New Camera Help!

[katied]

I'm looking for a new camera. I currently have a Cannon Powershot A520. I've had it for a while, and there are two things that I really don't like about it: 1) it takes a long time to actually take the picture after you push the button; 2) it takes a long time to be able to take a second picture after the first.

We just had a baby, and I hate missing all the cute pictures because the camera is just too slow. We'll be heading to WDW in December, so I'd like to get something well before then, so I'm comfortable using it and can get great pictures.

My main criteria (in order of importance):

1. Take pictures as soon as I push the button.
2. Take second/third/fourth pictures right away (without long delay).
3. Easy to use - ideally, I like to have preset photo options for different types of shots that I can just switch to, as I know nothing about how to use a camera other than point and shoot.
4. Compact (I know this may not be possible with 1 & 2, but it would be really nice).

Can anyone give me an idea of what type of camera would meet my needs (and price range)? Any help/advice is greatly appreciated!!!

Thank you!

 

[JR6ooo4]

Medium size cameras have substantial benefits over something that will fit in a shirt pocket. I am only familiar with the Canon S3. My DW has the S2.

check out the review here

the camera has good optical zoom, image stabilization, burst mode, video clips... among other things.
Mikeeee

 

[GrumpyOne]

You can take a look at www.dpreview.com for reviews of many cameras that include timings. Most of us only have had access to a small percentage of what's out there and while loving (or hating) a particular model is expected, it doesn't really relate to all of the others out there.

Timing from camera off until shot taken and frames per second (fps) assuming you just hold the shutter release down:

Point & Shoot

Canon S3 IS: 2.3s, up to 2.3 fps
Fuji 6000 fd: 2.0s, 2.2 fps
Panasonic FZ8: 2.7s, 1.5 fps
Panasonic FZ50: 1.6s, up to 2 fps

DSLRs

Pentax 100D: 1.2s, 2.8 fps
Canon 400D: .1s, 3 fps (supposedly can use stored settings and take a shot before the LCD comes on)
Nikon 80D: .1s, 3 fps (perpetual sleep mode)

As you can see, your first two criteria are best solved in the lower end of the DSLRs. You'd spend a bit more than you would for a pocket clicker but not much more than you would for a high-end point & shoot. One thing that P&S cameras do well that DSLRs don't do at all though is take movies. If you might want to take movies with the camera, you may need to limit yourself to one of the P&S models.

Overall, if you have the extra money and don't care about movies, I'd go with the Canon 400D (Digital Rebel XTi) or the Nikon 80D. There are several users of these cameras here. The Pentax 100D is significantly cheaper than either of the Canon or Nikon if money is a concern.

If movies are important or if your budget keeps you under $500, I'd look closer at either the Panasonic FZ50 or the Fuji 6000.

 

[ukcatfan]

Timing from camera off until shot taken and frames per second (fps) assuming you just hold the shutter release down:

Point & Shoot

Canon S3 IS: 2.3s, up to 2.3 fps
Fuji 6000 fd: 2.0s, 2.2 fps
Panasonic FZ8: 2.7s, 1.5 fps
Panasonic FZ50: 1.6s, up to 2 fps

DSLRs

Pentax 100D: 1.2s, 2.8 fps
Canon 400D: .1s, 3 fps (supposedly can use stored settings and take a shot before the LCD comes on)
Nikon 80D: .1s, 3 fps (perpetual sleep mode)

As you can see, your first two criteria are best solved in the lower end of the DSLRs. You'd spend a bit more than you would for a pocket clicker but not much more than you would for a high-end point & shoot. One thing that P&S cameras do well that DSLRs don't do at all though is take movies. If you might want to take movies with the camera, you may need to limit yourself to one of the P&S models.

I am pretty sure that the OP is talking about the shutter delay instead of the power on to first shot that you listed. There are some p&s cameras that have become pretty good at this as well, but DSLRs still have the advantage there. It is practically instant with any DSLR.

Kevin

 

[GrumpyOne]

I am pretty sure that the OP is talking about the shutter delay instead of the power on to first shot that you listed.

That could be. Getting it turned on to the point where a picture can be taken is usually the slowest part of the process for a non-DSLR and if you have to take a pic RIGHT NOW, it could be frustrating. Which is why I listed it.

 

[tinksdad]

The darn shutter delay is the main reason I upgraded to a DSLR after several PnS!! (that and my old PnS died....) Try it, you won't regret it!!

 

[Groucho]

I don't think the OP is looking for a "big zoom" camera and would be best with a smaller 3-4x zoom PnS. The speed of the camera has nothing to do with how much zoom there is, if anything, it can take a longer-zoom camera longer to focus because of the great range it has to move through.

Fujis will have the top image quality, followed by any competition with their larger sensor (like the Canon A6xx-series), followed by everyone else.

Most all current ones have very good shutter lag performance.

 

[katied]

Sorry to sound a bit stupid here - but shutter lag is the delay between pushing the button on the camera, and the camera actually taking the picture? If so, then that is my main issue. If I don't find a new camera soon, I think my husband will smash the old one in frustration, and then we won't have anything...

Then, there is also a substantial delay between one picture and then taking the next. Do I understand that with some cameras, you can just hold the button down and it takes multiple pictures in a row (e.g., 3 per second based on Groucho's post)?

I don't care about movies, and I'm willing to trade the small size for better performance (now that I'm carrying around a large diaper bag and stroller, being able to fit a camera in a pocket is not such a big deal anymore).

Thanks! I'll start looking into these suggestions. Any other comments/info greatly appreciated.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Sorry to sound a bit stupid here - but shutter lag is the delay between pushing the button on the camera, and the camera actually taking the picture? If so, then that is my main issue. If I don't find a new camera soon, I think my husband will smash the old one in frustration, and then we won't have anything...

Then, there is also a substantial delay between one picture and then taking the next. Do I understand that with some cameras, you can just hold the button down and it takes multiple pictures in a row (e.g., 3 per second based on Groucho's post)?

You are correct. Shutter lag is the delay between pressing the button and actually taking the shot. Most of the newer P&Ss are pretty good; roughly a 3rd of a second on the Sony/Fuji/Canon models.

And, with most of them, it's even faster if you half-press the shutter button while composing the shot -- nearly instantaneous from there. You can get your focus and setting "pre-set" and then hold the shutter button waiting for the proper moment to actually shoot. In any case, they're pretty quick.

Most of the "advanced" P&S cameras also have continuous or burst modes. Continuous mode (like the Canon S3) will just keep shooting (2.3fps) until your card fills up. Burst mode will take a preset number of shots (usually 3 or 5) and then either stop or slow down.

I like the continuous mode of my S3 better than burst modes.

I don't care about movies, and I'm willing to trade the small size for better performance (now that I'm carrying around a large diaper bag and stroller, being able to fit a camera in a pocket is not such a big deal anymore).

All of the advanced P&S do movies ... some are really good ... but you're generally limited to only a few minutes because of the size of memory cards.

But, it *is* a nice feature to be able to do both (especially on vacation). Even a couple minutes of video of your kids meeting their favorite characters can be worth a lot!

 

[Groucho]

Most of the "advanced" P&S cameras also have continuous or burst modes. Continuous mode (like the Canon S3) will just keep shooting (2.3fps) until your card fills up. Burst mode will take a preset number of shots (usually 3 or 5) and then either stop or slow down.

Actually, I believe that they are exactly the same thing, just different terms - "continuous" being the "correct" term while "burst" is more of a nickname.

My camera certainly can't take photos until the card is full, yet it is certainly considered to have a continuous shooting mode.

To the OP... best thing to do is to check out a store and get a feel for the reponsiveness of some of the current PnS cameras. DSLRs will generally be a little bit quicker across the board (as well as have better image quality, especially in low light), at the cost of size and expense.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Actually, I believe that they are exactly the same thing, just different terms - "continuous" being the "correct" term while "burst" is more of a nickname.

I see the "continuous" as what my S3 has ... so long as I hold down the shutter it goes full speed (2.3fps) until I fill up the SD card. With a slower card it starts to slow down after about 12 pics (L/fine or 25 M/fine) ... with an UltraII it just keeps going.

"Burst," IMO, is when the camera is *designed* to take a preset number of quick shots before slowing down. I think some of the Fuji's have a Top 3 ... which takes three quick shots but immediately slows down. Some other camera have what they call "5-shot burst" ... it doesn't matter how fast of an SD card you put in them, they can only do 5 fast shots at a time.

Personally, I like cameras with (my definition of) "continuous" over "burst."

My camera certainly can't take photos until the card is full, yet it is certainly considered to have a continuous shooting mode.

If it's just depending on the buffer size and the speed of your SD card, it's certainly a continuous mode.

Even the new Canon Mark III can only take about 100-110 shots at 10fps before it has to slow down....

 

[Master Mason]

Even the new Canon Mark III can only take about 100-110 shots at 10fps before it has to slow down....

That's pretty limiting you think they would work on that

My XT in Large/Raw mode will take 3fps and after 5 shuts down while it writes to the card. I wish it was a bit more, but it works for now.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

That's pretty limiting you think they would work on that

I wonder how close they are to the physical limits of how fast you can move a mirror in a camera body?

My XT in Large/Raw mode will take 3fps and after 5 shuts down while it writes to the card. I wish it was a bit more, but it works for now.

Sure, it's also writing RAW. And, how many MP is that ... probably more than the 6MP in my S3? I can't use continuous shooting when I write RAW (using the firmware hack) ... it takes about a second to write an entire RAW file, and that happens after the normal JPG processing....

I've come to the conclusion that RAW really isn't for me ... no amount of RAW PP on my part has rendered a pic that's better than the JPGs I get from my S3's DIGIC II!

 

[Groucho]

I wonder how close they are to the physical limits of how fast you can move a mirror in a camera body?

The mirror stays up for as long as the shots are taken, it doesn't go up and down after each shot. The mirror just lets you see through the viewfinder, it's not necessary for the actual picture-taking process.

It's more a function of how quickly the camera's electronics can move the large quantities of data (requiring fast memory), process it (requiring fast CPU), and write it to the card (fast card and the ability to use it to the max.) I think that the latter is usually the weak link in the chain, so that's where a big buffer comes into play - I don't think there's currently any card that can handle accepting 10fps at very high resolution at full speed.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

The mirror stays up for as long as the shots are taken, it doesn't go up and down after each shot. The mirror just lets you see through the viewfinder, it's not necessary for the actual picture-taking process.

Yeah, I know the mirror's only for the viewfinder, but if it doesn't flip down after each shot, doesn't that mean that you are "blind" from the moment you start taking high-speed shots?

How can you tell you're still on-target if you can't see what you're shooting?

It's more a function of how quickly the camera's electronics can move the large quantities of data (requiring fast memory), process it (requiring fast CPU), and write it to the card (fast card and the ability to use it to the max.) I think that the latter is usually the weak link in the chain, so that's where a big buffer comes into play - I don't think there's currently any card that can handle accepting 10fps at very high resolution at full speed.

The Mark III's got 2 image processors to get that speed. I guess they must alternate.

And, I think you're right ... I doubt if even a 130x SDCard could transfer at that speed ... the camera's probably just got a huge buffer. It's probably starting to write to the card (as fast as it can) when you hear it slowing down (in the YouTube video).

 

[katied]

Not that I followed everything in this latest string, but do I understand that I should also look at the speed of my memory card when I buy a new camera (and perhaps buy a new memory card too)? Does that slow down the whole process as well?

I'm still on the fence between DSLR and PnS. I think the main thing it will come down to is the speed of taking pictures, and also the ease of use. (If I can't fingure out how to take pictures with it, it doesnt matter how fast it can take the pictures, I guess). Also, some posters have made good points about the option of shooting short video. I've never used this option before, but then again, I've never had a baby before either, so I'm rethinking my desire to take video clips...

Thanks again, this is great info! I've spent a lot of time on the online reviews and narrowed down some options between DSLR and PnS, so next stop will be a store to check things out. One of my friends has the Canon Rebel, and speaks very highly of it.

 

[ukcatfan]

I've come to the conclusion that RAW really isn't for me ... no amount of RAW PP on my part has rendered a pic that's better than the JPGs I get from my S3's DIGIC II!

I have a feeling that it is due to the software not having a RAW profile for that camera. You might want to search the support forums for your RAW converter to see if anyone developed one. I doubt any developer would go through the trouble to support a hacked RAW file due to limited demand, but a user might. As soon as I got my K100D, it was not officially supported by ACR, but it would open them. They looked horrible. No amount of tweaking could make them right. Then they released the official support for it and everything was fine. Check out Bibble if you have not yet. It is a little more complicated, but can also be more powerful IMO.

Not that I followed everything in this latest string, but do I understand that I should also look at the speed of my memory card when I buy a new camera (and perhaps buy a new memory card too)? Does that slow down the whole process as well?

I'm still on the fence between DSLR and PnS. I think the main thing it will come down to is the speed of taking pictures, and also the ease of use. (If I can't fingure out how to take pictures with it, it doesnt matter how fast it can take the pictures, I guess). Also, some posters have made good points about the option of shooting short video. I've never used this option before, but then again, I've never had a baby before either, so I'm rethinking my desire to take video clips...

Thanks again, this is great info! I've spent a lot of time on the online reviews and narrowed down some options between DSLR and PnS, so next stop will be a store to check things out. One of my friends has the Canon Rebel, and speaks very highly of it.

You do not need to go overboard with fast memory cards. Even my DSLR seems to run just about as fast on a standard speed Kingston card as it does with my high speed cards(one of them is a high speed Kingston). Some cameras cannot even match the fast speeds, so it is wasted money for the faster card. I typically like to stay in the 50-60x range. Keep in mind that standard speed cards are not 1x speed. They might even be fast enough to be considered around 20-30x. Plus, two brands at the same speed usually do not even match up in speed when tested. It is really a measuring system that can be meaningless. Look more towards user reviews and warranty periods IMO.

The movie feature is fun to play with, but it is just that, playing. It cannot take serious video and the audio does not seem to compare to a real camcorder. The S5 is going to have a video mode getting darn close to a camcorder, but it is $499 compared to the S3 price of around $300. BTW... I still carry my S2 almost everywhere my K100D goes.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Not that I followed everything in this latest string, but do I understand that I should also look at the speed of my memory card when I buy a new camera (and perhaps buy a new memory card too)? Does that slow down the whole process as well?

The speed of the card generally only affects the speed of continuous shooting -- it affects how many pics I get at full-speed (2.3fps) until the camera starts to slow down; not shutter lag or turn-on-to-first-pic speed.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I have a feeling that it is due to the software not having a RAW profile for that camera. You might want to search the support forums for your RAW converter to see if anyone developed one. I doubt any developer would go through the trouble to support a hacked RAW file due to limited demand, but a user might. As soon as I got my K100D, it was not officially supported by ACR, but it would open them. They looked horrible. No amount of tweaking could make them right. Then they released the official support for it and everything was fine. Check out Bibble if you have not yet. It is a little more complicated, but can also be more powerful IMO.

Yeah, the only thing I've got to work with is UFRaw and The GIMP 2.0....

They seem to work OK, but I still like the camera's JPGs better!

The movie feature is fun to play with, but it is just that, playing. It cannot take serious video and the audio does not seem to compare to a real camcorder. The S5 is going to have a video mode getting darn close to a camcorder, but it is $499 compared to the S3 price of around $300. BTW... I still carry my S2 almost everywhere my K100D goes.

I'm not sure if they did anything to the movie mode between the S2 and the S3, but as far as I know the only change to the S5 over the S3 is the upper limit of 4G per video clip.

The stereo sound on the S3 is excellent, and the quality of the video at 640x480/30fps is as good as any camcorder in the same range ... heck, it's better than some!