help! my wife wants a digital camera

[adrian tyler]

i know its not large format, but if i get one of these things for my wife, i know i'm going to end up using it, so i'd rather get a good one...

any suggestions for an excellent fixed lens compact digital camera would be greatly appreciated.

thanks

http://adriantyler.net/

ps. i've just paid 600$ processing and printing 35mm family snaps (backed up since summer) so budget is flexible.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

Fuji F30 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/)

[julian]

I'm close to buying a sony r1...

[Struan Gray]

Buy her a slightly bigger handbag, and then a Pentax K100D or K110D and a pancake lens.

[Mark Carney]

Nikon S-10 or S-4

[Frank Petronio]

We had a few Nikon and Canon and Kodak minis in our family -- they were all impossible to decipher without study (although the Kodak is the easiest interface). But I really like the camera that Jack Flescher suggested -- a Panasonic Lumix FX07 or equivilant. The same camera that Leica rebadges for twice the price.

It is compact, simple, and well designed and built. The jpgs seem very nice.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/

[Walter Calahan]

I like the little credit card cameras. I have a Nikon Coolpix S1, but they don't make that anymore. Good luck.

[Leonard Evens]

I would suggest either spending as little as possible or getting a low end DSLR. The Nikon D40, for example, looks like it won't cost any more than many consumer grade digital cameras. I used a consumer grade digital for several years, but I found it unsatisfying even for routine family pictures. Eventually I got a D70, which I'm happy with.

[adrian tyler]

struan, i already did the handbag thing...

she has a high end nikon digital slr in her restoration studio and outsorces all her 4x5 and 8x10 requirements to specialist painting photographers.

there is no way i'm getting out of this one!!!

thanks for the help so far

[John Kasaian]

Canon Elph. My Bride's SD-200 finally wore out its switch so it goes on video mode after each shot(after about 6 or 7 years of hard use), so I got her the new SB- 7-something or 800 (I think---its the one with the bigger screen) for her birthday (its already wrapped up--shhh!)

[alec4444]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2. Leica glass, great display, uncomplicated interface, good size. You can get her the Leica D-Lux 3 (same thing) if you think she'd appreciate the Leica branding more. Even I wouldn't mind getting one of those under the tree.

--A

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah, that is the one. Those stupid Lumix naming conventions are confusing.

Actually all the digicam naming conventions are confusing. Why can't they come up with cool names like Wollensak, Zeiss, and Schneider did back in the day?

[Arne Croell]

Yup, get the Lumix LX-2. It even has a RAW mode. I have used a Lumix FX-7 as a snappycam since 2.5 years, and it was a nice toy for what it is made for.

[Brian Ellis]

There isn't much of a "photography" industry left any more. Cameras, lenses, etc. are now a sub-set of "home entertainment" or "consumer electronics." But just to help what little is left of it, I've bought digital stuff from companies that at least used to be in the photography business such as Nikon, Canon, et al rather than Sony, Hitachi, etc.

Within a given price range you'll find little difference among the various brands. They're all ridiculously complicated with massive owners' manuals, tiny buttons that are too small to use without hitting two others simultaneously, and weird little symbols stuck all over the camera. FWIW, I've bought three digital cameras for my wife, one Olympus and two Canons, all in the $300 - $400 price range. They've all worked fine but that's partly because my wife just puts everything on "auto" and doesn't use any of the features.

The only thing I'd try to check out if you're comparing models (other than the obvious things like size of the viewing screen, # of mps, etc.) is shutter lag. That's gotten better on the consumer digital cameras but it still can be an aggravation with some of them. It's also a good idea to buy shortly after a new model of the camera you're considering hits the market. If you buy the previous version you'll get a better price and still have basically the same camera as the current version.

[Al Seyle]

I have a DMC-LX1 and it has three problems: (1) Noise at anything above iso 100 and (2), body thickness--the ring around the lens protrudes, adding to overall body thickness more than most. Still pocketable, but not really shirt-pocketable; (3) significant barrel distortion at wide angle. But it will shoot RAW. Working within these limitations, it does an excellent job and perhaps the new model has fixed these things...

[Ron Marshall]

Why don't you go for a dSLR, some, Nikon D50, are under $500 with lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=1082&A=details&Q=&sku=407328&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

They are more bulky but much more versatile and better high ISO noise.

[bruce terry]

I occasionally borrow a family digital. One is a slim, 2 yr old Cybershot, the other a 1 yr old boxy-ish Canon 5-pixel with extending tele, to-the-forhead rangefinder and turnable screen. It is killer. Much steadier in hand than the oversized-pack-of-playing-cards Sony whose heralded flatness accents every vibration of your hand and body and brain (mine a loose one). Thus, the Canon images (can be blown up on screen and go-no-go'd for sharpness on site) are on average much, much sharper.

The slight bulk of 'Canon-size' is well worth losing Cybersnapper pocketability - unless your digi must go in a small handbag.

[Robert Hall]

How about a Olympus Stylus Epic. $80, 2.8 lens, 35mm Film so you will never lose your images to a hard disk crash.

Take them to Costco and get a cd with processing.

[adrian tyler]

got her one of them robert about 5 years ago, i'm not gonna get out of this one, she wants a digital...

[Tom Micklin]

Yup, get the Lumix LX-2. It even has a RAW mode.
I'm about to buy one of these for myself. For those times when LF isn't handy. Fits in a pocket, Leica glass, shoots RAW, not horribly expensive.....a lot to love.
Tom

[walter23]

Smaller is better with these things. Don't get sucked into the marketing hype that surrounds the big fancy SLR-looking ones - most of them don't have the principle advantage of SLRs which is the larger sensor with lower noise (large is relative here especially amongst this crowd ;)). So if you're getting a compact, realize they all have pretty much the same limitations and get a tiny one that you can throw in the smallest pocket possible. Are you really going to use manual exposure controls on such a simple and limited camera? Probably not. The all-automated ones have "shooting modes" which you can exploit by guessing what they do in real terms - e.g. "sports" will give you a high shutter speed priority, "portraits" will try for narrow DOF with maximum aperture, landscape will probably set high saturation and smaller aperture, etc. You can use all these things out of context when needed and have a bit of control over the workings even if there's no manual setting. Most of them also have exposure compensation, so it's pretty straightforward to get the results you want within the limitations.

There is that sony one that has the large APS-C sized sensor, but again you're losing the other principle advantage of an SLR which is the interchangable lens mount. You may as well forego it and opt for something like a canon SDxxx which is very compact, or any of a number of other brands. I'm biased against sony because of their proprietary and expensive storage media (memory sticks) - get something that takes a standard, non-proprietary SD card.

Just be very careful lest you start wondering why you're carrying 50 lbs of large format gear around on your back (I went the opposite route - from digital to large format - so digital is not an irreversible decision ;)).

[David Karp]

Yup, get the Lumix LX-2. It even has a RAW mode. I have used a Lumix FX-7 as a snappycam since 2.5 years, and it was a nice toy for what it is made for.

Funny, I was going to make this same post later today. I am looking for something that has an optical viewfinder, can give files that will be capable of making good 8x10 prints, a fairly wide angle on the wide end (28mm or so), and little or minimal shutter lag. Does this thing exist?

Am I correct in reading the specs that the LX-2 does not have an optical viewfinder? If that is true, then it is the only thing that keeps this from being an almost ideal digital point and shoot.

[Neal Shields]

I had the same problem so I took my Kodak gray scale to the camera store and did tests. The only camera with enough dynamic range for my taste was the Fuji.

I ended up getting here the Fuji 900


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixe900z.asp

It also has the advantage of using AAs. and has a view finder all of which were important to me.

[roteague]

Just be very careful lest you start wondering why you're carrying 50 lbs of large format gear around on your back (I went the opposite route - from digital to large format - so digital is not an irreversible decision ;)).


I never have to worry about that. Even those times when I am only carrying my Nikon F5 35mm camera, I'm still thinking about shooting my LF camera.

[John Dziadecki]

Anyone have any experience with the Olympus SP-350? John

[Greg Lockrey]

Sony makes a pretty decient camera for the buck too. And they have Zeiss glass. I have a pair of V1's married together for my stereo camera. The R1's are supposed to be pretty good.

[alec4444]

Why don't you go for a dSLR, some, Nikon D50, are under $500 with lens...They are more bulky but much more versatile and better high ISO noise.

If I was forced to buy a Digital SLR today (and thank goodness I'm not) I'd actually end up with a Canon. The full-frame CMOS sensor makes a big difference...otherwise you'll have to sit there and mentally calculate that your 100mm lens is really like 118mm (I'm making up these numbers). "I don't care" you may say until you find out that your ultra-expensive ultra-wide lens isn't now just an ultra-expensive not-that-wide lens.

I feel even more strogly, however, that a DSLR is a bad investment today given that the resolution increases and the price falls every single year. If you have to have the latest and greatest though (and I was once there myself) I understand.

--A

[jackies]

I carry the Panasonic DMC LX1 in my pocket or purse all the time. Also have the Sony DSC R1 which has been really nice to work with. Larger sensor and more options for printing various sizes.

Personally, I am just about fed up with all the digital hype. It is expensive, everything you buy is obsolete in 2-3 years and fraught with technical problems. I keep carrying them because I am still freaked out about missing my shots with LF. Some day I will let digital go and be free....

Jackie

[Saulius]

I didn't read through all the responses but in case nobody has mentioned a good source of information it http://dpreview.com/
I myself am thinking of getting the canon 30D.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos30d.asp

[Ralph Upchurch]

I concur about the Lumix/Leica. I have the Leica D-Lux 2 , and liked it so much I bought the newer version Lumix for my daughter, and the Leica D-Lux 3 for my wife. Its true about noise at higher ISO: I leave mine on 80 all the time. But the kicker for me was RAW. Its the smallest camera with RAW, and the 16:9 aspect option is fun too. Wide angle equivalent of 28mm in 35mm terms. It also takes remarkably good digital video.

[John Flavell]

Do NAASCAR drivers go through the same angst when buying a family car for the spouse?

[C. D. Keth]

I think you should come home one way witha scanning back for 4x5 and say "This is digital, right?";)

[Kirk Keyes]

Do NAASCAR drivers go through the same angst when buying a family car for the spouse?

Of course not... but Formula One drivers do.

[adrian tyler]

thanks very much for all the ideas, much as i'd like to get her a full on dslr, a technica 3000 or a deardorf 8x10 with 10 darkslides, it looks like santa's gonna get her the lumix...

adrian
http://adriantyler.net/