Trying to decide

Kilree

Hi everyone.
I'm new to this board but not to photography although in the last few years I have only been into digital "snap" photography. Here's my problem. For years I've had Canon T90 and Yashica 124G film cameras. About 3/4 years ago I bought a Nikon Coolpix 880 compact digital camera and have been using this camera exclusively since then. Recently, whilst scanning a load of negatives into computer I kind of got the bug again and have decided that I should get back into the mainstream but with digital rather than film. I have done a little research on the net about modern digital camera and am thinking of investing. The choice if I exclude the compact type from the mix is between a DSLR and what they call a "bridge" camera which is almost a DSLR but without the interchangable lens having a zoom lens instead. I'm leaning towards the Bridge option as having dragged heavy camera cases around down through the years I don't really want to go back into that scene. I've looked at the Fuji S9500 which has had good reviews but wonder if anyone has any other suggestions either about the Bridge type or SLRs.
By the way on a different note I've seen people on the photography board looking for good value places to buy equipment. I have used a company called Pixmania for camcorders and they offer very good value for money on the main equipment. Some of their accessory prices seem to me to be high but the main equipment is good value.
Look forward to any pointers any of you might have.

paudie

I used a Canon Powershot Pro1 for a year before jumping to a DSLR and I thought it was great. The only main reason I changed was so I could start buying bigger zooms.

It's a bit out dated now maybe, but I really liked it. Suited me perfectly.

rymus

First of all, welcome to boards

As for cameras, what about a Canon Powershot S3 IS or Sony DCS-H5 in addition to the Fuji you've already mentioned. I wouldn't exclude a dslr completely, there are some small/light models around like the Canon 350/400D that may work out roughly the same weight & size as a bridge type camera if you have a light lens attached.

Going back to the above, being a Canon dslr user, I'd be most attracted to the Canon Powershot if I was going to get a bridge type. Looks like a beast of a machine.

Borderfox

Welcome to the boards,
maybe try some of the offerings from Panasonic like the FZ7

Borderfox

Maybe even bite the bullet and get a D50 probably cheaper than most bridge cameras?

Kilree

Thanks for all your suggestions guys. I’ve had a quick look at the various cameras suggested and they all receive good customer reviews. Part of the reason that I was homing in on the Fuji was that it offers a resolution of 9MP as against 6 for the PS S31S, FZ7 and D50, 7 for the H5 and 8 for the Pro 1. Maybe I’m getting too hung up on the pixel rate and suffering from the new digital entrants disease of “more pixels is better”! Also the zoom lens at a little over 10 (28mm – 300mm) should be sufficient for most situations. I think, though, that I’ll have to do a bit more research on the matter before I take the plunge.

Fionn

your right about the pixels the output will be nearly the same due to the size of the sensor rather than the pixel count and that will infulence what size your prints can go to. Perhaps consider other features such as video capabilities, audio etc.
Oh and many people have different thoughts about Pixmania, maybe you should take a look at some of the links in the resource thread and from what i've seen they're probably not the cheapest online either.

Trip Hazard

I once started a similar treat to this one, asking about comparsions between Dslr and the S9500, someone, (that I cant remember now, sorry) made a very good point, the S9500 is a great camera and you'll get great use out of it for about a year or so, but when you want to move onto doing different things your stuck with the one lens, where as a DSLR is a camera that after a years or so you can buy a new different lens and get totally different pictures. That arguement pretty much turned me off buying the 9500. So i'd say Go for a small Dslr like the D-50 although there finished now, i think, or better still a 400D, brand new, brilliant camera. I'll gonna start saving my pennies for a 400D real soon. So just bear that in mind, considering your into you photography and not just new to it.

FYI: If you do decide to go for a 'Bridge' camera, you might as well go for the S9600, basiclly the same camera as the 9500 but it has a new feature, Face focus for portraits, or something like that. Same Price as well.

Kilree

Good point Trip. When I was really into it I was doing my own developing and printing and had no no problem producing good quality 20 x 16 s from 35mm. That would be where I would like to get to with the digital medium which is why I want to get the best resolution and clarity possible.
Fionn, I've bought a few bits and pieces from Pixmania over the last while - 3 camcorders and a Canon Pixma printer. Ifound them resonable on price but having said that I was reffered to them by my brother and didn't really shop around too much. Many of the UK online shops seem to have a problem selling into the Republic.

B0rG

My advice is to get used 350D or nikon of the same class... (have to ask the audience to give me the number Plus fast prime 50mm 1.8. And get serious about fotography

S9500 is what I call hyperzoom digisoap with all the troubles of that setup: low iso, oversharped noisereduction, oversaturated colors etc etc etc. Camera that makes lazy photographer. The reason is simple: when you get so-so equipment and you look at what other ppl are doing with it it's so-so as well. But when you get goog equipment and you see other people doing much better with it - you think: "oh, may be I'm doing something wrong"... That makes you go to the library... and better photograper in the end.

Kilree

BOrG, I hear what you're saying but can't agree with you 100%. Whatever the merits or demerits of any particular camera in the end it's the photographers eye and sense of composition which dictates the end result. A top of the range camera won't make someone a top of the range photographer whilst a bottom of the range camera in the hands of a knowledgable photographer can produce excellent results. I do agree that too much automation does not help anyone learn about the art. A good mix of manual functions is necessary in any camera.

B0rG

Heh :-)
Let's rephrase it: a top of the range camera can compliment good photographer, where's bottom range camera will destroy all pictures. But we're not talking about top of the range, nor the bottom of the range.

Anyway, I'm trying to tell you get an slr instead :-) Or don't go hypersoom as with this camera it'll be quite difficult. Equivalent focus range is 300 mm (at max zoom) and if you wanna shoot wildlife you'd have to have exposure close to 1/300 - 1/500 sec to avoid camera shake and wildlife motion blur. For that you'd need high ISO - 800 - 1600 which is really really bad on all prosumers. This kinda makes hyperzoom pointless. Another option is to get reasonable zoom range prosumer (4x or so) - some of them have 2x lens extenders if you really really want to have a hyperzoom from time to time, but trust me you'd get bored with it pretty quickly, as it's very hard to get good pictures on long zooms.

It also is hard to make good quality lens for 10x zoom. You probably noticed most of dslr telezooms and super tele zoom have a factor of 3x. Sometimes they manage to make them good: one of the sony's prosumers with 10x carl zeiss lens is quite good in its class, thing is they don't make them anymore.

Anyways S9500 seems good enuff: though I don't know how they manage to stick 9 megapixels into 1x1.6 inch sensor.

And this is interesting though...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms9000/page5.asp
7 - 11 sec to shoot one raw image?

Kilree

Hi BoRG, couldn't agree more about using zooms or indeed any lens at the long end of the range. Years ago I had a 500mm non mirror Lens (couldn't afford a mirror at the time) which had to be used with a support contraption with a shoulder pad at one end and a trigger at the other end. Apart from the fact that it made me look like an assassin it was really difficult to get any kind of decent shot unless I used high iso film or "pushed" the iso in development. Grain then became a problem. With the t90 I have a standard 50mm lens and two zooms 28 - 70 and 70 - 200. I have found that this range was sufficient for most of my photography and the best pics came from the fixed 50 mm lens. The early zooms were not very well regarded when compared to a fixed focal length lens. For example it was said that a fixed 200mm lens performed way above a zoom lens at the 200mm setting.
Anyway I could very well go down the DSLR road at the end of the day - the Fuji pixel count (not particularly the 10.7 zoom was what first caught my attention.
That's an interesting link. From my reading it seems that the storage time 0f 11 secs comes after a "burst" mode 4 shot sequence when the buffer is full. Not much use for action or sports photography though.

WhatsGoingOn

Kilree wrote:

Hi everyone.
I'm new to this board but not to photography although in the last few years I have only been into digital "snap" photography. Here's my problem. For years I've had Canon T90 and Yashica 124G film cameras. About 3/4 years ago I bought a Nikon Coolpix 880 compact digital camera and have been using this camera exclusively since then. Recently, whilst scanning a load of negatives into computer I kind of got the bug again and have decided that I should get back into the mainstream but with digital rather than film. I have done a little research on the net about modern digital camera and am thinking of investing. The choice if I exclude the compact type from the mix is between a DSLR and what they call a "bridge" camera which is almost a DSLR but without the interchangable lens having a zoom lens instead. I'm leaning towards the Bridge option as having dragged heavy camera cases around down through the years I don't really want to go back into that scene. I've looked at the Fuji S9500 which has had good reviews but wonder if anyone has any other suggestions either about the Bridge type or SLRs.
By the way on a different note I've seen people on the photography board looking for good value places to buy equipment. I have used a company called Pixmania for camcorders and they offer very good value for money on the main equipment. Some of their accessory prices seem to me to be high but the main equipment is good value.
Look forward to any pointers any of you might have.

Hi,
I recently bought the Fuji S9500 from Pixmania.
Read about it here along with sample (very compressed) photos.

Kilree

Thanks for the link, Whatsgoingon. You got some nice shots. How compressed from the originals are the shots you posted. Are you happy with the camera and its results. Had a quick look at Joe Elways pics also. Some nice stuff there also and impressive performance from the Canon 350d.

bp_me

Kilree wrote:

Thanks for the link, Whatsgoingon. You got some nice shots. How compressed from the originals are the shots you posted. Are you happy with the camera and its results. Had a quick look at Joe Elways pics also. Some nice stuff there also and impressive performance from the Canon 350d.

Im using a 9500 myself. You can see some of my results on my flickr or DA accounts.

Now, because I'm lazy I'm just going to quote what I said about the camera in the past.

The battery comment is particularly relevant. I have 3 sets of high capacity NiMH in rotation at any given time.

bp_me wrote:

I have a s9500, and while it does what it does reasonably well, I would suggest getting a D-SLR.

The s9500
- eats batteries (AA)
- lcd screen is noisy in the dark
- 1.1fps max
- noisy (noiser than my liking anyway) above ISO400

In its defense, the 2 seperate card slots are a nice feature and it is nice to hold and use, but it doesnt stand up against a D-SLR.

You could pick up a 2nd hand d70 with the 18-70 (and maybe some other goodies) for not much more than the new price of the s9500.

And, for the record, the s9500 has a much larger iso range than the d50 or d70. 80-1600 vs 200-1600, though the nikons are adjustable in 1/3ev steps (I think).

melekalikimaka

i forgot all bout my DA...

yes slightly off topic so to cover i'll add my bit.

I'd reccommend a bug=dget slr and a all round lens (nikons 18 - 70 DX with a a D50/D70s can be bought quite cheap on the secondhand markey now) maybe a cheap 70 - 200/300 to go with it, all could fit in a small case that wouldn't weigh much or break the bank and you've all the zoom you'll need without suffering from the hybrid downfalls of upgrade issues a features missing. When I started getting into photography alot, I considered a bridge but really when i compared the difference, the body of a bridge isn't as good as the body of an slr,in general, and I can say the same for the lens, the more you use your camera the more you notice its downfalls(I think everyonehas their issues with their cameras here) but at least with a slr improvements can be made. Just my 2cents

steamboat

Check out ebay user 'wakeupchamp'. He's based in galway. I've bought a Canon Powershot G6 from him, got a great deal, immediate delivery too. He's got the Fuji S9500 listed for €410 ('Buy It Now' price)

Link here

Kilree

bp me - There are really some brilliant shots on your site. Cogratulations. I presume they were mostly taken in the raw format. Just today I discovered that a neighbour of mine has a 9500s so I'm going to try and get a look at his machine. I got the impression from him though that he would rate the image from a good 35mm as higher than his 9500. After reading again through all the posts I'm beginning to think that maybe the DSLR is the way to go. I think I'll consider saving up my pennies and plump for a Canon 400d with a couple of good lenses although it'll be a while yet! bp me's comment about the batteries is also helpful as on e of the things which I liked about the Fuji was it's ability to take recharable AAs. It seems though that you would have to carry a fair few for a day's outing.

bp_me

Kilree wrote:

bp me - There are really some brilliant shots on your site. Cogratulations. I presume they were mostly taken in the raw format. Just today I discovered that a neighbour of mine has a 9500s so I'm going to try and get a look at his machine. I got the impression from him though that he would rate the image from a good 35mm as higher than his 9500. After reading again through all the posts I'm beginning to think that maybe the DSLR is the way to go. I think I'll consider saving up my pennies and plump for a Canon 400d with a couple of good lenses although it'll be a while yet! bp me's comment about the batteries is also helpful as on e of the things which I liked about the Fuji was it's ability to take recharable AAs. It seems though that you would have to carry a fair few for a day's outing.

Cheers. I only switched to RAW shooting recently. Most of the images were taken as jpg.

Im not sorry I bought the 9500, but now Im wanting something a little further upmarket and have my eyes on a D80 sometime in the not too distant future.

WhatsGoingOn

Kilree wrote:

Thanks for the link, Whatsgoingon. You got some nice shots. How compressed from the originals are the shots you posted. Are you happy with the camera and its results. Had a quick look at Joe Elways pics also. Some nice stuff there also and impressive performance from the Canon 350d.

I don't have the full sized original shots with me at the moment, but you can view full sized shots here
I'm not sorry I bought this camera because I'm not a photographer and it lets me take good shots easily. However, I am starting to get the photograhy bug, so I have a feeing that the more I learn, the more I will want, so maybe since you know a lot about photography already, an SLR might be better for you.

Kilree

Yes I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion myself whatsgoingon. No point in making a snap judgement only to find out later that it was the wrong one.