Compact Advise Needed

[barry993tt]

Please help - I know nothing about cameras! I'm looking for a camera with the following:
- Compact size
- Up to £300
- At least 4 Megapixels
- At least 4x optical zoom
- Built-in flash
- LCD screen

I've use the search feature on the Jessops website and come up with:
- Casio EXILIM EX-P600
- Pentax OPTIO SV
- Ricoh CAPLIO R2

Which of these 3 do you think is the best?
Do you have any other suggestions?

[pmanson]

I've got an Optio S5i which would fit the bill but its only 3x Optical zoom.

The think Panasonic have some compacts coming out this year which are 6x zoom and are very compact. I think they are called Luminex

[simpo two]

pmanson said:

The think Panasonic have some compacts coming out this year which are 6x zoom and are very compact. I think they are called Luminex

Think that's Lumix. Haven't used one but it's a good brand, looks nice and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

[pmanson]

simpo two said:

pmanson said: I think Panasonic have some compacts coming out this year which are 6x zoom and are very compact. I think they are called Luminex Think that's Lumix. Haven't used one but it's a good brand, looks nice and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

I think your right! I knew it was something similar

[barry993tt]

Thanks for the replies. I've had a look at the DMC-FX7 LUMIX but unfortunately it only has 3x optical zoom.
Any other camera suggestions?
Any thoughts on the 3 cameras I've listed above?

[docevi1]

why specifically that spec? Most compacts only come with 3x zoom and megapixel rating isn't everything...

[barry993tt]

docevi1 said:

why specifically that spec? Most compacts only come with 3x zoom

Yes, I've noticed. 3x just isn't enough for me. Appreciate that I can get more zoom with a bigger camera but need something small so cuts down my options I guess.

docevi1 said:

megapixel rating isn't everything...

Tell me more. I don't know much about cameras and want something that will give good quality prints. I assumed that more megapixels means better quality.

What camera would you suggest?

[docevi1]

barry993tt said:

docevi1 said: why specifically that spec? Most compacts only come with 3x zoom Yes, I've noticed. 3x just isn't enough for me. Appreciate that I can get more zoom with a bigger camera but need something small so cuts down my options I guess.

Be aware that things like my Canon A70 exist where you can buy a 2x convertor for the front which makes it an effective 6x zoom I believe. Expensive mind, up at around £80 for the canon lens.

barry993tt said:

docevi1 said: megapixel rating isn't everything... Tell me more. I don't know much about cameras and want something that will give good quality prints. I assumed that more megapixels means better quality.

As I understand it, megapixel rating is related to the size of the pixels on the CCD (the film if you will), but there is also the dpi (dots per inch) to take into account, that is the amount of information that is to be stored in the image. If I'm right (and I stand to be corrected on this one) mp rating says the pixel resolution of the image (i.e. 1600*1280 for a 3.2mp) but the dpi says the amount of information stored within each square inch, the more of both the better. For example there was an offer by Epson to show off their new printers by them printing a picture for you, they said that 180dpi was the minimum they would accept due to the quality implications.

As another example have you seen the 1.5mp Nokia camera phones - they are big resolution pictures but shocking quality wise (one would presume they have a very low dpi rating) and IMO can be firmly labelled as been due to having a poor lens. Similiarly compare something like my 3.2mp Canon to a EOS300D (a 4mp dSLR IIRC) and you'll notice a vast improvement in sharpness and render of image.

barry993tt said:

What camera would you suggest?

I only know the Canon A70 and Fuji A202, I like the canon and it's served me very well and I'm led to believe it's younger brethren are better again (the A75, A85 etc), but I'm looking at dSLR's nowadays not compacts...

try www.steve-digicams.com for a good, seemingly independent reviews

[daydreamer]

Not quite Stephan,

The MP rating is the amount of information stored by the converter - period. The dpi rating etc is simply a tag attached to the file that the camera creates.

You are correct in that MP rating isn't everything though, in that, as with everything in life, some converters are better than others. More expensive cameras, tend to have better converters, hence higher quality for the same MP.

Also, beware of software enhanced MP ratings - apparent pixels or whatever they are called. It is the number of pixels on the converter that you are interested in - if you want to add more later, you are as well doing it in photoshop as within the camera software.

As Stephan has mentioned, the quality of the lense hasn't suddenly become unimportant either. You have to get the light through to the converter before it can work!

Finally - although this is a personal observation and may have no basis in fact - I am not sure that the JPEG standard is as standard as we'd all like to think. I have noticed that I get very large files out of my gf's casio camera, but not necessarily high quality. Putting the file through an editor then massively reduces the size, but not the quality. Strange. Best play with a couple in the shop - I'm sure that you could get the assistant to download a few photos so you could compare.

Rich

Edit -> As for which camera - really don't know. As I've said above you need to play with them. I've got a Fuji F610 compact, which gives great pictures, although is a bit bulky and you have to hold it portrait to take landscape pictures, which takes a bit of getting used to.

>> Edited by daydreamer on Friday 15th April 08:30

[pmanson]

barry993tt said:

Thanks for the replies. I've had a look at the DMC-FX7 LUMIX but unfortunately it only has 3x optical zoom. Any other camera suggestions? Any thoughts on the 3 cameras I've listed above?

The new LUMIX ones are here - www.t3.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=34263&subsectionid=753

I think the DMC-LZ2 and DMC-LZ1 are the ones your after

[barry993tt]

pmanson said:

I think the DMC-LZ2 and DMC-LZ1 are the ones your after

Thanks. Do you think the LZ2 is better than the 3 cameras that I've listed above?

[docevi1]

daydreamer said:

stuff

oh well then

Doesn't the physical size of CCD have some relevance to the quality as well (one guesses that it is to do with software iterpolated pixels rather than true).

[daydreamer]

That was a carefully worded and constructed arguement!

Stuff - humf!

Rich

[docevi1]

it gives you the opportunity to go back and edit

[pmanson]

barry993tt said:

pmanson said: I think the DMC-LZ2 and DMC-LZ1 are the ones your after Thanks. Do you think the LZ2 is better than the 3 cameras that I've listed above?

I'm not sure I just remember reading about them in T3 a month or so ago. The lenses are supposed to be very good though

[simpo two]

docevi1 said:

Doesn't the physical size of CCD have some relevance to the quality as well (one guesses that it is to do with software iterpolated pixels rather than true).

The bigger the pixel, the more sensitive to light it is. More photons can hit it. So if you take a 3Mp and 4Mp camera from the same maker, and all else is identical, the 4Mp will have a lower ISO rating - this is most often seen in the flash going off more. Bigger CCDs, as found in DSLRs, allow you to get 6+Mp *and* good sensitivity - but at a cost.

How many Mps to go for? Well, it depends on how big you want to print. I'd say 4Mp is a minimum for A4, though remember that when a picture is hanging on a wall, people don't go right up to it and squint through a magnifying glass at it.

My view is that all branded digital compacts (ie from reputable makers) are good, in fact very good, for the money. So aside from key things like the Mp and zoom, and anything else you're particularly looking for, I'd choose the one I liked the look of most.