Digital Camera Equipment. THE Help and discussion thread.

[John]

Is either of these cameras better than the other?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Cyber-shot ... lectronics

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Cyber-shot ... lectronics

The W50 has a slightly larger LCD display. Otherwise they have the same number of megapixels, optical zoom and ISO.

[Simba]

For £12 extra is it worth it? My dad has been most unhelpful in his advice about this!

[allyharp]

There's a full list of specs with the differences in bold here:
http://www.sony.co.uk/product/CompareProducts.action?site=odw_en_GB&pcReturnUrl=%2Fview%2FView.action%3Fsection%3Den_GB_Products%26productcategory%3D%252FDigital%2BPhotography%252FDPH%2BDigital%2BCompact%2BCameras%2B-%2BCyber-shot%252FDCC%2BDigital%2BStill%2BCameras%26site%3Dodw_en_GB%26page%3DProductSeriesHome%26site%3Dodw_en_GB%26category%3DDCC%2BDigital%2BStill%2BCameras&models=DSC-W30&models=DSC-W50

A couple of differences are that the W30 actually has a more powerful flash than the W50, but the W30 can't do centre-weighted auto-focusing or light metering.

As to which to go for, I'm not too sure.

[potatojunkie]

I'd say it's worth the extra £12 for a sharper screen, over twice the battery life[1], and better focusing options. Being limited to multi-point AF could get really frustrating.



[1]Might well be due to the reduced-power flash, mind.

[McShad]

Get a Canon EOS

[potatojunkie]

Get two, give one of them to me.

[John]

Get a Leica - in fact get 3 and give one to both me and Potato Junkie

[Simba]

Students are poor remember! If I win the lottery though...

[cataclyzm]

Hi,

If you want my advice - I would recommend the Fuji E900 digital camera. It's incredible value for money on Amazon.co.uk and is one heck of a camera for the price.

It has 9 megapixels (yes, count em) and gets great reviews - it also has Fuji's patented Super CCD which is great in low light conditions. It's small enough to be compact and big enough to be a proper camera. It doesn't use interpolation to achieve it's 9 megapixels and has 4 times optical zoom.

i have one and the images often match those of DSLR's costing a great deal more. It has multi point or area or centred or continual focusing options and the night photography images i have taken with my tripod are nothing short of stunning. In addition - you can buy wide angle and telephoto lenses if you wish to upgrade in the future.

One thing i've learned about photography - is that it doesn't have to be expensive to be a great camera and a lot of people buy out of a sort of misconceived snobbery.

So: go with your gut.

all the best
Robert.

[Simba]

Thanks for the advice - but I went for a refurbished Canon Ixus 60 which I got for a great price from the Canon Outlet - £116. My mum has Ixus 50, brother's girlfriend 55 - so we've had experience of them. My dad and brothers are all quite into photography and know their stuff, and my dad finally gave me some recommendations. He actually advised me to get the Ixus 800 IS purely for its image stabilisation 'skills' but as I'm only 20 I'd like to think I have a steady enough hand to take pictures without it. I'm not after a fancy camera or anything either, if I actually use it very much within the first year outwith holidays I'll be amazed! I'm quite happy with my buy though, and hopefully by the time I get back to Glasgow it will arrive.

[little lane]

Many years ago at Uni, I invested in a refurbished Canon EOS 3000N (it was a lot of money for me at the time!). I've always had good results with it, and even after I was given a digital compact, I still turn back to it when I know I'm going somewhere I might need good shots.

I was recently thinking about going for a digital SLR. Now since I have a few canon lenses, I was thiking it might make sense to stick to canon so I can use my old lenses (if they're compatible!). Can anyone recommend one?

And also, this is probably going to be a silly question, but I'm not proud and I'll ask it anyway.....I always think the depth of colour and detail from the SLR is so much better than even the highest setting on the digital. Now is this just becasue it's not a digital SLR, and just a compact, or is it down to it being a digital? I'm reluctant to shell out for a digital SLR (and possibly trade in my film SLR, if they'll even give me anything for it!), and find out the images aren't as good.

Sorry to go on, but I know I'll get some good advice here!

[AlanM]

35mm SLRs don't get much money these days so you would probably get very little for it, which is the reason I hung on to mine rather than sell it for around £50.

If you've got some Canon lenses (and other accessories) it makes sense to look at the Canon DSLRs. If you take your lenses to a shop (Quigg's is probably the best bet for this) they'll quite happily let you try them out on a body to check for compatibility and would probably give you something off a body for anything that you weren't going to keep. The 350D has recently been replaced by the 400D so you may be able to pick one up fairly cheaply.

If you were going to change to a different system I would recommend either going for the Sony A100, which is compatible with the Minolta AF range of lenses, or the Pentax K100d which is compatible with all Pentax lenses. Both of these come with image stabilisation built into the body so every lens becomes image stabilised as opposed to the Nikons and Canons where you have to sell a kidney to get an image stabilised lens (you'll quickly run out of kidneys)

[little lane]

Thanks AlanM.

I have to say, I wasn't really wanting to get rid of the old SLR anyway, kind of sentimental attachementm silly really, eh?

So do you get the same quality and depth of colours from the DSLR as from the film?

[potatojunkie]

Your lenses will have a lot more of an impact on colour depth/quality than the body. If they've stood you in good stead on your film SLR, you shouldn't have any problems with a DSLR.

[little lane]

Thanks for the advice, will comence my search this weekend!