snubbr.com

Good Companion to a DSLR?
I have decided to get my first DSLR (Rebel XTi or Evolt-510) this Christmas buying season, but that still leaves me with out a basic point and shoot. I am not a real avid photographer, but picture quality to me is of the utmost importance. I figure that the DSLR will cover the big stuff like speacial vacation trips and my sons sporting events, but I also want a camera that will be smaller for those small social gatherings. I have looked all over and there seem to be so many companion or bridge cameras out there it is hard to choose. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Only requirements are image quality and the ability to get a decent 8 x 10 if I get a really good shot.



P.S. Would the Canon G9 be a bit of an over kill. I know the quality will be there, but it seems like it is awfully close to a entry DSLR...

Comments (6)

For best image quality, I doubt anything can compete with the Fuji F20, F30, or F31fd. (the main difference between models is that the F20 has a smaller LCD, and lacks manual controls, and the F31fd is identical to the f30 except for the inclusion of face dectection)..

Comment #1

Hi,.

I don't know how well you know this website but there's a list of all the recommended cameras here:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=rating.

And, as you may know, not all cameras are reviewed. So it might pay to look on other sites (using "links" in the list) to see what other review sites make of things..

BTW, I'd not use a dSLR for holidays as they are just too big, heavy and awkward. A P&S can be more than adequate. Have a look at the Panasonic LX2 f'instance but read between the lines..

Regards, David..

Comment #2

Niteowl561 wrote:.

I have decided to get my first DSLR (Rebel XTi or Evolt-510) thisChristmas buying season, but that still leaves me with out a basicpoint and shoot..

Entry-level dSLRs make GREAT point-and-shoot cameras!.

I am not a real avid photographer, but picture quality to me is of the utmostimportance..

No, it's not! You are just saying that....

I figure that the DSLRwill cover the big stuff like speacial vacation trips and my sonssporting events, but I also want a camera that will be smaller forthose small social gatherings..

Smaller than an E-510?.

I have looked all over and there seemto be so many companion or bridge cameras out there it is hard tochoose. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Only requirementsare image quality and the ability to get a decent 8 x 10 if I get areally good shot. Mostly it will just be for 4 x 6 prints..

Almost ANY cameraq can do 4 x 6 prints and an occasionaly 8 x 10..

P.S. Would the Canon G9 be a bit of an over kill..

Not if IQ is of "utmost importance"!.

I know the quality will be there, but it seems like it is awfully close to aentry DSLR..

So? That's how you get good IQ! But I'm not sure the G9 is that good. It's sensor is too small (4.5:1)to give really good IQ. That's where the E-510 is better (2:1)and the XTi even better (1.6:1). But the best IQ in a small, cheap camera is the Nikon D40 (NOT the D40x) which has a 1.5:1 sensor with only 6 MP (fewer MP are better in 2007, since ALL cameras have too many)..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #3

I worry about post like this. Especially the bit about printing..

Most people have heard of the well known theory that for exhibition quality prints you need 300 pixels per inch. So for the 6 x 4 paper you need 1800 x 1200 pixels which is a little over 2 megapixels. And for the 8" x 10" you need 2400 x 3000 which is about 7 megapixels..

The same authorities say for _everyday_ use you need only print at 150 pixels per inch which I make 900 x 600 and 1200 x 1500. (And a few years ago they were saying 3 megapixels for A4 and 4 or 5 for A3.).

In practice you can get 32" x 24"prints out of 5 megapixels and heaven only knows what out of 10 or 12 (but could you afford it?)..

So I have to agree with Charlie Davis about overkill..

BTW look at them on a monitor and you'll be seeing 1024 x 768 on most screens and 768 x 576 pixels in portrait mode. Your computer has to work hard to compress a 10 megapixel picture to fit that size. What it doesn't need is wasted really..

It would help a lot of we all thought about paper and monitors in megapixels and then it would be blindingly obvious. And if they'd just produce a 3 or 5 mp CCD with bigger photo-sites it would be wonderfull (look at the 2/3" ones f'instance)..

OK, rant over. I'll take a tablet and lie down for a bit. </;-).

Regards, David..

Comment #4

David Hughes wrote:.

I worry about post like this. Especially the bit about printing..

Most people have heard of the well known theory that for exhibitionquality prints you need 300 pixels per inch. So for the 6 x 4 paperyou need 1800 x 1200 pixels which is a little over 2 megapixels. Andfor the 8" x 10" you need 2400 x 3000 which is about 7 megapixels..

The same authorities say for _everyday_ use you need only print at150 pixels per inch which I make 900 x 600 and 1200 x 1500. (And afew years ago they were saying 3 megapixels for A4 and 4 or 5 for A3.).

In practice you can get 32" x 24"prints out of 5 megapixels andheaven only knows what out of 10 or 12 (but could you afford it?)..

There are quite reasonable places to get BIG pictures printed. The one I use occasionally charges $3.75/square foot, so a 3' x 2' print costs $22.50:.

Http://www.bigphotohelp.com/index.htm.

So I have to agree with Charlie Davis about overkill..

Thanks .

BTW look at them on a monitor and you'll be seeing 1024 x 768 on mostscreens and 768 x 576 pixels in portrait mode. Your computer has towork hard to compress a 10 megapixel picture to fit that size. Whatit doesn't need is wasted really..

Screens are getting bigger. My new monitor has 1680 x 1050 pixels, but that is still only 1.76 MP..

It would help a lot of we all thought about paper and monitors inmegapixels and then it would be blindingly obvious..

Yes, but I wonder if that is a good strategy? By emphasizing megapixels for monitors and printers, technically challenged people (ie, everybody except you and me) will continue to buy big MP cameras..

BTW, that part about you and me being smarter was a joke..

And if they'd just produce a 3 or 5 mp CCD with bigger photo-sites it would bewonderfull (look at the 2/3" ones f'instance)..

Yes. I wish customers knew enough to demand BIG photosites!.

My 5 MP 2/3" camera has 11.8 square micron photosites. Compare that with a current "prosumer" like the G9, which has 3.61 square micron photosites! I really wish people could see big prints from these! There is no comparison in the IQ....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #5

Chuxter wrote:.

David Hughes wrote:.

I worry about post like this. Especially the bit about printing..

Most people have heard of the well known theory that for exhibitionquality prints you need 300 pixels per inch. So for the 6 x 4 paperyou need 1800 x 1200 pixels which is a little over 2 megapixels. Andfor the 8" x 10" you need 2400 x 3000 which is about 7 megapixels..

The same authorities say for _everyday_ use you need only print at150 pixels per inch which I make 900 x 600 and 1200 x 1500. (And afew years ago they were saying 3 megapixels for A4 and 4 or 5 for A3.).

In practice you can get 32" x 24"prints out of 5 megapixels andheaven only knows what out of 10 or 12 (but could you afford it?)..

There are quite reasonable places to get BIG pictures printed. Theone I use occasionally charges $3.75/square foot, so a 3' x 2' printcosts $22.50:.

Http://www.bigphotohelp.com/index.htm.

Useful but I live in England but thanks anyway..

So I have to agree with Charlie Davis about overkill..

Thanks .

BTW look at them on a monitor and you'll be seeing 1024 x 768 on mostscreens and 768 x 576 pixels in portrait mode. Your computer has towork hard to compress a 10 megapixel picture to fit that size. Whatit doesn't need is wasted really..

Screens are getting bigger. My new monitor has 1680 x 1050 pixels,but that is still only 1.76 MP..

Agreed but I have about 40 to 45 thousand pictures on the HD and most are 4:3 and I'm looking for 1600 x 1200. Trouble is, you have to see them to judge them and shops don't stock the ones with reasonable reviews..

It would help a lot of we all thought about paper and monitors inmegapixels and then it would be blindingly obvious..

Yes, but I wonder if that is a good strategy? By emphasizingmegapixels for monitors and printers, technically challenged people(ie, everybody except you and me) will continue to buy big MP cameras..

BTW, that part about you and me being smarter was a joke..

Are you sure? It would explain a lot of things....

And if they'd just produce a 3 or 5 mp CCD with bigger photo-sites it would bewonderfull (look at the 2/3" ones f'instance)..

Yes. I wish customers knew enough to demand BIG photosites!.

My 5 MP 2/3" camera has 11.8 square micron photosites. Compare thatwith a current "prosumer" like the G9, which has 3.61 square micronphotosites! I really wish people could see big prints from these!There is no comparison in the IQ....

The strange thing is that the review sites publish sample pictures and you'd think people would download them and print them out but they don't. I guess most use print shops but you/they can get excellent printers for less than the cost of a lot of editing software; things would be a lot different if they owned printers and used the free software..

And there's little point in looking at a picture on a monitor as they are all different. Again, two seconds in a store filled with running TV's or computers would make it obvious but (sigh) no one seems to notice or think these days. (A friend of mine reckons it's unofficial Govt policy to stop kids thinking; he's a professor at some university or the other.).

I'd better take another pill and lie down a bit more..

Regards, David..

Comment #6

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.