot be changed but you get this whole rang ein one lens!) It's other short falls are max 30 secs exposure (even in Bulb mode), small sensor means wide DOF all the time, very annoying if you're used to an SLR. Crap with underexposed images (can be very noisy). It has an EVF which means that you have to rely on auto focus, you don't have the same level of detail throught the viewfinder that you do on a SLR so you can't do manual fine focus changes. Strengths (apart from the lens quality) are very good overall noise levels, images tend to be very clean if exposed well, focus-aid (a green light) means you can focus in complete darkness. ASA goes up to 1600 (although 800 ASA is very usuable, 1600 is pushing it for acceptable image quality, noise is just too much).
That's about it I think. As I said at the begining, it all depends on what you're after from a camera. If you're just after a decent digital point and shoot then you're probably better off getting a Canon Ixus or something (never used one but this board seems to rant about them).
Hope that helps, I'll try to answer any more questions you have any. Better ask tonight tho as I'm off tomorrow for a long weekend away (yay! \o/).
cheers,
Mohain
If you want a decent point and shoot then it's not the right choice. If you're looking for a DSLR, this isn't one. It's somewhere between the two (these type of cameras are referred to as bridge cameras, i.e. they bridge the gap between p&s and DSLR's). If you feel you've grown out of your point and shoot and it's lack of functions is limiting you but you're nervous about leaping into the expensive world of DSLRs and lenses then this is a good choice.
As for the camera (I have one), it produces great results. For around £400 you get a 9mp sensor and 28mm to 300mm (Equiv.) zoom and you get lots of SLR functions and feel. To get this zoom range from a DSLR it would cost you a couple of hundred quid more if you got a couple of kit lenses (which can be iffy in optial quality). The quality of the lens is supurb (for the money), it does suffer from a bit of pincushion distortion at the wide end (this can be easily remedied in Photoshop) and is a little soft at the telephoto end but generally it's an amazing bit of glass for the money (BTW the lens is fixed and cannot be changed but you get this whole rang ein one lens!) It's other short falls are max 30 secs exposure (even in Bulb mode), small sensor means wide DOF all the time, very annoying if you're used to an SLR. Crap with underexposed images (can be very noisy). It has an EVF which means that you have to rely on auto focus, you don't have the same level of detail throught the viewfinder that you do on a SLR so you can't do manual fine focus changes. Strengths (apart from the lens quality) are very good overall noise levels, images tend to be very clean if exposed well, focus-aid (a green light) means you can focus in complete darkness. ASA goes up to 1600 (although 800 ASA is very usuable, 1600 is pushing it for acceptable image quality, noise is just too much).
That's about it I think. As I said at the begining, it all depends on what you're after from a camera. If you're just after a decent digital point and shoot then you're probably better off getting a Canon Ixus or something (never used one but this board seems to rant about them).
Hope that helps, I'll try to answer any more questions you have any. Better ask tonight tho as I'm off tomorrow for a long weekend away (yay! \o/).
cheers,
Mohain
Hi there,
The s9500 would be on a shortlist.
Very capable, high resolution, high zoom, great price!
I'd also consider the Sony dsc r1. May be at the upper end of your budget but has a fine set of optics and an aps sized cmos sensor at just over 10mega pixels!
dpreview will have looked at it as will stevesdigicams on the web.
They also mention equivelents which could be helpful to you too!
Hope that helps!
gt_junkie
The s9500 would be on a shortlist.
Very capable, high resolution, high zoom, great price!
I'd also consider the Sony dsc r1. May be at the upper end of your budget but has a fine set of optics and an aps sized cmos sensor at just over 10mega pixels!
dpreview will have looked at it as will stevesdigicams on the web.
They also mention equivelents which could be helpful to you too!
Hope that helps!
gt_junkie
My brother had an S9500, in fact he's had more Digicams/DSLR's then I've had hot dinners..
It's quite a good performer, but it really is too big for a normal digital camera, and it's nowhere near good enough to mix it with DSLR's..
You can get a Konica Minolta 5D with the 18-70 kit lens for just over £425, and considering that it's small for a DSLR, and all the features (Proper Anti-Shake etc) and upgradeability.. you would never be disappointed.. it may *only* be 6MP, but it's not about technical numbers, its the speed of AF/Buffer, Metering, Colour accuracy and flexibility that make DSLR's a joy to use..
But don't take my word, as it's all my opinion, for some good research,
www.dpreview.com
www.imaging-resource.com
www.dcresource.com
www.steves-digicams.com
www.megapixel.net
I doubt you'd be disappointed with an S9000/S9500, but you should at least consider the DSLRs, they are as large or scary as they used to be!
It's quite a good performer, but it really is too big for a normal digital camera, and it's nowhere near good enough to mix it with DSLR's..
You can get a Konica Minolta 5D with the 18-70 kit lens for just over £425, and considering that it's small for a DSLR, and all the features (Proper Anti-Shake etc) and upgradeability.. you would never be disappointed.. it may *only* be 6MP, but it's not about technical numbers, its the speed of AF/Buffer, Metering, Colour accuracy and flexibility that make DSLR's a joy to use..
But don't take my word, as it's all my opinion, for some good research,
www.dpreview.com
www.imaging-resource.com
www.dcresource.com
www.steves-digicams.com
www.megapixel.net
I doubt you'd be disappointed with an S9000/S9500, but you should at least consider the DSLRs, they are as large or scary as they used to be!