Which camera should I buy?

[Mikeybags]

First off...hi. I'm new to the forum as a poster. Have lurked often and used advice I've read here before, so I know a lot of you guys are very knowledgeable.

Anyway, it was my birthday the other day and my girlfriend is buying me a camera for it. But rather than picking one for me, she gave me the option to pick my own so that I get what I want.

I've narrowed it down to 2 options. Now I know little to nothing about cameras, but know I want one with a good zoom, because I can't stand hers which is basically useless (3x zoom).

These are the ones I'm considering:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16830120292
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16830180146

I'm leaning Panasonic due to the battery (as opposed to using AA's...my gf uses rechargeable AA's in her canon and it takes forever between pictures), the faster shutter speed (though slight), and the HD video (sound isn't a big deal, but I'd use the video alot).

I like the Canon's menu system and the button layout, as well as more choices for manual settings (even though I know jack about cameras, but I'd be very interested in learning if that's available to me). The flash also seems slightly better, though I could be wrong.

I checked them both out in the store, and liked the solid feel of the Panny more, the Canon was made of plastic. Not a huge deal though to me, unless there's a quality difference. Unfortunately at both stores I went to the Panasonic was dead, so I couldn't really mess with it, but I liked the Canon and imagine the Panny would be similar.

So I know you guys are the experts here...any recommendations or advice? Are there other options I'm missing that might be better in this price range? I'd appreciate any input.

 

[ElFenix]

dunno what canon you're linking to as your link is a session.

the batteries don't have much to do with the shot-to-shot time

 

[Mikeybags]

Oops....that was dumb of me.

I edited the original post, they should hopefully work now.

 

[996GT2]

I would go for the Panasonic. Prices are close enough to be considered the same...but the Panasonic has many useful features not found on the Canon.

-Its lens has a more useful range (starting at 28mm instead of 36mm on the Canon)
-It has a much better LCD screen (460k pixels vs. 230k)
-Better video recording (TZ5 can do 1280x720 @ 30 FPS up to the limit of the memory card, SX110 IS can only do 640x480 and is limited to 1 hour)
-Better high speed shooting (TZ5 does 2.5 FPS continuous @ 9 MP for up to 6 frames. SX110 IS only does 1.2 FPS)

The TZ5 is also smaller and lighter, so it's easier to fit into a pocket. The SX110 IS is really on the bulky side for most pockets (my friend has an SX100 IS which I tried for a while, and that is about the same size as the SX110 IS).

The menu system on Panasonic cameras is very nice, with good graphics and a clear layout. I have owned both an FZ8 and an LZ8, and the menu systems on both were very easy to use. However, one drawback of the TZ5 is no manual exposure mode. Granted, most people don't ever touch the manual mode on their cameras even if they do have one, but if you want to get into photography it's a good thing to have while you learn the ropes before getting a Digital SLR.


If the manual exposure control is important to you, you can either go for the Canon or get the smaller Panasonic LZ10 for about $160. The LZ10 has has most of the features of the TZ5 plus manual controls and AA battery operation. The only thing missing is that it has a 5x zoom (30-150mm) instead of the TZ5's 10x (28-280mm) zoom.

 

[SniperZ]

I just wonder how's the picture's quality between these two camera?
I like the Panasonic because of compact design but Canon is known for the picture quality. If they're not too much difference between them, I would go for the Panasonic.

 

[Mikeybags]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
I would go for the Panasonic. Prices are close enough to be considered the same...but the Panasonic has many useful features not found on the Canon.

-Its lens has a more useful range (starting at 28mm instead of 36mm on the Canon)
-It has a much better LCD screen (460k pixels vs. 230k)
-Better video recording (TZ5 can do 1280x720 @ 30 FPS up to the limit of the memory card, SX110 IS can only do 640x480 and is limited to 1 hour)
-Better high speed shooting (TZ5 does 2.5 FPS continuous @ 9 MP for up to 6 frames. SX110 IS only does 1.2 FPS)

The TZ5 is also smaller and lighter, so it's easier to fit into a pocket. The SX110 IS is really on the bulky side for most pockets (my friend has an SX100 IS which I tried for a while, and that is about the same size as the SX110 IS).

The menu system on Panasonic cameras is very nice, with good graphics and a clear layout. I have owned both an FZ8 and an LZ8, and the menu systems on both were very easy to use. However, one drawback of the TZ5 is no manual exposure mode. Granted, most people don't ever touch the manual mode on their cameras even if they do have one, but if you want to get into photography it's a good thing to have while you learn the ropes before getting a Digital SLR.


If the manual exposure control is important to you, you can either go for the Canon or get the smaller Panasonic LZ10 for about $160. The LZ10 has has most of the features of the TZ5 plus manual controls and AA battery operation. The only thing missing is that it has a 5x zoom (30-150mm) instead of the TZ5's 10x (28-280mm) zoom.

Thanks. This is precisely what I was looking for. I did like that the canon had the manual exposure mode, but honestly I've never owned a camera and maybe what the Panasonic has would be enough for me, even with a willingness to learn. Whenever I do get something with a lot of modes I like to learn them all, so if I got the canon I'd be interested in learning how to use that stuff, but there's also a good chance I'll never need it.

Originally posted by: SniperZ
I just wonder how's the picture's quality between these two camera?
I like the Panasonic because of compact design but Canon is known for the picture quality. If they're not too much difference between them, I would go for the Panasonic.

This is one thing I was curious of. Everyone keeps saying "well it's a Canon". Well...I don't really buy things on brand name, I was looking for more detail than that. If the canon takes better pictures then maybe I'd go that way, but most stuff is pulling me to the Panasonic right now.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

1. This isn't really the best place for help in finding a camera. Real camera review sites such as DPReview.com, DCResource.com, Digitalcamerareview.com, Imaging-Resource.com, etc will serve you better, I think.

2. It's hard to agree with the statement that the Panasonic "has a more useful range". The Panasonic's range is 28 - 280mm (35 mm equivalent), whereas the Canon's range is 36mm - 360mm. So, the Panny has a wider angle, the Canon has more zoom.

3. The picture quality difference between the 2 isn't really all that great IMO, from samples I've seen. The Canon probably preserves a bit more picture detail than the Panny, particularly at ISO 200 & higher, but exhibits more noise.

4. If you really don't care much for manual controls, and video is at all important to you, I'd go for the Panny.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
1. This isn't really the best place for help in finding a camera. Real camera review sites such as DPReview.com, DCResource.com, Digitalcamerareview.com, Imaging-Resource.com, etc will serve you better, I think.

or just bewilder him with details

2. It's hard to agree with the statement that the Panasonic "has a more useful range". The Panasonic's range is 28 - 280mm (35 mm equivalent), whereas the Canon's range is 36mm - 360mm. So, the Panny has a wider angle, the Canon has more zoom.

no, the canon and the panny have the same zoom (10X). the panny has a wider wide angle, and the canon has a longer long focal. (and this is why box-top zoom labels are misleading.)

and i'd agree that 28-280 is more useful than 36-360. shots in tight quarters are pretty common.

3. The picture quality difference between the 2 isn't really all that great IMO, from samples I've seen. The Canon probably preserves a bit more picture detail than the Panny, particularly at ISO 200 & higher, but exhibits more noise.

4. If you really don't care much for manual controls, and video is at all important to you, I'd go for the Panny.

agreed. picture quality between any group of ultra compacts or compact super-zooms is basically going to be the same. it's really not worth worrying about and you'll improve your pictures more by reading the manual rather than spending time agonizing over minor differences in image quality.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
1. This isn't really the best place for help in finding a camera. Real camera review sites such as DPReview.com, DCResource.com, Digitalcamerareview.com, Imaging-Resource.com, etc will serve you better, I think.

or just bewilder him with details

2. It's hard to agree with the statement that the Panasonic "has a more useful range". The Panasonic's range is 28 - 280mm (35 mm equivalent), whereas the Canon's range is 36mm - 360mm. So, the Panny has a wider angle, the Canon has more zoom.

no, the canon and the panny have the same zoom (10X). the panny has a wider wide angle, and the canon has a longer long focal. (and this is why box-top zoom labels are misleading.)

and i'd agree that 28-280 is more useful than 36-360. shots in tight quarters are pretty common.

3. The picture quality difference between the 2 isn't really all that great IMO, from samples I've seen. The Canon probably preserves a bit more picture detail than the Panny, particularly at ISO 200 & higher, but exhibits more noise.

4. If you really don't care much for manual controls, and video is at all important to you, I'd go for the Panny.

agreed. picture quality between any group of ultra compacts or compact super-zooms is basically going to be the same. it's really not worth worrying about and you'll improve your pictures more by reading the manual rather than spending time agonizing over minor differences in image quality.

1. Actually, I find that except for DPReview, the other sites don't bog down the reader with details, and have good "wrap-ups" at the end of their reviews. Jeff over at DCResource is especially novice-friendly. My statement was not meant as a slam against AT, just that digicams are not AT's main focus, and forums at dedicated camera-review sites will have more members to raise issues and give advice.

2. You're right, I should have said "more reach" rather than "more zoom". D'oh!

I find that I don't use 28mm very often. I took a poll once over at a photo forum and the responding members noted that they tend not use use 28mm (or wider) very often either. I felt I had to point out the focal range difference because the previous poster who always pushes Panasonic conveniently neglected to mention the Canon's focal range, just that the TZ5's is "more useful".

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
1. This isn't really the best place for help in finding a camera. Real camera review sites such as DPReview.com, DCResource.com, Digitalcamerareview.com, Imaging-Resource.com, etc will serve you better, I think.

or just bewilder him with details

2. It's hard to agree with the statement that the Panasonic "has a more useful range". The Panasonic's range is 28 - 280mm (35 mm equivalent), whereas the Canon's range is 36mm - 360mm. So, the Panny has a wider angle, the Canon has more zoom.

no, the canon and the panny have the same zoom (10X). the panny has a wider wide angle, and the canon has a longer long focal. (and this is why box-top zoom labels are misleading.)

and i'd agree that 28-280 is more useful than 36-360. shots in tight quarters are pretty common.

3. The picture quality difference between the 2 isn't really all that great IMO, from samples I've seen. The Canon probably preserves a bit more picture detail than the Panny, particularly at ISO 200 & higher, but exhibits more noise.

4. If you really don't care much for manual controls, and video is at all important to you, I'd go for the Panny.

agreed. picture quality between any group of ultra compacts or compact super-zooms is basically going to be the same. it's really not worth worrying about and you'll improve your pictures more by reading the manual rather than spending time agonizing over minor differences in image quality.

1. Actually, I find that except for DPReview, the other sites don't bog down the reader with details, and have good "wrap-ups" at the end of their reviews. Jeff over at DCResource is especially novice-friendly. My statement was not meant as a slam against AT, just that digicams are not AT's main focus, and forums at dedicated camera-review sites will have more members to raise issues and give advice.

2. You're right, I should have said "more reach" rather than "more zoom". D'oh!

I find that I don't use 28mm very often. I took a poll once over at a photo forum and the responding members noted that they tend not use use 28mm (or wider) very often either. I felt I had to point out the focal range difference because the previous poster who always pushes Panasonic conveniently neglected to mention the Canon's focal range, just that the TZ5's is "more useful".

Yep I should have included the Canon's 36-360mm range, sorry about that.

I really do think wide angle is more useful than long telephoto on a point and shoot though. A common type of shot with P&S cameras is a group of people together, usually taken indoors. Having a wider angle lens is useful to fit everyone into the frame without having to step too far back. Also, a 28mm wide lens is useful for landscape and architecture shots (common for P&S cameras), which are common types of shots on trips and vacations. When I had an FZ8 which started at 36mm, I felt like I often had to step back in order to get a good composition. It just seems to me like most P&S users are not using their cameras for creative photography, but instead simply to take some snapsnots of family, friends, and places. That's why I think the 28mm wide angle is important.

The Canon does reach our further with 350mm maximum focal length, but I feel like there are few times where are P&S user would see a distinct advantage going from 280mm to 350mm...maybe at air shows or when they've got really really horrible seats at a football game? For other times, I think 280mm is more than enough, and the combination of that and 28mm wide angle is what I would take personally. That's one of the main reasons I like the Panasonic line of P&S cameras...nearly all of them have good wide angle coverage, unlike many of the other manufacturers' P&S cameras.

Having gone to a DSLR with a lens that now starts at an equivalent 36mm due to FOV crop, I do miss the wide angle a litle bit. I'm really looking into the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 as a second lens to go with my Sigma 24-60.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and other people will of course have their own (like you, FG). I respect that, but since it's a forum I see no problem with giving the OP my opinion.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yep I should have included the Canon's 36-360mm range, sorry about that.

I really do think wide angle is more useful than long telephoto on a point and shoot though. A common type of shot with P&S cameras is a group of people together, usually taken indoors. Having a wider angle lens is useful to fit everyone into the frame without having to step too far back. Also, a 28mm wide lens is useful for landscape and architecture shots (common for P&S cameras), which are common types of shots on trips and vacations. When I had an FZ8 which started at 36mm, I felt like I often had to step back in order to get a good composition. It just seems to me like most P&S users are not using their cameras for creative photography, but instead simply to take some snapsnots of family, friends, and places. That's why I think the 28mm wide angle is important.

The Canon does reach our further with 350mm maximum focal length, but I feel like there are few times where are P&S user would see a distinct advantage going from 280mm to 350mm...maybe at air shows or when they've got really really horrible seats at a football game? For other times, I think 280mm is more than enough, and the combination of that and 28mm wide angle is what I would take personally. That's one of the main reasons I like the Panasonic line of P&S cameras...nearly all of them have good wide angle coverage, unlike many of the other manufacturers' P&S cameras.

Having gone to a DSLR with a lens that now starts at an equivalent 36mm due to FOV crop, I do miss the wide angle a litle bit. I'm really looking into the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 as a second lens to go with my Sigma 24-60.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and other people will of course have their own (like you, FG). I respect that, but since it's a forum I see no problem with giving the OP my opinion.

I understand your point regarding the usefulness of a wider-angle lens. However, greater focal length can also useful. It's better for wildlife shooting, for instance. As a Panny fan, I'm sure you know that many FZ owners select that camera specifically because the long focal length, fast sharp lens and responsive handling make it better than most ultrazooms for capturing wildlife shots.

Most snapshot I've seen taken by P&S users tend to have way too much background anyway. How often do you really need 28mm to fit a family gathering in the frame? What's wrong with stepping back? Ideally, you'd like to stay away from the widest angle a lens offers, anyway, as this typically will have more distortion than the middle of the range.

When I had my Fuji S6000fd, I used 300mm more than 28mm. But that's just my usage.

I think, particularly when giving advice to folks who are not camera-savvy, it can be a disservice to inject our own biases into that advice. The best tack is to present the info in an accurate and concise manner, with an explanation of important aspects/features, and then let him/her decide.

Or maybe it's just me!

 

[Fardringle]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
When I had my Fuji S6000fd, I used 300mm more than 28mm. But that's just my usage.

I think, particularly when giving advice to folks who are not camera-savvy, it can be a disservice to inject our own biases into that advice. The best tack is to present the info in an accurate and concise manner, with an explanation of important aspects/features, and then let him/her decide.

I agree that unless one camera is significantly better in all (or nearly all categories) it's better to give the pros and con of each of the best options and then apply those features/problems to the individual needs of the person buying the camera. No one camera can fill the needs of every user, so it's important to know if one camera might be bad at some things that I might use but excels in the area that will be the most commonly used feature for someone else.

Out of curiosity, I just did an analysis of the roughly 4350 pictures that I kept (I don't know how many I have deleted) from my S6000fd. I actually used 28mm 14.7% of the time and 30mm 12.7% of the time and I only used 300mm on 6.6% of the shots. 45% of all of my shots were taken between 28mm and 50mm focal length. While there are times where I definitely wish it had more reach than 300mm on the long end, I found myself wishing far more often that it had an even wider angle for indoor party/group shots and outdoor close range landscapes (like buildings where there isn't room to move back from the subject).


If anyone else is interested in finding out what settings you use the most, I used the free program ExposurePlot to do the statistics. It gives totals for Focal Length, ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed.