Thoughts on The Best Digital Cameras, Part 1
If you are very serious about photography, you'll be interested primarily in SLR cameras for their superior speed, image quality and lens selection. But a lot of people, including some serious photographers, find that an SLR is too big, heavy and obvious for many photographic situations. Non-SLR digicams are for that situation. The good news and the bad news is that there is a vast array of alternatives. I think it is mostly good news, and intend to comment here on some of the standout designs available right now. These products illustrate two core principle of design, both of which consumers tend to hate:
1. Technology has limits and as a result all product designs represent a selection from among possible tradeoffs
2. The products that work the best are those that carefully choose their tradeoffs around a well-defined usage scenario or scenarios
To start, I'd like to assert that the Canon Powershot SD1100 IS is the reference digicam. I get to assert this not just because I am the Gadgetman, but because a reference should be a very good product that meets the needs of a lot of users and is tough to beat. After throwing down the gauntlet a la SD1100 IS, I will suggest several cameras that I think are better (for certain users, per principle #2).
But first, back to the SD1100 IS. Why is this such a good camera? Well, first off, it is pretty affordable, at around $175. You can go lower (and we will), but $175 is pretty close to the bottom end of digicam prices.
Second, the SD1100 IS is small. If you think about it, the likely reference camera for a lot of people is the camera in their phone. If they're going to carry another camera, it better at least be pocketable. The SD1100 IS is, at 3.5" x 2.3" x 0.9". That's almost as small as you'll find, and will easily fit in pocket or purse.
Third, it is a Canon. I've talked to a lot of buyers of cameras, and many just don't want to stray too far from the major brands. Canon is the heavy hitter these days in SLRs, so no one should be embarrased with a Canon on their wrist (or so the thinking goes). From experience that isn't bad logic, at least with Canon. Canon is also a leader in digicams, has lots of R&D, and on average makes very competitive cameras.
Fourth, it has image stabilization (IS). No matter who you are, your hands shake, and you need IS to reduce the impact, especially when shooting indoors where shutter speeds are longer and the impact of shaky hands is higher.
Fifth, it has a reasonable optical zoom range. If you're going beyond your cameraphone, you want a decent zoom. The 38-114mm zoom in the SD1100 IS covers mild wide angle to mild telephoto and will yield much better compositions on average than a fixed focal length camera phone. Since many photos most people take will be of people, this range is close to ideal.
Sixth, the SD1100 IS has a rechargeable battery. Battery life from throw-away AA or AAA batteries is typically much shorter, and the cost of buying new batteries can be high over time. So, a rechargeable battery is important and the SD1100 IS has it.
In a nutshell, the SD1100 IS has all the necessary features for a basic digicam. It also doesn't have any big drawback that I can see. It has a decent movie mode, uses the popular SD card format, has 8MP resolution, offers an optical viewfinder, has a nice 2.5" LCD, has a reasonable user interface. Heck, you even get to pick the color you like.
If you spend much less, you'll probably have to drop one of these necessary items. If you spend more, you should get something worth having. Come back for part 2, as I begin to expore cameras that best the SD1100 IS in meaningful ways.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Your third highest reason for buying is because "It's a Cannon" Puhleeze...
It could have read Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, etc. The brand should be near the bottom, while IS should be near the top.
Also any camera that takes AA or AAA can have a rechargeable battery, all you have to do is buy one. Many people will actually prefer a camera that takes standard batteries rather than proprietary Lithium cells since they already have rechargeable batteries on hand.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
The point about criterion number 3 is that for many people the brand matters. Canon and Nikon are known and acceptable. In my view that doesn't knock out some of the other brands as you will see. It just establishes the baseline needed for a reference. In a world of tradeoffs, we need to have a reference point.
I should also clarify that these six criteria aren't in some order of importance. It is a checklist of all the criteria needed to be a reference.
My experience with AAs, especially in rechargable form, is that their life is unacceptably short. Having a battery system with short life so that you can run to a store to get more batteries is an odd economy in my view. The one case where it might apply is for photography far enough from civilization that one couldn't depend on daily access to AC. That and many other corner cases are not relevant to a reference camera.
Cameras that use AAs also tend to be larger.
AVGuide webmaster and general drudge
I can see where a comment like " Third, it is a Canon," can be offensive. I don't think he meant it that way though. It was probably indicated because that was the camera he was reviewing. Still, we all like to think we've made the best possible choice in the brand(s) we select and tend to have a kind of emotionally charged attachment to them.
I was a Nikon (only) user for 30 plus years and had the attitude that anything other than Nikon was a joke. Now I use Canon also and am proud of that gear too.
You gotta watch what you write/say when you're addressing photographers. We're a very sensitive bunch, we are.
Actually, if you buy high quality rechargeable AA's, thier life is very good. You have to do some research and order them online, dont buy the crap at the local discount store.
I dont have a problem with criterion number 3. fact of the matter is, canon is leading the field and making cameras that take very good pictures under a wide range of conditions, at competitive prices.
I just bought 3 new cameras, and none of them were canons, but that doesnt take away from the facts, which were described well, and shouldnt be taken on a personal level.
Am a Canon freak, so I can understand the author's enthusiasm for that particular brand. If you are really into photography and want a world-class DSLR, I wouldn't go with any other brand except possibly a Nikon. Most third party photographic equipment manufacturers will make lenses, flashes, etc. for those two brands. This isn't always true of Fuji, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, and others (even though these are fine cameras as well). As far as I'm concerned, there is no better lens than a Canon "L" series lens.
I've had two Canon's with a Sony in between. Keep reading reviews and getting sucked into Canons, and regret it every time. The Sony took far superior pictures, especially indoors. Canon had big shutter delay, as well as delays between pictures. My sony got sand in it and needed to be replaced. Never again a Canon unless it's a film camera.
I've owned two Canons and have been somewhat underwhelmed. One was recalled for a problem with the auto focus, and both of them really struggle in low-light situations. I just got the new Panasonic LX3 for Christmas and so far it's the best thing I've ever used short of the Nikon D90 I get to use at work. The LX3 does it all, and the lens is simply phenomenal. The color saturation is just beautiful. I guess it may not suit everyone's style, but it's blowing me away. And best of all, it thrives in low light. I love this thing, and cannot believe the quality-to-price ratio. Anyone who is searching for a new camera who doesn't want to spring for a full SLR really ought to give the LX3 a look.
What I found important, as an SD1000 owner, is the refresh rate for the next shoot. The camera that makes itself available so I don't miss the shots gets my business. There are other brands than Canon that have great advantages and can provide comparable if not better buid quality.
For example, the Panasonic DMC TS-1, 12.1 mp built like a toughbook and can film in HD! Water and dustproof, use under water too. Has optical image stabilizer and features I won't even list...and many you've never heard of...and the re-negineered VENUS engine HD, a new processing algorithm...
For SLRs it's hard to beat NIkon's new offerings at the top end...and one thing about NIkons...built like tanks...reliable...and get great photos. Canon in my book come in second, though they did dominate the top tier for a while.
I hope this series gets a lot better. Content is pretty unsophisticated considering the venue.
I've shot with Canon and Nikon for many years, starting with 35mm and then transitioning to digital. I'm not a huge fan of the compact cameras, but I do believe the Canons are better than average. Canon customer service is exceptional though. Much better than Sony. Also, I recently bought the Panasonic LX3 after research, and it is a great photographer's camera, not for everyone, but those that can appreciate it, will love it. I've had a G7 and G9 from Canon and those are solidly built and very capable, but larger.
I don't understand Gadgetman. In one line he say this Canon is the reference what ever point and shoot pocket cam and then he says he will tell us about better ones. I have owned Canons, Nikons, Olympus, Sony and now Panasonic Lumix. The Oly was the best pocket/pointnshoot I ever owned. I got caught up in better and better specs and moved on. Big mistake. The new Pany's with 10MP sensors and 10X zoom are the heat. They make the Nikon Coolpix and this Canon look like toys at the same price point. But I wish I still had that Oly.
There are lots of good and poor cameras from many manufacturers. I don't see much info here to help me, except in some of the comments, I'm afraid. Even my favorite brands make dogs (at times), and my least favorite brands make great cameras (at times). Sometimes it seems to be an accident of design that just works. I used Olympus glass and manual SLR for 25 years. My wife had a similar setup with Pentax. Now, with Pentax continuing its tradition of being backwards compatible with all lenses, and putting IS in the body of its SLRs, we have a K10D digital SLR that can use all of our old Pentax lenses. This is pretty amazing and a great money saver, especially for specialty lenses like a macro prime lens. For point and shoot, my wife's Canon always did better than my Olympus until I started understanding digital white balance better. Now both work well. In this way, learning how to use the digital SLR has made me a better user of digital point and shoot. Some film-based habits die hard, and really create misconceptions and poor exposures in the digital world. How about writing on these topics?