# Need a new Camera!



## HawMan (May 12, 2006)

Hey Guys.


Im Not sure what type of camera i want. Im looking for something that :


1. Has good zoom, Yet holds its quality well.
2. Can take good shots in Low Light situations.
3. Can Take Clear Videos with sound.


So far, the Sony DSC-HX1 looks awsome. The Videos it produces are excellent (HD 1080p), and the zoom seems very very good.

However according to some reviews the picture quality is pretty junk.

Any Recommendations? Im a total Newbie so keep it simple :grin: Budget is no more than £350


----------



## Starving Artist (Jul 18, 2009)

Hey HawMan - 

i took a look at some of the pics the Sony produces - though i'm not on an editing machine when i did... the stills don't look half bad for the internet or for digital viewing. Don't know how print would come out.

May i ask - do you have experience with a SLR? are you upgrading to a DSLR? a Second DSLR?

Have you given consideration to the type of shooting and/or style you want to do?

The type Video you expect to shoot?

Type storage media you want to shoot with - SD ?

accessories you'll need to do the type shooting you want or expect to do?

these are pretty much standard questions to ask yourself to find out if the camera your looking at will suite your needs.

As far as reviews go - check out dpreview.com

they give samples of each of teh cameras they review
have comparisions you can do.
Full Features and specs of the cameras and rate it after actually using it.

i use them all the time when lookig into cameras - especially the sample shots.

hope this helps you.


----------



## Havalilsi (May 22, 2005)

This looks like a pretty decent camera. The range of the lens is good as far as zoom. The aperture opens up to 2.8, so that should be good for decent low light shots. But low light is a relative term. 

The only drawback to me is the lack of the ability to produce RAW files.

Like the Artist said, you can't go by the shots posted on the web as to the quality of a camera. When I post pictures I usually export my jpegs at the lowest quality. If the scene is well lit, you'll have good pics, lower lighting, then even high dollar DSLRs struggle unless you have expensive lens.


----------



## Starving Artist (Jul 18, 2009)

Havalilsi said:


> Like the Artist said, you can't go by the shots posted on the web as to the quality of a camera. When I post pictures I usually export my jpegs at the lowest quality. If the scene is well lit, you'll have good pics, lower lighting, then even high dollar DSLRs struggle unless you have expensive lens.


I'm going to have to dis-agree with you to a point on this statement HayMan

1) i stated _look_ at the images on dpreview.com because _you can_ see for yourself the image quality.

The images hosted by DP Review for the most part are Full images - you can read the specs on each that you view and tell if it is or it isn't. They prefer Full un-Altered images - it's a review site. One of the best out there for cameras.

2) Even altered by changing the Jpeg quality - this will generaly only srve to enhance the camera flaws - picture flaws. Lens aberations will show perhaps even more so in a lower quality Jpeg.

I do agree we generally do save in lower quality for the web - and this can give false impressions to the image quality of the camera on in other factors such as softness - sharpness rez quality etc etc.

But like i stated previously - most all the images hosted by DP are full as taken untouched photos - they let you know that before uploading them.

They do down scale them for viewing - but you can definitly see approximatly what your images will come out like as an average user taking the photo with the particualar camera in question.

And on a personal note here - i'm an avad film shooter in the MF and LF range of cameras - and extremely hard pressed to impress with digital imagry. Love it but am very picky at the same time. and this is not to debate Digital versus Film - because most don't compare apples to apples they compare apples to oranges when this type discussion comes up. But for me, to see a MF or LF negative or slide and then comapare it to the average Digital - i'm not impressed with the digital image in many ways. I'm very impressed with Digital in other ways however.

Point being - i'm hard to please digitally and have had discussion witht he Leica Reps for hours on their line and the digital differences as well as some of the higher end Digital imagery houses - (the old pro photo labs) adn i'm not attempting nor wish to get in that type of discussion here in this thread, but my stance should be pointed out. In short - your talking to guy that is comparing it to the best - and not easily impressed.

Get down to it - what i see on screen - doesn't mean squat to what will actually print. Comparing a graphic print to a actual photograph... not digital imagery Not print as in inkjet - well that's another subject for debate, and not meant for this thread. ;0)

that said and pointed out... 

Not having RAW - is definitly a draw back for pro work... and would tend to make me look at other choices - but that is me. Secondly - i'm not a huge fan of Sony on all things. They tend to be a tad propietory in their gear and apps. and accessories. Not saying they don't make quality gear. And i have bought Sony in the past. I try to look past Name branding and just at the gear before making a purchase desicion.

Have you looked at the Nikon line or Sigma lines?

Panasonic hear tell is coming out with a whole new format for Photogs - watch for it int he next few months - gonna change some big things in file format - and will make all others obsolete - think about it...


----------



## Havalilsi (May 22, 2005)

Point taken with the images at DP Review.

Digital has come a long way in a short while. I would dare say the 5D, 1Ds or D3x would give a film camera a run for their money in picture quality. Can't comment on the big dogs, like Hassleblad and so forth. Out of my price range.:sigh:

The amount the gentleman wants to spend is about $600, he could try to get a few more pounds on there and get a Canon T1i, which will do awesome videos, and great stills. But its not as small as the one he asked about.

I'm a Canon guy and I have a DSLR, but I think the Nikon might have an edge in my range, but in the price range you're looking, the Canons have the edge.

Check out the Canon PowerShot SX1 IS. Also check out Steve's Digicam for great comparisons on different cameras. Good luck. Let us know what you've decided upon.


----------



## Starving Artist (Jul 18, 2009)

Hi HayMan -



> Point taken with the images at DP Review.
> 
> Digital has come a long way in a short while. I would dare say the 5D, 1Ds or D3x would give a film camera a run for their money in picture quality. Can't comment on the big dogs, like Hassleblad and so forth. Out of my price range.:sigh:



Hmmm - Digital has caught up to film? interesting... i wasn't aware of that.



> The film achieves grain free enlargements of up to 2,5 meters diagonally. This equals mathematical about 500 Megapixels. 12 Megapixel, which is today's standard in high end digital cameras equals 2,4% of 500 Megapixel. This just as a little comparison on the side....
> 
> quoted from film manufacturer


an that is all i have to say on that subject... :wink:

- funny you mentioned it, i had come back yesterday to edit in a suggestion to go Camcorder - but was past the edit tiime.



> The amount the gentleman wants to spend is about $600, he could try to get a few more pounds on there and get a Canon T1i, which will do awesome videos, and great stills. But its not as small as the one he asked about.
> 
> I'm a Canon guy and I have a DSLR, but I think the Nikon might have an edge in my range, but in the price range you're looking, the Canons have the edge.
> 
> Check out the Canon PowerShot SX1 IS. Also check out Steve's Digicam for great comparisons on different cameras. Good luck. Let us know what you've decided upon.


I don't know - Canon and Nikon run pretty close from what i've seen - Sigma has there own method and some of their cameras are real resonable right now for the Pro SLR's. Don't know abou there video side though.

IMO - Camcorders are adding some great still features these days with still up to 9-12mp range at around $799 and under.

Still i'm sure will come back with some great video features in the future - to battle camcorder - or fool us into thinking it's a battle- more like stear us toward still camera sales. lol

Either way - we'll see some great things to come - didgital has only begun to really start to formulate a base to grow on - it's still very young in the scheme of things and tech wise in has much more room to grow.

think about it - jsut a short time ago say 96 - 10years - you would have been dying for a few megs of RAM - now - lol - gigs!! and hyper threading and talk of diamonds for use instead of silicone... plenty of room to grow and it's growing fast - in our eyes but with so much head room - we haven't even begun to see it's [digitals] capabilities.

There was a Kodak i wish i had picked up - shot true /Full [true/Full??? joke terms, anyway...] it shot 1080 HD - with 1080 HD video and a true 16:9 format - not the cut versions they give now - and it was a point and shoot - got great reviews. Had a good lens - should have bought it then... as it was real affordable... but like i said - i'm hard pressed to please digitally right now. I have to literally force myself to keep the cheapy digital i have. and i only got due to price - why? They're fun don't get me wrong - but - thoguh i wanted digital when it first came out - 3mp fo r 1.500 dollars - look now - 8mp for 69 bucks... lol and that in 8 short years!

I'll get a good digi after panasonic and others make this new change i hear rummored comeing in the next few months. Then digi is ready - and i ready for it. Not to say i won't shoot film still - but i will add digi to my reputware (sp?) of tools i use.


----------



## Starving Artist (Jul 18, 2009)

ooops! Sorry about that Havalilsi - didn't mean to mix up the screen names

btw - if you can wait a couple months and can deal with the 720 HD
the price will surely drop a couple hundred on this camera - the Olympus E-P1

comparing apples to apples - some tests done next to some of the other DSLR's

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1/EP1A.HTM

the video samples are toward the bottom - 30meg and 50meg for 720 in AVI.

something to look at - compare - if you want a SLR.

currently it's at 799 but - it was just released... 
as stated - give it a couple months - as with all new tech - it'll drop. But looks promising in the semi-pro DSLR catagory - perhaps leaning towards the top end of the semi-pro catagory from the quick look over of the tests results posted there.

Now with all said here - let me add this...

IF i were going to go out and buy a camera today... had $600 cap on price.

Unless i was a PRO doing commercial work - i wouldn't buy a DSLR in that price range.

I'd entertain the $200 to $300 maybe $400 dollar market of Camcorders and Still format DSLR cameras.

you don't need the features of top Semi-Pro or Pro or the price tag.

You can get a Decent DSLR - say a Cannon or Nikon Panisonic Olympus etc etc - for under 5 bills. Descent Movies in HD. HD is the standard today.

Go for a Nikon D40 - they're _WAY_ down on price and a descent digital camara as far as digital goes - or any of the others in that range of still camara.

- buy an extra lense - case - SD card and be done with it and start shooting.

your probably going to tweak the images in a editor anyway - so there you go. 5 bills and a complete kit

WHY? Because in six months - they are all outdated - half obsolete.
Digital is in it's infancy 

btw - you can still shoot commercially viable shots with the cameras pointed out as well in that range - don't think you can't - plenty of pro's use that range of DSLR.

It's the person behind the lense that make the shot - remember that.

Start there and move up later


----------

