[LordOpie]

I'm thinking 7mp is a good price point as I've found them at $200.

I don't need any features other than small and good quality.

Do you have a recommendation?

Thanks!

Right now, I'm thinking about the Olympus FE-230

 

[binary visions]

Difference between 5 and 7 megapixel is a completely moot point. Image quality doesn't go up, but noise does.

Are you going to be using it a significant portion of the time in an indoor or low light situation? The Fuji F30 (I think they have an F31 model now) is bar-none the leader as far as compact digicams when it comes to low light performance.

http://www.adorama.com/IFJFPF30.html

If you don't want something like the F30, I'd highly recommend looking into something with optical image stabilization. That Olympus simply jacks up the ISO sensitivity to give you a faster shutter speed. That freezes the action better but results in a noisier image.

If you're willing to push your budget a bit, the Canon SD700 has garnered a whole lot of praise and is around $300.

I always say this, but here it goes again: If you can, go into some local shops and handle the cameras. If you hate the ergonomics, you'll hate taking pictures with it, even if the picture quality is good. There are a lot of decent cameras around the $250 +/- price range.

 

[LordOpie]

Difference between 5 and 7 megapixel is a completely moot point. Image quality doesn't go up, but noise does.

You're going to have to explain that further. You're saying that a 7mp does not capture more detail?

Are you going to be using it a significant portion of the time in an indoor or low light situation?

Generic use. We're going to Italy, so a mix from OUTSIDE castles and vineyards to INSIDE warehouses and museum art.

As a roadie, I appreciate the philosophy of fit and ergonomics, but I'm more interested in how it fits in a pocket... which is why we're looking at ultra-compact models.

We have a Canon A series that's 5mp, but it's bulky for running around town.

 

[skatetokil]

yeah, i had a canon a with 1.3 mp that took better pictures than my nikon 6mp super compact. Its wierd, but the old cheap piece of **** produced images that looked natural while the new high powered machine makes everything look digital, especially low light.

 

[Quo Fan]

A lot of it has to do with the optics. Personally, I'd go with a camera that makes expensive cameras too, not just P&S. My P&S is a Pentax, and all my previous P&S's were Kodaks. Those companies know something about optics. Olympus makes real good optics, or at least they did.

 

[Transcend]

You're going to have to explain that further. You're saying that a 7mp does not capture more detail?

Pixel count does not equal image quality.

 

[LordOpie]

A lot of it has to do with the optics. Personally, I'd go with a camera that makes expensive cameras too, not just P&S. My P&S is a Pentax, and all my previous P&S's were Kodaks. Those companies know something about optics. Olympus makes real good optics, or at least they did.

That's what I figure too. Olympus has been around a long time, so I'm still confused.

Pixel count does not equal image quality.

Really? Wow, thanks eGuru. It's all clear now.


Still would love an explanation regarding the blanket statement:

Difference between 5 and 7 megapixel is a completely moot point.

 

[binary visions]

Okay, LO, here's a quick primer:

Cameras capture data on a sensor. You know this. For a compact camera, it's a really, really tiny sensor - less than half an inch wide in most cases.

For a big digital SLR, with a nice lens, you've got a much much larger sensor... almost an inch wide, for most cameras.

The issue at work here is that you have about the same number of pixels in different size sensors. So, for your compact camera, you have all those millions of pixels packed into a really tiny space. Lots of pixels in a tiny space generate heat, which translates into noise on your image - more pixels means more noise. That's a primary reason why you can use high ISO like 1600 or 3200 on a digital SLR without the image being completely unusable. Plus, the lens itself is only mediocre quality, and isn't nearly as high resolving power as a nice, pro-quality DSLR lens, so you aren't even resolving all of those pixels to their maximum potential.

To top it all off, the megapixel measurement comes from multiplying width by height, right? So, an increase from 5 megapixels to 7 megapixels is only the difference of about 500 pixels on a side, or roughly 17%... even though a 5 to 7 increase might imply a 30% increase. You'd need to quadruple your megapixels to get double the resolution.

All of this adds up to not actually capturing a significant amount more data on a compact camera, and can actually be outputting less data if the image is noisy, since noise obliterates some of the detail. Essentially, they have the potential to be worse and may or may not be worse than the 5 megapixel equivalent, depending on the camera.

 

[LordOpie]

Cameras capture data on a sensor. You know this. For a compact camera, it's a really, really tiny sensor - less than half an inch wide in most cases.

For a big digital SLR, with a nice lens, you've got a much much larger sensor... almost an inch wide, for most cameras

I'll agree with that, but since I want an ultra-compact, an SLR isn't part of the equation, tho I completely see where you're going with that.

Lots of pixels in a tiny space generate heat, which translates into noise on your image - more pixels means more noise.

Understood. Sounds like noise is an issue if one plans on using the camera for an extended period of time. Long enough for heat to be a factor.

Using that logic, I shouldn't have an issue if I plan on shooting a handful of photos and turning it off for a while, correct?

To top it all off, the megapixel measurement comes from multiplying width by height, right? So, an increase from 5 megapixels to 7 megapixels is only the difference of about 500 pixels on a side, or roughly 17%... even though a 5 to 7 increase might imply a 30% increase. You'd need to quadruple your megapixels to get double the resolution.

I'm pretty sure size difference is based off of surface area math, yeah?

If W1xH1 = 5mp and W2xH2 = 7mp, then it does work out to 7/5 = 40% increase in data. Assuming no data loss.


Sounds like for my purposes, the only concern I should have would be the lens? Would that be correct?


Thanks for the detailed explanation!

 

[binary visions]

Understood. Sounds like noise is an issue if one plans on using the camera for an extended period of time. Long enough for heat to be a factor.

No, heat isn't "building up" in any meaningful way when you're using the camera for extended periods, at least not with most designs. The total amount of heat on the sensor at the moment the picture is taken is what is contributing to the noise, and that should not be effectively cumulative... I guess it's possible for a poorly designed camera to not dissipate the heat properly, but the camera is designed to be using a live LCD which is reading off the sensor multiple times per second, so that'd be one lousy camera design. In all the cameras I've used, I've never seen one get hot under lots of use or contribute significantly to the amount of noise the more you use it.

I'm pretty sure size difference is based off of surface area math, yeah?

If W1xH1 = 5mp and W2xH2 = 7mp, then it does work out to 7/5 = 40% increase in data. Assuming no data loss.

A 5 megapixel image is about 2560 x 1920. A 7 megapixel image is 3072 x 2304. You can see for yourself that a large increase in the number of pixels does not equal a large increase in resolution. 500 pixels on a side does not give you a whole lot more data.

Sounds like for my purposes, the only concern I should have would be the lens? Would that be correct?

No, you need to be concerned with more than the lens . The lens is a resolving instrument but the lenses on little cameras at a halfway decent price point are generally fairly good - my example was to illustrate just how much better a pro level DSLR lens will resolve over a little digicam lens.

If you're taking pictures indoors without the use of a flash, high ISO performance or some kind of image stabilization is important - the Fuji F30 has tremendously good high ISO performance, the Canon I mentioned has an excellent image stabilizer.

www.dpreview.com reviews lots of cameras. Steve's Digicams does as well. Might want to take a look through some of those, see if anything jumps out at you. I would not rely on the fact that a company makes good camera equipment to be the judge of how good their compacts will be. Kodak has made some really appallingly awful compact cameras. Look at the individual cameras. Find a local shop and see if they'll let you demo some little cameras and view the results on their computer at the store.

 

[Transcend]

Using that logic, I shouldn't have an issue if I plan on shooting a handful of photos and turning it off for a while, correct?

Nope. The heat is generated from powering up the photo receptors. Higher iso = more power = more heat generated. It gets worse on longer exposures and using it with the sensor powered up for awhile (marginally), but simply shooting an image can cause the problem to manifest, depending on the sensor.

On some cheaper cameras even a 1/30th second exposure at 400 iso (a pretty standard cloudy weather iso) can cause a ton of annoying noise.

The Lumix stuff (panasonic I think) and the Canon stuff are some of the better sensors right now (less noisy). Canon is one of the only (the only?) manufacturer using CMOS instead of CCd sensors, and it makes a pretty big difference, particularly at higher ISOs or during longer exposures. At around 1 sec plus exposures, it is pretty significant.

 

[Da Peach]

I have a 2 year old Canon SD200 3.2 megapixel and it takes great shots in daylight, good shots indoors and sorta so so shots in dusty environments. It's slim, has a huge screen and the controls are handy.

My GF has a 7 megapixel HP and it mucho crap compared to mine.

Go for the Canon if you can get a good deal. But I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[LordOpie]

If you're willing to push your budget a bit, the Canon SD700 has garnered a whole lot of praise and is around $300.

Looks like there are several Canon SD# models. Any opinion between the different ones: 600,630,700 and 1000?

I think out of all the ultra-compacts on the market, you're saying the Canon SD line is the best?

Looks like da peach likes his.

 

[binary visions]

I've only used the SD700 and it was a nice little camera. DPReview sez that they absolutely loved the SD700, more than the previous incarnations. The newest ones include a little more wide angle at the expense of some lens distortion... and of course, more megapixels, which you don't need

I would say that the Canons SD models are one of the best. The Fuji F30/F31 have garnered an enormous amount of praise for the image quality and ability to use high ISO - best on the market for that. Those two are definitely two of the best on the market, though.

 

[LordOpie]

It looks like the best camera for me is the Canon SD700. And so far, the best price for it + 2 GB memory = $300 @ www.adorama.com

Thanks for everyone's help!

 

[Austin Bike]

I have a canon SD550. 7MP, fits in the camelback cell phone holder and takes great pictures. It's my 4th canon in the last 10 years, every one of them is solid as a rock.

 

[LordOpie]

so adorama says they have it in stock, then takes five days to tell me it's on indefinite backorder.*

* EDIT: So I cancelled the order.

Nice customer service there buttholes.


Anywho...

How important is Image Stablization? For example, I was going to get the Canon SD700 IS, but is it that much better than the SD1000 (no IS)?

 

[binary visions]

MHO is that I would not purchase a camera from now on without IS.

2-4 stops of shutter speed is a huge advantage. I just don't see myself investing in another camera without that advantage. Eventually I'll bite the bullet and go the DSLR route, and will need a compact to put in my pocket. That compact will have IS. And it will be a tough decision to buy lenses for the DSLR if they don't have it.

 

[Transcend]

MHO is that I would not purchase a camera from now on without IS.

2-4 stops of shutter speed is a huge advantage.

Sure, as long as your subject isn't moving. Otherwise, it is of no use whatsoever.

I have 2 lenses that currently have IS. It is basically always off as it saps battery power and doesn't help on the subjects I shoot.

 

[LordOpie]

MHO is that I would not purchase a camera from now on without IS.

Good to know!

2-4 stops of shutter speed is a huge advantage.

What does that mean?

 

[binary visions]

What does that mean?

Sorry. A measurement of a stop is exactly half or twice the amount of light hitting the sensor.

A stop of shutter speed is either half, or twice the shutter speed - e.g. if your shutter speed is 1/1000 of a second, a "stop" increase would be twice the amount of light - 1/500 of a second.

Of course, once you get into slow shutter speeds, your hands shake too much to get sharp photos. If you can handhold a sharp photo at, say, 1/60th, IS might let you handhold it between 1/15th and 1/8th of a second without it blurring. Of course, you aren't always going to get sharp photos at 1/8th, but you'll get a lot more. That opens up possibilities to take pictures without a flash or in darker areas than you'd normally get a sharp picture.

Transcend; true, but you're a sports photographer. The reality is that most of what people take pictures of with compact cameras, when it's not their children and pets, will hold still while they take a picture.

 

[Kornphlake]

What does that mean?

it means you can shoot in lower light without getting blurry images, in photography incrementing the aperture by one setp is referred to as a stop or f-stop, I'm not sure where the terminology came from, but it's very common. Usually in low light you'll open the aperture as wide as you can and shoot with a shutter speed of say 1/60 (I have a pretty steady hand and can get good results with speeds as low as 1/60, my wife can't shoot lower than about 1/125 without getting blurry images.) There is a point where there just isn't enough light coming through the lens in 1/60th of a second to properly expose the picture, without IS bumping the shutter speed down to 1/30th or lower would mean you have to use a tripod or risk blurry photos. Professional photographers spend big money for lenses that have apertures that will open just a little bigger so they can keep the shutter speed the same but let more light in. Does this make sense, by adding IS you are able to shoot slower shutter speeds which is almost the same thing as having a lens that costs $2000 more and has a larger aperture, it lets you expose pictures properly with less light.

IS is especially useful with telephoto lenses, when you are looking through a 300mm lens a small bump means a lot of movement in the image compared to say a 50mm lens. I can handhold as slow as 1/60 with a 50mm lens but with a 300mm lens I need at most 1/125, usually I do much better with 1/250. My 300mm lens has an aperture of F5.6 so the best I can do with my camera is to shoot until sunset after sunset and I start getting really blurry images because the shutter speed get's too slow and I can't open the aperture any more, if I had an IS lens I could keep shooting for maybe another 20 minutes (depending on the time of year) before it gets too dark to get good photos.

 

[narlus]

Transcend; true, but you're a sports photographer. The reality is that most of what people take pictures of with compact cameras, when it's not their children and pets, will hold still while they take a picture.

i shoot people (musicians) in the most inconsistent, crappy lighting environments imaginable. IS doesn't add much if anything; in fact, i don't use zooms because the fastest zoom (f/2.8) is usually too slow.

 

[narlus]

here's an easy way to internalize what IS does: think of it as having a tripod w/ you (up to shutter speeds as slow as ~1/5 or so).

 

[LordOpie]

here's an easy way to internalize what IS does: think of it as having a tripod w/ you (up to shutter speeds as slow as ~1/5 or so).

so are you saying you think it works or doesn't?

 

[binary visions]

i shoot people (musicians) in the most inconsistent, crappy lighting environments imaginable. IS doesn't add much if anything; in fact, i don't use zooms because the fastest zoom (f/2.8) is usually too slow.

The part of the post you quoted directly addresses this . Do you disagree that most of what the market shoots with these little pocket cameras are stationary objects and friends/family? Sometimes it won't be helpful because you're capturing kids or moving pets, but it's still useful a lot of the time.

A macro shooter would probably suggest that autofocus isn't particularly useful to them most of the time, but that's a splinter of the market segment. LO isn't shooting rock stars in Italy, nor downhill racers. The inside of a dark cathedral ain't going anywhere, though, and will be happy to remain patient during his 1/8 second exposure that will allow him to not overpower all the stained glass-tinted lighting with a flash.

 

[mogulskr]

Sometimes it won't be helpful because you're capturing kids or moving pets, but it's still useful a lot of the time.

By having IS on while trying to capture kids moving is it messing anything up? I leave my camera on auto for all of my pictures. I'm not smart enough nor do I have the time to become smart enough to manually adjust a camera. If turning off IS helps capturing say a kid playing soccer then I will do it. Otherwise auto for me.

 

[narlus]

so are you saying you think it works or doesn't?

oh, it works...i've got IS lens which yielded very sharp images when handholding @ 1/6th of a second.

think of it this way...IS is great in three scenarios:

1 - long focal length lens...erases the hand-hold jitters (think binoculars here). plus, these lenses tend to be heavy, and for some, it's hard to hold steady.

2 - dimly lit areas w/ a static subject, such as a church interior.

3 - allows you to use a lower ISO (less image noise) than otherwise possible, again w/ static subjects.


for compact P&S cameras, the focal length is *very* short, and you can get somewhat passable and very small tripods (fits in a pocket) to use. plus, for snapshots of people, just use flash.

 

[Transcend]

The part of the post you quoted directly addresses this . Do you disagree that most of what the market shoots with these little pocket cameras are stationary objects and friends/family? Sometimes it won't be helpful because you're capturing kids or moving pets, but it's still useful a lot of the time.

A macro shooter would probably suggest that autofocus isn't particularly useful to them most of the time, but that's a splinter of the market segment. LO isn't shooting rock stars in Italy, nor downhill racers. The inside of a dark cathedral ain't going anywhere, though, and will be happy to remain patient during his 1/8 second exposure that will allow him to not overpower all the stained glass-tinted lighting with a flash.

Nope, but he may want to shoot people on an XC ride or something of the sort. In any case, I just think it's an important distinction to make. This is especially true to people who aren't technically or photography inclined.

I know many people who have been burned by spending extra $ on lenses and cameras for features they don't need. IS is a big culprit as the manufacturers (canon included) just claim it's "up to 4 stops faster!" and don't give you many more details or mention that it is ONLY good if your subject is nice and still, or if you have incredibly shakey hands.

 

[Transcend]

By having IS on while trying to capture kids moving is it messing anything up? I leave my camera on auto for all of my pictures. I'm not smart enough nor do I have the time to become smart enough to manually adjust a camera. If turning off IS helps capturing say a kid playing soccer then I will do it. Otherwise auto for me.

IS can harm the images you take of moving things on high end DSLRs with big lenses and heavy IS systems. I am not sure if the little cousin they put in the PS' will affect much?

On a 300mm 2.8 tank lens for example, the IS gyro is HUGE. If you try and shoot a moving subject with it engaged, it can get all jerky from trying to compensate for your movements and knock your focus point off target, thus screwing up focusing, metering etc. It's really noticeable if you have it on mode 1 (static) and try panning. The camera will continously try and adjust for the sideways motion. That's why they have a pan mode (mode 2).

 

[LordOpie]

By having IS on while trying to capture kids moving is it messing anything up?

Excellent question! I hope someone answers it

 

[Transcend]

Read post #30.

 

[mogulskr]

Read post #30.

The problem with post #30 is both myself and LO do not have or are not buying DSLRs. I have a Canon S2 IS and he is looking at a Canon SD700 IS.

I'm guessing as long as we think the pictures look good what the hell does it matter.

 

[LordOpie]

Read post #30.

You posted while I was posting

But you didn't answer the question. It's a good thing you don't sell this stuff for a living cuz you don't understand your audience.

I'm an idiot. All I want is basically a yes or no answer with or without a very brief, layman explanation

And I suspect mogulskr isn't too much smarter than me

 

[binary visions]

By having IS on while trying to capture kids moving is it messing anything up? I leave my camera on auto for all of my pictures. I'm not smart enough nor do I have the time to become smart enough to manually adjust a camera. If turning off IS helps capturing say a kid playing soccer then I will do it. Otherwise auto for me.

I've had virtually no experience with IS in large lenses but logically, Transcend's post makes perfect sense. Gotta move big chunks of glass in big lenses.

However, I've used several IS-enabled digicams and I'll tell you that the gyro movement isn't even close to enough to feel it fighting you. Certainly not enough to knock your hands around. It can potentially "lag" your camera movements (that is, you're moving to capture a target and it'll try to compensate so your camera framing won't be perfectly in sync with what your hands are doing), but it doesn't affect shutter speeds so if you have your target framed right, your action shot will work just fine. It can have a minor effect on the framing, though, as I said.

The only thing I would say, though, is that you're draining your batteries using it. There should be an easy way to turn it off and on, and I'd probably turn it off unless I was going to need it just for the extended battery life.

 

[Transcend]

The problem with post #30 is both myself and LO do not have or are not buying DSLRs. I have a Canon S2 IS and he is looking at a Canon SD700 IS.

I'm guessing as long as we think the pictures look good what the hell does it matter.

Read it again.

On a big lens it will make a difference. They are based off the exact same system, only the system is MUCH smaller in the Elph series. Your S2 has a larger IS system in it, and may have some issues at long range. I posted what the possible side effects would be. As far as I know, no one has done any sort of scientific investigation to figure out if the potential side effects are as pronounced on the smaller cams.

My guess however would be it may be annoying when zoomed in and trying to track a moving subject. But what do I know, i only do this for a living. I have an S3 IS, and it does "wander" when fully zoomed in with IS on.


Opie: Fully right. I couldn't sell a snowsuit to an eskimo. I don't need to though, i just need to know what works and what doesn't.

However, I've used several IS-enabled digicams and I'll tell you that the gyro movement isn't even close to enough to feel it fighting you. Certainly not enough to knock your hands around. It can potentially "lag" your camera movements (that is, you're moving to capture a target and it'll try to compensate so your movements won't be perfectly in sync with what your hands are doing), but it doesn't affect shutter speeds so if you have your target framed right, your action shot will work just fine.

It isn't the lens you feel fighting you. The lens groups inside the lens are what the IS system moves, they are on a gimble and have a slight bit of float. The gyro keeps them stabilized. You move right, they stay where they were, on target. With the bigger lenses, you have huge glass as you said, and huge gyro to move them.

If you put it on a tripod and leave it engaged, you will notice the groups wander. This is what i suspect the smaller ones will do with the canon AF system. I can't comment on Nikon's VR etc.

edit: I just tested my s3 to be sure, non scientific like (stuck on tripod, zoomed in out window). It wanders, more than i suspected, but nowhere near as prounced as my big glass. Can you turn it off on the s2? I just got the s3 and haven't really played with it yet.

 

[LordOpie]

...I'll tell you that the gyro movement isn't even close to enough to feel it fighting you.

I don't think he was asking such a question?

...and I'd probably turn it off unless I was going to need it just for the extended battery life.

I think it's only "on" while the button is being pushed, so I don't think battery life is an issue.


Guys, dumb the discussion down a little bit and focus on small, non-dslr cameras

 

[mogulskr]

But what do I know, i only do this for a living.

I wasn't questioning you about you not knowing. It was the fact that I didn't understand what you were saying.

So this photo would have been better without IS on, right?

 

[Transcend]

I wasn't questioning you about you not knowing. It was the fact that I didn't understand what you were saying.

So this photo would have been better without IS on, right?

Gotcha.

For the photo, no idea without seeing a lot more info. Looks like it needs a much higher shutter speed though. I can tell you that IS will do nothing to help it, anyways.

opie:It engages when you hit the focus button and stays on for about 3-5 seconds depending on camera. It can have a noticeable effect on battery life as it takes a ton of power to get the gyro spun up. Less than the big ones, obviously, but the PS' have much smaller batteries so it balances out.

 

[mogulskr]

Gotcha.

For the photo, no idea without seeing a lot more info. Looks like it needs a much higher shutter speed though. I can tell you that IS will do nothing to help it, anyways.

Okay thanks, my plan will be to turn it off when they are moving and on when they are. As far as shutter speeds, I leave it in auto so it' sup to the camera. I think I may have asports setting they may speed it up.