Calling my digital camera experts again...

.. I've found a direct dealer who can do a Canon Ixus 400 or a Sony DSC-10 at just over half of their Swiss retail prices (about £200). I know the Canons are good - are the Sonys? And if so, which is preferable?

 

Tones,

Without getting into a debate about manufacturing quality, just think about which of those two had been a camera manufacturer for decades, and who hasn't. Just which do you think is going to understand more about optics, metering and general usage of cameras.

Frankly I'd never buy a camera if it wasn't from one of the big groups like Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Olympus. Just bear in mind that you can never make a photo better later if you screw up the camera decision now.

 

Agree there - when giving advice to people buying digital cameras, there are two pieces of advice, I'll dish out:

1) Stick to the big five manufacturers - I'll add Pentax to Mr_Sukebe's list.

2) Look for a camera with optical zoom

I'd buy the Canon over the Sony, personally. My mum has an Ixus II APS camera, which takes excellent shots, so the digital one should be a good 'un.

 

I'd go with the Canon for the reasons Mr_Sukebe gives and it's also a really sexy little camera. I'm sure your daughter would go for the Ixus on looks alone . If you feel like doing the spec comparison go to:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

..and select Canon PowerShot S400 and Sony DSC-P10 from the list (hold down Ctrl to make multiple selections) and then click Show.

btw "PowerShot S400" is the US market name for the Ixus 400. Even though www.dpreview.com is a UK site run by a Brit (Phil Askey) he knows where most of his audience is and so uses the US names where there's a difference.

Draw your own conclusions about why Canon feels it has to use names like "PowerShot" and "Digital Rebel" (proper name: EOS-300D) for the US market

Michael.

 

Thanks again, gents, the decision is made, the Canon has been ordered.

 

This is also a Sony Camera:

Just a thought, boys

 

One would need deep pockets (in more ways than one).

 

Hang on boys, that was a bloody stupid amount of bollocks going on!

Its widly regarded that Sony are manufacturing some supurb lenses at the moment (my missus works for Kodak BTW)

As usual with any camera look at the lens, because ultimatly the pixels and everything count for f**k all if the lens is a tiny peice of shit. Also check the resolution of the images, this is essential.

Olympus E10s can be had on ebay at the moment for 350 quid. Proper SLR digital camera with a 62mm lens, full function including full manual operation for aperture etc.

An all round good egg.

 

Sony do make some good cameras, I think they use Zeiss optics, so not bad at all. I wouldn't probably lump Sony in the same boat as all the other digital camera wannabes (Casio anyone? ) but given the choice I'd probably still always go for one of the established camera companies.

garyi - you missed the original thread. Tones wanted a camera for his daughter to go on holiday with that would take half-decent pictures. I don't think a D-SLR would really fit the bill

I have an Olympus E-10 btw, and it is a superb camera

Michael.

 

Yes. Yes it is, although I am fighting a losing battle with a flash I have bought for it, I am not having much sucess with my pictures at all.

Have you seen the new E1? It looks supurb but too expensive for me. Apparently the next lens up in the range will set you back 5k

And you lot say naim take the piss

 

If I were to get a new D-SLR now it would almost certainly the E-1. Very nice indeed and I like the idea of the 4/3 system.

Oly are offering £200 cashback or a number of free accessories with an E-1 if you bring in any SLR camera, film or digital. It's almost tempting to take in my ancient Mamiya ZM film SLR which would struggle to make £75 on eBay!

See here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031602olyuk.asp

The E-1 is pretty reasonably priced on the whole but the £5K telephoto lens is taking the piss a little...allthough it's no worse than the top of the range Canon lenses.

Michael.

 

You could land a battered Russian Zenith or equivalent off eBay for about a fiver!

Tony.

 

Sony make some good sensors (Nikon use them in many of their DSLRs and the Coolpix line), and the zeiss optics aren't bad (esp the DSC828).

However, I'd go with the canon still. There's areas like AF and metering to consider, but the real killer for most sony cams is that they use those stupid memory sticks. You can't get memory sticks bigger than 256MB (so they released the Memorystickpro format to make up for this shortcoming), and if you later move up to something bigger and better, will it still take memorystick?

Please note that my view might be biased a little by owning two canon SLR bodies (one digital) and several thousand pounds worth of lenses, but I wouldn't switch for any existing system (although the 4/3 system has a lot of potential. I'm disappointed that the 300 F2.8 didn't have a stabilisation system though and for that will stick to canon for the forseeable future. If only I could afford that 1Ds or 1DmkII....)

 

Yeah - and you and Garyi are making me INSANELY jealous!

My mum wants me to take a "good" camera home this weekend for the 40th anniversary of my Uncle's ordaining into the Catholic priesthood (where did I go wrong hey?). He's now a Franciscan Monk (for real). But I digress. Anyway, I've got 4 options:

• Olympus Camedia 1400XL (it's digital SLR, but integrated and only 1.3mp). Produces ace quality shots in good light, but autofocus is temperamental in low light)
• Nikon F301 SLR/flash (the front runner as I want to run a film through it to stop it seizing up - I'll probably ignore the flash as it takes longer than a 100 year old single triode to warm up)
• Fuji el cheapo 2mp job (got cheap for parties, only used it once and the buttons on it are a right royal PITA!)
• Samsung E700 camera phone (ahem! - VGA and I have got a couple of good photos out of it (and about 80 mediocre to pee poor ones!)

I think the Nikon'll have to do!

SLR is the best way I reckon, but certainly Canon/Nikon/Olympus are easily the only three digitals I'd consider (the Fuji was a cheapo bargain!).

HOWEVER, my brother has a nice Sony digital and the quality of shots are very good. So they can make some good optical products; shame the battery is a funny sized rechargeable - all my cameras barring the phone use AAs - a no brainer option.

Henryt has a Canon digital from a couple of years ago and it's very nice in operation - good move Tones

 

SLRs have in the past, tended to use expensive lithium batteries. However, my Pentax MZ-70 (of 1996 vintage) uses both lithium and AAs. Very useful if you're away somewhere, as AAs are more readily available.

 

My Oly E-10 take either 4 AA rechargables or 4 AA lithiums or 2 CRV-3 (like two AAs stuck together) lithiums.

One of the main reasons my wife went for her Nikon 3100 was that it takes the same batteries and CF memory as my Oly so we can share "resources".

CRV-3's are as rare as hens teeth so I tend now to use lithium AAs rather than rechargeables as NiMH rechargeables lose their charge almost overnight if not used and since I use my camera sporadically lithiums are much more useful. They last longer than a set of rechargeables too and don't really cost that much.

Also, when travelling lithiums are much better as you don't have to cart around a charger and wonder if where you're going will have the right type of plug/mains.

Having said that CRV-3's are as rare as hens teeth I was pleasantly surprised to find them in a shop on Hoan Kiem Lake in Hanoi in Vietnam a couple of years ago

Michael.

 

I thought it was dodgy NiMHs in my Olympus - now if that also happens to you, I guess they're not so hot in digicams. They'll work like troopers in my discman though - even months of non-use will still allow me a couple of hours of play before they die on me.

How much are lithium AAs though?

 

NiMH's are great if you use the camera all the time, have 2 sets and a rapid charger. My Oly will easily do 2-300 pics on a single set. The problem is that they lose their charge even when not in use (even when not in the camera) - rather rapidly.

The reason they are OK in your Discman after months of non-use is that a Discman requires only very little current. Digicams typically require way more. It's the reason that you can't use alkaline AAs in most digicams - a set of Duracell M3s would last about 2 shots, if they even worked at all.

Lithium AAs are about £3 each - so not cheap.

Michael.