Heybail
I'm unfortunately on the market for a new camera and I am terrible when it comes to shopping for one. I was hoping to get some help or recommendations.
In 2008 I got a Fujifilm Finepix J10 that I was very happy with.
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/specifications/j/finepix_j10/
In 2011 I got a SONY Cyber-shot DSCW730.
http://store.sony.com/p/Sony-Cyber-shot-W730-Camera/en/p/DSCW730/L
I'm looking for something similar. A point and shoot camera that takes nice pictures, is easy to use and will fit in my pocket.
4x or higher optical zoom.
15-16 megapixals or more.
Flash is a must.
Video capability is a must. I'd prefer it not be in MP4 format and I also liked being able to zoom in video.
I enjoyed the different modes that I got with the Fujifilm and used them all the time.
I also would like to have a panoramic mode.
I don't care about the brand or the color. I also don't have a particular price range in mind, as long as it's reasonable.
Thank you!
Answer
I like the Nikon P330, or if you are not concerned about pocket size, the P7700. They don't have the high megapixel count sensors you want, but their sensors are larger (in physical size - not megapixels), which means better low-light capability.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-Black/dp/B00BOZCSQE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373104991&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+p330
Besides, anything above 10Mp is overkill these days anyway. For proof, the $6,000 Nikon D3s is only 12 Megapixels.
If you insist on a high megapixel sensor, you are losing out on a lot of fine cameras.
Besides, megapixels do not provide any indication about quality - they only give you a certain resolution. And it takes double the megapixels to notice any difference anyway, so the difference between 12 and 16 megapixels is negligible.
I like the Nikon P330, or if you are not concerned about pocket size, the P7700. They don't have the high megapixel count sensors you want, but their sensors are larger (in physical size - not megapixels), which means better low-light capability.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-Black/dp/B00BOZCSQE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373104991&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+p330
Besides, anything above 10Mp is overkill these days anyway. For proof, the $6,000 Nikon D3s is only 12 Megapixels.
If you insist on a high megapixel sensor, you are losing out on a lot of fine cameras.
Besides, megapixels do not provide any indication about quality - they only give you a certain resolution. And it takes double the megapixels to notice any difference anyway, so the difference between 12 and 16 megapixels is negligible.
High Speed still images from video!?
Carlyn
im wanting to find a video camera capable of producing video with high enough quality that i can take stills out of the video. the reason for this is im doing some sports and want some stills of precise points of impact of a bat and a ball. and i dont want to use my dslr. i want to be able to set up a camcorder in a certain position and let it sit while i take pics of different angles with my dslr.
will any camcorder compare to what a dslr can produce ?
my budget is about $1200 but if thats unrealistic i will have to go more but shooting for 1200.
and preferably a camera that a waterproof case can be purchased for.
Answer
It's probably not a good idea.
Know why?
The highest-resolution HD video is 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high. That's the equivalent of a 2-megapixel still camera. And that's the highest resolution image you could possibly pull out of a video file.
Additionally, stored digital video is "keyframed" -- the compression methods used to store digital video save an occasional full-resolution "keyframe" image, and then interpolate the succeeding images based on changes from the keyframe image for the next bunch of frames. Even the changes from the keyframe image are compressed (non-losslessly) as well. So for you to pick one arbitrary frame out very likely means you're not hitting a "keyframe," and are getting an interpolation -- so you won't even get a full 2MP image, you'll get a motion-compressed partial frame. Then there's rolling shutter artifacts, etc. to worry about...
The best way to do this is to get a sound/optical trigger, and use your DSLR. That will let you get the *exact* moment you want to capture, at high resolution and with no losses.
Here's one inexpensive piece of equipment that will help you do this:
http://www.makingitasapro.blogspot.com/2011/07/high-speed-flash-with-hiviz.html
Peace.
It's probably not a good idea.
Know why?
The highest-resolution HD video is 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high. That's the equivalent of a 2-megapixel still camera. And that's the highest resolution image you could possibly pull out of a video file.
Additionally, stored digital video is "keyframed" -- the compression methods used to store digital video save an occasional full-resolution "keyframe" image, and then interpolate the succeeding images based on changes from the keyframe image for the next bunch of frames. Even the changes from the keyframe image are compressed (non-losslessly) as well. So for you to pick one arbitrary frame out very likely means you're not hitting a "keyframe," and are getting an interpolation -- so you won't even get a full 2MP image, you'll get a motion-compressed partial frame. Then there's rolling shutter artifacts, etc. to worry about...
The best way to do this is to get a sound/optical trigger, and use your DSLR. That will let you get the *exact* moment you want to capture, at high resolution and with no losses.
Here's one inexpensive piece of equipment that will help you do this:
http://www.makingitasapro.blogspot.com/2011/07/high-speed-flash-with-hiviz.html
Peace.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: I'm looking for a new digital camera. Would like some help or recommendations?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment