[pim]

mongo_jones, on Aug 11 2006, 04:59 PM, said:

have you considered getting a bigger bag?

That would be too easy

[mongo_jones]

this might also work. you're really looking for a specialty use camera, right? and cropping images etc.? many of the review negatives of ultracompact cameras that do well with low light may not apply as you won't be using it as your primary camera outside of dimly-lit restaurants.

[pim]

Thank you

Yes, you're right about the specific use thing. Only CNET seems to know the existence of the Olympus Stylus 810, however,.....DP Review doesn't have it, nor does Amazon. Weird. It looks good in the CNET review though.

edit: nevermind, found it on DPreview....nice site but index there sucks..

[omnivorette]

I love my A620 too.

[porkwah]

The A620 is probably a great camera, but if you want a smaller one, take a look at the canon SD models. I have an SD450, which I think is 5 megapixels; there are cheaper and more expensive models with fewer and more pixels. It does a great job with autofocus even with targets that are moving, and does a great job with color even in high and low light situations. I think the main negatives compared to the A620 is that it takes a special battery (I always carry two) and that it is a little more expensive. But it is a true pocket camera. I carry it in my pants pocket and don't even notice it, and I can have it out of the case, turned on, and take a picture in under 3 seconds.

This is my third Canon.

Mrs. Porkwah (who has a Nikon D50 -- not a pocket camera) had a Sony DSCT1 and it had lots of problems. It focused poorly regardless of light, and images were often "bleached out". It's possible that Sony fixed some of these problems but friends of mine who have newer Sony cams have regretted their choices.

[pim]

It's probably shallow of me, but I truly bought the DSC T1 for the size and the look! It was the smallest and the most stylish camera of its time (still looks better than most today.) I have surprisingly few problems with it, and it was my only camera for a while until I got my fancy DSLR so I gave it a good workout. I'm still relatively happy with it and still uses it for most restaurant shots even today, you can see plenty of sample shots from that camera on my blog.

David has a Canon SD550, which I like even less than my first generation Digital Elf that I had long ago. Frankly I don't see a huge improvement in quality of shots from this one compared to my beauty-before-brain Sony.

[pim]

And if there is one thing I learned from my experience with the Sony and Zeiss lens, It's that size matters when it comes to lens. The Zeiss lens is great but the tiny size limits the amount of light coming in, and so I want better and bigger lens for my new pocket cam. That's why I'm looking into the Panasonic stuff as it uses great Leica lens.

[tanabutler]

FaustianBargain, on Aug 13 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

eta for tana: 18-200mm is ridiculous. considering that there is focal length magnifier is above 1.xx, the wide angle is virutally useless for you in dslr..unless of course, your nikon comes without a focal length magnifier. the general rule, in my book only, that is, is that anything over 3x wideangle for it's zoom will result in inferior quality images. the image stabiliser or whatever it is that it is called for nikon helps..but only in AF mode. i cannot believe you bailed on canon!!! bleh to nikon!!

can you exchange your 18-200 for a couple of primes. it sucks that you changed to nikon as all of your canon lenses will be incompatible. seriously tho'..good luck.

I have no Canon lenses, so no problemo. I am keeping my Powershot Pro1, which has excellent wide-angle capabilities, and which has no issues in circumstances under which I'd be using it. I don't often have use for wide-angle shots, since food at arm's length is more the focus of my work...especially with a book deal in the making.

My 50mm f/1.8 arrived yesterday, and I am gobsmacked by the D200. I will never buy (or recommend) another Canon: their customer service is of the "Thank you sir, may I have another?" variety. They forever lost a loyal customer who helped sell hundreds of their cameras. You would bail, gratefully, as I am, if you'd been lied to and abused as I was by Canon. Seriously. I posted on my site about it yesterday: I'm so glad I'm out from under their thumb!

I've been taking the D200 through its paces, using only the manual mode (instead of shutter or aperture priority) and am loving the learning curve and the results.

If I don't like my 18-200mm lens, I can sell it on eBay. But having tried my ex's 80-400mm, I think I will love this lens just fine.

The first four rows of this album are with the D200 and the 50mm lens.



I'm not suffering yet.

[tanabutler]

rancho_gordo, on Aug 13 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

I know that, hence my apology for derailing the thread a bit. I also think it would be too basic for you, athough I don't know. But it brings home the trickiness of recommending a camera for someone else. It really depends on what you're going to be using it for. I really love closeups and nightshots of food but I can use a tripod as I'm normally at home. Beachfan says portablility and travel shots are key. You need something for your itty bitty bags that won't smash your Certs and cherry Chapstick.

I will say I've become addicted to the flip out LCD on the a620

and don't know what I'll do without it if I upgrade.

RG, I not recommending it, but be aware that they do make a camera a step above yours, and it has the added advantage of Image Stabilization, which gives you a few f-stops lower down the spectrum. That means better shots of food in low lighting. That particular camera sports the flip-out lens that you like. It would likely take excellent photos, assuming it's not a lemon like both of the Powershot Pro1's I purchased (the original and its refurbished replacement that they sent me).

Lippy's advice to use DPReview is always worth echoing: also check out the chatter in the forums there.

[Robert Schonfeld]

The brand new D80 seems to compare very favorably with the D200, the major difference for me being the plastic, as opposed to metal, body.

[tanabutler]

Robert Schonfeld, on Aug 13 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

The brand new D80 seems to compare very favorably with the D200, the major difference for me being the plastic, as opposed to metal, body.

So the plastic body would be off-putting for you?

[Robert Schonfeld]

tanabutler, on Aug 13 2006, 11:24 PM, said:

Robert Schonfeld, on Aug 13 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

The brand new D80 seems to compare very favorably with the D200, the major difference for me being the plastic, as opposed to metal, body.

So the plastic body would be off-putting for you?

It'a a factor. I am hard on things. My old Nikons are indestructible. I'd be concerned that a plastic body, together with all those sensitive electronic parts would add up to easier breakage for a clutz like me. Otoh, the technology packed into this new camera at an attractive price point, would be a counterbalance.

[Lippy]

On the face of it, I feel the same about camera bodies, but when I dropped my mostly plastic-bodied A610 to the sidewalk, the only dents were in the metal.

[FaustianBargain]

pim: for low light situations in restaurants, i'd go with a very(i repeat..VERY) fast prime lens. 50mm, f/1.00? fast primes are *very* expensive. also a ring flash? high iso/noisy images are not worth it, imo. small and handy p&s digicams should do just fine, actually...

tana: holy fuck!

as i like to repeat what i heard eons ago..."nikon makes the best lenses, minolta makes the best bodies and canon makes the best compromise."

i think it will be difficult for me to move away from canon tho'...i still have the the canon proshot g1(what is it now? g7?) because of it's metal body. i also blanch..visibly..when i see nikon price tags..if i shift to nikon, it means that i have to rebuild the entire set..range of lenses to filters etc. i also find nikon a tad heavy.

i did some research on the d200 and it's very impressive indeed. improvements by leaps and bounds. probably also means that i am hopelessly out of date.

[tanabutler]

FaustianBargain, on Aug 14 2006, 07:54 AM, said:

as i like to repeat what i heard eons ago..."nikon makes the best lenses, minolta makes the best bodies and canon makes the best compromise."

My ex convinced me that the lens is probably more important than the camera, so I overcame my unreasonable prejudice against Nikon when he sold me on the 18-200mm lens as being pretty all-purpose for my work. The prejudice I had included the ridiculous notion that Canon's proportions (600x450, e.g.) were superior to Nikon's (600x400). That is just silly.

FaustianBargain, on Aug 14 2006, 07:54 AM, said:

tana: holy fuck!

Now you're starting to see things my way!

I'm very encouraged by the camera, and learned that there is a DVD training coming out in a couple of weeks. The manual that comes with the camera is flawed and pretty useless.

I am very new to the deep-end of this swimming pool, but hey, the water's fine!