Anandtech is not where I'd get my camera purchasing advice from. Not only do they routinely miss the best cameras in their round-ups and recommendations, but there are so many dedicated photography and camera websites with much better reviews and content.
Why bother trying to stick your head into that industry? JUST STICK TO COMPUTER HARDWARE. The ONLY thing these articles do is create a potential to mis-lead people who SHOULD have read dpreview or another camera site for the best advice.
Thank you first poster for mentioned the Lumix LX3. I am looking to buy a high-end point and shoot for our honeymoon. I think this is the one to get.
;( at the reply from the author for regarding the LX3 as not making sense when entry level SLRs are cheaper. I want a point and shoot on our honeymoon, not an SLR.
Did you guys actually use these cams, or read a bunch of reviews around the net and summarise their conclusions?
Simple things like how the Nikon bodies have auto ISO. Lets say you're wandering around town in the middle of summer - obviously you'll be using ISO 100-200. What if you want to suddenly take a shot down a dark alley, or inside a building? On body without this feature you make a hash of it due to forgetting to knock up the ISO. Nikon does it for you. I believe this feature is slowly leaking into other (not Canon :() bodies too.
Or how the 'prosumer' bodies have dual command deals, useful for setting both aperture and shutter speed at the same time, etc. They also allow for bracketing of exposures, another useful feature - especially if you want to mess around with HDR.
No mention of the difference between in-body and in-lens image stabilisation? Its more than just the manufacturers posturing over which offers the greatest benefit - in-lens stabilisation means what you see through the view finder is what you get. With in-body and a long tele, the image may be going up and down so you're not neccesarily sure exactly what you're going to get. A small difference, maybe, but makes a surprising difference.
You mention battery grips, but to the new user a battery grip means nothing. Do you need one, what's it for, how does it help? And of course different bodies get different advantages from battery grips. Talking about batteries - what about battery life? How about turning the body on & off to save battery life. Start up time, shutter lag, etc. etc.
You make a lot of fuss about noise, resolution etc. But no sample photos so people can see the difference. Unless you pixel peep, the majority of these differences are actually difficult to see. Shooting in RAW and using certain pieces of software like DXO or Noise Ninja can remove the issue entirely. Some people will prefer the noise reduction of Sony bodies, while others will prefer Canon. A subjective 'noise is worse with X' should at least be qualified. Before I saw sample images for Pentax I would have thought Pentax was rubbish at 1600 or above. It's actually no where near that simple because the Pentax images still retain a lot of detail and if you don't mind grain for detail - then you'll prefer Pentax! I certainly wouldn't be that bothered since if you want a clean image at night you can just use a tripod and shoot at ISO 100.
I suggest next time doing something like dpreview and take these cams out in the field for a few days (they spend about 14 days). Get to know how each handles, then you'll be able to comment on more than just focus speed, megapixels and how pretty the LCD is. The most important part is how the body handles. If you can't take photos without the camera getting in the way - then there's a problem. It's just a tool, the end result is all that matters.
I don't mean to come off with a scathing comment - but I do believe an article should be more than just an opinion based on a few observations. It's so easy to write a balanced article on the big SLR manufacturers because they all have their own positives. Sony (apart from the A900) are consumer friendly with their in-body stabilisation, and heavy focus on live view. Canon are great for the technically minded with their extensive feature sets, and wonderfully priced lenses. Nikon are the guys to go with for great high ISO performance, and tend to be more of a 'photographers' camera. Pentax offer massive price advantages, in-body stabilisation, and a brilliant sensor in the K20D.
(For other people reading this) The very best advice I can offer is to go into a shop like Jessops and handle each of the cameras yourself. Take an SD and CF cart, take some photos. Get a feel for how to change the exposure, aperture, shutter time, etc. Make sure exposure is easy to change - you'll use that a lot even on a compact. Can you preview the images quickly and easily? Does the preview function let you see info about the photo, specifically histograms or flashing over-exposure highlights. When you handle the bodies you'll find one 'feels' right. That's the one you want - otherwise you'll waste your time with settings than taking photos. If a feature you want isn't on the body you like - don't worry, it will be in the future, and by then you'll have a nice collection of lenses to use on it. If you go into a small specialist shop (like Bristol Cameras in Bristol) they'll let you go outside and give it a go.
Oh one final thing - if you're only ever going to use 'auto', don't get an SLR. You won't use it, you won't like it, and you'll be put off for life. Get a small compact you can slide into any pocket.
This is a Holiday Buying Guide, not a review. It is a summary of information previously published in reviews and roundups. Please click on the Digital Cameras tab if you wish to see any of our camera reviews – complete with sample photos - and digital sensor technology articles.
Auto ISO has been an ongoing feature on Sony, Pentax, and Olympus prosumer bodies - everyone except Canon until they recently added it. In fact some of the other implementations of Auto ISO are much more flexible in my opinion than the Nikon version. ALL the prosumer models similarly feature several varieties of bracketing adjustments, but the low-end Nikons drop that feature.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Canon bodies ALL 4 feature dual command dials on prosumer models, and the Pentax Hyperprogram and Sony Program Shift are much more flexible and useful than the Nikon implementation.
Great high ISO performance is recent to Nikon, and the result mostly of the D3 and D700 which were introduced about a year ago. Until that point high ISO and low noise were owned by Canon CMOS sensors and Nikons generally used CCD sensors. There is no long-term history of Nikon performing better at high ISO with lower noise. Sony also manufactures almost all of the Nikon sensors and they are the most likely mfg of the D3/D700 full-frame sensor.
We did use all of the cameras - some for many months and some we are still using on a daily basis. It sounds as if you really know little about the cameras you suggest and the features and ergonomics of those models. I suggest YOU try other camera brands before touting features you think are unique to yours and accusing us of not paying attention. You should also note that the Nikon D90 was our pick in the prosumer category, and it is a great camera. IMHO it is the best value in the current Nikon line.
Please re-read what I wrote, I didn't say Nikon were the best by any stretch - or that they're the only one that offers various features.
Dual command dials are not present on the budget bodies. I said the prosumer models (not mentioning Nikon, or any manufacturer) feature dual dials, while the budget models generally don't. You just said the same, but are attacking me for saying it?
I also didn't say Canon didn't use to have the best ISO previously - I was talking about current bodies out right now. Each has their own advantages right now, being you know, positive about all the brands rather than sticking with one brand. Right now Nikon have the best ISO performance, you agree with this yourself. The Canon 50D has lower ISO performance than the 40D - so should I therefore say in 5 years time when, say, Canon have the best ISO performance: 'Oh Nikon offer the best ISO performance because 5 years ago Canon actually reduced their ISO performance, their history in this field is poor'. No! I would say Canon have the best ISO performance.
Interestingly CMOS/CCD doesn't make as big a diff as you would think. For example, medium format digital backs are almost exclusively CCD.
Your other comments are exactly what I would have liked to have seen in the article - real life examples of what its like using the bodies. The pros & cons of using them, etc. Not just a focus on megapixels, ISO performance, and the screen. As you're mentioning there's plenty there to talk about. If I was buying a new camera I would want to know the differences, whether it would matter to me as a reader, or if its just the latest marketing rhetoric that can be ignored. For example, from the article, if I didn't know much, I would still wonder what a battery grip is, and why it is important.
Again I didn't mention Nikon were the be-all and end-all, just that's the system I use most and obviously base my experiences from it. But I still fail to see where I said Nikon offers all of those features and the others don't. In fact I only mentioned them a few times. Obviously I don't have the experience with the other bodies - that's what articles like this are meant to make up for imo - by saying what's better than the other, what camera is probably best to get and why. Rather than say I'm rubbish for not having a whole host of bodies here to test, why not take this as (hopefully) constructive criticism and run with it? They're your articles, you're more than welcome to completely ignore my comments.
I think the best example would be when you were gushing over the Olympus cameras in an earlier article. From the article it just appeared like you were a fanboy / bought by them. Later on in the comments where you provided a lot more useful information it became clear just how great the system was and why you gushed over it so much. It shouldn't be the comments where the actual useful info is - it should be in the article for all to see!
Or maybe its dumbed down on purpose, and I've got the wrong end of the stick. But the hardware articles are usually spot on :(
Hmmm looking through previous articles it seems there are quite a few comments about ommitted info where you then say 'well view X article, its all there'. Since this is a web site, and not a magazine article - why not litter your articles with links? Like when you mention camera X, link to your review of it. When you mention ISO performance, link to an article on what ISO is. Etc. It'll be significantly more useful and provide valuable back-story without cluttering up a short & sweet article. It'll also stop the generic 'X isn't explained / is missing', 'Well its in another article, click on the cameras button' comments.
I think rather than spend the money to build a testing facility or pay a larger research staff, Wesley and AT should focus more on organizing and presenting the info that already exists on competing review sites.
there is so much good data out there, but other sites don't have enough 'state of the union' roundups & are often not written for a general audience. like at dpreview they often take too long to put reviews out, and for instance, if you want to compare all the latest X category of camera, it's on you to go through articles for each and do the research...
There would be real value in round-up articles that openly 'stand on the shoulders' of other sites, compile all their findings & testing results to fill in each others' gaps. proudly link to page X of review X on competing site X! site your sources to prove your claims! because you have no credibility & there is very little 'data' in your articles. the facts that your opinions are based on are not sited, but when pressed you openly discuss normankorea, etc. Wesley's 'know it all attitude' & laziness of research make for very sloppy conclusions. no one expects AT to be testing every lens and camera out there, but don't present yourselves as though you have.
1. I agree that digital zoom is totally worthless, as I think most people would. However, being it's worthless, don't bother mentioning the Canon's digital zoom as being better then most. You're contradicting yourself.
2. For the truly price sensitive the $150 price of the Canon is not just over $100. I would argue the $115 price of the Finepix falls more into that category.
The above comments aside, thanks for putting this together in time for the holidays. You've pointed out some camera's that I otherwise might not have considered. Personally I think I will be picking up a TZ5. Small package, great zoom, IS and a decent price.
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I understnad your point about the Canon digital zoom, and certainly I agree. It is just that the Canon digital zoom does more than just enlarge or crop the image in digital zoom. It appears it also changes the image processing and does actually provide a better image than most digital zooms, which are, as we both said, basically worthless.
As for the Canon A590, the list price is $150, but it is available for $109.99 at www.newegg.com, $108.88 at www.amazon.com, $112.95 at www.buydig.com, and even $115.00 at www.dell.com. Those are four of the largest etailers so I stand by the "just over $100" comment for the A590. I have actually found it for as low as $99 in the past week, but could not duplicate that today.
The ZuneCam is running about 6 months behind schedule. You people may have to buy one of these things if you are in a rush.
Sorry, these things happen.
Nikon D40. Seriously why would I need anything with more MP. Talk about fast and easy to use. Size and weight are very reasonable too. I can turn it on and take a picture before your p/s warms up.
I would like anandtech to have a serious discussion about magapixels. Why do higher megapixels matter? For web? no! The only way MPs matter is if your printing huge and by huge I mean greater than 20x30. How many times do you need prints that big anyways. Anyone that wants ultimate resolution is going to shoot film anyways. Film can be scanned by a professional lab at higher resolution than any DSLR can take. Just because you have a 20MP camera doesn't mean that you can resolve all those pixels anyways. My point? It is dumb to pay more for more megapixels. Any modern digital camera has enough MPs for any amateur and most pros.
WTF is pro-sumer? = amateur photo geek with money. I doubt that pro photographers read this site for advice on cameras. They know what they want already.
All this said (if you want an upgrade from the D40) I think the D90 by Nikon would be a great camera if you want to go that route. It is not worth paying more for any other camera.
I bought a DSLR for the ability to learn to use an SLR camera without having to pay for film. I can learn from my mistakes instantly instead of waiting for film to be developed/scanned. If I already knew how to use an SLR and was comfortable I would be shooting 35mm film and getting it scanned at a much higher resolution than any digital camera.
I wont go into Digital vs. Film. That is something that a person can only decide for himself. I've already gone into my reasons why I shoot digitally. Besides its all about getting great pictures right? It is my belief that you can get great pictures from most of the cameras out there. Some cameras just make it easier to take more great pictures.
Now my beef with resolution. Just as you have to sit close enough to a 1080p TV at a given size to tell the difference between it and a 720p set the same goes with digital photography. You have to ask yourself "What am I doing with these pictures that I'm going to be taking?" Am I going to make wall size prints? probably not. Am I going to make 20x30" prints? Maybe a few. Am I going to make 5x7s or 12x18s. Definitely. Am I going to use these photos on the web? Most Definitely. These are my answers and yours may be different but based on mine all I'll ever need is 6-10 mp. Fantastic, I don't have to pay extra for more mega pixels just because all the marketing says I do. Marketing tries it's hardest to make you go out an buy more than you need because they have to make money in order to make more cameras and stay in business.
I do take issue with Norman Koren's test. In the test he scanned the film with a $700 scanner. Big deal. He just wiped out any advantage that film might have. He's comparing a digital camera with a scanner, not film. Once again I'm not saying film or digital are better than one another. Pros use both.
I will check out Clark looks interesting and very technical.
I do love anandtech. Quality articles, objective testing. I've recently stopped reading another site due to the slow decline in the quality of their articles/publishing philosophy. Anandtech is now my main source for news and advice on computer hardware. Plus you actually respond intelligently to commentators and most of the commentators comment intelligently as well. Thanks guys.
Can you please provide the source for your information that film has higher resolution than any digital sensor? There are many experts who disagree with you.
Clark's final conclusion was 10 to 16 megapixels were the equivalent range of the various film types. Since his work was mostly APS-C sensors it is not really at odds with Koran's tests.
Every other researcher who has tested has generally found 12 to 14 megapixels the equivalent of 35mm film. The larger resolution sensors do show any faults of your lenses and they require the very best glass to resolve those high resolutions.
We did discuss the relevance of megapixels in the article in the discussion of P&S cameras. Our recommendation was that cameras with these tiny sensors - 1/10 to 1/20 the size of an APS-C sensor - have reached the best balance of resolution and noise at around 7 to 9 megapixels. Anything more than this is a waste with these tiny sensors TODAY, but that could change with new sensor technology.
However, in the APS-C sensor the resolution trade-off probably is somewhere around 20 to 25 megapixels with current technology and somewhere around 40 to 50 megapixels in full-frame. Since the sensor is an Analog device that gathers light and converts it to digital info the physical size of the pixel is the most important specification for judging ISO range and noise.
Prosumer is a designation used by almost every camera review site. It is the same as Advanced Amateur. It basically means a class of cameras geared to the hobbyist or advanced amateur that is also used by some Pros. The lines have become particularly blurred as sealing has improved in this class and technical advances have accelerated in digital imaging.
Nikon D40 is a good camera with 6mp. Then there is the Nikon D40x with 10mp. Both have 23.7 x 15.6 mm CCD sensors. The D40x has ISO 100 and the D40 does not, it starts at ISO 200. The D60 has very little on the D40x and in some cases the D40x is better.
You are correct in the fact the D40 will do the job and very well at that.
I would like to get one new camera bellow the 200US mark, but I don't like the cannon design and I would like that only use 2 AA batteries (so some fujifilm are out), also I like the aesthetics of those old cameras, like DSLR design.
I've been shooting since more than 20 years, I've used a lot of cameras from Canon, Nikon and Pentax.
Even though the Pentax lacks a full-frame camera (shame! shame!), I'm deeply convinced of the fact that some current models really are among the best for the price. Why is Pentax so often absent from parades?
In particular, I think that the K200D is terrifying for its street price (I don't know about the K-m); I've now been using it for some time and it's a real solid camera with good, sometimes very good, picture quality. I bought it for at least €100 than any comparable camera. This particular model also deletes one of the drawbacks of previous models: with its kit lens, the auto-focus speed is really convincing, try to believe!
As for lenses, both Sigma and Tamron are available, so whenever Pentax is weak, they deliver...
We;ve added mention of the Pentax K20D as a great value at $750 to $800 in the Prosumer category. It is not, however, without its probelms, as is true of any camera, and the price has dropped from $1295 to $750 in pretty short order. Its an outstnding value if it fits your needs and the way you shoot.
Point and shoot:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-L8 for quality, Canon Powershot A590 IS best for the money.
Super Zoom:
Panasonic Lumix LMC-TZ5
Entry Interchangeable Lens:
Canon XSi or XS and Panasonic G1
At this level, all make decent products....hard to choose.
Prosumer:
Nikon D90 or Canon 50D ....hard to choose.
Full-Frame:
Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II
I am about to enter the "Entry Interchangeable Lens" category, perhaps in March or April. I have gone from point and shoot to superzoom. Panisonic FZ8 is camera I have now. It is so much better than the point and shoot. But the cost to go up to the next level is quite substantial. With a kit lens, I will not get the zoom I am accustomed too. The macro part I am unsure of. Then there is the flash. The number one reason for upgrading is the quality of photograph. The question I have is, if I wanted to print 13x19 inch photos, what camera and lens would do the best job for, Portraits, Birds, Indoors....
Example: If I purchased a Canon Rebel XSi; what else would I need to get the most out of this camera(general use). I am thinking the camera with the kit lens, plus a 200mm zoom lens, a macro lens, a flash(wireless would be nice), a good tripod. how much would this cost me?
This article gave a good overall view.....Thank You
Unless the birds are very tame, 200mm isn't very long. A friend of mine has the XTi with 18-55IS/55-250IS combo though and is very happy with them for general use. The 55-250IS is not that expensive, B&H has a kit with XSi/18-55IS/55-250IS for $708. The 100/2.8 Macro is a good macro lens and also very usable for tighter portraits, runs around $450. No Canon bodies offer wireless flash control in-body, so the flash itself ranges from $200-400 depending on power and features, and if you want wireless you either need remote triggers and external metering, or a ST-E2 wireless transmitter. Tripods are highly dependent on what you want and need, but guessing at least $100 is pretty safe.
Note that for some items (lenses, flash) you can sometimes find third-party alternatives which work as well for your needs for less money.
The G1 is revolutionary alright, its a camera that does away with the mirror box and optical viewfinder, without actually being any smaller than standard DSLRs!
Why is this article have such a huge positive bias towards it? It should be applauded for actually trying, but totally dismissed until, like the rest of the 4/3rds range, it actually delivers on making a camera small. How you can recommend it whatsoever is beyond me.
Hell, Pentax have a far smaller setup, with the K2000/Km body, and their pancake lens range. And a better performing sensor with a bigger lens range to boot.
Speaking of Pentax, why were no Pentax cameras recommended? They are far better value for money than Nikon/Canon, though Sony camera bodies are probably the best value, pity their lenses are ridiculously priced.
The G1 is a great deal smaller overall than any DSLR we have tested, but it also has many other features going for it, like the superb 3 inch tilt-and swivel hi-res LCD and the first EVF we could actually live with. It also breaks new ground in Live View AF.
We agree the Pentax K20D is a great value at $750 to $800, and mention of the K20D has been added. It should also be mentioned that the price of the K20D has declined from $1295 to $750 in pretty short time. The pro-type sealing and 14.6 megapixel sensor are top of the class, but the high ISO noise, inconsistent color at high ISO, slow AF, and slow continuous frame-rates detract from the top-notch features.
Thank you for adding K20D to the list. I agree about the AF being slower than the competition. High ISO noise, not really, I'd say it's in line with other APS-C cameras in its range, although Pentax has taken a different approach, producing grainier pictures at high ISO but preserving much more detail than the others (and can be cleaned very easily through software if one chooses to). ISO 1600 is very useable, 3200 is sort of equivalent to the K10D's 1600, not that clean but useful when needed, and the 6400 is not that useable, in my opinion. We must also not forget that most reviews (comparing jpegs) will have Pentax tested on its default setting with noise reduction off while it kicks in by default on other cameras once you start using higher ISO settings. Canon's ISO 12800 hardly contains any detail at all, and in my opinion is just there for marketing purposes.
As far as value goes, Pentax shines when you start considering lenses. I strongly considered going for the Nikon D700 or even waiting for the Canon 5D mkII, both great cameras for low light (or landscape) photography. But after researching the lenses that I would need, the system price was quickly stretching far beyond my amateur's budget (although still a bargain if you're a pro and need the features). I even briefly considered Sony's A900 but had a similar issue with the cost of lenses.
I don't really see the advantage in Pentax lens prices that you mention. Seems like they have dropped some, as a year ago I initially recommended a K10D with 16-50 2.8 to a friend, expecting the 16-50 to be around $500. I was shocked to see it was around $900 at the time. At least now it is more reasonable. Checking other similar lenses they seem to be mostly in line with Canon/Nikon, with some deals (50/1.4 for $200) and some more expensive (the 77/1.8 vs 85/1.8 from others).
Echoing what gaston1 said, thanks for adding the K20D to the list.
Also echoing the high iso comment, Pentax has higher noise due to it retaining detail and not smearing it away like Nikon/Canon do. I'd rather keep the detail and post-process it later, with much better tools, than let the camera do it.
I'm still not convinced the minor size drop the Panasonic G1 has makes it worthwhile. (It's about half a cm shorter than the Pentax Km, and about 2cm thinner) It's not small enough to drop into "pocket" range, especially with the lack of pancake lenses, thus any size benefit it has is pretty much pointless. It's still a DSLR to carry. When they get it down to being like a rangefinder, then it'll be worth looking at.
I do like the back lcd and the slick contrast af though.
I totally agree about the Pentax part. How can one mention Canon 40d and 50d and totally miss to mention the 14.6 Megapixel K20D which is currently selling for less than $750 and is actually loaded with pro features!
I own a Fuji S100FS and for the price I paid ($720cdn tax incl). That
is a lot of camera for the money in my opinion. It would have been nice to see this camera reviewed in your article as it is a great bridge camera. It is so feature rich and gives you the equivalent of a camera having anywhere from 35mm equivalent of 50mm Wide Angle all the way up to400mm Telephoto due to the 14x optical zoom. You can shoot fully manual or auto. In Jpeg or Raw, this camera does it all without the need to change a lense. And it uses a Li-on battery not AA's lol. Just my 2cents
"If you are an Olympus fan, you will need to wait for a couple of months. Olympus has announced the new 12MP E30 that brings most of the great E1 features, including its super fast AF module, down to a lower prosumer price point."
I assume you're referring to the E-3 rather than the E-1 and it's geriatric AF.
I just purchased the Canon A590 IS because I did not have a lot of $$$. It totally blows away my way more expensive Digi. It's an amazing little camera for the price and in spite of the price also. I took it to the opening of the Apple Store in my city and every picture was first rate and even though it was very crowded in there and I was in a hurry to get some shots, the IS did it's job. Not one bad pic in the lot and I took over 100.
So many great features also with both aperture and Shutter Priority which is amazing at that price point. Canon did an excellent job with the A590 IS. I highly recommend it to anyone on a budget that wants a lot of control over your pictures.
No word of DxOMark ? new website, quite handy to judge pure Raw quality of sensors, but it could do with some explanations.. :-P
Nice work though, quite a broad coverage of the camera market
We do agree the DMC-LX3 is a terrific Point-and-Shoot, but at $500 it is more than we can justify for a compact in today's market. As we stated in the review it is very hard to justify spending more than $250 to $300 in today's market with DSLR's starting at $400.
The Panasonic G1 interchangeable lens large sensor - which was selected as the best entry large-sensor - is significantly better and more flexible than the LX3. With some selling it for $649 and special promotions getting the price below $500 in some cases the G1 is the camera we sould buy in this price class - or the Sony A200 2-lens kit or the Canon XS kit.
If you've got $500 to spend on a camera, and it's a choice between a quality compact you can slip into your pocket for everyday use, or an SLR which will normally be left at home, I'd spend the $500 on a compact.
Whilst the SLR can no doubt take better pictures, that's of no value whatsoever unless you actually have it with you. The SLR won't be taking any pictures when it was left at home, while the compact is always ready to be used at a moments notice.
Strange explanation - the LX3 is a compact camera, a DSLR is far bigger and heavier leaving the two types of devices for very different uses.
The G1 isn't comparable either as it's also quite a bit bigger, I currently use an LX2 for when the DSLR is just too big as the LX2 slips in a pocket and is unobtrusive. The LX3 looks to be very good compact camera for those looking for a high quality compact to compliment a bigger camera.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
Back to Article
yacoub - Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - link
Anandtech is not where I'd get my camera purchasing advice from. Not only do they routinely miss the best cameras in their round-ups and recommendations, but there are so many dedicated photography and camera websites with much better reviews and content.Why bother trying to stick your head into that industry? JUST STICK TO COMPUTER HARDWARE. The ONLY thing these articles do is create a potential to mis-lead people who SHOULD have read dpreview or another camera site for the best advice.
malmal - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - link
Thank you first poster for mentioned the Lumix LX3. I am looking to buy a high-end point and shoot for our honeymoon. I think this is the one to get.;( at the reply from the author for regarding the LX3 as not making sense when entry level SLRs are cheaper. I want a point and shoot on our honeymoon, not an SLR.
boogle - Sunday, November 30, 2008 - link
Did you guys actually use these cams, or read a bunch of reviews around the net and summarise their conclusions?Simple things like how the Nikon bodies have auto ISO. Lets say you're wandering around town in the middle of summer - obviously you'll be using ISO 100-200. What if you want to suddenly take a shot down a dark alley, or inside a building? On body without this feature you make a hash of it due to forgetting to knock up the ISO. Nikon does it for you. I believe this feature is slowly leaking into other (not Canon :() bodies too.
Or how the 'prosumer' bodies have dual command deals, useful for setting both aperture and shutter speed at the same time, etc. They also allow for bracketing of exposures, another useful feature - especially if you want to mess around with HDR.
No mention of the difference between in-body and in-lens image stabilisation? Its more than just the manufacturers posturing over which offers the greatest benefit - in-lens stabilisation means what you see through the view finder is what you get. With in-body and a long tele, the image may be going up and down so you're not neccesarily sure exactly what you're going to get. A small difference, maybe, but makes a surprising difference.
You mention battery grips, but to the new user a battery grip means nothing. Do you need one, what's it for, how does it help? And of course different bodies get different advantages from battery grips. Talking about batteries - what about battery life? How about turning the body on & off to save battery life. Start up time, shutter lag, etc. etc.
You make a lot of fuss about noise, resolution etc. But no sample photos so people can see the difference. Unless you pixel peep, the majority of these differences are actually difficult to see. Shooting in RAW and using certain pieces of software like DXO or Noise Ninja can remove the issue entirely. Some people will prefer the noise reduction of Sony bodies, while others will prefer Canon. A subjective 'noise is worse with X' should at least be qualified. Before I saw sample images for Pentax I would have thought Pentax was rubbish at 1600 or above. It's actually no where near that simple because the Pentax images still retain a lot of detail and if you don't mind grain for detail - then you'll prefer Pentax! I certainly wouldn't be that bothered since if you want a clean image at night you can just use a tripod and shoot at ISO 100.
I suggest next time doing something like dpreview and take these cams out in the field for a few days (they spend about 14 days). Get to know how each handles, then you'll be able to comment on more than just focus speed, megapixels and how pretty the LCD is. The most important part is how the body handles. If you can't take photos without the camera getting in the way - then there's a problem. It's just a tool, the end result is all that matters.
I don't mean to come off with a scathing comment - but I do believe an article should be more than just an opinion based on a few observations. It's so easy to write a balanced article on the big SLR manufacturers because they all have their own positives. Sony (apart from the A900) are consumer friendly with their in-body stabilisation, and heavy focus on live view. Canon are great for the technically minded with their extensive feature sets, and wonderfully priced lenses. Nikon are the guys to go with for great high ISO performance, and tend to be more of a 'photographers' camera. Pentax offer massive price advantages, in-body stabilisation, and a brilliant sensor in the K20D.
(For other people reading this) The very best advice I can offer is to go into a shop like Jessops and handle each of the cameras yourself. Take an SD and CF cart, take some photos. Get a feel for how to change the exposure, aperture, shutter time, etc. Make sure exposure is easy to change - you'll use that a lot even on a compact. Can you preview the images quickly and easily? Does the preview function let you see info about the photo, specifically histograms or flashing over-exposure highlights. When you handle the bodies you'll find one 'feels' right. That's the one you want - otherwise you'll waste your time with settings than taking photos. If a feature you want isn't on the body you like - don't worry, it will be in the future, and by then you'll have a nice collection of lenses to use on it. If you go into a small specialist shop (like Bristol Cameras in Bristol) they'll let you go outside and give it a go.
Oh one final thing - if you're only ever going to use 'auto', don't get an SLR. You won't use it, you won't like it, and you'll be put off for life. Get a small compact you can slide into any pocket.
Wesley Fink - Sunday, November 30, 2008 - link
This is a Holiday Buying Guide, not a review. It is a summary of information previously published in reviews and roundups. Please click on the Digital Cameras tab if you wish to see any of our camera reviews – complete with sample photos - and digital sensor technology articles.Auto ISO has been an ongoing feature on Sony, Pentax, and Olympus prosumer bodies - everyone except Canon until they recently added it. In fact some of the other implementations of Auto ISO are much more flexible in my opinion than the Nikon version. ALL the prosumer models similarly feature several varieties of bracketing adjustments, but the low-end Nikons drop that feature.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Pentax, Sony, Olympus and Canon bodies ALL 4 feature dual command dials on prosumer models, and the Pentax Hyperprogram and Sony Program Shift are much more flexible and useful than the Nikon implementation.
Great high ISO performance is recent to Nikon, and the result mostly of the D3 and D700 which were introduced about a year ago. Until that point high ISO and low noise were owned by Canon CMOS sensors and Nikons generally used CCD sensors. There is no long-term history of Nikon performing better at high ISO with lower noise. Sony also manufactures almost all of the Nikon sensors and they are the most likely mfg of the D3/D700 full-frame sensor.
We did use all of the cameras - some for many months and some we are still using on a daily basis. It sounds as if you really know little about the cameras you suggest and the features and ergonomics of those models. I suggest YOU try other camera brands before touting features you think are unique to yours and accusing us of not paying attention. You should also note that the Nikon D90 was our pick in the prosumer category, and it is a great camera. IMHO it is the best value in the current Nikon line.
boogle - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Please re-read what I wrote, I didn't say Nikon were the best by any stretch - or that they're the only one that offers various features.Dual command dials are not present on the budget bodies. I said the prosumer models (not mentioning Nikon, or any manufacturer) feature dual dials, while the budget models generally don't. You just said the same, but are attacking me for saying it?
I also didn't say Canon didn't use to have the best ISO previously - I was talking about current bodies out right now. Each has their own advantages right now, being you know, positive about all the brands rather than sticking with one brand. Right now Nikon have the best ISO performance, you agree with this yourself. The Canon 50D has lower ISO performance than the 40D - so should I therefore say in 5 years time when, say, Canon have the best ISO performance: 'Oh Nikon offer the best ISO performance because 5 years ago Canon actually reduced their ISO performance, their history in this field is poor'. No! I would say Canon have the best ISO performance.
Interestingly CMOS/CCD doesn't make as big a diff as you would think. For example, medium format digital backs are almost exclusively CCD.
Your other comments are exactly what I would have liked to have seen in the article - real life examples of what its like using the bodies. The pros & cons of using them, etc. Not just a focus on megapixels, ISO performance, and the screen. As you're mentioning there's plenty there to talk about. If I was buying a new camera I would want to know the differences, whether it would matter to me as a reader, or if its just the latest marketing rhetoric that can be ignored. For example, from the article, if I didn't know much, I would still wonder what a battery grip is, and why it is important.
Again I didn't mention Nikon were the be-all and end-all, just that's the system I use most and obviously base my experiences from it. But I still fail to see where I said Nikon offers all of those features and the others don't. In fact I only mentioned them a few times. Obviously I don't have the experience with the other bodies - that's what articles like this are meant to make up for imo - by saying what's better than the other, what camera is probably best to get and why. Rather than say I'm rubbish for not having a whole host of bodies here to test, why not take this as (hopefully) constructive criticism and run with it? They're your articles, you're more than welcome to completely ignore my comments.
I think the best example would be when you were gushing over the Olympus cameras in an earlier article. From the article it just appeared like you were a fanboy / bought by them. Later on in the comments where you provided a lot more useful information it became clear just how great the system was and why you gushed over it so much. It shouldn't be the comments where the actual useful info is - it should be in the article for all to see!
Or maybe its dumbed down on purpose, and I've got the wrong end of the stick. But the hardware articles are usually spot on :(
boogle - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Hmmm looking through previous articles it seems there are quite a few comments about ommitted info where you then say 'well view X article, its all there'. Since this is a web site, and not a magazine article - why not litter your articles with links? Like when you mention camera X, link to your review of it. When you mention ISO performance, link to an article on what ISO is. Etc. It'll be significantly more useful and provide valuable back-story without cluttering up a short & sweet article. It'll also stop the generic 'X isn't explained / is missing', 'Well its in another article, click on the cameras button' comments.shinpickle - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
^ Agree!I think rather than spend the money to build a testing facility or pay a larger research staff, Wesley and AT should focus more on organizing and presenting the info that already exists on competing review sites.
there is so much good data out there, but other sites don't have enough 'state of the union' roundups & are often not written for a general audience. like at dpreview they often take too long to put reviews out, and for instance, if you want to compare all the latest X category of camera, it's on you to go through articles for each and do the research...
There would be real value in round-up articles that openly 'stand on the shoulders' of other sites, compile all their findings & testing results to fill in each others' gaps. proudly link to page X of review X on competing site X! site your sources to prove your claims! because you have no credibility & there is very little 'data' in your articles. the facts that your opinions are based on are not sited, but when pressed you openly discuss normankorea, etc. Wesley's 'know it all attitude' & laziness of research make for very sloppy conclusions. no one expects AT to be testing every lens and camera out there, but don't present yourselves as though you have.
mikepers - Saturday, November 29, 2008 - link
A little constructive feedback if that's ok:1. I agree that digital zoom is totally worthless, as I think most people would. However, being it's worthless, don't bother mentioning the Canon's digital zoom as being better then most. You're contradicting yourself.
2. For the truly price sensitive the $150 price of the Canon is not just over $100. I would argue the $115 price of the Finepix falls more into that category.
The above comments aside, thanks for putting this together in time for the holidays. You've pointed out some camera's that I otherwise might not have considered. Personally I think I will be picking up a TZ5. Small package, great zoom, IS and a decent price.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 29, 2008 - link
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I understnad your point about the Canon digital zoom, and certainly I agree. It is just that the Canon digital zoom does more than just enlarge or crop the image in digital zoom. It appears it also changes the image processing and does actually provide a better image than most digital zooms, which are, as we both said, basically worthless.As for the Canon A590, the list price is $150, but it is available for $109.99 at www.newegg.com, $108.88 at www.amazon.com, $112.95 at www.buydig.com, and even $115.00 at www.dell.com. Those are four of the largest etailers so I stand by the "just over $100" comment for the A590. I have actually found it for as low as $99 in the past week, but could not duplicate that today.
CEO Ballmer - Saturday, November 29, 2008 - link
The ZuneCam is running about 6 months behind schedule. You people may have to buy one of these things if you are in a rush.Sorry, these things happen.
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com">http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Flyboy27 - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Nikon D40. Seriously why would I need anything with more MP. Talk about fast and easy to use. Size and weight are very reasonable too. I can turn it on and take a picture before your p/s warms up.Flyboy27 - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
I would like anandtech to have a serious discussion about magapixels. Why do higher megapixels matter? For web? no! The only way MPs matter is if your printing huge and by huge I mean greater than 20x30. How many times do you need prints that big anyways. Anyone that wants ultimate resolution is going to shoot film anyways. Film can be scanned by a professional lab at higher resolution than any DSLR can take. Just because you have a 20MP camera doesn't mean that you can resolve all those pixels anyways. My point? It is dumb to pay more for more megapixels. Any modern digital camera has enough MPs for any amateur and most pros.WTF is pro-sumer? = amateur photo geek with money. I doubt that pro photographers read this site for advice on cameras. They know what they want already.
All this said (if you want an upgrade from the D40) I think the D90 by Nikon would be a great camera if you want to go that route. It is not worth paying more for any other camera.
I bought a DSLR for the ability to learn to use an SLR camera without having to pay for film. I can learn from my mistakes instantly instead of waiting for film to be developed/scanned. If I already knew how to use an SLR and was comfortable I would be shooting 35mm film and getting it scanned at a much higher resolution than any digital camera.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 29, 2008 - link
If readers want to look a little deeper at sensor resolution, sensor size, and noise, take a look at our two part series on the Digital Sensor in The Digital Sensor: A Guide to Understanding Digital Cameras at http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.as...">http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.as... and The Digital Sensor: Part 2 at http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.as...">http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.as....Flyboy27 - Saturday, November 29, 2008 - link
Thanks Wesley,I wont go into Digital vs. Film. That is something that a person can only decide for himself. I've already gone into my reasons why I shoot digitally. Besides its all about getting great pictures right? It is my belief that you can get great pictures from most of the cameras out there. Some cameras just make it easier to take more great pictures.
Now my beef with resolution. Just as you have to sit close enough to a 1080p TV at a given size to tell the difference between it and a 720p set the same goes with digital photography. You have to ask yourself "What am I doing with these pictures that I'm going to be taking?" Am I going to make wall size prints? probably not. Am I going to make 20x30" prints? Maybe a few. Am I going to make 5x7s or 12x18s. Definitely. Am I going to use these photos on the web? Most Definitely. These are my answers and yours may be different but based on mine all I'll ever need is 6-10 mp. Fantastic, I don't have to pay extra for more mega pixels just because all the marketing says I do. Marketing tries it's hardest to make you go out an buy more than you need because they have to make money in order to make more cameras and stay in business.
I do take issue with Norman Koren's test. In the test he scanned the film with a $700 scanner. Big deal. He just wiped out any advantage that film might have. He's comparing a digital camera with a scanner, not film. Once again I'm not saying film or digital are better than one another. Pros use both.
I will check out Clark looks interesting and very technical.
I do love anandtech. Quality articles, objective testing. I've recently stopped reading another site due to the slow decline in the quality of their articles/publishing philosophy. Anandtech is now my main source for news and advice on computer hardware. Plus you actually respond intelligently to commentators and most of the commentators comment intelligently as well. Thanks guys.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 29, 2008 - link
Can you please provide the source for your information that film has higher resolution than any digital sensor? There are many experts who disagree with you.Norman Koren, the author of Imatest, which is a well-respected Resolution Test Suite, found the resolution of the top films to be equivalent to an 8.3 megapixel full-frame DSLR sensor at http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html">http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html. Clark at
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.dig...">http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.dig... found that Fuji Velvia 100 and 50 were equivalent to a 10 megapixel sensor for intensity detail, and perhaps a 16 megapixel sensor for color detail. All other films he tested, including slide films, were lower in resolution. You can find charts for a wide variety of films at that link.
Clark's final conclusion was 10 to 16 megapixels were the equivalent range of the various film types. Since his work was mostly APS-C sensors it is not really at odds with Koran's tests.
Every other researcher who has tested has generally found 12 to 14 megapixels the equivalent of 35mm film. The larger resolution sensors do show any faults of your lenses and they require the very best glass to resolve those high resolutions.
We did discuss the relevance of megapixels in the article in the discussion of P&S cameras. Our recommendation was that cameras with these tiny sensors - 1/10 to 1/20 the size of an APS-C sensor - have reached the best balance of resolution and noise at around 7 to 9 megapixels. Anything more than this is a waste with these tiny sensors TODAY, but that could change with new sensor technology.
However, in the APS-C sensor the resolution trade-off probably is somewhere around 20 to 25 megapixels with current technology and somewhere around 40 to 50 megapixels in full-frame. Since the sensor is an Analog device that gathers light and converts it to digital info the physical size of the pixel is the most important specification for judging ISO range and noise.
Prosumer is a designation used by almost every camera review site. It is the same as Advanced Amateur. It basically means a class of cameras geared to the hobbyist or advanced amateur that is also used by some Pros. The lines have become particularly blurred as sealing has improved in this class and technical advances have accelerated in digital imaging.
computerfarmer - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Nikon D40 is a good camera with 6mp. Then there is the Nikon D40x with 10mp. Both have 23.7 x 15.6 mm CCD sensors. The D40x has ISO 100 and the D40 does not, it starts at ISO 200. The D60 has very little on the D40x and in some cases the D40x is better.You are correct in the fact the D40 will do the job and very well at that.
Nehemoth - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
I would like to get one new camera bellow the 200US mark, but I don't like the cannon design and I would like that only use 2 AA batteries (so some fujifilm are out), also I like the aesthetics of those old cameras, like DSLR design.Any recomendation?.
computerfarmer - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
The FujiFilm FinePix S700 has the DSLR look and is selling for 179CDN. It uses 4 AA batteries and has a 10x zoom. you can read user comments herehttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?...
Good luck
Nehemoth - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
That's what I said before, I don't want fujitsu cause use 4 batteries, I would like of just 2 batteries.ubiloo - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
I've been shooting since more than 20 years, I've used a lot of cameras from Canon, Nikon and Pentax.Even though the Pentax lacks a full-frame camera (shame! shame!), I'm deeply convinced of the fact that some current models really are among the best for the price. Why is Pentax so often absent from parades?
In particular, I think that the K200D is terrifying for its street price (I don't know about the K-m); I've now been using it for some time and it's a real solid camera with good, sometimes very good, picture quality. I bought it for at least €100 than any comparable camera. This particular model also deletes one of the drawbacks of previous models: with its kit lens, the auto-focus speed is really convincing, try to believe!
As for lenses, both Sigma and Tamron are available, so whenever Pentax is weak, they deliver...
Wesley Fink - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
We;ve added mention of the Pentax K20D as a great value at $750 to $800 in the Prosumer category. It is not, however, without its probelms, as is true of any camera, and the price has dropped from $1295 to $750 in pretty short order. Its an outstnding value if it fits your needs and the way you shoot.ubiloo - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Sorry, I meant 'for at least €100 less'computerfarmer - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
If I were to choose.......from this article.Point and shoot:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-L8 for quality, Canon Powershot A590 IS best for the money.
Super Zoom:
Panasonic Lumix LMC-TZ5
Entry Interchangeable Lens:
Canon XSi or XS and Panasonic G1
At this level, all make decent products....hard to choose.
Prosumer:
Nikon D90 or Canon 50D ....hard to choose.
Full-Frame:
Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II
I am about to enter the "Entry Interchangeable Lens" category, perhaps in March or April. I have gone from point and shoot to superzoom. Panisonic FZ8 is camera I have now. It is so much better than the point and shoot. But the cost to go up to the next level is quite substantial. With a kit lens, I will not get the zoom I am accustomed too. The macro part I am unsure of. Then there is the flash. The number one reason for upgrading is the quality of photograph. The question I have is, if I wanted to print 13x19 inch photos, what camera and lens would do the best job for, Portraits, Birds, Indoors....
Example: If I purchased a Canon Rebel XSi; what else would I need to get the most out of this camera(general use). I am thinking the camera with the kit lens, plus a 200mm zoom lens, a macro lens, a flash(wireless would be nice), a good tripod. how much would this cost me?
This article gave a good overall view.....Thank You
strikeback03 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Unless the birds are very tame, 200mm isn't very long. A friend of mine has the XTi with 18-55IS/55-250IS combo though and is very happy with them for general use. The 55-250IS is not that expensive, B&H has a kit with XSi/18-55IS/55-250IS for $708. The 100/2.8 Macro is a good macro lens and also very usable for tighter portraits, runs around $450. No Canon bodies offer wireless flash control in-body, so the flash itself ranges from $200-400 depending on power and features, and if you want wireless you either need remote triggers and external metering, or a ST-E2 wireless transmitter. Tripods are highly dependent on what you want and need, but guessing at least $100 is pretty safe.Note that for some items (lenses, flash) you can sometimes find third-party alternatives which work as well for your needs for less money.
haplo602 - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
have a look on ebay ...I don't know the canon line of lenses, but something similar to the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR will make a good all-around starter lens.
Maxington - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
The G1 is revolutionary alright, its a camera that does away with the mirror box and optical viewfinder, without actually being any smaller than standard DSLRs!Why is this article have such a huge positive bias towards it? It should be applauded for actually trying, but totally dismissed until, like the rest of the 4/3rds range, it actually delivers on making a camera small. How you can recommend it whatsoever is beyond me.
Hell, Pentax have a far smaller setup, with the K2000/Km body, and their pancake lens range. And a better performing sensor with a bigger lens range to boot.
Speaking of Pentax, why were no Pentax cameras recommended? They are far better value for money than Nikon/Canon, though Sony camera bodies are probably the best value, pity their lenses are ridiculously priced.
Wesley Fink - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
The G1 is a great deal smaller overall than any DSLR we have tested, but it also has many other features going for it, like the superb 3 inch tilt-and swivel hi-res LCD and the first EVF we could actually live with. It also breaks new ground in Live View AF.We agree the Pentax K20D is a great value at $750 to $800, and mention of the K20D has been added. It should also be mentioned that the price of the K20D has declined from $1295 to $750 in pretty short time. The pro-type sealing and 14.6 megapixel sensor are top of the class, but the high ISO noise, inconsistent color at high ISO, slow AF, and slow continuous frame-rates detract from the top-notch features.
gaston1 - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Thank you for adding K20D to the list. I agree about the AF being slower than the competition. High ISO noise, not really, I'd say it's in line with other APS-C cameras in its range, although Pentax has taken a different approach, producing grainier pictures at high ISO but preserving much more detail than the others (and can be cleaned very easily through software if one chooses to). ISO 1600 is very useable, 3200 is sort of equivalent to the K10D's 1600, not that clean but useful when needed, and the 6400 is not that useable, in my opinion. We must also not forget that most reviews (comparing jpegs) will have Pentax tested on its default setting with noise reduction off while it kicks in by default on other cameras once you start using higher ISO settings. Canon's ISO 12800 hardly contains any detail at all, and in my opinion is just there for marketing purposes.As far as value goes, Pentax shines when you start considering lenses. I strongly considered going for the Nikon D700 or even waiting for the Canon 5D mkII, both great cameras for low light (or landscape) photography. But after researching the lenses that I would need, the system price was quickly stretching far beyond my amateur's budget (although still a bargain if you're a pro and need the features). I even briefly considered Sony's A900 but had a similar issue with the cost of lenses.
strikeback03 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
I don't really see the advantage in Pentax lens prices that you mention. Seems like they have dropped some, as a year ago I initially recommended a K10D with 16-50 2.8 to a friend, expecting the 16-50 to be around $500. I was shocked to see it was around $900 at the time. At least now it is more reasonable. Checking other similar lenses they seem to be mostly in line with Canon/Nikon, with some deals (50/1.4 for $200) and some more expensive (the 77/1.8 vs 85/1.8 from others).Maxington - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Echoing what gaston1 said, thanks for adding the K20D to the list.Also echoing the high iso comment, Pentax has higher noise due to it retaining detail and not smearing it away like Nikon/Canon do. I'd rather keep the detail and post-process it later, with much better tools, than let the camera do it.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk20d/page18....">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk20d/page18....
Look at the mush the others turn into.
I'm still not convinced the minor size drop the Panasonic G1 has makes it worthwhile. (It's about half a cm shorter than the Pentax Km, and about 2cm thinner) It's not small enough to drop into "pocket" range, especially with the lack of pancake lenses, thus any size benefit it has is pretty much pointless. It's still a DSLR to carry. When they get it down to being like a rangefinder, then it'll be worth looking at.
I do like the back lcd and the slick contrast af though.
gaston1 - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
I totally agree about the Pentax part. How can one mention Canon 40d and 50d and totally miss to mention the 14.6 Megapixel K20D which is currently selling for less than $750 and is actually loaded with pro features!DragonzFx - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
I own a Fuji S100FS and for the price I paid ($720cdn tax incl). Thatis a lot of camera for the money in my opinion. It would have been nice to see this camera reviewed in your article as it is a great bridge camera. It is so feature rich and gives you the equivalent of a camera having anywhere from 35mm equivalent of 50mm Wide Angle all the way up to400mm Telephoto due to the 14x optical zoom. You can shoot fully manual or auto. In Jpeg or Raw, this camera does it all without the need to change a lense. And it uses a Li-on battery not AA's lol. Just my 2cents
Johnmcl7 - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
"If you are an Olympus fan, you will need to wait for a couple of months. Olympus has announced the new 12MP E30 that brings most of the great E1 features, including its super fast AF module, down to a lower prosumer price point."I assume you're referring to the E-3 rather than the E-1 and it's geriatric AF.
John
Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
Yes, you correctly point out the E-3 is the Zippy AF master with 11 double-croos AF points (44 segments). I have corrected the typo.Dennis Travis - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
I just purchased the Canon A590 IS because I did not have a lot of $$$. It totally blows away my way more expensive Digi. It's an amazing little camera for the price and in spite of the price also. I took it to the opening of the Apple Store in my city and every picture was first rate and even though it was very crowded in there and I was in a hurry to get some shots, the IS did it's job. Not one bad pic in the lot and I took over 100.So many great features also with both aperture and Shutter Priority which is amazing at that price point. Canon did an excellent job with the A590 IS. I highly recommend it to anyone on a budget that wants a lot of control over your pictures.
brokensoul - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
No word of DxOMark ? new website, quite handy to judge pure Raw quality of sensors, but it could do with some explanations.. :-PNice work though, quite a broad coverage of the camera market
dani31 - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
Where is Panasonic DMC-LX3, probably the best compact in the world?zzzxtreme - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
I agree, Panasonic DMC-LX3 is one of the best compact. It is what reviewers claim, almost like a $5000 Leica compact.Wesley Fink - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
We do agree the DMC-LX3 is a terrific Point-and-Shoot, but at $500 it is more than we can justify for a compact in today's market. As we stated in the review it is very hard to justify spending more than $250 to $300 in today's market with DSLR's starting at $400.The Panasonic G1 interchangeable lens large sensor - which was selected as the best entry large-sensor - is significantly better and more flexible than the LX3. With some selling it for $649 and special promotions getting the price below $500 in some cases the G1 is the camera we sould buy in this price class - or the Sony A200 2-lens kit or the Canon XS kit.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
If you've got $500 to spend on a camera, and it's a choice between a quality compact you can slip into your pocket for everyday use, or an SLR which will normally be left at home, I'd spend the $500 on a compact.Whilst the SLR can no doubt take better pictures, that's of no value whatsoever unless you actually have it with you. The SLR won't be taking any pictures when it was left at home, while the compact is always ready to be used at a moments notice.
Johnmcl7 - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
Strange explanation - the LX3 is a compact camera, a DSLR is far bigger and heavier leaving the two types of devices for very different uses.The G1 isn't comparable either as it's also quite a bit bigger, I currently use an LX2 for when the DSLR is just too big as the LX2 slips in a pocket and is unobtrusive. The LX3 looks to be very good compact camera for those looking for a high quality compact to compliment a bigger camera.
John