«

So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500 five
megapixel point and shoot digitals? I am in the mood to buy one, a slim
one, to carry around with to catch photo opportunities I might not
otherwise get. I own a Canon 10D SLR, but do not carry it around with me
everywhere I go. Hence the need for a skinny small compact model.

I have seen most 5mpixel models going for $400-500, then today at a WalMart
I saw one from I think Vivatar at only $180. So what would I be giving up
except getting one cheaper? Hey at $180 if it last a year I would be happy;
seemed to have all the features of say a Canon ELPH, at least from the
outside. What am I not seeing?

Proteus wrote:
> So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500
> five megapixel point and shoot digitals?

For $500 you can get a 5MP camera with an image stabilised 36 - 432mm
lens - e.g. the Panasonic FZ5. Not in a $200 model, though.

David

Most importantly:
image quality!

---

eg. recently tested a Fujifilm f450 against a Sony DSC-P150 (set to 5MP
mode even though it's a 7MP camera). The images from the sharper,
better Carl-Zeiss lens on the Sony clearly produced better, sharper
photos with less spherical abberation vs. the F450's poorer lens.

David Chien wrote:

> Most importantly:
> image quality!
>
> ---
>
> eg. recently tested a Fujifilm f450 against a Sony DSC-P150 (set to 5MP
> mode even though it's a 7MP camera). The images from the sharper,
> better Carl-Zeiss lens on the Sony clearly produced better, sharper
> photos with less spherical abberation vs. the F450's poorer lens.


Is there somewhere one can see comparison tests of the $500 or less 5mp
cameras? That would be nice.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:12:31 -0500, Proteus wrote:

> So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500 five
> megapixel point and shoot digitals? I am in the mood to buy one, a slim
> one, to carry around with to catch photo opportunities I might not
> otherwise get. I own a Canon 10D SLR, but do not carry it around with me
> everywhere I go. Hence the need for a skinny small compact model.
>
> I have seen most 5mpixel models going for $400-500, then today at a WalMart
> I saw one from I think Vivatar at only $180. So what would I be giving up
> except getting one cheaper? Hey at $180 if it last a year I would be happy;
> seemed to have all the features of say a Canon ELPH, at least from the
> outside. What am I not seeing?

not sure where you're shopping to find "most 5mpixel models going for
$400-500". just checking walmart.com (since you mentioned walmart),
it seems that most of the 5mpixel cameras range from ~$250-350.mpixel

by way of comparison, for <$400 you can get the Casio Exilim EX-Z750
($369.95 @ B&H), which is a wonderful little 7.2mpixel camera. several of
my friends - some very serious (who use it when they don't want to haul
their D2X or D2H around), some who are interested in photography, but
mostly just take snaps in auto mode (but are interested in learning about
the manual controls), and others who will probably never use anything
other than fully automatic mode. one very nice thing about the Casio
Exilim EX series cameras I've used is the start-up time (or lack thereof),
and that there is virtually no shutter lag.

i know that i find myself very tempted to buy one (tho i really shouldn't),
because i've gotten very used being able to turn the camera on and take
a shot immediatly with my D70, that the 6-second boot time on my 4mpixel
point&shoot is starting to annoy the crap out of me. (the instant-on of my
ex-m20 that i use primarily as an mp3 player is great, but its only
2mpixel w/no optical zoom) the ex-z750 is also thinner and a bit more
pocket-friendly than my kodak ls-743 (which is nice -- especially for
the $60 i paid for it, when it was 50% off the clearance price at meijer,
but doesn't allow nearly as much control -- but that 6-sec turn-on
really sucks) still, even tho i bought the kodak with a "whatever its 60
bucks, thats practically disposable" attitude, i'd still feel almost a
little guilty about buying another p&s so soon, cuz i don't really have a
real need for it.

You might wanna think about it before going cheap.
(otoh, the few reviews for the vivitar on epinions and cnet don't look
bad, and many ppl don't care about manual controls or turn-on lag)

you should go play with them in store before choosing tho

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:36:39 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

> Proteus wrote:
>> So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500
>> five megapixel point and shoot digitals?
>
> For $500 you can get a 5MP camera with an image stabilised 36 - 432mm
> lens - e.g. the Panasonic FZ5. Not in a $200 model, though.

The FZ5 wouldn't fit my definition of a "skinny small compact camera" to
carry "around with me everywhere I go" tho.

"Proteus" <> wrote in message
news:XW4Me.4570$...
> So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500 five
> megapixel point and shoot digitals?

$300.

Sorry...couldn't resist.

lacunae wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:36:39 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Proteus wrote:
>>> So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500
>>> five megapixel point and shoot digitals?
>>
>> For $500 you can get a 5MP camera with an image stabilised 36 - 432mm
>> lens - e.g. the Panasonic FZ5. Not in a $200 model, though.
>
> The FZ5 wouldn't fit my definition of a "skinny small compact camera"
> to carry "around with me everywhere I go" tho.

"Skinny" meaning fits in your back pocket, no. For it's capability, 432mm
telephoto, I find it very small and compact, and it's easily light enough
to carry around everywhere I go (326g 11.5oz).

David

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:01:32 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>> So I am wondering what is the main difference between $200 and $500 five
>> megapixel point and shoot digitals?
>
> $300.
>
> Sorry...couldn't resist.
>

Unlike you, I successfully managed to resist that. But
another answer is time. I don't know what Canon's Powershot A85
listed for when it was introduced, but it's now being advertised in
newspaper ads at just under $200. It's probably a better camera
than whatever 5mp camera the OP finds for the same price.
Similarly, the *very* limited PowerShot S10 (no manual modes)
initially sold for far more than $500, but that didn't last long.

>
> Is there somewhere one can see comparison tests of the $500 or less 5mp
> cameras? That would be nice.
>
www.dpreview.com
www.imaging-resource.com
www.steves-digicams.com
www.dcresource.com
www.digitalcamerainfo.com

and other review websites have extensive test target comparisons for the
various digicams made today. You can easily load up the same sample
test target images for different cameras in different browser windows
for direct comparison.

----

Besides absolute resolving capability, also keep in mind the quality of
the sensor at various ISO levels.

eg. see digitalcamerainfo.com for the FujiFilm F10 and Sony W7 reviews.
Notice:
a) The F10 performs nearly as well as the W7 in their resolution tests,
even though the former is a 5MP digicam, the latter a 7MP digicam. The
higher quality FujiFilm sensor allows the camera to pickup more detail;
the Sony 7MP sensor can't pickup as much detail, and performs more like
an excellent 5MP digicam, the F10.
b) Notice that the F10 does keep the ISO noise levels down below 1.0
well past ISO 200. You can take a picture with lower noise levels on
the F10 than with other digicams.

But, also keep in mind that these factors are only a small part of the
overall 'quality' of a photo. The 'cooler' color cast of the Fujifilm
F10 may or may not be preferable in your eyes to another camera - you'll
have to make this very subjective judgement because there is no RIGHT or
WRONG choice here - merely what looks best to your eyes.

Also, notice how 'poorly' the Canon A95 5MP compares in resolution and
ISO noise to either of the two above.

----

That said, you may find that there is a very good 'trick' you can use in
picking up an extremely sharp 5MP digicam - simply buy a camera of a
slightly higher MP, and run it in the 5MP image mode!

For example, between the 'similar' $399 retail F10 and Sony P200 (which
uses the same 7MP sensor as the tested W7 above), both cameras have
their pluses and minuses. But, for the same price, you can buy either.
If all you care about is a camera with great 5MP image output quality,
you can include the P200 because it can be set to 5MP mode, which merely
captures a sharp, downsized 7MP image in 5MP size. You will never lose
quality this way, and you'll still retain the benefits of that
particular model (whatever you find to be of value).

A downsized image will be extremely sharp vs. a camera made for the
'same' MP size, and you'll notice that right away.

What may those values be?
a) F10 has a larger screen vs. the P200.
b) P200 has an optical viewfinder for bright, outdoor use when the LCD
can't be seen clearly.
c) F10 has higher ISO speeds.
d) P200 has warmer image tones.
e) F10 has far longer battery life.
f) P200 fits easier in a shirt pocket.
etc, etc.

Hopefully, some of these will help in your search.