-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleWhich is the best camera to buy?
- Thread starter Givebest
- Start date
If I was buying a mid sized camera right now I would buy this one because of the HD Video, SD Card Support, 14x optical zoom, compact and Canon is quite good.
https://www.nivo.co.za/#buy~canon.powershot.sx210.is.14.1mp.compact.digital.camera.black~p20633
https://www.nivo.co.za/#buy~canon.powershot.sx210.is.14.1mp.compact.digital.camera.black~p20633
Depends what your budget is... but for me the Leica S2 is THE BEST! Goes for a cool R156 941... A beauty... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081601leicassystemspecs.asp
If you're only looking for a "point and click" type camera and don't want to spend too much I would recommend a bridge camera and not a dSLR.
The Canon PowerShot SX30 is an excellent bridge camera and costs about R3800.
Some key features:
- 35x Zoom Lens (24-840mm Equivalent)
- 14.1 mega pixel sensor
- Records 720p HD video
- Optical image stabilization
The Canon PowerShot SX30 is an excellent bridge camera and costs about R3800.
Some key features:
- 35x Zoom Lens (24-840mm Equivalent)
- 14.1 mega pixel sensor
- Records 720p HD video
- Optical image stabilization
+1.
What is your requirements on distance? Canon's cameras are absolutely amazing, but I have found that their compact cameras with the huge zooms are rather slow to focus - but for instance the SX 105 (iirc) IS that we have, with its 5 zoom I think it was, is blazing fast.
The new bridge cameras are really nice though, you have my +1 on those.
BigAl-sa
Executive Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,652
I'll go with you on the TZ10. My sister-in-law is out from Germany and she has one - I was amazed at the quality of both photos and video.
The TZ10 is available at http://mycamera.co.za/digital-camer.../panasonic-lumix-dmc-tz10-digital-camera.html
Awesome camera. I do believe in Panasonic they have an awesome quality range. I have the FZ35.
Awesome camera. I do believe in Panasonic they have an awesome quality range. I have the FZ35.
I always find it funny that people recommend a point & shoot and then ramble off some figures like it has 14,1 megapixels. Yeah it does but the sensor is only 6mm x 4.5mm big. Do you know how tiny that is.
Rather spend a little more a get a semi-decent camera, you can pick up something like the EOS 1000D for R4400 at Orms. Why not save a little longer, spend a little more and then have something that is actually somewhat usable. You can also find some real bargains on Gumtree or places like that.
Sorry just my two cents.
Rather spend a little more a get a semi-decent camera, you can pick up something like the EOS 1000D for R4400 at Orms. Why not save a little longer, spend a little more and then have something that is actually somewhat usable. You can also find some real bargains on Gumtree or places like that.
Sorry just my two cents.
satanboy
Psychonaut seven
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 98,824
Because some people want to pop the camera in their pocket etc. Try that with an EOS 1000D.
Dolby
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 32,628
I chose my SX1 bridge camera (R6,300.00) over the budget SLR because R6,500.00 was my *entire* budget ; no more for any lens and in hindsight - I wouldn't have had for a year after that.
I got a photo's in that year that a 1000D and kit lens wouldn't have allowed
Yes - there are negatives and limits to the camera, especially in manual - but I still think it was the better purchase.
Last edited:
BigAl-sa
Executive Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,652
erm, are you saying the pics from a decent p&s are not usable?
I fully understand what you are saying about the budget, that is a major constraint for us all I think
However my point is people throw around this number like 14 megapixel as if that is the magic number that should convince you to buy said camera, when in reality that is just a very small part of the bigger picture. Sorry to do this but look at the following links
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK100D/Samples/Compared/Studio/k100d_iso0200-acr.JPG
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonSX1IS/Samples/Comparedto/Studio/SX1IS_ISO80.JPG
The first is a Pentax K100D the second is your Canon SX 1S.
How these tests work is they have the same controlled lighting and setup and then
take a photo at the cameras largest photo size, with the default lens. So in this case the images from the Canon is slightly larger than that of the Pentax. But expand them to full size and look at the colour differences. Secondly when full size look at the red line that forms on the Canon's grey scale chart under the number 1 or the red line at the top of the Y yellow circle. Look at the haloing on the Kodak Greyscale words, and the noise in the black areas of the colour chart with the Canon. The canon is a 10 megapixel camera, the Pentax is a 6 megapixel. You don't see that on the 6mp camera. And in my mind even at the slightly smaller size that picture from the Pentax is big enough for the majority of your average people who want to take photos.
This is the point I am trying to make. 14 megapixel doesn't mean it is better than an older 10 or even 8 megepixel camera. There are too many other variants coming in to the equation to simply rely on megapixels.
This is just one of my pet peeves sorry, but industry has managed to convince a large majority of people that megapixels is the feature that determines picture quality. And for that reason they cram a large number of pixels on a small sensor, call it a new model push the price up and punt it as being better than an older DSLR on the simple basis that it has more megapixels. That however is not the case.
To get back on topic, to the OP if I was buying a new camera today I would look at getting an older DSLR with less megapixels and a decent 18-55mm lens. You will more than likely be getting better results than a 14mp point and shoot.
BigAl-sa
Executive Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,652
There is such a thing as a decent 18-55? :erm:
Dolby
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 32,628
IMO - you're pixel peeping
I'd hardly say or imply the SX1 is unusable or absolutely horrible compared to the SLR. In fact, I'd wager that I could print them out and show them to people at work and they'd battle to pick up a difference at first glance.
With my Canon SX1 I got an equivilant 28-560mm lens, RAW shooting, 3.7fps, CMOS sensor, HD video, 1st/2nd curtain flash and a number of features that the 1000D has. For me, the lens was the biggest factor and outweighed the larger sensor and IQ that I'd get. The bridge is far more flexible on a budget.
I'd hardly say or imply the SX1 is unusable or absolutely horrible compared to the SLR. In fact, I'd wager that I could print them out and show them to people at work and they'd battle to pick up a difference at first glance.
With my Canon SX1 I got an equivilant 28-560mm lens, RAW shooting, 3.7fps, CMOS sensor, HD video, 1st/2nd curtain flash and a number of features that the 1000D has. For me, the lens was the biggest factor and outweighed the larger sensor and IQ that I'd get. The bridge is far more flexible on a budget.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 89,378
Don't talk crazy - of course you cant.
Compared to the zooms I had when I started the current crop of 18-55 are amazing.