camera question: TVC, anyone?

[xnikki118x]

So EB photography experts, what do you think about this camera? Sony Cybershot DSC-H7 8.1MP Digital Camera with 15x Optical Image Stabilization Zoom
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Cybershot-Digital-Optical-Stabilization/dp/B000M4J2PI/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IMARXX7S0BY9G&colid=1AWK6CT8PVD96

I already have a Fujifilm Finepix Z10fd 7.2MP Digital Camera with 3x Optical Zoom from my friend. [She upgraded to the Z20fd.] The photos are a little grainy, though. http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Finepix-Z10fd-Sunset-Orange/dp/B000U5ROY0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1228280774&sr=1-2

I just love taking pictures, I always have my little point-and-shoot with me and I'd like to get a better camera to take better pictures. I might be able to get the Sony at a relatively steep discount, too. Anyone know anything about that Sony? Is it a good camera for someone who isn't a professional photographer but is picture-obsessed?

Thanks for your advice!

[Bildi]

I'm not familiar with this particular camera, but here is probably the best review you can find: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/.  Use the menu at the top to navigate the pages.

The last page of the review doesn't seem awfully glowing: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/page14.asp.  Some things that seem more concerning to me are:

New user interface not conducive to quick operation, convoluted and often confusing
No JPEG quality options (and default setting too highly compressed)
Fairly prevalent chromatic aberration
Strong purple fringing, particularly at wide end of zoom

The bottom of this page here explains the last two:  http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/page5.asp.  These two faults are very common among compact cameras, but the Sony seems more susceptible to it.

I'm not so sure about it to be honest.

For a big zoom compact with image stabliser I'd feel better recommending something like:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons5is/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/

I know the Canon's are an excellent camera and they would be my first choice.  Although I don't have first hand experience with the Panasonics, I've always heard and read good things about them.

Whichever way you go, I'd consider something with a swivelling screen.  That can make a huge difference and I'd kill for one on my SLR.  Shooting above your head or down low or at a weird angle is a total walk in the park with a swivel screen and I loved it when I had a camera with one.

[BlueTsunami]

For the amount you may be paying for the Sony (pre discount) you could get a Panasonic Lumix (great low light cameras and they use Leica lenses, a company known for the great Lens quality).

Are you looking for a true pocket Point and Shoot? Or something a little more bulky (like the Sony you linked too).

[xnikki118x]

Something a little more bulky and a little better quality.

I understand I really need a DSLR, but I don't know if the Sony I linked to is one? I know that's the dumbest thing ever, but it doesn't say it is, but it seems like it should be.

Swivel screen sounds excellent. I might have to look for that feature.

[BlueTsunami]

I don't believe the Sony one is a DSLR, its essentially a beefier Point and Shoot. Not that its a bad thing but the Viewfinder is electronic (no reflections of the actual subject/scene).

I don't know much about Sonys but the equivalent Canon would be the Powershot.

If your interested in a DSLR, I believe you could get an XTi for $500 and that'll introduce you to the world of lenses and crap (I currently own its father, the XT).

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-10-1MP-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B000I1ZWRC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1228289584&sr=8-1

Get that and a good lens and you'll be good to go. Then instead of upgrading bodies when you want better quality, you'll just shop around for lenses. The low light capabilities of a DSLR are usually better than the type of camera your looking at but that's at the expense of having to carry around a larger body.

But that's leading you in a different direction than you probably care about! I say that Sony looks good, the lens on it is a Carl Zeiss and they're known for their good quality lenses too (like Leica, both from Germany).

[cloudwalking]

Don't get that camera.

The canon rebel XS is only 20 bucks more, new: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-10-1MP-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B001CBKJGG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1228295542&sr=1-1

The Rebel XS:
- is an actual DSLR from a respected line of cameras (Rebel)
- comes with a good lens that is still usable when you decide to upgrade your camera body (i have the lens, it's very good for a kit lens)
- higher megapixel count
- better image quality
- canon (i've never been a huge fan of sony's cameras)
- has Live View shooting mode (a shooting mode through the viewfinder that shows you exactly what your photo will look like, if it's over/underexposed, etc., great tool for beginners)
- Digic III image processing
- longer camera life than the Sony
- ability to shoot in high quality JPG and RAW formats

If you get the Sony you are wasting your money, IMO. If you're already willing to spend $449 you might as well take the plunge into an entry-level DSLR. You can also do what BlueTsunami suggested and get the XTi if you want to go that extra step. XTi is a step above the XS and is a great camera. But the XS will be more than enough for what you want to accomplish.

[Bildi]

I'm not familiar with US pricing, but if the Rebel is only a little more than the big zoom compacts and you're prepared to put up with the little bit of extra bulk, I'd definitely go with the SLR.

To add to what cloudwalking said, a few key advantages you'll have with a SLR:

- none of that blue or red fringing between high and low contrast areas (like tree branches against a bright sky)
- the ability to use a pinpoint autofocus point which means you always know where the autofocus is going to choose - with a compact you often aren't entirely certain where the camera is going to focus.
- the ability to shoot in far, far darker situations.  Not only can the lenses generally open wider to let in more light but SLRs produce a usuable picture at much higher sensitivities (higher sensitivity means you can shoot in low light at the expense of a more grainy or noisy picture).  Compacts produce horribly noisy pictures at higher sensitivities whereas pictures SLRs produce are still quite usable at higher sensitivities.
- often a much faster response between you hitting the button to take the picture and the picture being taken.
- they have all possible modes and options you could use.  Compacts are more likely to be gimped in some areas which is frustrating.

I'd go for a Canon (even though I loved Nikon in the film days).  Really in digital there isn't much between them but Canon's image sensors historically produce extremely clean, noise-free images, and their camera menu systems are very friendly.  Plus they're a little cheaper (at least in my part of the world they are).

Admittedly, to get a big zoom in a SLR you'll need a much bulkier lens than the compacts.  Bulk is really the main downside overall.

[BlueTsunami]

We're all trying to make Nikki buy a DSLR. Do it!

And I agree with Clouds XS suggestion, I totally forgot that Canon released another version of the XSi (duh, its like the XT).

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

if you have any Gamera questions, I'm your man.

[xnikki118x]

Bildi: when you talk about higher sensitivities and stuff, I don't know what that means. I just like taking pictures, I don't know any of the mechanical stuff at all. There was something I used to do on my old digital--adjusting the white balance or something like that--but I can't find that option on my new one. I just pick the appropriate shooting mode or set it on "auto" if I can't find anything I think is appropriate.

Cloud: I don't know what "Digic III image processing" means, hah.

[Bildi]

Shooting at a higher sensitivity means the picture will appear brighter.  The steps are typically 100ISO, 200ISO, 400ISO, 800ISO, 1600ISO, and 3200ISO.  Each one is one stop brighter so in a dim room you might choose 800ISO, whereas in bright daylight you would always use 100ISO.

The downside to a higher sensitivity is that the picture gets more grainy or noisy.  The good thing about SLRs is that they don't get too noisy so you can actually make use of those higher sensitivities.  Compacts they get noisy very quickly, so I wouldn't really use anything more than 200ISO on a compact.

For example, here's crops from a compact taking a picture at ISO800:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx100is/samples/crops/canon_sx100_iso800_crops.jpg

And here at ISO1600:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/canonsx100is/samples/crops/canon_sx100_iso1600_crops.jpg

Both are pretty awful.  Compare this to SLRs at ISO800 and ISO1600 which have much less noise:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page32.asp

So the SLR can shoot much cleaner pictures in much darker situations.  It really does make a big difference. 

I realise you probably didn't want to read all that crap, sorry.
 

[cloudwalking]

Cloud: I don't know what "Digic III image processing" means, hah.

it's the image processing chip in the camera. Digic III is a really good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC#DIGIC_III

[xnikki118x]

Bildi that makes a lot of sense, and Cloud thanks for the link!

So, Canon Rebel XS? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-10-1MP-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B001CBKJGG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1228295542&sr=1-1

[Bildi]

I think that's the one I'd go for.

The next step is the 450D XSi - most of the difference being an extra 2 megapixels and a bigger screen on the back.  I'd get the 1000D XS and put the difference in price towards the cost of a good lens - 10 megapixels is heaps.