jamiew

If money truely is a deciding factor then the only camera yo ushould consider is the Sony W1 since it will use AA batteries (rechargable).

Ok a few points. I do not reccomend you consider the P100. And not because it is a bad camera, but rather because Sony itself make two cameras that kill it. The W1 is exactly the same as the P100 (we are talking same lens and sensor) in a different body. It is also faster and has good battery life with AA batteries (If you use an external flash you will really appreciate this fact).

 

The other camera is the P150 witch except for a 7mp sensor is EXACTLY the same as the P100. My first through when I read that was worries about noise and all the bad image stuff that comes from tiny photosites, BUT every review says it is a HUGE ammount better than the P100 (and by default the W1).

 

All the Sony products are way quicker to use than the Nikon...

 

Also if you think the Nikon 5200 is fast enough for you, you should look at the Canon S500. In my opinion it has the best image quality of the 5mp compacts out there and uses Compact Flash cards to boot (Type I only).

 

My personal pick is a P150 that takes AA batteries since I can't stand slow cameras, and really dont want to carry around yet another charger on shoots/trips. So I will be buying a "W2" when Sony eventually comes out with one, and sticking with my old yashica T4 for my pocket camera until then.

Only if you poke it with you finger or something. Super reliable camera, but if you dont need AE then the FM2 is a better camera (I do need AE so FE2 for me).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speak for everybody who uses classic and I think it's true no matter what type or style of camera they use. Simply because they find the camera they use cool.

 

Personally I love old cameras, but have grown to hate film with a passion. I just wish some bozo would make a digital version of my Fe2, or my Canon Ql17 (or even a Leica M7 digital which I am sure I will not be able to afford)

Ilkka.

 

I highly doubt that leica choose to have a cropped CCD purly based on it having better performance with wide angle lenses. "The integration of the sensor into an existing camera concept requires that the sensor and its housing be positioned at the film gate of the LEICA R8 or R9 camera. That is why the active surface of the sensor is smaller than the area of the film gate." was a quote I read from a leica press release.

Hahaha $6,200 for a 15mm lens. You could just go out and buy a Nikon or Canon body AND the 14-15mm lens and still have enough money left over to buy the rest of a Canikon kit. I understand to each his own, but how can Leica justify these prices for an SLR (I understand the M system since it is reletively unique, but a simple SLR that has dubious improvements vs. it's competition).

I have a cheapo made by Kiev Camera (about $40 max if I remember) and it works great. MY advice is to purchase one for each lens you plan to regularly use since they have a sprung clip to lock onto each lens. Just be careful with a lens like the 55/1.2 (at 1.2) since the focus screen does not have any focus aids.

The V1 has been discontinued by Sony and replaced with the V3. Sony was selling their last V1's for $399 which is a steal, but they appear to be out. You might be able to secure a big discount from someone that still has stock.

 

Look here:

 

http://dpreview-cnet.com.com/4014-6501_9-20851377.html?subj=Sony+Cyber+Shot+DSC-V1&part=dpreview-cnet&tag=4014

Easy way in Low light: Set camera to Av mode (this activates slow synch on Canon DSLRs) and then set the custom fuction to auto flash reduction and snap away (read the manual, but the camera probably came set up this way).

 

Easy way in good light: Same as Low light method but you can also use Program mode (just be mindful of max synch speed).

 

Harder (more consistant if you know what you are doing): Set camera to Av or Manual, and then use manual flash adjustment to compensate for fill.

Brett.

 

From my experience there are two types of multi-point autofocus systems. The cheaper of the two simply focus on the object that is nearest the camera. Great for a P&S snap of a person and some background when the person is not in the center of the frame, but not really intelligent. The second is the type that is designed to lock focus on an object and then follow along (for the afore mentioned bird photos and the like). Personally I shoot mostly team sports and much prefer center point af since with multi point it's hard to pick and choose which player to focus on. I also find center point AF much faster.

I beleive this flash is only either full manual or TTL. I dont remember it having a traditional auto mode and if my memory is accurate it is a bad choice for a standard X-sync.

Evan.

 

I think the last poster's question re. what you are looking for in a scanned image is very critical. if you goal is high quality prints, you might actually be better served by a 5mp digicam than a scan from a sub $200 scanner (I know there are exceptions to this, but it is worth at least looking into). if, however, you are only planning to use the scans for web,4x6 prints, etc then just about any new scanner will do.

leslie.

 

It's amazing how much you look at individual words in people's arguements and miss the whole point. All I said was that based on the reviews on the web the GX's image quality is worse than it's competition and that the original poster should also look at the alternatives. Wheather or not it is good enough for you, or anyone, was not one of my arguements. . Man you argue like a Leica owner.. always feeling the need to justify your purchase to others by attacking their opinions. Why can't you just say.. The reviews may be critical, but it's good enought for me.

Mark I agree. Michael Reichmann's while very truthful and honest are also very much opinion. People should do exactly what he did and take each o the choices for a spin and then pick the one that workd for them.

Leslie (From a randon google search forRicoh GX):

 

http://www.pyroport.com/reviews/32_5.asp

"Overall, I have to say that I am very disappointed with this offering from Ricoh. Perhaps if I had been able to use it a lot more and get to grips with its finer points I may have had a different opinion, but the poor lens quality, slow storage times, no data in the viewfinder, strange effects on angular lines, very high noise levels etc. make me think that even at sub ?300 for an auto point and shoot, it is not such a good deal. These bad points by far outweigh the good, in my opinion."

 

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_caplio_gx.php#Conclusion

"The second and most disappointing aspect of the Capilo GX is once again image-quality, which has proved to be a thorn in the side of all the Ricoh models that I have reviewed. Whilst the camera is a joy to operate, the actual images themselves are only just about adequate, being very similar to those from the Caplio RX. Large amounts of chromatic aberrations are present in high-contrast situations, the colours are a little on the dull side and noise is very apparent at ISO 400 and faster. If only Ricoh could have improved the image quality, they would have had a winner on their hands, but sadly I can't quite recommend the Caplio GX because of this major stumbling block. Ricoh have improved the handling of their Caplio series by adding aperture/manual control - next time they need to concentrate on what the camera is actually recording."

 

http://new.dpnow.com/908c.html

"Alas, the Caplio GX is a frustrating disappointment. The camera is nice to use and to hold. OK, there are some irritations, like the flash system charging lock-out and the occasional reticence to shoot when ordered, but overall ? the Caplio GX is a camera that looks and feels like it should take great pictures, but it doesn't."

 

http://www.dcviews.com/_Ricoh/gx.htm

(no text)

 

http://www.shuttertalk.com/reviews/ricohgx/index.php#summary

Chromatic aberration, which was a concern with the RX, is still present; however, they only appear in a fraction of the shots. Ultimately, the image quality produced by the GX is good ? with sufficiently detailed, noise free images that have pleasing colour representation and balance. Finally, I must give credit to Ricoh for squeezing some great features into an elegantly shaped body that handles ergonomics well.

 

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/review/20/page_6.html

The overall conclusion is that the camera definitely leaves behind a good impression and that it certainly is worthwhile to have a closer look at this camera in your local photo shop!

 

Since Ricoh is not avaliable in the US for me to test out I have no choice but to go by the reviews. and when a site like Steves-Digicams that is notorious for being positive about most everything they review says it has bad image qualtiy I really take notice. If it was avaliable locally I would go down to the camera store form my own opionion, but it is not so I look to others. I totally believe in the try before you buy principle and encourage everyone else to follow, but when someone asks for a reccomendation I will relate what I know/read and all I said was reviews were critical so I stand by my comments.

 

Actually this is all funny since the only real conclusion I had in my original post was that he should add the Fuji 550/800 to his short list.

actually all the latest reviews do say the image quality is bad. I update my arguements with the newest information. And I still maintain that if Ricoh can get the image quality up this is the perfect compact. But the truth of the matter is it is not.

Robert.

 

You mentioned you started with digital SLR and were forced to turn down requests for large prints. I dont know how long ago that was but digital has progressed tons in the last 2-3 years.

Leslie.

 

Since you have made this personal then I will too. Learn to read.

 

I said in THIS thread and I quote "While I think Canons take the best photos they are slow slow slow (I own only Canon digital cameras)"

 

If you are looking at prior postings of mine then fine but the world moves on and so should you (Canon's did use to be rather fast compared to their competition).

 

I (emphisis on I) never said the GX takes average or sucky photos. I said I READ (emphisis on READ) that it takes bad photos.

 

Before you go making personal attacks take a moment and realize that I was not attacking the camera. I just was saying that based on what I have read I will not be buying the GX nore could i reccomend it.

Again as much as I want to like the GX EVERY review of it has said the image quality sucks compared to it's compitition and this has been consistant for ALL ricoh cameras. If this was not true then I would be shooting a GX right now.

 

Chris - If the Battery and memory stick were your big issues with the P120 look at the Sony W1. It has the exact same internals and lens as the P120, BUT cam accept an adaptor for filters and converters, and uses AA batteries. It is actually a bit faster too, but nothing noticable. As for memory stick in a camera like this. Now that Scandisk and Lexar are making them the prices are comming down.

Robert.

 

Another point. I have seen posters made from a 4mp Canon G3 and so long as you are not within 1 foot of them they look good. I have seem AMAZING 50" lightjet prints from 6mp DSLR's.

 

I totally understand your situation. I had a G3 and it was frustrating on many levels. I got a 10D and have not shot my G3 OR MY MF camera ever since. Ans the more I learn have to work with digital the more I do not miss MF.

By the way.. what exactly is it that doesn't "turned him on" about SLR's? Pentax (and now Olympus) make some SLR's that are as small as the cameras he is looking at and all have superior image quality.

I second the consideration of the fuji E550 (it actually starts at 32mm but is super fast). Do not consider the E500 or E510 from Fuji as they do not have the high speed engine of the E550. Also look at the Fuji 800 since it shars the lens/sensor/processing with the E550 but in a metal case and adds an AF assist light (you will pay about $150 more however).

 

While I think Canons take the best photos they are slow slow slow (I own only Canon digital cameras)

 

The Ricoh's claim to fame is it's quick shutter lag. From what I have heard it's startup time and shot to shot times are nothing to write home about (better than most but not the best). I also have read bad things about it's image quality (see link). That being said I really want to like this camera since it offers me everything I want in a small digital camera (AA batteries, hotshoe, fast shutter release, etc..)

 

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/caplio_gx_pg5.html

 

Two other camera that are very fast are the Sony W1 and Sony P-150. Unfortunatly they only start at 38mm. If they were 28mm they would be perfect.

 

It sounds like you narrowed the field down well, but you should also check out the Fujis since they are also fast and have excellent image qualtiy.

Well vacation/outdoor type stuff is generally not considered really serious photography:) anyways ... I sympathize with your friend as there are situations where I hate to lug my DSLR around. In my situation I am looking for a small camera since it will only be a backup. Assuming your friend has totally ruled out DSLR's the only cameras he should consider are the Sony 828 and the Minolta A2. While there are other cameras out there that are very good, right now these two are the best of the best. Your friend should also try out the Olympus c-8080 and the new Nikon 8400. The Olympus is pretty highly regarded and the Nikon adds a very useful 24mm wide (but at the expense of the tele end). I think he should go down and try those 4 cameras and then get the one that floats his boat.

This is not really possible since any B&W print when scanned is scanned with a full color scanner and that polutes the purity of the B&W. Once on the computer they are either converted to B&W or scanned as B&W. So what happens is the color scanner gives you a color image file, that is simply devoid of most color, but there is always some color cast which must be eliminated. In this situation you really do have to look at physical prints.

 

p.s. - A general rule is that the only good B&W prints come from printers that only have B&W incs.

Ok, variantions of this question have been asked repeatedly. Ultimatly MF is still better than a 6-8mp digital camera. That being said you will not notice much of a diference in most situation, praticularly if you are good with photoshop. Add to that the freedom of digital and to me digital is a sure winner.

 

NOw if you are super picky with detail, and do nto want to take the time to understand digital go wit hthe MF film camera.