Which one of these cameras are good for a beginner?

[eyadnalsamman]

A friend of mine wanted to buy a new digital camera. Both of us are

beginners in the digital cameras specifications and photography. He

wants to get good MACRO & Tele photos in ONE camera and it is a must

to be an SLR-LIKE Camera to be suitable for his budget.

 

I have made a search and found three good cameras:

- Fujifilm FinePix S5100 Zoom

- Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5

- Panasonic DMC-FZ20

 

If there are any other SLR-LIKE good cameras for both macro & tele,

me and my friend will be so thankful to know about them.

[k_michael]

I would think it depends on how much of a begginner you are. I know nothing about any of them. But I would think that the best one would be one that allows you to set aperture and shutter speed so you can see the effects of exposure.

[andrew robertson]

Why does it matter if it's SLR-like? With these kinds of cameras that just implies a

particular shape. There is no actual optical through-the-lens viewing, which is the main

benefit of the SLR camera.

 

Buying a camera because it looks like an SLR even though it's not is like buying a car

shaped like an airplane. Just because it looks like an airplane doesn't mean it's going to

fly.

 

Your friend should either go with an actual DSLR, and know what the benefits of one are,

or just choose a digicam based on features and quality. Don't choose a camera just

because it mimics the shape of an SLR - that's a terrible motivation to buy a camera.

[jliechty]

<p>If he's a beginner in the sense of "just starting" or "newbie," then I wouldn't be so worried about macro and telephoto. Those types of photography - especially macro (assuming you mean <i>true</i> macro and not just closer-than-usual) are not necessarily the best and easiest ways to learn about general things like composition, lighting, etc., because there's more to worry about just to get a technically acceptable picture.</p>

<p>Anyway, what exactly <i>is</i> his budget? If he plans to get more seriously involved in photography, then it would be optimal for him to get a basic DSLR and kit lens (the original DRebel is getting cheaper these days now that the XT is out), and add the macro lens later when he's ready for it. If he plans to go beyond the basics, then a P&S will become limiting sooner or later. Of course, if he wants a camera <b>now</b> and has a very tight budget, you'll have to totally disregard these comments about the advantages of a real SLR, because it's just not feasible. In that case, do as the others suggest and buy a camera based upon the merits of usability and quality, not based on how it looks.</p>

[andrew robertson]

It is feasible, he'd just have to use a film camera.

 

A used manual focus SLR, a good wide angle lens, a normal macro lens, and a reasonably

fast telephoto lens could all be had for $300 or less.

[tommyinca]

I have a DMC-FZ10 and a Canon 300D with a good set of lens. The Leica 12X zoom in the Panazonic FZ10/20 is more than just a marketing name. It does produce pictures with resoluion and contrast. Its f2.8 speed and Image stablization works and make it a good tele. It also close focus well and can be use as a macro. Overall, I think it is a good choice.

 

The things that I don't like the FZ10 are

 

- No RAW support. Compared to DSLR, Build it JPEG is a bit over processed and not compressed too much (most digi Cam are)

 

- Noise level is not great. ISO 50 is good, ISO 100 is fair. ISO 200 and 400 will need noise reduction software.

 

- Not much working distant with macro (same as most digicam)

 

- Focus speed is not that fast ( same as most digicam)

 

- Can't put it in my pocket.

 

FZ20 at around $500 it is a good deal. If you want to spend more, you may get more with and DSLR. But then you will have to spend a lot more (with lens) later.

 

Hope these help.

[tommyinca]

Correction to above. I mean JPEG is compressed too much.

[joe_zammarelli]

I have the S5100 and it is a terrific camera. It's the camera that has finally lured me away from my trusty manual Nikons. I still use them in the studio, but for a bopping around camera the Fuji is great.

 

It has a Macro function, which in this case means a decent close-up capability. And with a 10x zoom it has very good reach, 37mm-370mm. The lens adaptor makes a dandy lens hood and gives the camera a more SLR-like look. And there is enough manual control to satisfy the serious amateur. One of my favorite features is continuous burst mode, whereby the camera will capture three shots either as the shutter is depressed or save the last three when released. I was at a street fair recently and there was a halfpipe set up. When the BMX rider approached the lip, a press of the button captured some great airborn sequences three at a time. Lastly, despite its light weight, it is very rugged. My only gripe is that the lens is awfully loose when extended, about 1mm of movement. It doesn't seem to affect picture quality, but it doesn't seem right. No other cameras I checked had this much play in the lens.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Earlier: "... Why does it matter if it's SLR-like? With these kinds of cameras that just implies a particular shape. There is no actual optical through-the-lens viewing, which is the main benefit of the SLR camera...."

 

Revisiting this after a year with my Minolta DiMage 7 and A1 TTL EVF through-the-lens electronic viewfinder cameras - extensions of the Minolta DiMage 5 in question:

 

- YES they are true TTL through-the-lens.

 

- I find the information in the viewfinder SUPERIOR to DSLRs in that ALL settings are shown in the viewfinder AS I MAKE THEM without taking my eye of my photographic subject. Virtually all DSLRs I've tried require I pull the camera from my face, look down and squint (change my eye's focus distance) and deal with different lighting than I was just looking at towards my subject while trying to effect any changes in capture settings. On a few DSLRs I can change capture settings by feel and memory, but still without confirmation in the viewfinder.

 

My experience of the Minolta DiMage A1 has ruined me for a DSLR due to (a) features / benefits (b) small size © PREVIEW LCD on demand for low / high shooting (d) MOVIES - I never thought I'd care until I shot movies of my older members of the family and now cherish having something more definitive than a still image!

 

My 2 cents -- a penny for your thoughts?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[don_e]

"My experience of the Minolta DiMage A1 has ruined me for a DSLR..."

 

Peter

 

Welcome to the Darkside!

 

Regards,

 

Don E

[don_e]

Actually, that should be the Brightside, shouldn't it? 8-)

 

 

--

 

Don -- EVF TTL 'Leicasonic' fz30 owner -- E

[peterblaise]

.

 

My criteria is manifold, and few reviews QUICKLY tell if a camera has:

 

- MANUAL zoom

 

- Manual focus - even if drive-by-wire

 

- TTL EVF or syncro direct view viewfinder or non-synchronized viewfinder of NO viewfinder!

 

- Manual aperture, shutter, ISO on demand

 

- Selectable focus point

 

- Spot metering, movable metering point.

 

- DIRECT INPUT KNOBS

 

- ALL INFO THROUGH THE VIEWFINDER LIVE especially during changing capture settings like ISO and exposure compensation or flash mode or sequence mode / bracketing.

 

- ANTI SHAKE!

 

Hey, if Panasonic/Leica could only make that f/2.8 constant super zoom AND also include RAW capture - wow, unbeatable.

 

What frustrates me is Tokina having a 24-200mm for 35mm SLRs but no one makes an equivalent WIDE angle to super zoom for mini-digi-cams, most stopping at ~100mm or less if they also go wide to 24mm. 24-200mm f/2.8 constant for a small sensor -- the Minolta TTL EVF uses 2/3 " (8.80 x 6.60 mm) chips, and the Panasonic uses even smaller 1/1.8 " (7.18 x 5.32 mm) chips - what used to be impossible lenses should be no-brainers for a computer to crank out nowadays! Where's the marketing prowess?

 

- RAW

 

- Wide to super telephoto

 

- f/2.8 constant

 

... oh, and

 

- Close focusing / magnifications BUILT IN.

 

My Minolta GT 7.2-50.08mm f/2.8-3.5 is superb with close-ups, and with a matched diopter can capture 36x24mm field of view -- slide copier anyone? ;-)

 

Anyway, I keep looking for better, and aside from the A2 with has 8mp and a super EVF, or the A200 which is smaller, no one else has so much - knobs, TTV through-the-viewfinder viewing AND camera setup / configuration, excellent resolution, anti shake, and so on.

 

Hey, I LIKE the Sony Alpha A100 ... and the earlier Konica Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7D and 5D, but ... where are the competitive features and benefits, especially if I can capture and print to 19x13" happily as it is -- about a 55x enlargement - WOW!

 

Does anyone else feel left behind by the apparent myopia of the DSLR market?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Don't MAKE me mention LCD preview and MOVIES! ;-)