Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What to go for?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 1:12:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Hi all!

Wondering if anyone here can help me. I recently decided to get a camera,
but I can't decide which one. Now, this camera will mainly be used for
taking pictures in pubs / clubs or other indoor environments, so therefore I
need something that is able to take good quality shots in low light
conditions.

I also will be wanting to print some of these out, to a size of at least A4,
so the camera has to be able to take pictures of whatever resolution is
required for this.

Since the camera will be going to places like the ones mentioned above, it
must be small enough to fit in the pocket. Of course, from what I have seen,
something the size of an Ixus would be ideal, but I have heard horror
stories lately of the newer cameras coming out of the factories from Canon.
Apparently, they are often giving E18 and E24 errors (whatever they might
be), and Canon are refusing to do anything about them.

Your advice would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Aruz


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004

More about : question

Anonymous
October 28, 2004 4:56:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Hi, Aruz

try this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_a95.a...
I've recently bought one. The quality is superb.
My recomendations.

Regards,
Alexander.

<aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:clq9l0$rm0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi all!
>
> Wondering if anyone here can help me. I recently decided to get a camera,
> but I can't decide which one. Now, this camera will mainly be used for
> taking pictures in pubs / clubs or other indoor environments, so therefore
I
> need something that is able to take good quality shots in low light
> conditions.
>
> I also will be wanting to print some of these out, to a size of at least
A4,
> so the camera has to be able to take pictures of whatever resolution is
> required for this.
>
> Since the camera will be going to places like the ones mentioned above, it
> must be small enough to fit in the pocket. Of course, from what I have
seen,
> something the size of an Ixus would be ideal, but I have heard horror
> stories lately of the newer cameras coming out of the factories from
Canon.
> Apparently, they are often giving E18 and E24 errors (whatever they might
> be), and Canon are refusing to do anything about them.
>
> Your advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Aruz
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004
>
>
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 1:03:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Aruz" <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk>
stated that:

>Hi all!
>
>Wondering if anyone here can help me. I recently decided to get a camera,
>but I can't decide which one. Now, this camera will mainly be used for
>taking pictures in pubs / clubs or other indoor environments, so therefore I
>need something that is able to take good quality shots in low light
>conditions.

I do this a lot myself (photos in clubs), so I'm pretty familiar with
the problems involved. Your number one requirement for getting nice
looking photos is low noise at high ISO setting, because photos need
ambient light to look good, & you just won't get that at less than about
ISO 800. The next most important ingredients are a fast lens (f2.8 or
less) & adjustable flash output. An external flashgun shoe is a big plus
for preventing redeye & blowouts. Any digicam that meets this
requirements should be usable for this kind of photography, but when
choosing between different models, give a really high priority to low
noise at 800+, because that will make the single biggest contribution to
good images - *especially* with A4+ print sizes.
I first started doing this sort of photography with a Canon Powershot
S30, but if I could choose again, I'd go for one of the 'G' series
models instead, as I found that the inbuilt flash on the S30 was its
biggest limitation.

I'm doing this in a fairly serious way, so I've since upgraded to a DLSR
(EOS 10D), a serious flashgun (EX-550) & fast prime lenses, but with
some practice you can get quite good photos from a suitable digicam.
(Good enough to sell in fact, but it's hard work to get that kind of
quality from a digicam.) I now use my 10D for 'serious' club/band
photography, & use the S30 only for abstracts (I love the saturated
colours it makes on long exposures), or when I'm out with friends.

If you're interested, you can see a few of my recent 10D club photos on
my website at <http://lo.ve.ly/gallery/DV8-23-10-04&gt;. I'm afraid I don't
currently have any digicam shots online at present.

>I also will be wanting to print some of these out, to a size of at least A4,
>so the camera has to be able to take pictures of whatever resolution is
>required for this.

With some care, 3.3MP will do the job, but of course more is better. I'd
be looking at 5MP digicams.

>Since the camera will be going to places like the ones mentioned above, it
>must be small enough to fit in the pocket. Of course, from what I have seen,
>something the size of an Ixus would be ideal,

If you're happy with snapshots, an Ixus will be fine, but you'll find it
very limiting for anything better than that.
You should probably spend some time on <http://www.dpreview.com/&gt;,
which is an excellent review site. I strongly recommend that you
carefully check the noise examples in each review before deciding on a
camera.

> but I have heard horror
>stories lately of the newer cameras coming out of the factories from Canon.
>Apparently, they are often giving E18 and E24 errors (whatever they might
>be), and Canon are refusing to do anything about them.

I wouldn't take that too seriously. Canon take their reputation too
seriously to ignore a real problem, & there are always idiots who bitch
about the big companies.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 1:03:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:u2i1o0lodb1eej9bc9rbreslon36fdncr0@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Aruz" <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk>
> stated that:
>
> >Hi all!
> >
> >Wondering if anyone here can help me. I recently decided to get a
camera,
> >but I can't decide which one. Now, this camera will mainly be used for
> >taking pictures in pubs / clubs or other indoor environments, so
therefore I
> >need something that is able to take good quality shots in low light
> >conditions.
>
> I do this a lot myself (photos in clubs), so I'm pretty familiar with
> the problems involved. Your number one requirement for getting nice
> looking photos is low noise at high ISO setting, because photos need
> ambient light to look good, & you just won't get that at less than about
> ISO 800. The next most important ingredients are a fast lens (f2.8 or
> less) & adjustable flash output. An external flashgun shoe is a big plus
> for preventing redeye & blowouts. Any digicam that meets this
> requirements should be usable for this kind of photography, but when
> choosing between different models, give a really high priority to low
> noise at 800+, because that will make the single biggest contribution to
> good images - *especially* with A4+ print sizes.

You won't get a cam with acceptable noise at ISO 800 *and* small case
because the small case limits the size of the sensor and digital image
processing (either in or outside the camera) can't do wonders, i.e. won't
get rid of the noise keeping overall image quality good. Of course, if
the OP just wants to do B/W imaging, then you he can ignore the colour
noise.

Another importang thing is a AF help light if shooting most of the time in
dim light because otherwise you won't get sharp pictures most of the time.

I suggest to have a look at these:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct3.a...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct1.a...

> With some care, 3.3MP will do the job, but of course more is better. I'd
> be looking at 5MP digicams.

+1

> >Since the camera will be going to places like the ones mentioned above,
it
> >must be small enough to fit in the pocket. Of course, from what I have
seen,
> >something the size of an Ixus would be ideal,
>
> If you're happy with snapshots, an Ixus will be fine, but you'll find it
> very limiting for anything better than that.
> You should probably spend some time on <http://www.dpreview.com/&gt;,
> which is an excellent review site. I strongly recommend that you
> carefully check the noise examples in each review before deciding on a
> camera.

Additionally there's also
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

> > but I have heard horror
> >stories lately of the newer cameras coming out of the factories from
Canon.
> >Apparently, they are often giving E18 and E24 errors (whatever they
might
> >be), and Canon are refusing to do anything about them.
>
> I wouldn't take that too seriously. Canon take their reputation too
> seriously to ignore a real problem, & there are always idiots who bitch
> about the big companies.

+1

Kind regards

robert
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 2:17:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Alexander A. Danilin" <alexander.danilin@philips.com> wrote in message
news:clqja4$3ld$1@voyager.news.surf.net...
> Hi, Aruz
>
> try this one:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_a95.a...
> I've recently bought one. The quality is superb.
> My recomendations.
>
> Regards,
> Alexander.
>
> <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:clq9l0$rm0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Wondering if anyone here can help me. I recently decided to get a
camera,
> > but I can't decide which one. Now, this camera will mainly be used for
> > taking pictures in pubs / clubs or other indoor environments, so
therefore
> I
> > need something that is able to take good quality shots in low light
> > conditions.
> >
> > I also will be wanting to print some of these out, to a size of at least
> A4,
> > so the camera has to be able to take pictures of whatever resolution is
> > required for this.
> >
> > Since the camera will be going to places like the ones mentioned above,
it
> > must be small enough to fit in the pocket. Of course, from what I have
> seen,
> > something the size of an Ixus would be ideal, but I have heard horror
> > stories lately of the newer cameras coming out of the factories from
> Canon.
> > Apparently, they are often giving E18 and E24 errors (whatever they
might
> > be), and Canon are refusing to do anything about them.
> >
> > Your advice would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Aruz
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004
> >
> >
>
>
I do not know the a95, but i have an a70 myself, and i have taken more than
4000 pics with it, and
it have never been any errors. When the time comes, my next camera will also
be a canon.
-
Appearently, the e18-error mean "lens stuck" or something like that.
This i came across today; http://www.villadsen.com/ixus.htm
showing a camera (ixus v) that had been dropped on to the ground, and now
shows the 18-error.
You can see that the lens are in the wrong place.
-
Henning.
-
October 29, 2004 4:30:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

I've got a Cannon A75 Powershot and very happy with it

--
Simon
nomisnomisnomis@yahoo.com


"Aruz" <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:clq9l0$rm0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi all!
>
> Wondering if anyone here can help me. I recently decided to get a camera,
> but I can't decide which one. Now, this camera will mainly be used for
> taking pictures in pubs / clubs or other indoor environments, so therefore
> I
> need something that is able to take good quality shots in low light
> conditions.
>
> I also will be wanting to print some of these out, to a size of at least
> A4,
> so the camera has to be able to take pictures of whatever resolution is
> required for this.
>
> Since the camera will be going to places like the ones mentioned above, it
> must be small enough to fit in the pocket. Of course, from what I have
> seen,
> something the size of an Ixus would be ideal, but I have heard horror
> stories lately of the newer cameras coming out of the factories from
> Canon.
> Apparently, they are often giving E18 and E24 errors (whatever they might
> be), and Canon are refusing to do anything about them.
>
> Your advice would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Aruz
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 25/10/2004
>
>
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 6:44:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> stated that:

>You won't get a cam with acceptable noise at ISO 800 *and* small case
>because the small case limits the size of the sensor and digital image
>processing (either in or outside the camera) can't do wonders, i.e. won't
>get rid of the noise keeping overall image quality good. Of course, if
>the OP just wants to do B/W imaging, then you he can ignore the colour
>noise.

'Acceptable' is a very relative thing, & mostly a matter of personal
taste. The OP was looking for a small (pocket-size) camera, & it's a
fact of life that you really do need ISO 800 (or ISO 400 if you have
*very* steady hands) to get acceptable images in pubs & clubs. His
images /will/ be noisy, but some digicams are better than others WRT
noise, & only he can determine what amount of noise is acceptable to
*him*. Also, people have been taking photos in such environments with
high speed (3200 or more) film for many years, & most people are well
aware that such photos are going to be pretty grainy, so noise/grain is
expected in that genre of photography. With care, & a certain amount of
luck, I certainly got quite usable A4 prints out of my S30 at ISO 400 &
800, without using any external noise reduction at all. With external
noise reduction (eg; NeatImage) & careful Photoshopping, the results can
be surprisingly good.

>Another importang thing is a AF help light if shooting most of the time in
>dim light because otherwise you won't get sharp pictures most of the time.

Yes, good point. I'd forgotten that there are digicams that don't have
AF lights.

>I suggest to have a look at these:
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct3.a...
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct1.a...

It's a pity that those writeups don't include noise samples. Nasty
aberrations on the lens too - take a look at the Kodak logos on the
colour patch sample photo.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 3:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mg72o056hgmu8sqscce478oto3vkhjdvfe@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> stated that:
>
> >You won't get a cam with acceptable noise at ISO 800 *and* small case
> >because the small case limits the size of the sensor and digital image
> >processing (either in or outside the camera) can't do wonders, i.e.
won't
> >get rid of the noise keeping overall image quality good. Of course, if
> >the OP just wants to do B/W imaging, then you he can ignore the colour
> >noise.
>
> 'Acceptable' is a very relative thing, & mostly a matter of personal
> taste. The OP was looking for a small (pocket-size) camera, & it's a
> fact of life that you really do need ISO 800 (or ISO 400 if you have
> *very* steady hands) to get acceptable images in pubs & clubs.

That's all true. Apparently we have different measures; according to mine
I haven't found a pocket size (i.e quite small) camera with "low" noise on
ISO 800 or 400. IMHO such a thing does not exist (yet).

> His
> images /will/ be noisy, but some digicams are better than others WRT
> noise, & only he can determine what amount of noise is acceptable to
> *him*. Also, people have been taking photos in such environments with
> high speed (3200 or more) film for many years, & most people are well
> aware that such photos are going to be pretty grainy, so noise/grain is
> expected in that genre of photography. With care, & a certain amount of
> luck, I certainly got quite usable A4 prints out of my S30 at ISO 400 &
> 800, without using any external noise reduction at all. With external
> noise reduction (eg; NeatImage) & careful Photoshopping, the results can
> be surprisingly good.

Good point. I have to print a noisy image yet, it might well be that the
printing process reduces the effect of noisy images. Also the reduced
sharpness might not be visible on a printout. I'll try that out when I'm
doing paper prints next time. Thanks for that hint.

> >Another importang thing is a AF help light if shooting most of the time
in
> >dim light because otherwise you won't get sharp pictures most of the
time.
>
> Yes, good point. I'd forgotten that there are digicams that don't have
> AF lights.
>
> >I suggest to have a look at these:
> >
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct3.a...
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsct1.a...
>
> It's a pity that those writeups don't include noise samples.

You can find some here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/t1_samples....

> Nasty
> aberrations on the lens too - take a look at the Kodak logos on the
> colour patch sample photo.

IMHO currently the ultra compact cams all have their share of image
problems - some more and some less. To expect high quality from these is
certainly asking for too much. Personally I'm nonetheless amazed what
these little bastards *can* do in fact.

Kind regards

robert
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 6:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> stated that:

>"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[...]
>> expected in that genre of photography. With care, & a certain amount of
>> luck, I certainly got quite usable A4 prints out of my S30 at ISO 400 &
>> 800, without using any external noise reduction at all. With external
>> noise reduction (eg; NeatImage) & careful Photoshopping, the results can
>> be surprisingly good.
>
>Good point. I have to print a noisy image yet, it might well be that the
>printing process reduces the effect of noisy images. Also the reduced
>sharpness might not be visible on a printout. I'll try that out when I'm
>doing paper prints next time. Thanks for that hint.

No problem. Again, I'm not saying that it's /easy/ to get a clean A4
print from an ISO 800/3.3MP digicam shot, just that it's achievable.
It's a hell of a lot easier to just use my 10D & put up with lugging a
camera bag with me when I go out. Either way, it's a tradeoff.

(BTW: One thing I forgot to mention in my reply to the OP is that little
digicams have one major advantage over a DSLR in poor lighting - they're
so much lighter than a DSLR that I can easily handhold mine at 1/15 or
1/8 without losing many shots (maybe 10%) to camera shake, whereas the
10D becomes useless below about 1/25.

>> It's a pity that those writeups don't include noise samples.
>
>You can find some here:
>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/t1_samples....

Ta. I couldn't see any links to samples from the other pages you quoted.

>IMHO currently the ultra compact cams all have their share of image
>problems - some more and some less. To expect high quality from these is
>certainly asking for too much. Personally I'm nonetheless amazed what
>these little bastards *can* do in fact.

Most of it's down to really smart electronics & firmware.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 6:21:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3256o094unov230us33t426n6127vldg6d@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> stated that:
>
> >"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> [...]
> >> expected in that genre of photography. With care, & a certain amount of
> >> luck, I certainly got quite usable A4 prints out of my S30 at ISO 400 &
> >> 800, without using any external noise reduction at all. With external
> >> noise reduction (eg; NeatImage) & careful Photoshopping, the results
can
> >> be surprisingly good.
> >
> >Good point. I have to print a noisy image yet, it might well be that the
> >printing process reduces the effect of noisy images. Also the reduced
> >sharpness might not be visible on a printout. I'll try that out when I'm
> >doing paper prints next time. Thanks for that hint.
>
> No problem. Again, I'm not saying that it's /easy/ to get a clean A4
> print from an ISO 800/3.3MP digicam shot, just that it's achievable.
> It's a hell of a lot easier to just use my 10D & put up with lugging a
> camera bag with me when I go out. Either way, it's a tradeoff.
>
> (BTW: One thing I forgot to mention in my reply to the OP is that little
> digicams have one major advantage over a DSLR in poor lighting - they're
> so much lighter than a DSLR that I can easily handhold mine at 1/15 or
> 1/8 without losing many shots (maybe 10%) to camera shake, whereas the
> 10D becomes useless below about 1/25.
>
> >> It's a pity that those writeups don't include noise samples.
> >
> >You can find some here:
> >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/t1_samples....
>
> Ta. I couldn't see any links to samples from the other pages you quoted.
>
> >IMHO currently the ultra compact cams all have their share of image
> >problems - some more and some less. To expect high quality from these is
> >certainly asking for too much. Personally I'm nonetheless amazed what
> >these little bastards *can* do in fact.
>
> Most of it's down to really smart electronics & firmware.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------


Well thanks very much to everyone for their input. You have helped me look
at things in cameras which I hadn't done. Now, is "simply" the process of
elimination.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 6:21:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3256o094unov230us33t426n6127vldg6d@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net> stated that:

>>Good point. I have to print a noisy image yet, it might well be that the
>>printing process reduces the effect of noisy images. Also the reduced
>>sharpness might not be visible on a printout. I'll try that out when I'm
>>doing paper prints next time. Thanks for that hint.
>
> No problem. Again, I'm not saying that it's /easy/ to get a clean A4
> print from an ISO 800/3.3MP digicam shot, just that it's achievable.
> It's a hell of a lot easier to just use my 10D & put up with lugging a
> camera bag with me when I go out. Either way, it's a tradeoff.

Yep, definitely. That was the reason why I bought my G5 in the first place:
I wanted to have some rather small camera that still makes very good
pictures. And that's what she does - at least at ISO 50 and 100.

> (BTW: One thing I forgot to mention in my reply to the OP is that little
> digicams have one major advantage over a DSLR in poor lighting - they're
> so much lighter than a DSLR that I can easily handhold mine at 1/15 or
> 1/8 without losing many shots (maybe 10%) to camera shake, whereas the
> 10D becomes useless below about 1/25.

That's an interesting point: my experience, and also books I read about
photography, say cameras with a certain weight can be easier held steadily.
But maybe your 10D is a tad too heavy for this (or you need to take some
training in the gym :-))). A friend of mine got herself a 20D some days
ago. It's really amazing. I was close to throwing my G5 away - but then
again, she uses it more or less professionally and I'm quite satisfied with
the G5's image quality.

>>> It's a pity that those writeups don't include noise samples.
>>
>>You can find some here:
>>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/t1_samples....
>
> Ta. I couldn't see any links to samples from the other pages you quoted.
>
>>IMHO currently the ultra compact cams all have their share of image
>>problems - some more and some less. To expect high quality from these is
>>certainly asking for too much. Personally I'm nonetheless amazed what
>>these little bastards *can* do in fact.
>
> Most of it's down to really smart electronics & firmware.

Yep, definitely. One point where I find the Kyocera amazing is the speed: I
managed to come close to four (4!) images per second even with highest
resolution. And the monitor did not went blank. That's quite some
performance considering the small size.

Kind regards

robert
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 12:52:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Aruz" <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk>
stated that:

>Well thanks very much to everyone for their input. You have helped me look
>at things in cameras which I hadn't done.

My pleasure, glad I could help.

> Now, is "simply" the process of
>elimination.

I strongly recommend that you at least visit a camera shop & try out a
Canon G5 (or whatever the current 'G' model is). If I'd decided to stick
with a digicam for my club & band photography instead of upgrading to a
DSLR, I would've gone for one of those.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 9:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1i68o0pjvg8cuubnfo64ca0prsntrh7hrm@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Aruz" <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk>
> stated that:
>
>>Well thanks very much to everyone for their input. You have helped me look
>>at things in cameras which I hadn't done.
>
> My pleasure, glad I could help.
>
>> Now, is "simply" the process of
>>elimination.
>
> I strongly recommend that you at least visit a camera shop & try out a
> Canon G5 (or whatever the current 'G' model is). If I'd decided to stick
> with a digicam for my club & band photography instead of upgrading to a
> DSLR, I would've gone for one of those.

G6 is the current one. Advantages:

- wider aperture than most others in that category (2.0 - 3.0)

- full flash mount and ETTL flash control of external flashes

It does not fit easy in any jacket pocket though. Image quality is quite
good IMHO although there is some noise at ISO 200 and above (I have a G5).
But then again you have the builtin flash and the good flash control.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/g6.html
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canong6/

I wouldn't recommend the Pro1 here because it has smaller aperture and lacks
the AF assist lamp:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/pro1.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/

Kind regards

robert
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:40:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

I was looking for exactly the same as you about a year ago. My choice was
canon ixus 400. It fits straight into my pocket, which makes it easier not
to forget it on the tables clubs, coffeshops etc. I`m actually very
satisfied with the quality of the pics, and even pictures taken in quite
dark rooms looks good thanks to the searchlight. Pictures taken with for
instance Casio exilim at the same place often prove to be more noisy.

I have added a couple of pics taken at a consert i norway a couple of days
ago:
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_215...
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_216...
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_217...
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_216...

best regards,
-> andreas
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 1:45:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"Andreas Scheen" <scheen@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:cmvtlc$rr1$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> I was looking for exactly the same as you about a year ago. My choice was
> canon ixus 400. It fits straight into my pocket, which makes it easier not
> to forget it on the tables clubs, coffeshops etc. I`m actually very
> satisfied with the quality of the pics, and even pictures taken in quite
> dark rooms looks good thanks to the searchlight. Pictures taken with for
> instance Casio exilim at the same place often prove to be more noisy.
>
> I have added a couple of pics taken at a consert i norway a couple of days
> ago:
> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_215...
> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_216...
> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_217...
> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_216...
>
> best regards,
> -> andreas
>
>

Thanks for those. I have almost decided upon getting myself an Ixus for the
reasons you mention above. I am starting to look much closer at the
relatively new Ixus 40, or the Ixus 500. Cannot decide between those two
now, and I have a feeling, that my camera will be one of them.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01/11/2004
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 4:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_came...
Shop around, you get what you pay for.
--
£û©Â§
_ _
*¿*
~
"Aruz" <aruz@SPAM_TRAPleomadman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cn0q6p$btu$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Andreas Scheen" <scheen@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> news:cmvtlc$rr1$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
>> I was looking for exactly the same as you about a year ago. My choice was
>> canon ixus 400. It fits straight into my pocket, which makes it easier
>> not
>> to forget it on the tables clubs, coffeshops etc. I`m actually very
>> satisfied with the quality of the pics, and even pictures taken in quite
>> dark rooms looks good thanks to the searchlight. Pictures taken with for
>> instance Casio exilim at the same place often prove to be more noisy.
>>
>> I have added a couple of pics taken at a consert i norway a couple of
>> days
>> ago:
>> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_215...
>> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_216...
>> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_217...
>> http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~scheen/bilder/delillos/IMG_216...
>>
>> best regards,
>> -> andreas
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for those. I have almost decided upon getting myself an Ixus for
> the
> reasons you mention above. I am starting to look much closer at the
> relatively new Ixus 40, or the Ixus 500. Cannot decide between those two
> now, and I have a feeling, that my camera will be one of them.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01/11/2004
>
>
!