Crunch time blues

[Marty Joe]

Greetings from Indiana,

I have a Canon Elan with a couple of zooms (75-300, ?-75) and a fixed 50. I also have a Sony Mavica that I use as a paper weight. To be honest, the Elan in a great camera, but at WDW, it is a PITA because of the size and switching of the lenses. It does not help that my DW and DD are commandos and that it is nearly impossible to compose a shot without losing them.

I would like to get a nice, small digital that is a user friendly, park friendly camera. One that I can use one-handed while running to keep up with DW and DD. (I love the fireworks shots I have seen on this forum - dare I try?). $$ is not really an issue, I will not be taking shots for magazines. Maybe some 8X10's for my tiki bar (or "getting hammered area").

I have just about decided on the Canon S3 IS but I can't take my eyes off the Sony H9. I try to stay away from the Ford or Chevy, Fender or Gibson, Beatles or Stones, or the Ginger or Mary Ann style of questions, but I NEEEEED to get this Camera soon. We leave in 12 days and I need time for the learning curve. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Polynesian or Bust!!!

 

[YEKCIM]

It does not help that my DW and DD are commandos and that it is nearly impossible to compose a shot without losing them.

My situation exactly! Of course, that's what cellphones are for...

There are a LOT of S3 enthusiasts on this forum and I doubt you could go wrong with one, unless you plan on a lot of low-light shooting, which is a problem for most PnS's. Also, for fireworks, a tripod is just about essential, though a pain to haul around the parks or have to retrieve from a locker.

~YEKCIM

 

[Groucho]

If you're moving from a 35mm SLR to a point-n-shoot digital camera, prepare to be disappointed in the quality of the photos, especially if you haven't used a digital camera before (and the old Mavica barely counts, which is probably why you're not using it. ) The main reason is the sensor size, which is comparable to the film size in the pre-digital days. Your 35mm film, for example, has approximately thirty-five times more surface area than the sensor in the S3 (and most other non-DSLR digital cameras.) True, comparing a digital sensor to film is not a purely apples-to-apples comparison, but you can see my point here. This will be especially true in low-light environments. You'll also find red-eye to be an issue with flash photos, due to the flash being so close to the lens; fortunately this issue is generally easily fixed in post-processing.

If you're after one-handed shooting, are you sure that a big-zoom like the S3 is going to be a good fit? Perhaps a pocket camera might work better for you.

 

[Marty Joe]

I may have exaggerated the "one-handed, shoot on the fly" thing! It's not quit that bad, although I have lost my family from time to time. My cell has gone off more than once with a frosty "where are you". The thing I believe I would like best about the Canon or Sony is that I can "dump" the bad shots. I still have rolls of 35mm film I have not developed yet from two years ago that I know most of the shots are a waste...

 

[YEKCIM]

I may have exaggerated the "one-handed, shoot on the fly" thing! It's not quit that bad, although I have lost my family from time to time. My cell has gone off more than once with a frosty "where are you". The thing I believe I would like best about the Canon or Sony is that I can "dump" the bad shots. I still have rolls of 35mm film I have not developed yet from two years ago that I know most of the shots are a waste...

Man, I'm having flashbacks just reading your posts! Sounds like me and my family four weeks from now! As Groucho has suggested, you may be disappointed with the results from a PnS, particularly low-light stuff, if you shoot much of that. If you don't mind the bulk/weight/cost of a dSLR, you might want to consider even an entry level (D40/XTi/K100D) and a good "walkabout" lens. The results will be more consistent with what you may be familiar with, with your film SLR and you can dump shots from a dSLR as easily (maybe even more so) as a PnS.

Having said that, though, I would think the S3 or the H9 would be fine, particularly if you don't have high expectations in the area of low light photography.

~YEKCIM

 

[Groucho]

YEKCIM is probably biting his tongue, so I'll say it. If you're interested in a long-zoom, also check the Fuji S6000fd. It's got a much larger sensor than the Sony and Canon and can do much better in low-light. It's also got a real DSLR feel, complete with an actual zoom ring - but this requires two hands. It's probably a little bit larger than an S3 as well. It also takes the more expensive xD cards, and doesn't have image stabilization, but its much better high-ISO performance goes a long way towards making that not a big issue, especially since that high-ISO will help whenever taking pictures of moving objects or when you're moving, unlike the IS of the Sony/Canon. Furthermore, it's cheaper - currently about $250 after rebate.

If you want a pocket camera, the Fuji F31 has the same sensor, so has the same advantages. There are about a zillion pocket digicams out there though, so choosing one can be a little more difficult. But if you're concerned about size, that might be the way to go - the only real downside is that you lose some zoom, but if you're taking mostly family photos, that's not really an issue.

 

[YEKCIM]

YEKCIM is probably biting his tongue, so I'll say it. If you're interested in a long-zoom, also check the Fuji S6000fd. It's got a much larger sensor than the Sony and Canon and can do much better in low-light. It's also got a real DSLR feel, complete with an actual zoom ring - but this requires two hands. It's probably a little bit larger than an S3 as well. It also takes the more expensive xD cards, and doesn't have image stabilization, but its much better high-ISO performance goes a long way towards making that not a big issue, especially since that high-ISO will help whenever taking pictures of moving objects or when you're moving, unlike the IS of the Sony/Canon. Furthermore, it's cheaper - currently about $250 after rebate.

If you want a pocket camera, the Fuji F31 has the same sensor, so has the same advantages. There are about a zillion pocket digicams out there though, so choosing one can be a little more difficult. But if you're concerned about size, that might be the way to go - the only real downside is that you lose some zoom, but if you're taking mostly family photos, that's not really an issue.

What he said

~YEKCIM

 

[Marty Joe]

I appreciate your input...

 

[Anewman]

... and doesn't have image stabilization, but its much better high-ISO performance goes a long way towards making that not a big issue, especially since that high-ISO will help whenever taking pictures of moving objects or when you're moving, unlike the IS of the Sony/Canon.

Lets not forget that at max zoom the Canon has a max aperture of F/3.5 while it is F/4.9 on the Fuji. Not saying that this negates the better High ISO performance of the Fuji, but combined with the very capable IS it helps.

And the focal range on the Canon is 36-420mm while it is 28-300mm on the Fuji, some may prefer one over the other.

 

[Anewman]

I try to stay away from the Ford or Chevy, Fender or Gibson, Beatles or Stones, or the Ginger or Mary Ann style of questions,

DODGE
FENDER
U2
Ginger

And Jeanie from "I dream of Jeanie" over Samantha from "Bewitched".

 

[Marty Joe]

Anewman,
What about Carol Post (Wilber's wife) from Mr. Ed!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

DODGE
FENDER
U2
Ginger

And Jeanie from "I dream of Jeanie" over Samantha from "Bewitched".

I'm still waiting until see Barbara Eden's naval before I decide.

 

[Groucho]

I'm still waiting until see Barbara Eden's naval before I decide.

At least one, if not both, of the later "I Dream of Jeannie" TV movies featured her bellybutton for all the eager men to finally see.

Better late than never!

Jeannie was not too shabby but I'll take Julie "Catwoman" Newmar when it comes to '60s TV lovelies.