Hey guys,

Looking to buy a camera. Something which I can pretty much point and shoot that is compact and easy to use but takes good quality photos in most/all environments. Not really sure on $value but something under $500-$600 would be fine (or around that mark). Last time I went on this research quest (some 5 years ago) cannon was the ideal choice, is this still the case?

All suggestions welcome, have had a quick look at dpreview.com but were also interested in your opinions.

Cheers,

Ryan

500/600 will get you a pretty decent camera. Canon Ixus is what I've been using and most of my friends of late - I have an Ixus 60 which I love and still takes good photos 2 years after I bought it. If you get one of the IS models they'll give you better pictures in the dark. Stacks of peeps here have Ixii so they're a good bet.

Hi there

I'm using a Canon 40D with a 24 0 70 F2.8L and a 760 - 200 F2.8L and shots are awsome...

And also was looking for a popint and shoot to shove in the bag for "idea" shots when I'm on the field.

best bang for buck ius the S5

its not as sleek as the IXUS series...but its got way better optics and very sharp images. Colour balance is real good too.

my 2 cents.

40D, you must be pretty serious with your photography?

/thread hijacked

I got a 400D and the wife got the 450D just before our long trip, been pretty happy with them but both seem to have a tendancy to overexpose when on auto\P so I usually shoot a full stop underexposed most of the time.

We also got a polariser in london for it, can't live without it now, it's awesome

Yeahhhhh, because the 40D with an f/2.8 lens is a "point-and-shoot" camera.
FWIW those shots I posted from the Herald-Sun tour were taken with a 40D w/70-200 f/2.8 USM.

I also have a 450D, which is a pretty nice piece of hardware.

I would advise if you're going to get a point-and-shoot camera, get one that allows you to disable the image stabilizer. It'll not only add lag to the shutter but chew the battery quicker, and you may not always need it.
From memory the current Fuji s***s all over the Canon Ixus.

Personally? I'd probably go an Ixus.

i recently got a Panasonic LX3 from dirtcheapcameras.com.au for my trip to japan.

its a good point and shoot with comprehensive manual controls and a nice wide angle lens to give your shots a fairly unique look compared to other compacts.

if you don't get one of those i would recommend a canon g9 or g10. Good manual controls but in a compact form.

imo lugging around a massive camera on travel - ftl.

Main things to look for in the camera you buy...

Good lens - A good lens is most important. Look for a good apeture rating (F2.8 - F4.5 etc. rather than F3.1 - F5.7) lower numbers mean the camera can let more light in which means it can take better low light photos.

Sensor size - DPreview will often give details on the size of the sensor. Some camera companies use small sensors with very large megapixel ratings which give lower quality pictures. The larger the sensor, the better.

Brand - Brand is important... but there are a lot of good brands. Things that brand impacts are... Build quality, sensor quality, menu system (very important), availability of accessories and warranty.

Screen size - up to you, but generally look for cameras with a bigger screen and high resolutions.

Size of camera. You need to decide if you want a compact point and shoot, standard point and shoot, a pro-sumer style, high end point and shoot, or a dslr. Obviously at your price point, you're probably not looking at DSLR's.

I'd recommend Canon, Panasonic, Sony.. probably in that order.

edit: wow, the lx3 has a f2-2.8 lens. Nice.

last edited by mongie at 10:33:52 24/Oct/08

LX3 IS DA BOMB

Don't get a sony cybershot - get a real camera brand which has a proper lens that comes out etc. I have a sony cybershot and i reckon the photos look s***, then again i just use the 'auto' setting so maybe it's just me.

lol sorry for the slight hijack

just wanted to let u guyz know that when comparing images from a DSLR to a point and shoot....the S5 is realy awsome

IMHO..i never liked sonys..however my older brothers point and shoot Sony is real nice..great depth of field...and large screen...he has had it for about 2 -3 years noow and still chugging...

anybody interested in buying a 24 - 105mm F4L IS USM for 900 ???
3 months old and mint cond !!

lol

One of the mates is an amateur photographer and is selling one of his SLR's for around that price range. Will get in touch with him and PM you some contact details if you like?

It's a Canon Digital SLR 350D Camera Body + 18-55mm Lens + Carrybag, Good Condition

last edited by HERMITech at 12:31:25 24/Oct/08

you can get a brand new 400D body only for under $700

You can get a new Nikon D40 DSLR with lens for <$600. Although the lens is a little short at 55mm, but that's basically the standard kit lens with any brand.

Not exactly a compact camera, but it is the smallest and lightest DSLR and it's hard to take a bad picture with it.

Not everyone wants an SLR...

Keep in mind, the 350D doesn't have live-view, and a lot of users want that. I doubt that nikon has it either.

No it doesn't.

What is that anyway? Just so you can see the image on the screen like a compact camera? If so, why would you want that?

I still have a compact camera for those compact camera times but if you want excellent photo's you can't beat a DSLR. The difference is huge.

last edited by mission at 15:52:21 24/Oct/08

Because its a major drawcard of digital cameras?

I understand that it isn't needed to take good photos, but its a feature of point and shoots (and you will note that at leat the new Canon DSLR's all have it) and people sometimes want to be able to see what they're taking a photo of without using the OVF.

Thanks for all your help guys, I'll take those suggestions and continue my research.

Ryan

I think the major drawcard is being able to view the photo just taken, transfer to pc and the associated editing and storage options, rather than to be able to look at a screen to frame your photo.

Compact cameras have them because they aren't SLR's, so having that on an SLR kind of defeats the purpose and advantages of an SLR, doesn't it?

I know the newer DSLR's are coming out with that, maybe it's so current users of compact camera's can make the transition a little easier or something.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue a point. But the thing to take away is that DSLR's are superior in everyway, except cost and size.

nah

the main reason.. (IMO) is when using live view..it helps take pictures when ur low on the ground...using a tripod in tight spaces wher eu can see eveeyrhing?

Not really sure on $value but something under $500-$600

This pretty much rules out SLR stuff. I had a canon ixus and was very happy with the results for a point and shoot. When I was overseas a person on our tour had a G9 and it took some nice photos, but looking at prices it hits a bit high. I have always been a bit of a canon fanboi but their point and shoots are pretty decent.

Be very careful of purchasing from digitalcams.com.au as they are pretty dodgey.

dont get ricoh, dumbest idea i ever had. the thing has broken down on me 5 times now and teh warranty dudes keep fixing it instead of sending out a new one. i'd stick with canon panasonic sony for point and shoot. in fact i think id like something that has a lense that doesnt retract like the cypershot T series heh.

because geoff did....

20d and 75-300is, 50mm 1.4, 28-70 2.8 and 10-22

hire the 400mm is 2.8 when needed.

geoff said so
its gotta be true

heahea
mooby....can i have ur 24 0 702.8 please lol

btw..for sydney peeps./..cheapest place l've seen now...and where i get my gear is:
http://www.d-d-photographics.com/

I drowned my Sony point and click the other day, Am thinking of one of those fancy water resistant olympus cameras, anyone got any experience with them ?