I'm looking to replace the trusty old Olympus MJU, bought long ago on the recommendation, amongst others, of a certain M(RLBS)
Its an early model with a rugged metal body and a 2.5" screen, which I can barely see these days, with or without reading glasses. I keep thinking about some sort of bridge camera, but I think that would just get left at home and I really want something I know isn't going to come to grief stuffed in a pocket - what does the team recommend as a compact with a reasonable zoom range, a reasonable amount of user control and alarge screen with an easy to use
|
My Panasonic TZ65 is metal bodied, has a 3" screen and a 24 -300 (35mm equiv.) zoom range, which I'm very happy with; the nearest equivalent is the TZ10, which has fancy video capture and more manual control than my TZ65:-
www.comet.co.uk/p/Digital-Cameras/buy-PANASONIC-DMC-TZ10EB-K-Digital-Camera/617067
I think the TZ10 has a metal body like my TZ65, which does make it heavier than many compacts.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 10:25
|
>>
>> Google Sony HX5V.
>>
Agreed. The Panasonic TZ10 and the Sony HX5V are the ones to look at. Compare their features, then visit a local camera shop and handle both and try out their functions to choose between the two.
Both currently have cash back deals from the manufacturers, due to expire in a few weeks. Search on hotukdeals for best offers.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 11:25
|
SWMBO has a TX?? which is very impressive, and is currently favourite unless somebody else recommends anything better
|
I am very pleased with this:-
www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_camera/powershot/powershot_sx110_is/index.aspx
PROS
1 Metal Body
2 Viewfinder as well as a large screen
3 12X optical Zoom
4 9 mega pixels
5 Takes AA batteries - no maker's own specials.
CONS
1 Quite heavy and bulky - more like a small SLR than a compact
|
As you like your Olympus why not stick wuth the brand? There was an ad on the tv a little while a go for a tough one. It came out well in reviews too. Sorry, don't know the model but I'm sure a potter around the Olympus web site would throw it up.
John
|
|
I've always been an olympus king of guy - OM1, OM40, AF1, etc etc, but the panasonic does impress, and the latest model has an inbuilt GPS, which is something I could just about justify on the grounds that geotagged pictures are useful for compiling the walks on my web site www.mikes-walks.co.uk [shameless plug :-)]
Last edited by: borasport on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 11:21
|
This may help (or confuse!):
www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/
I have the Samsung WB650 - x15 zoom and GPS (the in-camera MapView with NavTeq maps is a bit user-unfriendly but the geo-tagging works fine) - good image quality - pocketable
|
@lancara
In order to geotag images, do you need to download maps from samsung - going off the amazon reviews, this is something plenty of people find difficult
|
Blimey, it's a small world, I've used your site Mike - very handy.
I've had very good experiences with Canon Ixus over the years, good lenses and a reliably good picture. I currently use an Ixus IS130, which was a bit pricey, but is small, very good screen and excellent image stabilisation.
Still not a patch on my Nikon D200 though.
|
>> I've had very good experiences with Canon Ixus over the years,
Likewise, also the Canon G models. I currently use an Ixus 960IS, titanium body etc though I am seriously considering the Sony HX5V.
|
>> Blimey, it's a small world, I've used your site Mike - very handy.
>>
Hope it was of use to you :-)
|
The Sony HX5V also has GPS etc, it really is a very neat camera, have a close look.
|
I am a Panasonic convert. I bought a £230 Panasonic bridge back in early 2007 as a stop gap until I bought an SLR. Four years later I still have the FZ7 and it still takes some truly stunning images.
I have taken at least 100,000 photos with it and it has been with me all round europe. The battery is still as good as new taking 300 photos between charges.
|
|
My daughter has an Olympus Tough (not sure which model) which she uses when swimming or diving in the Caymans - takes cracking pix and will obviously stand up to less than kind handling such as being stuffed in a pocket etc.
|
|
Try to find one with a viewfinder as well as a (large screen), as screens are hard to use in bright sunlight.
|
|
Agreed 100%, They can't add that much to the cost of a camera but there are times when you don't want the screen flooded by sunlight or full of a reflection of your nose and one eye!
|
>> Try to find one with a viewfinder as well as a (large screen), as screens are hard to use in bright sunlight.>>
Never fails to amaze me that people will spend large sums of money on a camera which they have to hold at arms' length to view a tiny screen in order to take a photograph.
Apart from the fact you are likely to miss that shot of a lifetime, it never seems very professional to me...:-)
One reason why I've almost invariably had TLR, SLR and DSLRs over the course of 60 years' photography, amateur and professional.
Jessops used to list cameras with and without viewfinders, but haven't bothered for some time.
|
Viewfinders are dying out I'm afriad. But they do make composition a family activity :-( I've seen "wife" standing behind husband's shoulder giving directions! Here, luv. You do it.
John
|
|
There's no way an optical viewfinder is going to work over the 10x or more zoom range of many of these compacts, and there's nowhere to put an EVF. For sure it's an irritation on my TZ65, but they are indeed dying out.
|
|
But cameras with a TTL viewfinder, mirrored or electronic, are rarely compact enough to slip easily into a pocket, and non-TTL viewfinders like the one on the MJU, aren't particularly useful as far as i can tell
|
>> Never fails to amaze me that people will spend large sums of money on a
>> camera which they have to hold at arms' length to view a tiny screen in
>> order to take a photograph.
A 3" screen isn't "tiny". It's better than the viewfinders on many cameras anyway. No issues with glasses, either.
>> Apart from the fact you are likely to miss that shot of a lifetime,
Why?
>> One reason why I've almost invariably had TLR, SLR and DSLRs over the course of
>> 60 years' photography, amateur and professional.
The OP wants a compact camera.
|
I'm fully aware the OP wants a compact camera - my comments are observations or possibilities such as the Olympus Tough.
>>>>It's better than the viewfinders on many cameras anyway. No issues with glasses, either.>>>>
My Nikon D90 has a superb viewfinder, along with diopter adjustment.
>>>> Apart from the fact you are likely to miss that shot of a lifetime. Why?>>
Because the screen image will probably be too far away to spot an unexpected facial expression or similar "makes the difference" shot.
|
>> Because the screen image will probably be too far away to spot an unexpected facial
>> expression or similar "makes the difference" shot.
You would need the viewfinder permanently glued to your eyeball to get that.
A modern large screen is every bit as good as an optical viewfinder. Better in some respects because you get an instant idea of how the captured image will look, something you dont get from an optical viewfinder.
|
>> You would need the viewfinder permanently glued to your eyeball to get that.>>
A modern large screen is every bit as good as an optical viewfinder. Better in some respects because you get an instant idea of how the captured image will look, something you dont get from an optical viewfinder.>>
In both cases, utter rubbish...:-))
|
The viewfinder (electronic) on my camera is higher resolution than the LCD screen. Both display the same image. The lesser model has an inferior viewfinder.
I am not saying my Panasonic Lumix G2 viewfinder is as good as a SLR viewfinder but it's close and it can do extra stuff a real optical cannot. The Lumix G10 is not as good for sure.
Agree with Stuarli rubbishing the comment: "A modern large screen is every bit as good as an optical viewfinder" which for some cameras might be nearly true in optimal circumstances.
|
you say
I think your wrong.
|
>>...something you dont get from an optical viewfinder.>>
My Nikon D90's viewfinder has just under a million pixels and at least 96 per cent of the scene is displayed - the viewfinder image quality is staggeringly good and certainly well on a par with my Nikon F401 body and 28-200mm Tamron zoom combination.
>>You would need the viewfinder permanently glued to your eyeball to get that.>>
Not necessarily. Sometimes I frame an area that includes an individual or group, stop using the viewfinder and take a shot or shots, if they are what I'm after, whilst people are off their guard.
|
Stuartli,
rare to have to correct you but your D90 has an optical viewfinder. The screen on the back is the one with circa 1 million pixels.
John
|
>>The screen on the back is the one with circa 1 million pixels.>>
"The D90 has been designed with an eye-level pentaprism viewfinder, offering some 96% frame coverage. However, when looking through the viewfinder isn’t practical, simply press the D90’s Live View button and the 3-inch LCD with 170˚ viewing angle and approx. 920k-dot LCD support your Live View shooting with three contrast-detect AF modes: Face Priority, Wide Area and Normal Area."
I was referring to the optical viewfinder whilst thinking of the LCD screen - but the fact that it uses a true pentaprism ensures a superb viewing image.
I only use the LCD screen for viewing shots, except for rare occasions...:-)
|
>> I was referring to the optical viewfinder whilst thinking of the LCD screen - but
>> the fact that it uses a true pentaprism ensures a superb viewing image.
>>
>> I only use the LCD screen for viewing shots, except for rare occasions...:-)
As its an optical viewfinder it doesent show you what the exposed captured shot looks like does it. The superb LCD screen does. You look at it after the shot so why not look at it while shooting whenever its practical.
|
>>You look at it after the shot so why not look at it while shooting whenever its practical. >>
For the simple reason that for 60 years I've been using a viewfinder...:-)))
It seems utterly stupid to have a DSLR and then peer at a screen unless there's good reason.
|
Just gave you a good reason.
The image on your screen is the digital capture that will appear on your memory card.The optical viewfinder is not.
If you want to take fancy shots, like silouettes, or setting suns, the screen will show you what it looks like. The optical viewfinder does not.
|
My Panasonic shows on it's digital viewfinder exactly what will be photographed. It also shows you the effect shutter speed has live - so if you have a slow shutter speed that would blur aspects of a photo it will show this in realtime. Well I'm impressed.
I think the dSLR has had it's day because of the drawbacks of the mirror itself. Sony has two approaches for full sized type cameras though - a separate sensor for a digital viewfinder vs the SLT which allows light through the mirror and to get reflected to the viewfinder.
|
With a digital camera, there really is no good reason for an optical viewfinder. And as for shuffling a mirror out of the way, its complete madness.
I favour bridge cameras,
|
I quite like my Panasonic Lumix G2. Not a bridge camera and I've not yet bought the other lens I want. But very pleased.
Another issue with most dSLR is they now offer video but the mirror is an issue - it's normally down to focus but the sensor is behind it. So the dSLR falls back on a different focus method which is slow and generally poor.
On holiday in Sept someone had a nice high end dSLR but used the screen - so why didn't they have a point and shoot or bridge camera?
|
|
I'll still stick with the optical thanks...:-)
|
|
I've also got a DSLR thanks. When travelling in can be more convenient to take one smaller camera instead of a DSLR and camcorder.
|
>> Try to find one with a viewfinder as well as a (large screen), as screens
>> are hard to use in bright sunlight.
a) You can turn the brightness up, which makes the screen much easier to see.
b) THe Samsung has AMOLED rather than LCD:
"The rear of the HZ35W is dominated by a 3inch AMOLED monitor, which makes the Samsung unique amongst its competitors in this group test, all of which feature more conventional LCD technology. AMOLED (active-matrix organic light-emitting diode) offers better contrast than normal LCD, and better visibility in bright light. The advantage is subtle when the camera is used indoors, but outside, in bright sunlight, it is considerably better than the other cameras in this test, particularly those without an anti-reflective coating on their screens."
( www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page11.asp )
|
>>>rugged metal body and a 2.5" screen, which I can barely see these days, with or without reading glasses.
2.5" isn't a tiny screen... if it's an old camera they were often less than 1.5" and that was a bit small. I wonder what it is you can't see... the image on the screen or the icons?
|
|
Your right of course, it is probably a 1.5" screen, and these days I struggle to see anything with it, but the image really isn't much bigger that a postage stamp
|
My first digital camera was a Sony with a screen of 1.5ins max. I ended up with problems not so much framing the image but seeing if the flash or other icons were on. I just upgraded to a new Sony compact last year with a 2.6in screen (diag measurement) but in particular made sure the info icons were easily visible.
Visibilility issues sorted.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 18:21
|
|
Yes, confirm the HZ35W (WB650 in Europe - don't ask why the difference) has a very good LCD screen - readable in most conditions. Was using it at midday in Cairo last week without problem.
Last edited by: lancara on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 22:19
|
I've just bought the WB600 - the version of the WB650 without the AMOLED screen and geo-tagging. The 24-360 zoom is amazing - and the reason I got it. Picture quality is good.
And it is very cheap. I was going to write "It is £129.99 at Argos" but that was a week ago when I bought mine. You can still get it at around the £150, I suspect. I'm not so sure about build quality.
|
I've come to the conclusion I may as well get a GPS enabled camera, and as far as I can see, Olympus don't do one, so the choice is between the Panasonic TZ10 and the Samsung WB650.
There is a £10-20 price difference in favour of the WB650 if you shop around, and I like the sound of the whizz-bang go-faster screen, but a number of the reviews are a bit critical of the image quality - has anybody who actually has one got anything to say on the matter ?
cheers
M
|
|
Gofer the lens guv'nor - the panasonic has a Leica lenz.
|
The Samsung has a Schneider Kreuznach - they were good enough when I had a Praktica LB......
seriously, I wonder how relevant it is if any prints are going to be 4x5 or A4 at the most, or more likely, viewed on a laptop screen ?
|
>>I wonder how relevant it is if any prints are going to be 4x5 or A4 at the most, or more likely, viewed on a laptop screen<<
Then why bother about ~ "but a number of the reviews are a bit critical of the image quality"
|
errr, isn't the image what it's all about?
'scuse me, I'm daft enough to lug a Nikon D60 around.
John
|
>> errr, isn't the image what it's all about?
Only if you're going to enlarge your prints by A4 size or above. Otherwise the image quality of a camera won't really be noticed.
I've got a Canon Powershot A640. Old by todays standards and not compact enough to slip into a pocket, but it has a swing out screen that then turns 180 degrees. I thought this a bit of a gimmick when I bought it but it is brilliant for taking self portraits, or taking a picture above a crowd of people, or resting the camera on a wall where you wouldn't normally be able to see the screen easily. It uses standard AA batteries. I can recommend energizer rechargeable 2450mAh. They just go on and on.
|
" has anybody who actually has one got anything to say on the matter ?"
You will have read the conclusion of the review mentioned by FotheringtonTomas, which for outdoors / daylight image quality, ranked the WB650 4th out of 12, and the TZ10 5th.
(For Low light / High ISO, TZ10 was 7th and the WB650 was 9th, and for Flash the TZ10 was 6th and the WB650 8th).
I think that the image quality of the WB600 is reasonable. I must confess that I was a bit nervous too, but am actually quite satisfied with the results that I've had.
I don't know if this is any use, but here is one I took earlier: tinyurl.com/36936rl
Last edited by: tyro on Wed 8 Dec 10 at 14:00
|
|
My Aunt's got a TZ10. It frustrates her, as the battery seems to last only about 5 minutes.
|
>> My Aunt's got a TZ10. It frustrates her, as the battery seems to last only
>> about 5 minutes.
>>
I would think it improves markedly if you turn the GPS/geotagging off.
|
WB650 purchased (and eventually received, no thanks to the post office, who had no idea where it was for two weeks), and so far I am well impressed, though I haven't had the opportunity to explore its capability just yet.
I've got two questions - (a) I've used the movie option, which is very impressive, but being a still photographer at heart, I was holding the camera in 'landscape' - is there any way, on my PC, of rotating these images other than tilting the screen (b) - how do Samsung get away with such an appalling website ? For anything other than browsing, it really is the worst I've ever come across
|
Yup
Windows movie maker will rotate it for you.
|
" how do Samsung get away with such an appalling website ? "
yup. I have a Samsung monitor. V good. The software that came with it it is downright dangerous and I found customer service to be poor. The product is good but it's enough to put me off buying Samsung again.
As for rotation, Zed's answered it, but is there a setting in the camera?
John
|
Time for a new camera - spamcan61
