Herr Bähnisch the younger and I went out to dinner tonight at the fabulous Hotel Bravo on Brunswick St. For a belated birthday celebration. His, not mine. I’m the first of May, being a Labour Day kinda gal.
Bravo is the home, among other good things, of Brisvegas’ most intimidatingly efficient maitresse d’. It’s always good to see a cognac properly served. And better to drink it! Do please feel free to use this thread to comment on any recent culinary or alcoholic delights you’ve enjoyed. And yes, Mark still needs a digital camera so we don’t have to keep posting these crappy camera phone pics… Any suggestions for anything suitable for photoblogging hawtness in the $300-$500 price range? I’m buying. Birthday prez ‘n all that.
Hard to recommend without knowing exactly what features are needed/desired.
After 6 months playing with low-end digicams, I’ve started to realise that I want:
10x or more optical zoom (digital zoom is rubbish, ignore it)
Quick burst shooting (for sport)
Adjustable white balance (to stop washed-out loking pictures in bright light)
Different ISO settings (light sensitivity to shoot in low-light)
Adjustable shutter speeds. (for moving vehicles, low light)
Whether I can get all that in a camera in my price range is another matter.
At the top end of your price range is the Kodak Z612 Easyshare (on sale for $482 at digital camera warehouse)
They seem to have good prices, so you might want to browse there and read Cnet Australia for good, detailed reviews. The Z612’s review is here http://www.cnet.com.au/digitalcameras/cameras/0,239036184,240090746,00.htm
The digital photography school has a guide on choosing a digicam or dSLR: http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/how-to-choose-the-right-digital-camera-for-you/
Another option might be to get a sub-$300 one at the moment and spend 6-9 months playing with that until desired features are better known. Main limitation I’ve found with the low-end cameras is poor image quality in low light.
No no! Don’t go with Kodak for digital! At this stage their image processing is way _way_ behind virtually every other manufacturer you care to name. They seem quite cheap from a specs perspective, but the images will not be the quality of a less tricked-out Olympus or Canon, for example.
In terms of what David is asking for, the Fuji s5600 at $350 at the moment is a bit of a bargain, in my opinion. It has both fully automatic and manual settings; ISO, F.stop, shutter speed, etc. plus a handy ten times optical zoom and a surprisingly powerful flash.
I bought one last year, and I’ve been very happy with its performance. The only thing is that if you want a camera with a decent optical zoom, they do tend to be relatively bulky.
That said, I use that zoom all the time, it has been invaluable, and the Fuji’s lens quality is excellent; it takes quite accurate pictures.
I’m into digi SLR myself, but the Olympus “Tough 770SW”, has a lot of very good reviews from fellow flyfishers, for its small size and waterproofness (is that a word?). Lots of evidence of excellent pics on the Flylife forum too.
Orally, would be my first recommendation. The rest is just embellishment.
One quick piece of advice is to forgo a few megapixels to be able to afford a slightly older model of a better make with a better lens.
Patrickg,
I have a Kodak DX6490 ( http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-locale=en_US&pq-path=1337 ) and I think it’s fantastic.
I have five friends and relatives who bought the same camera after seeing pics taken with mine.
I’ll take your word for it Ron, I haven’t used that particular camera.
I will say, however, that my experience with two Kodak digitals definitely bears out the standardised tests that shows the Z and P series putting out more noise than comparable models.
That said, I think generally, if you spend over three hundred on a camera, you’re going to be pretty happy with it, as long as you’re aware of what you want from it (i.e small cameras generally =shit flash, etc.)
patrickg, thanks for the idea of the s5600.
Looks pretty good except for no quick-burst shooting mode (as far as I can see from the review), but I’ll just have to watch closely instead of relying that.
At that price, I think I can handle that. On my watchlist.
I am in mourning for my last bottle of Laphroaig. Why didn’t I think of taking a picture. *sniff*
David,
From what you’re looking for, I think it’s probably the perfect camera for you at that kind of price point.
Oh yeah! It does have a burst mode.
You can take a look at the different Flickr photos people have taken with this bad boy here, but use another category than the “interesting” one, cause I think the other groups have better pics!
I’d put in a word for anything by Canon. Their Digic processor really is the bees knees for getting great results from cheapo hardware.
From someone who’s recently sunk around a grand into a DSLR after months of research (and about to spend more on lenses and accessories) get him the Fujifilm F30. It’s more expensive than the s5600 but has a better sensor, is not a brick with 10x zoom that would be a chore to lug around at night.
Only problem with Fuji cameras is they use the slightly more expensive xD card format.
Check prices for both on http://www.staticice.com.au. I suspect you’ll get both for under $500. If you subscribe to Choice Magazine Online, call them with the best price you find and they’ll try to beat it through their channels.
Kim,
Did they play a little Sublime with that cognac?
Even sweeter, patrickg! Wasn’t mentioned in the cnet.com.au review, so I wasn’t sure.
This shot of a batsman getting bowled in a local game http://www.flickr.com/photos/rexy85/275121765/, and this one of the ‘Gurge in the Valley Mall http://www.flickr.com/photos/schnannabel/243908266/ both look pretty sweet, and the sort of thing I’d be taking photos of.
Yes, 80% of flickr’s allegedly ‘interesting’ photos seem to be either:
1) Beautifully post-produced, but dull landscapes or sunsets
2) Closeups of flowers and insects
3) Attractive women.
4) Portraits of old people showing the ‘warmth and beauty within’.
YAWN! Obviously my taste does not co-incide with the majority of flickr users’.
The site http://www.dpreview.com/ is terrific for highly technical reviews,
comparisons from different cameras etc.
For specification I would curse any camera that does not have aperture priority. Many ‘Flash” photos look much much better at 1/40s F2.0 than
1/80s F4.0 with Flash.
Tony
A lot of these cameras sound much fancier than Mark needs, at least in a first digital camera. I suggest getting a just superceded Canon - mine cost about $400 recently and is the bomb. You don’t need more than the 5 or 6 megapixels you’ll get in that one unless you want to blow images up into posters. Ignore the digital zoom, for it is crap.
What is happening to that brandy snifter?
Is whatever it is a Brisbane thing?
Katz, it’s sitting on a glass of hot water. The idea is that you can move the brandy glass around on the water glass without the glass from which you’re drinking actually getting hot. But the cognac does!
I suspected it might be ice, given Brisbane’s climate.
No, but it was a pretty stinky night last night!
So many recommendations about digicams but what about Brisbane bars and restaurants?
(I’m heading north in March for a few weeks)
What sort of bars and restaurants do you like? Happy to give some recommendations!
Heh - I just thought the pic was a cute little sculpture you left on the table.
Cant take me anywhere….
Back to cameras, I see Myer are having a digital camera sale so I’m heading in there to check out what’s on offer!
Might be better to frame it against what I want to try to avoid: (a) Anywhere the bass is so strong it makes your chest vibrate like a cardboard diaphragm on a cheap speaker and (b) Bars where more than a third of the punters are wearing RM Williams boots.
Look for a special on D40 Nikon -see Phil’s rap.
One thing I found out when I bought a cheaper, pocket-size digicam a few weeks ago is: I would never buy one again that uses ordinary batteries!
The camera is a Canon and uses 4 AA’s in no time at all. I have started using rechargables but just the same it’s a pain.
Umm furthermore
Digital Photography Review is a great resource because when it comes down to it, you’re going to find a couple of cameras you like and you’ll just want to be sure you’re not buying a dud.
I wouldn’t worry about buying a low end SLR, get a nice shove in the bag camera and then when the time comes to spend a few bucks on an SLR it’ll still be there for crafty and casual shots.
-Aperature control/manual is really handy and rewarding but check the interface. If it’s buried under three layers of menus, it’s not worth having.
- being able to shoot in “raw” mode rather than just JPEG will improve picture quality (my 6 megapixel Nikon pic shot in raw mode looked fine as 1.5m high printed image.
-check the ISO goes up to 1600 if possible, the flash will inevitably be crap but you will be able to take some lovely low light grainy pics.
-factor in the cost of a memory card.
-macro is always fun
My personal preference is for Nikon - they’re made by very boring people that have a real engineering instinct and their interface is always very logical. Sony tends to be driven by marketing focus groups. Minolta have always made great everyday small cameras going back to the mju (Fuji, I think have also moved into the same group).
It’s always nice to check out the metadata on pics in flickr- some quite amazing pics have been taken with some very modest cameras.
Help! I’m luncheon meat.
While the canons others have referred to are very good, I’d look closely at some of the better very small cameras now available. I have an oldish Canon Powershot S1Is (the equivalent should be findable for under $500) with a 10x optical zoom, good anti-shake, burst shooting and a swing out viewfinder, great for unobtrusive shots. It takes very good photos but it is relatively bulky (although a lot smaller than an SLR) and the menuing is complex, not particularly intuitive.
My wife has recently acquired a tiny Casio Exilim s770 (about $500) which is actually better featured than the Canon, except that the zoom is only 3x optical. However, its a damm sight easier to use than the canon, it has the least shutter lag of any digital I’ve come across (and this is a big issue - cheap ones are really slow and the image has moved on before the camera operates), takes high quality pics and has a BIG viewscreen. The best thing is, it is tiny, small enough to carry in a shirt pocket, so you can carry it everywhere and hardly notice that its there. While I like the Canon’s lens, the question is always whether I could be bothered lugging it about.
So, for the photoblogging you are doing, I’d recommend at least considering the tiny cameras, as long as you get a good one - its very much a case of what you pay for is what you get.
I hardly know Brisvegas - rarely get there these days - but have very fond memories of drinking XXXX pulled from a wooden keg, and eating a truly splendid steak washed down with a bottle of Hill of Grace at the Breakfast Creek Hotel many years ago - back when I could still afford the H of G!
“Casio Exilim s770 (about $500)”
I noticed this afternoon that they are selling on eBay for around $370. They look like a really nice camera.
I like the idea of a very small camera that I can carry in my pocket all the time.
My partner and I moved to europe a few months ago and splurged on a Fujifilm s9500. We’ve found the wide angle lens particularly useful for group photos, landscapes, interior shots and, well, anything that you might want a wide angle lens for. It’s good for everything from point-and-shoot up. May be it’s little over your budget, but the s6500 (not the s5600 mentioned by patrickg) has a similar lens, similar functionality, with less megapixels. Could be a goer?
At the time we we’re also looking at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7, but maybe things have moved on since then.
Have to disagree about the batteries, Ron. Maybe its something about the camera your using, but I’ve had no such troubles with batteries going flat, however we did spend a small fortune on good rechargeble batteries. And another advantage of AAs is that if you do run out of charge, you have the option of buying some (usually overpriced) fresh ones. No such luxury with the Li-ion batteries.
Sorry, guys, but this is too delicious.
Cognac properly served?
Tell me, was it shaken, not stirred, or maybe heated-up to a nice fumy consistency?
An “intimidatingly efficinet maitresse’d”?
Times maybe tough, but it’s nice to see that some people at least are still observing the propieties.
Hope some Twat Hendo or Alan Jones doesn’t get hold of this, we got enough grief over the Chardonnay and Latte-quaffing.
So mebbie next time you get the urge to eat cake with Louis XVI, Marie……………..Keep it to yourself.
My recollection of the Casio camera model number I referred to earlier was wrong, it’s actually an EX-Z700, not a 770. It should be possible to pick this model up for a lot less than $500. Length and width is about the size of a standard business card, about as thick as a box of matches. I have to admit it was a purchase perhaps not as well researched as it should have been, a late bought Christmas gift, but it’s fast to power up, has minimal shutter lag and produces some very good shots. The recipient is rapt with it, carries it with her all the time and uses it regularly, largely because it’s always to hand. For low light use though, it may not be the best choice because of “noise”at ISO settings higher than 200, which is noticeable, particularly with enlargements.
The point of course is to have a close look at the ultra compacts, they have a lot going for them if you want to carry a decent camera with you all the time but are deterred by the bulk of a much larger but more highly specified device.
What Zoe said about these ’sounding much fancier than Mark needs, at least in a first digital camera.’ But the reason I recommend the Fuji over Canon is that it’s better for low light shooting. All this talk of Casio, Nikon, Panasonic and whatever else everyone is really proud of/lust after isn’t very useful if (a) the camera will sit in your tipsy hand, pointing unsteadily at Cognac in a dim, smokey bar at 2am and you don’t want the result to look all washed out because of the flash, and (b) your budget maxes out at $500. If not, maybe consider some of these.
The key things are to figure out what features are important to you.
One of the more significant tradeoffs is between being able to shove the camera in your pocket, and having a big telephoto lens (as others have pointed out, optical zoom is the only meaningful figure).
Flash performance, and low light performance, is another area where the cameras differ significantly.
I went to Myer last night with my friend Cazbah, who’s a big flickr fan (and some readers might recall my comment on her photo being included in the Brisbane 2007 Lord Mayors’ Photography Prize exhibition) and she suggested two cameras on sale at Myer might be the go - the Sony DSCW07 for $429 and the Canon IXUS60 for $404. Both have 3x optical zoom, and she was saying very much the same stuff as others here about night time photography and ease of carrying/use. Next tip is to hit user feedback boards on the net. I figure another $70 or so will have to be added for a memory card and case.
Going back up to Pussycat’s bar/restaurant recommendations, I might do a separate post on that. But we had dinner at Pane e Vino (corner of Albert and Charlotte sts in the City) last night which is about the best place to eat in town for value and yummy pasta - the special I had last night was fetuccinne with sauteed broccoli, anchovies, chilli and spinach for $17. Reasonable wine list too. There’s a dearth of good places to eat in the city if you’re in transit to the bus or train or going to a fillum or something - lots of pretentious bar/bistroes full of suits and upscale silver servicey type places but not too many good joints where the food is excellent and the prices not too steep - bloody fine desserts too - I had caramel and macademia pudding.
Thanks Mark - I’ll keep an eye out for the post.
As to eating well without going to either the gold amex or vinyl tablecloth extremes, it’s a problem you’ll come across in a few places - Hobart had a particularly virulent bout of it a few years back.