meateater Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 from what ive been told carl zeiss lens are one of the most exspensive and quality lens's.... they just add that name on the camera to make them look better... but actually thier not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_ARTIFACTS Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Sony point and shoots cameras are well worth the money. Go for it. If its not for serious photography, then just get ur self a point and shoot camera, no need for a dslr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THANKYOU Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Should I get this camera? I've seen it for $369 (Canadian), which is a pretty good price. Does anyone else have one? I like it because it's really thin, and if there is one thing I hate, it's bulges in my girl jeans. Just joking about the girl jeans. :) if that is the one with the 3 inch lcd screen, yes its awesome and takes really good piks. my home girl gots one. i also have the CANON S80 someone posted below, its awesome as well but not as easy to carry around as the sony. picture wise you'd like both. and i just got a $1200-1400 nikon slr digi cam. it beats them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 i own this: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2 6x optical zoom with a lumix/lica(sp?) lens. 5.0 mega pixels. its an excellent camera for outdoors but it sucks for indoor shots. Not many shooting features but its still very nice. heres a good review:Click here oh and here are a couple photos i took with it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madsencarl Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 holy shit. that's nice quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreck.One Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Fuji makes a small nice camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weapon X Posted June 18, 2006 Author Share Posted June 18, 2006 Thanks for all the input so far, guys. I am down to these two, I think: Casio Exilim EX-S600BE Blue, 6 Megapixel CCD, 2.2" LCD, 3x Opt Zoom, Long Battery life( 300-shot per charge) Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T7 Digital camera 5.1 Mpix optical zoom: 3 x supported memory: Memory Stick Duo, Memory Stick PRO Duo (Silver) So as you can see, I'm in the market for a 5 to 6 MP camera that is very compact. I don't plan on bringing it everywhere with me, but I do plan on bringing it with me when I do the graffiti and for other things like Blue Jay games and parties, etc.. so, yeah, thin is key. How important is the image stabilizer? The Casio might have it, but I know the Sony doesn't. Couldn't I just up the shutter speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLIK$ Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 MAR, holy fuck how much did you pay for that thing? I dont need a lot of shooting features, I just need something thats going to take alot of good low light pics of trains. Whats that thing like in low/no light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Fujis are nice, my sister has one, the screen sucks but the quality is great. Ther last film I was on, the director of photography had one of those panasonic lumix tings with the leica lens, shit was so hot. Absolutley amazing camera for its size/goofyness. Leica lenses are georgeous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 The other thing is, look at the size of the lens on the sony, it is minute, which is not a good thing particularly, it might be worth compensating on the size a little to get one with a nicer lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 grainy as fuck It was on a few seconds exposure at night on a windy balcony, and it's been shrunken down and at about a 5 quality in photoshop. I don't see any graininess, definitly not "as fuck". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 MAR, holy fuck how much did you pay for that thing? I dont need a lot of shooting features, I just need something thats going to take alot of good low light pics of trains. Whats that thing like in low/no light around $300 but you probably could get it cheaper online. its ok in low light, but you have to turn the flash off. It has a very powerful flash so it tends to reflect alot of light. so its hard to say I figure you could play around with the iso setting to get a better picture . But all and all its a daylight camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saraday Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 i've heard nothing but good things about Nikon's CoolPix series. i'm not sure what model my friend had, but he swore by his. if you're looking for quality photos, the preformance series seems to be top notch.. but coolpix also has a "style" line which has those new-fangled skinny cameras. if i were rich, i'd want a Leica DigiLux 2. LEICA DIGILUX 2 - The “analog” digital camera. The new LEICA DIGILUX 2 camera combines the best of two worlds. In the new LEICA DIGILUX 2, modern digital technology and the proven concepts of traditional analog photography are joined in a harmonious combination: Decisive photographic parameters such as sharpness, aperture, focal length and shutter speeds can be controlled like those on a classic single-lens-reflex camera by means of setting rings on the lens and a shutter speed dial. To ensure the best pictorial results, the lens, the sensor and the electronics are optimally tailored to one another. The 2/3-inch CCD sensor is very large for its resolution of 5 million pixels. This combination of a high-performance lens and a large surface per picture element produces an extraordinary pictorial quality. The LEICA DIGILUX 2 at a glance Fast 7 – 22.5 mm LEICA DC VARIO SUMMICRON f/2 – f/2.4 ASPH. zoom lens (equivalent to a 28 - 90 mm zoom lens on a 35 mm camera) 2/3" CCD sensor with 5.0 million pixels Analog photography feeling conveyed by manual setting possibilities directly at the lens Its traditional clear design readily identifies it as a typical Leica Transfer-reflexive 2,5“ display with a resolution of 211,000 pixels and outstanding brilliance Electronic viewfinder with 235,000 pixels that covers 100% of the picture being taken fast Autofocus: - only 500ms/600ms including focusing (with 28 mm/90mm settings) short shutter release delay: - only 94ms with manual focusing Extra large picture storage card with 64 MB Interval timing and control via the PC Connections: USB 2.0 (High Speed); DC IN; AV output with option of PAL or NTSC; Remote release cable Extremely robust and long-lived because of the use of high-grade materials and precision fabrication anyone got $1500 to loan me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 glick0- heres a really comprehensive review. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lz1_lz2-review/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLIK$ Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 yeah I think its getting bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 i found a couple site selling it for 200 and less. hold pleaseeeeeeee...... here circut city has it new for 194.00 click here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I don't see any graininess' date=' definitly not "as fuck".[/quote'] Haha, yet you can easily tell the difference between a 256-kbps song and a CD quality song. You have very prioritized senses. That's a pretty damn grainy picture, but you won't get any better than that with most point-and-shoot digitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 This little dude doesn't take the best pictures (certainly good enough though), but the size, shape, and all-weather features have held up like champs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Haha, yet you can easily tell the difference between a 256-kbps song and a CD quality song. You have very prioritized senses. That's a pretty damn grainy picture, but you won't get any better than that with most point-and-shoot digitals. Yes, there are grains, but like I said: A) It was taken at a long exposure without a tripod B) The original file was 9x12 and 2+ mb and C) In order to post it onto 12oz last year I had to somehow make that file size around 70k. JPG compression = graininess. I used the picture as an example for how nice a color spectrum you can get with that camera, not as an example of how well a 2+mb picture translates into message forum compression. Devil's Advocate says: Sight and sound are mutually exclusive senses. I play and record music at high bit rates and work with extreme frequencies. To me, I'm used to picking out those frequencies and the difference in file protocols for sound is much more obvious to me. But, I do not take digital photographs proffesionally or even regular photographs. I used to do black and white in high school but not anymore. But really, what's wrong with the rest of the pictures? At reasonable file sizes of 50-75k they look fantastic, and you also have a 9x12 high-res copy on your computer to work with if you want to make high-detailed prints. I'm not trying to sweat Canon, but if you're looking for a camera around that price range then go for it, for 300 bucks you get a hell of a lot of camera. I've got a Nikon analog but that's in a completely different class, very high-end. I wouldn't rule out Sony, since they've been doing videocameras for a while and dealing with digital technology. But I'd lean towards companies that have been building picture takers for a longer time, ie. Nikon or Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tonin Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 i dont know why everyone's shitting on sony. most of their p&s are not bad. especially with the carl zeiss lens. no photoshop. sony dsc-p200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Your friend's mouth is huge. /nosexual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 glick0- the sony looks better for when and where you want to be shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeBee Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I've got a Nikon 3200, that shit has taken a beating over the years and still goin strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushbuttonWarfare Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 When I purchase another digital, I'm going to make sure that it can take photos as TIFFs as well. I've only got a 3 megapixel minolta, but the difference in quality between the highest jpeg setting and the tiff setting is substantial. I wouldn't mind buying something with an image stabilizer either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 i dont know why everyone's shitting on sony. most of their p&s are not bad. especially with the carl zeiss lens. no photoshop. sony dsc-p200 whats they deal with that "haze" over all your photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadawhat Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 i own this: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2 6x optical zoom with a lumix/lica(sp?) lens. 5.0 mega pixels. its an excellent camera for outdoors but it sucks for indoor shots. Not many shooting features but its still very nice. heres a good review:Click here I have this camera... very happy with it so far.. walked out of circuit city with 256 mem card for @ $220. friends sony takes better night shots..but that was when I first had it.. now that I know it a bit better I'll have to go test it again. its slighty more bulky than some of teh other cameras.. but 6x optical zoom won out in the end.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakes on a message board Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The glass is pretty much the same on Nikon, Sony and Canon pocket cams, but you shouldn't count out the casio exilim- best pocket cam i've used to this day. Any of those brands will give you great picture quality. I'd pass on the Leica and get a real camera though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadawhat Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 this site has pretty extensive reviews: might help.... http://www.dcresource.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weapon X Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 ^ That's a cool site. I might go with the Casio Exilim S600BE, still. It has the anti-shake. But how important is the anti-shake? Will I pretty much need that in low light situations where I can't just quicken up the shutter? Anyway, it's really thin, is 6.0MP, and has a bunch of features, so hopefully it's cool. Too bad it's $30 more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Man, I dunno. Anything Casio makes is crap, just look at their keyboards and synths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.