I need a new camera

pathalla · 25 July 2007, 13:33

A couple of weeks back I managed to accidently drop my digital camera in the drink, it inadvertantly got wrapped up in a towel. Although it was in its carry bag and only in the water for about 5 seconds it was too late, its working days are over. I would appreciate the opinions of the folks out there as to a reasonably priced digital that has decent features. I am a casual picture taker but would like something with a decent zoom for shots over the water, anyone impressed with a specific brand?

codprawn · 25 July 2007, 13:55

Unless you want to spend silly money on a digital SLR and a bagful of lenses then the very best camera I have seen in the Panasonic Lumix FZ50. It's best feature is the lens - 12x optical zoom made by Leica. It is also image stabilised. Equivelent to a 35 - 420mm zoom on a normal camera. I had the 1st one - the FZ10 and now have the FZ50 - awesome!!!

Value for money is amazing - it is about $500 - to get an SLR with the equivelent lenses would be about $2,000!!!

Beware of one thing - ignore megapixel ratings - the Lumix is 10mp but it would have been a better camera if they had made it 6mp. All the makers are at it - boosting the mp because that's what sells cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...ic_dmcfz50.asp

pathalla · 25 July 2007, 14:00

thanks for the info Cod, I am real uneducated when it comes to cameras... I will look into that one.

robin · 25 July 2007, 14:40

Try this website.

www.dpreview.com

I have always found it to be a mine of information about cameras.

There is also this one. Excellent site.

www.dcviews.com

Happy shopping.

Robin

Hugh Jardon · 25 July 2007, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Unless you want to spend silly money on a digital SLR and a bagful of lenses then the very best camera I have seen in the Panasonic Lumix FZ50. It's best feature is the lens - 12x optical zoom made by Leica. It is also image stabilised. Equivelent to a 35 - 420mm zoom on a normal camera. I had the 1st one - the FZ10 and now have the FZ50 - awesome!!!

Value for money is amazing - it is about $500 - to get an SLR with the equivelent lenses would be about $2,000!!!

Beware of one thing - ignore megapixel ratings - the Lumix is 10mp but it would have been a better camera if they had made it 6mp. All the makers are at it - boosting the mp because that's what sells cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...ic_dmcfz50.asp

how does the fz50 compare to the fuji 9500/960?

codprawn · 25 July 2007, 17:43

Well the FZ30 was considered slightly better and the FZ50 is an improvement on that.

I like Fujis - had a few of them but the lens on the Panasonic really is unbeatable for any sensible money!!!

Andy Moore · 25 July 2007, 18:10

Have a look at the Nikon D40:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

I have the older model, the D70, which is a great piece of kit.

codprawn · 25 July 2007, 18:14

SLRs aren't as convienient. How much would it cost and how many lenses to get the same as the FZ50?

Obviously if it's top notch quality you want (and you stop dust getting on the ccd) then go for an SLR - but put up with a bag full of lenses and loads of money!!!

I have been a photography nut for many years - still got my 35mm gear and used to have medium and large format as well. Digital photography is all about convienience!!!

wavecrosschris · 25 July 2007, 21:10

i Had an FZ30 (all but identicle to the FZ50 but for 2mp) until recently - they are an excellent allround camera. Its lightweight has a great lens and takes a very good picture in good light conditions. I'd buy another simply for convenience, ease of use and gauranteed good result nearly every shot.

However in replacement and wanting to taking photography a bit more seriously I got a Canon EOS400D with a 28-200 Ultrasonic lens. The results in comparason blow the Z30 out of the water and the focus speed is incredible. I ony have one lens, as above and since selling the FZ30, to be honest I really haven't noticed any loss of zoom - In general the noise levels on the 400D are so much lower at greater focal length than the FZ's that anything small is so much clearer making for a sharper picture.

If you want a pocket camera, I'd go for that Panasonic Lumix they've been advertising on tv lately, the TZ3? if you want something that is a brilliant at nearly everything go for an FZ50 and if you want out and out quality then go a for an EOS SLR with a decent canon USM or stabilized lens!

codprawn · 25 July 2007, 22:33

I never had the FZ30 - it was a bit of a stop gap. The FZ50 is in a different league in handling terms - focusing and zooming etc are much more SLR like.

I agree about the quality aspects but a mate of mine - after having spent about £3000 on Nikon digital gear now uses a compact digi camera far more.

To get a Canon image stabilised zoom with a wide range you are talking about spending $2000 - that's a lot of dosh!!!

wavecrosschris · 25 July 2007, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

I never had the FZ30 - it was a bit of a stop gap. The FZ50 is in a different league in handling terms - focusing and zooming etc are much more SLR like.

I agree about the quality aspects but a mate of mine - after having spent about £3000 on Nikon digital gear now uses a compact digi camera far more.

To get a Canon image stabilised zoom with a wide range you are talking about spending $2000 - that's a lot of dosh!!!

and I use my mobile phone when i haven't got a £K's worth of canon hanging round my neck, you sometimes use what you've got at the time with photography... the moment doesn't wait.

The FZ30/50 are virturally identicle, to look at side by side you couldn't tell them apart. I considered a 50 when changing 2 months ago from the 30. the only reason the 50 exists is so panasonic keep up in the MegaPixel race.

Hugh Jardon · 25 July 2007, 23:26

tempted to get a fz 50 i must admit

codprawn · 25 July 2007, 23:38

You won't be dissapointed - just don't use more than 100 iso or you do get noise on the pics, Having said that the image stabilisation is so good you can hand hold at 1/60th even on full zoom!!!

codprawn · 26 July 2007, 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavecrosschris

The FZ30/50 are virturally identicle, to look at side by side you couldn't tell them apart. I considered a 50 when changing 2 months ago from the 30. the only reason the 50 exists is so panasonic keep up in the MegaPixel race.

Apologies I meant the FZ20.

The megapixel race is so annoying - and only because Joe Pubic are so stupid that's all they understand. It's like Argos selling binoculars that are 18-100 x 30 - the World's most powerfull zoom - quite how you hold them still or get enough light into them is beyond me!!!

Another annoyance about digital cameras is the video quality - does anyone realise it is often deliberately downgraded otherwise people wouldn't bother buying video cameras!!!

wavecrosschris · 26 July 2007, 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Apologies I meant the FZ20.

The megapixel race is so annoying - and only because Joe Pubic are so stupid that's all they understand. It's like Argos selling binoculars that are 18-100 x 30 - the World's most powerfull zoom - quite how you hold them still or get enough light into them is beyond me!!!

Another annoyance about digital cameras is the video quality - does anyone realise it is often deliberately downgraded otherwise people wouldn't bother buying video cameras!!!

and thats the other great thing about the FZ50 - the quality of the video is superb, best i've seen from a digital camera - makes big files but takes great quality video. Just a shame it saves it in Quicktime if you edit with windows software! (although thats overcome with a £20 program)

codprawn · 26 July 2007, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavecrosschris

and thats the other great thing about the FZ50 - the quality of the video is superb, best i've seen from a digital camera - makes big files but takes great quality video. Just a shame it saves it in Quicktime if you edit with windows software! (although thats overcome with a £20 program)

Yes the video quality is very good but it could be so much better - nobody would buy video cameras then though..............

I also hate quicktime but if you use media player classic to view them they are fine.

Nick Thomas · 01 August 2007, 07:05

I've just bought an Olympus 'Mu' 770-SW. The 'Mu' is phonetic for one of those backwards 'y' things, but I don't know how to do those! Anyway, back to the camera. It's a 7.1 Megapixel 'point & shoot' but the cool thing is, it's good down to 10 metres in water and very shockproof! The picture quality is good both in & out of the water, the only drawback I can see, is that the menu & sub-menu structure is not so straitforward, but I guess that's something you'll get used to.

I found this camera on http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk. I didn't use their mail order service, instead, as I was passing their door, called in. The people there were very knowledgeable & helpful.

Hope this helps.

Cookee · 01 August 2007, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Thomas

I've just bought an Olympus 'Mu' 770-SW. The 'Mu' is phonetic for one of those backwards 'y' things, but I don't know how to do those! Anyway, back to the camera. It's a 7.1 Megapixel 'point & shoot' but the cool thing is, it's good down to 10 metres in water and very shockproof! The picture quality is good both in & out of the water, the only drawback I can see, is that the menu & sub-menu structure is not so straitforward, but I guess that's something you'll get used to.

I found this camera on http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk. I didn't use their mail order service, instead, as I was passing their door, called in. The people there were very knowledgeable & helpful.

Hope this helps.

Got one of those as well - the menus make your brain bleed compared to Canon, but it's probably the best for keeping on a boat!