[Lauren]

I have the Canon SD850 and I love, love, love it. It's easy to use and ever so compact. I highly recommend it.

[omnivorette]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...x3&show=all

There is some overlap between this thread and the small digital cameras thread. There is some possibly useful info on that thread too.

[tanabutler]

That's a good link, Omni.

Starting with the stars each camera earned, I'd omit the 3-star one right now. And then I'd omit the Panasonic, because her friend has a Canon and can show her around a little, as models and features are so similar from one Canon to the next.

That leaves the SD850, which I recommended, and the SD950.

The macro is better on the 850 (2cm) vs. 5cm for the 950. (This may not be a big deal to some, but some of the most fun of having a digital camera is having a good macro mode.)

The aperture (pupil) range for the 850 is good enough: F2.8 - F5.5. The 950 (I assume there is a typo: 2.0-2.8 doesn't seem likely), but that extra bit on the 950 MIGHT make it worth the extra $75. (Abby, I don't know how much of the language you speak, and am not trying to talk down, so let me just tell what I learned. I don't know or care what "F" means in "F-stop", but I think of it as the pupil of an eye. The bigger it can get, the more light can come in, so you can get better shots in low light. This is particularly useful in restaurants, and f/2.0 is pretty darned good.) When you have your pupils wide open and focused on something close, like the face of your kitty or your beloved, it makes the background blurrier, which also is something I enjoy. The larger f-stops are for landscape shots, or things far away, when you want everything in focus. 5.8 isn't the bee's knees, but it's decent.

The other advantage the 950 has is shutter and aperture priority. Why is this a good thing? Once again, back to the pupil. I almost always choose aperture priority, since the subject matter dictates how I want to see it. The larger the opening (the lower the number, go figure), the more "intimate" a shot it is. So flowers, food, and faces always get the lowest aperture setting I have. I think, if you aspire to be a good photographer, you would really prize this feature, in the short and long runs.

Another great feature for them both is that they have a battery charger.

The 950 is not considered "ultra compact," though. That would be something you'd want to go into a real store and test for yourself. It's a good idea to feel the camera you're thinking of buying.

Anyway, I'm sure MJordan can chime in here—I'm not addressing every single technical issue, since I know you really just want a camera that you can start up with and be happy with. I feel like I went from a Vespa to a Harley when I got my Nikon D200, and it has features I can't BEGIN to use without an immersion class in the language of photography.

I did a search for the SD950, and came up with a price just over $200. I used an NYC zip code to calculate shipping. Techon Digital, with over 4000 ratings, gets 5 stars, so I'd probably be willing to go with them.

Abby, see if you can get your paws on either or both of those cameras. See how they feel.

Hope this helps, too.

[omnivorette]

You need to hold them to see which seems best - they're all pretty similar (the Canons). The slight variation in zoom is really negligible although the 890 has a bit more telephoto, none of them go to 28mm and the flash on the 950 seems a bit stronger.

I am trying to make a similar decision, but have yet to go into a store to try each of them.

[tanabutler]

Zoom means nothing in real terms. It only compromises photo quality, in my experience, and has never been a factor from my second digital camera and on.

It's the oddest selling factor, because most review sites I see ignore it.

Flash, also. I never use it. Well, I avoid it 99.9% of the time. Flash photos look horrid, unless you have some kind of fill-in flash.

Flash + food =the very worst.

[mcj]

Anyway, I'm sure MJordan can chime in here—I'm not addressing every single technical issue, since I know you really just want a camera that you can start up with and be happy with. I feel like I went from a Vespa to a Harley when I got my Nikon D200, and it has features I can't BEGIN to use without an immersion class in the language of photography.
.
.
.
Abby, see if you can get your paws on either or both of those cameras. See how they feel.

There's a lot of good information in that post, but as Abby professed to her lack of camera skill, it's probably making her head spin until she can better understand the terminology... so I'll forgo the technical stuff for now.

Abby:
You're hoping to get better. That will come with practice & experimenting and since there's no more developing & printing costs AND you can see your results immediately, you can't help but get better.

The two Canon's that Tana compared are very similar, but I did notice 2 things that might be of interest to you:
1) both models have Face detection, which may help with the friends & family shots;
2) the SD950 has more resolution available for video clips = bigger & clearer videos of those kittens.

An optical viewfinder is a very nice feature on an ultra compact camera, for the reasons Tana mentioned. IF the camera were larger, I'd recommend one with an electronic viewfinder (in addition to the LCD panel) - giving you the desired glare reduction, etc. while maintaining the ability to see the shooting info AND actual image taken. [Optical viewfinders introduce parallax error when taking close-up shots. "Parallax error" is simply the discrepancy between what you see through the viewfinder and the image that the camera sensor (of film) sees. At about 10 ft, any discrepancy is negligible. At 5 ft, you might notice it, but getting much closer will reveal the differing viewpoints. Okay, so much for forgoing the technical stuff. ]

7MP is fine, but the more the better. Here's why: I set my camera to shoot the highest resolution with the largest image size (super-fine, L). If I want a smaller image later for e-mailing or posting, I can always reduce it myself on the computer, but you just can't get good results by shooting small and trying to enlarge it later.

Of course, as has been said before, go into a store with a knowledgeable friend and get a feel for the cameras that you're considering.

[Peter Creasey]

7MP is fine, but the more the better.

M, Others may often disagree with you. As the number of pixels increases there is less power per pixel which can cause a lessening of the quality of the image(s).

[Abbylovi]

Anyway, I'm sure MJordan can chime in here—I'm not addressing every single technical issue, since I know you really just want a camera that you can start up with and be happy with. I feel like I went from a Vespa to a Harley when I got my Nikon D200, and it has features I can't BEGIN to use without an immersion class in the language of photography.
.
.
.
Abby, see if you can get your paws on either or both of those cameras. See how they feel.

There's a lot of good information in that post, but as Abby professed to her lack of camera skill, it's probably making her head spin until she can better understand the terminology... so I'll forgo the technical stuff for now.

Abby:
You're hoping to get better. That will come with practice & experimenting and since there's no more developing & printing costs AND you can see your results immediately, you can't help but get better.

The two Canon's that Tana compared are very similar, but I did notice 2 things that might be of interest to you:
1) both models have Face detection, which may help with the friends & family shots;
2) the SD950 has more resolution available for video clips = bigger & clearer videos of those kittens.

An optical viewfinder is a very nice feature on an ultra compact camera, for the reasons Tana mentioned. IF the camera were larger, I'd recommend one with an electronic viewfinder (in addition to the LCD panel) - giving you the desired glare reduction, etc. while maintaining the ability to see the shooting info AND actual image taken. [Optical viewfinders introduce parallax error when taking close-up shots. "Parallax error" is simply the discrepancy between what you see through the viewfinder and the image that the camera sensor (of film) sees. At about 10 ft, any discrepancy is negligible. At 5 ft, you might notice it, but getting much closer will reveal the differing viewpoints. Okay, so much for forgoing the technical stuff. ]

7MP is fine, but the more the better. Here's why: I set my camera to shoot the highest resolution with the largest image size (super-fine, L). If I want a smaller image later for e-mailing or posting, I can always reduce it myself on the computer, but you just can't get good results by shooting small and trying to enlarge it later.

Of course, as has been said before, go into a store with a knowledgeable friend and get a feel for the cameras that you're considering.

Thanks mcj. You're right, my head is totally spinning with all this terminology.
Regarding the video clips, right now I don't think this is going to be important to me but who knows what the future will bring.

Tana - Stupid question: how do you take photos in the evening if you don't use a flash?

[Lippy]

You open the lens (set the aperture) to its widest setting, i.e. the lowest number, 2.0, 2.8, whatever the camera has and hope for the best. Or, you can use a tripod or improvised tripod, and the shutter speed priority setting and keep the aperture open longer to let in more light. With a moving subject, you bracket the exposure, i.e., use settings on either side of what you think might work best. If the subject is still, because it's a digital camera, you can immerdiately check the picture you took and see if it needs more or less time. This all sounds far more complicated than it really is and there is a lot of information right on-line, especially for beginners. There are also many books on the subject, beginning with the literature that comes with the camera.

This is one of the reasons to try to pick a camera with some manual control. It's important to remember, too, that there is no one camera that does everything. Think of what you'd like to start photographing and make your choice accordingly. As you become more experienced, you may find that your needs change and you will move on from that point. This won't be your last camera.

The digital age has made the learning curve much, much faster than it was in the film era. You can afford to make as many mistakes as you need to without additional expense. It's one reason, I think, that the general level of photograhy has improved over the past few years.

[Lippy]

Zoom means nothing in real terms. It only compromises photo quality

This is a very individual thing, again, depending on what you want to photograph and how much stuff you want to carry around. You are never going to get the image quality of a dedicated telephoto lens and a single-lens reflex camera with a digital point and shoot, which is what you are asking about. But, if you think you might want to take a picture of an architectural detail, or a bird in a tree, believe me, the zoom is invaluable. It also has a postive side effect, depending on the distance, the distance you are zooming and the subject, of pleaantly blurring the background, an effect that is otherwise difficult to achieve with a point and shoot.

On older cameras, and maybe still on some new ones, there is an additional "zoom" not the "optical" zoom, that is truly worthless and should be ignored both in making your decision and in use.

[tanabutler]

On older cameras, and maybe still on some new ones, there is an additional "zoom" not the "optical" zoom, that is truly worthless and should be ignored both in making your decision and in use.

Lippy, you are right. It's been so long since I've paid attention to zoom that I was only considering "digital" zoom. (I think.)

Anyway, Abby, you really are going to be happy you're moving ahead in this direction. I just know it.

I get all excited when someone gets a new tool that will amaze them. That's what's coming to you. I am so glad for you.

[mcj]

7MP is fine, but the more the better.

M, Others may often disagree with you. As the number of pixels increases there is less power per pixel which can cause a lessening of the quality of the image(s).

"less power per pixel" is a new one on me. I see the idea of photon-density-per-pixel, but that really is more relevant to film design than to currently available digital sensors. An individual pixel, by itself, doesn't have the "power" to determine overall image quality just because there are fewer of them, quite the contrary.*

*We're talking about pixels alone - Not the sensor diameter, the sensor pixel density, the camera's computer algorithms used to adjust the pixels as-per the user settings (colour shift, white balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc.), the lens diameter, lens coatings, etc.

RAW image files available in DSLR's, allow the user to perform the adjustments to their liking instead of relying upon the in-camera software. Point-and-shoots don't offer this capability. Therefore, in order to judge a cameras picture quality, we often turn to sites such as dpreview to see samples of images taken with various cameras and decide for ourselves which one(s) we prefer.

I would have to disagree that (all else being equal) a photo taken with a camera having a top resolution of 640 x 480 pixels (0.3 MegaPixels) would have a better image quality than an identical setup where the top resolution is 2816 x 2112 (6.0 MegaPixels), simply because there is more "power per pixel" with the lower resolution image. While sensor density has improved in recent years, it's not very different at all. The major jump has simply been to make a wider sensor. Light falling upon film is recorded in the chemical reactions within the film. Processing can adjust it to some degree, but can't amplify the light getting to the film. A digital sensor is either connected to an amplifier circuit or has amplifying capability built-in to the chip. This makes the "power per pixel" point moot... and doesn't even get into the various ways that pixels are altered by a computer monitor's colour-profile calibration or how they're re-interpreted by an ink-jet printer, a photo-printer or their driver software.

As a final test of the theory, simply print one image of each of the two above resolutions that I used as examples. Print each image on a 4 x 6 paper. One of two things will happen. Either 1) the lower resolution image is expanded optically to cover a larger area and therefore suffers from the lower light density attributed to a lower "power per pixel" or 2) the lower image will be enlarged digitally with a result of squared-off large pixels (older technology) or a greatly increased fuzziness of the image resulting from the printing algorithm trying to fill a (relatively) large area using interpolated pixels (they're much better than they used to be, but they can't perform miracles).


Having 7MP or greater not only allows one to reduce an image size and resolution on a computer for e-mailing (for example), but the higher resolution also allows one the freedom to crop an image to a more desirable framing, improving the overall composition of the final photo, which may then be printed with a high enough resolution to achieve excellent results. Higher resolution images can be printed on bigger enlargements than a lower resolution image.

[mcj]

On older cameras, and maybe still on some new ones, there is an additional "zoom" not the "optical" zoom, that is truly worthless and should be ignored both in making your decision and in use.

Lippy, you are right. It's been so long since I've paid attention to zoom that I was only considering "digital" zoom. (I think.)

Anyway, Abby, you really are going to be happy you're moving ahead in this direction. I just know it.

I get all excited when someone gets a new tool that will amaze them. That's what's coming to you. I am so glad for you.

Digital zoom is crap. If you have the resolution, you'll want to use it and not let the camera crop it for you with a digital zoom. Optical zoom maintains the image quality & makes the most of your desired resolution.

[tanabutler]

Tana - Stupid question: how do you take photos in the evening if you don't use a flash?

To add to what Lippy said: I use the lowest aperture and bump up the ISO (but I rarely go above ISO 400, since it results in speckles called "noise" on photos). And often, I'd improvise some kind of a tripod—if I'm in a restaurant, use a wine glass or something. But now I have my own little tabletop tripod, which is about 6" tall, and which is very handy.

Which reminds me, Abby: you might consider getting a kit on eBay. That's where I bought my Nikon D200. I went with a vendor with 100% customer satisfaction, not just Some Guy. Kits includes things you really want to consider, like extra memory, carrying cases, and insurance.

Just AVOID anything refurbished.

[omnivorette]

Sometimes you need a flash. And then you use the flash. I use the flash when I.....need to use a flash.