Which camera is best?

serco

Hi

Im looking to buy a camera in the next day or two. Dont really know anything about camera in general so thought someone here could help. Im looking for something compact but i dont want to go so small that features and qualities are drastically reduced. So i have narrowed it down to 3 which have got mixed reviews from what i can see but the canon ixus 85 seems to fair best. The camera will just be for point and shoot type stuff, nothing too fancy.

So the list is

Canon ixus 85
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd770is.asp


Fuji F60 FD
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08081202fujifilmf60fd.asp


Canon Powershot A2000 IS
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_a2000is.asp


thanks

nilhg

DPreview recently did some compact camera group reviews, there is all the info you need to make a good choice in there

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


Personally I've always liked the fuji compacts that my girls had.

CabanSail

Both Fuji & Canon are very good brands.

The specs look quite similar on all three. The 85 seems has the face detection, which works quite well on my G9. I assume it would be much the same technology.

Both the Canons have 10MP sensors whereas the Fuji is 12MP, so for a compact I would favour the Canons on that score.

It really comes down to the bottom line.

coylemj

CabanSail wrote: »

Both the Canons have 10MP sensors whereas the Fuji is 12MP, so for a compact I would favour the Canons on that score.

That's an interesting point, are you saying that less is more? You prefer the Canons because they are 10Mp vs. 12Mp on the Fuji.

Discuss.

CabanSail

Simple really.

On small sensors the pixel density is getting so tight that it is introducing noise.

However .... Having a higher number of MP is an easy way for sales jocks who know stuff all about photography to impress punters on the other side of the counter to part with more cash. This allows the punters, who know less about photography than the sales jocks, to play the "mines bigger than yours" game next time they are out with their mates. So basically it sells, so the marketing people, who also know stuff all about photography, demand more MP so they can sell more units.

coylemj

Interesting, very interesting. So what you're saying is that in terms of pixels, up to a certain point is good but beyond that you're buying trouble, diminishing returns and all that.

TelePaul

coylemj wrote: »

Interesting, very interesting. So what you're saying is that in terms of pixels, up to a certain point is good but beyond that you're buying trouble, diminishing returns and all that.

Not really a case of diminshing returns. A high pixel count is of benefit if you intend to print your pictures; the higher the pixel count, the bigger you can print without the image becoming pixelated. Of course, the majority of people end up viewing shots on a computers LCD, where the amount of pixels on offer becomes far less relevant.

sheesh

TelePaul wrote: »

Not really a case of diminshing returns. A high pixel count is of benefit if you intend to print your pictures; the higher the pixel count, the bigger you can print without the image becoming pixelated. Of course, the majority of people end up viewing shots on a computers LCD, where the amount of pixels on offer becomes far less relevant.

10 mp is plenty for printing the the question is how many times will you need to shoot in low light check how each of the cameras perform at high iso.

CabanSail

Also you have to consider how good the resolution of the lens is in compact cameras. They are made to a price. Good glass is expensive, denser sensors are cheaper.


IIRC the optimum sensor for a compact worked out about 6MP.

Thirdfox

I'm perfectly happy with my 6mp dSLR - though 2 extra mp isn't much...and Fuji is known for their super CCDs with better noise control than any other compact brand out there (though Canon isn't bad either).

serco

thanks for all the comments. So basically it comes down to the bottom line and the performance at high ISO (ill check reviews to see how they cope).

the 2000 has 6 times optical zoom whereas the other have 3 times but it takes standard batteries and although some ppl might find this better id prefer to have a rechargeable one in the camera which i can just plug in to recharge. the 2000 is also a bit bigger and more expensive than the other two (not by much though).