Hi all.

Well, as the title says, I'm looking to get a digital camera. I've owned one before, but it was junk and a freebie...800K pixles. Moving swiftly...

So, what to buy? After a bit of research myself, I've found that a compact camera is what I'm after... okay you say, what else? It seems that now compact cameras are offering HD video recording now at 30fps, which I found to be astonishing...'I have to get me one of these' I said to myself. Also something I desire is good image stabilization, since almost all my shots will be freehand.

So what I've found thus far is that their are two that catch my eye. The Kodak EasyShare V1273 the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5 seems to be the ones for me...the deal breaker for the Kodak is the severe limitation of optical zoom . But being only one person, and lacking experience with a variety of cameras, have any advice for me? Which seems like the best camera? Anyone have some other compact suggestions that carry similar features?

Thanks in advance for comments/advice.

__________________

Given the choice between these two, you should get the Panasonic. They use a better quality of lenses (and apparently bigger lenses in this case, which is also good), the shape of the grip area on the right side will make it easier to grip securely for stability (which the slightly greater weight should also help with), the controls have a better layout, and the range of shutter speeds is wider. It also has a trick feature the Kodak doesn't: audio recording with still images (which helps save data space compared to video if you don't really need video). The Kodak does have a couple of features the Panasonic doesn't have, but one was such a minor gimmick I already forgot what it was, and the other is Kodak's "EasyShare" system, which I don't see any reason to deal with. (It only does things you can already do anyway, but cuts corners along the way; for example, you can connect the camera straight to a Kodak EasyShare printer, but you can still print with other cameras without that, and cutting your computer out of the loop takes away your editing options and control over print job details like cropping.) I'm not too happy with the range of aperture settings on the Panasonic, but Kodak's spec page doesn't even give its aperture range at all, which there's probably a reason for. It's probably similar to the ranges on a lot of other compact cameras.

If I were you and had already narrowed it down to these two, I'd actually change the Panasonic option from TZ5 to TZ4 and still get that rather than the Kodak. The TZ4 is the same camera as TZ5 in all ways but one: slightly fewer pixels. But on these compact cameras, higher pixel counts are a bad thing. The way they get them is by making the pixels tinier and tinier to cram more and more of them onto the same sensor size. But a tinier pixel can't collect as much light, so they have to compensate by being ultra-sensitive, which makes them more prone to "noise", which looks like film grain. The result is a bigger but grainier picture. The only way for high pixel count to be an actual improvement would be if the pixel size didn't shrink but the sensor size grew... but then you'd need the lens to be farther away from it and bigger, and then it wouldn't be a compact camera anymore. 8 MP is already plenty for printing 8" pictures, and you won't get up to poster size without going well over the 9 MP you'd be getting with the TZ5 anyway, so the extra megapixel in the TZ5 (or the Kodak you've picked) wouldn't gain you anything except more graininess in the picture and a higher price.

So you think sacrificing the nice video support is worth a decrease in pixels to attain a image with less artifacts? I'm trying to weigh the two and I lean for the video capability since what I wanted was to bridge the gap of a compact and a dedicated camcorder. So would the rewards be worth it?

__________________

Delvo already sliced this one fairly well, and perhaps he can help me out with this comment by explaining what hardware you need...

One thing I have a real problem with is poor light conditions. And by poor light I mean not in sunlight. If I'm shooting indoors and anything moves I get streaks. You'll want to make sure the camera you select is fast enough to handle low light or you'll miss out on a lot of great photo opportunities. I have a Canon Digital Elph, which I love, and has allowed me to take countless stunning outdoor photographs, but it's terrible with indoor lighting, even bright light. I've dragged this thing around the country since I bought it in 2003 and it's taken a beating and still works great. But it needs to be replaced, not because it has anything physically wrong with it, but because it's outdated and drives me crazy by not being able to get good shots indoors.

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

The Panasonics we're talking about do take video. (You wouldn't have found it on their spec pages by searching for "video" because they call it "motion picture" instead. But you can find it by that term, and you can see its icon on the control wheel on top of the camera: it looks like two frames of a classic film strip with the little gear holes along the sides.) I don't know much about their video functions compared to the Kodak's, but if it's just a matter of "do they take video or not", then they pass that test, so you wouldn't be "sacrificing" anything. And they do have a couple of things going for them in the video department. Like I said about the still images, Panasonic uses better lenses, and these models would be more physically stable than the Kodak due to weight and grip shape.

The only theoretical advantage of the Kodak for video is that it's in HD (720 lines) and the Panasonic is in SD (480 lines), but pixel counts are all there is to the definitions of HD and SD, and those can be misleading in video as well as in still images. Getting higher pixel counts in video tends to mean using more intense compression, which essentially means blowing up fewer pixels' worth of actual information to fill up space it doesn't really fit, resulting in simplified of colors, blotchier shading, blockier shapes, and fuzzy lines... sacrifices which often make the higher-pixel-count even more of a problem for video than it is for still images. Fixing these things by not compressing so much, and thus getting quality HD, would require saving bigger files, which is technologically harder to do and takes up more of the customer's card's storage capacity, so it's not the kind of choice I expect the designers to make with a compact camera; I'm almost certain they'd just use lots of data compression to "cheat" into the higher pixel count instead of recording that much actual data. And even if that's not the case, the sensor data they'd be using so much more of is still from those excessively tiny noise-prone pixels I described before in context of still images, so either way, the HD output would still have a sacrifice in quality compared to the Panasonics' SD output.

For available light the higher the ISO rating the better, starting at around 800. Then a big lens with a tight focal ratio (f 2.8 or less) helps there too, by collecting enough light for good colour balance and allowing for the use of shorter shutter speeds.

If you really want a versatile digital camera make sure you can set the f stop, shutter speed, and focus yourself. Otherwise you're at the mercy of what the camera's onboard computer thinks is best, which often isn't

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

The trouble with higher ISO is that it allows more noise (grain, or what looks like grain). Lower ISOs create the clearest, sharpest, most noise/error-free images. There are essentially two ways to deal with the high-ISO quality problem. One is to simply use a lower ISO, which means you need to put more light on the sensor, whether by opening the aperture wider, leaving the shutter open longer, or adding more light on the subject. The other is to try to get a camera in which the sensor's high-ISO noise problem is as small as you can get, whether due to something about the electronics or the sensor & pixel size as I described above. And when it comes to choosing a new camera based on the sensor, especially in high ISO settings (so you can use a high ISO and introduce as little sensor noise as possible), the recommendation is Fuji.

I didn't understand about ISO. I am familiar with film speed ratings and
the tradeoffs between speed and grain size. Are you saying that each
camera has an ISO speed rating like that of film? And that the tradeoffs
are comparable to those of film? How does the lens size (focal ratio or
objective lens diameter) figure into that? Does a lens with a small focal
ratio enable a camera with a high ISO speed to take better-quality images
under low-light conditions? So that, if low-light quality takes precedence
over camera size, you want the smallest focal ratio (largest lens) and
highest ISO? Or will a more moderate ISO give better quality under the
same light conditions? That is, if a small lens and high ISO is adequate
for the light, a large lens and moderate ISO will give a better image in that
same light?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

Agreed.

That's where the larger CCD arrays have it all over the smaller ones.

A lot like using Tri-X in 4x5 format versus 35mm.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I always been partial to Canon for both still and video. Since 1996 I've had three Canon cameras. The first was an SLR. The second two have both been digital.

I don't know if they have a model out which can take HD video. Do note, however, that it's 1080i, not 1080p, so it's not a true 30 fps. It's half the lines (every other line) each 1/30 of a sec. The next 1/30 of a second it does the other half of the lines. If you're interested in true 1080p HD video, you'll have to spring for a video camera. At least at the present time. Who knows what'll turn up next year?

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

"Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." - Heinlein

"Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite." - Heinlein

Each camera has a list of different settings you can switch between: 100, 200, 400, 800, usually 1600, sometimes one or two more above that, and often another below 100, whether that's 50, 64, or 80. So picking your ISO is something you can do between pictures with the same camera (unless the camera's too automated, in which case this is still happening; it's just that the camera's doing it for you).

Yes.

A wider lens lets more light in to hit the sensor. The more light hits the sensor, the less sensitive the sensor can afford to be and still capture enough light. A less sensitive sensor is less prone to sensor noise. To go for a low-sensitivity, low-noise sensor, there are two things you can do: pick a camera with those traits when buying (if you can; it's nearly impossible to find in compacts, and even Fuji seems to be drifting back into the pack on this now), and pick a low ISO setting when actually shooting.

I take your "focal ratio" to mean "focal length ratio", also known as "aperture" or "f-stop". When the aperture is open wider, more light comes in so it's easier to see more dimly-lit subjects, so ISO doesn't need to be so high. The trade-off is a narrower focus field depth. The depth of field is the range of distances at which things will be in focus, based on distance away from the camera. Whatever the ideal distance away is for focus for a given picture, any deviation from that distance, closer or farther, becomes blurry due to being out of focus. (Sometimes this is done on purpose to avoid letting other things in the picture take attention away from the subject or make the shot feel to cluttered.) It's possible to set the aperture so narrow that everything's always perfectly focused, but then you're letting in less light, so you need to be sure there's plenty anyway or compensate using another setting or light source or such. F-stop numbers work in a strange way, BTW: it's technically
1/x, but only the x is usually reported, so a higher number means a narrower aperture, which means a bigger depth of field.

Lens size is something you choose when buying (or when changing lenses, if you have an SLR, which isn't the kind of camera you're looking at). ISO setting is something you choose by pushing buttons whenever you feel like it. Among compact cameras, there's really practically no variation in lens size. But in general, yes, bigger cameras can fit bigger lenses and sensors and put the lenses farther away from the sensors, all of which is better for image quality, particularly in low light.

Low ISO will give better pictures, as long as there's enough light coming in that the picture can be taken at all, and as long as letting in enough light doesn't force you to an extreme shutter speed or aperture setting which has other unwanted effects (motion blur or really narrow depth of field). As far as I know, all digital cameras have an "auto ISO" setting to let the camera decide, but cameras tend to be too willing to switch ISO up, so I leave mine at the lowest setting all of the time to keep it from doing that. The times you'll want to bump ISO up will be low-light scenes.

Yes. That's one reason why people pay the higher prices for the bigger cameras. (And the high-ISO effect not only adds grain but also dampens colors and flattens shading even when there's no visible grain.) But compact cameras have only tiny differences between each other in terms of the sizes of parts, so the only variable you really have any choice about in the world of compacts is the number of pixels, because fewer pixels on the same sensor means bigger pixels. All I see now, even at Fuji, is 8 or more megapixels. The ones that were getting the praise up to a year ago had about 6, while there were already higher MP counts available; that was a sign of favoring quality over the marketing theme of "more megapixels = better", but now they seem to have joined the "megapixel race" like everyone else. Their electronics might still be better for a given pixel count than others', but I can't trust in that now that they're squishing so many pixels in there; that, plus the bigger screens and lack of viewfinders (another very important thing to me), indicates a general shift in their design philosophy, away from affordable quality and into the established gimmicks of the mass market.

Some digital camera review places might still recommend Fuji compacts over others based on their sensor electronics despite the pixel size now being down to normal, but at those pixel sizes I wouldn't expect it to make much difference, and I'd suspect that such recommendations are simply matters of clinging to tradition. If I were getting a compact camera today, I'd pay attention to some other criteria instead, like waterproofness and/or the presence of a viewfinder.

Do you mean compact? There are digital SLRs.

The Panasonic in the original post (and the other one like it with fewer pixels that I recommended) takes SD video. The Kodak in the original post takes 720p HD, not 1080i HD.

I'm following this thread closely - I bought a Sony compact digital a couple of years ago and have been terribly disappointed. My main interest was photographing food and it seems to have a mind of its own as to whether it wants to focus on the plate on any given day. The settings are non-intuitive, as well.

I've since been advised to consider the Kodak cameras, so this thread is helpful.

Delvo,

Thanks for the extensive info!

I asked about "lens size (focal ratio or objective lens diameter)" primarily
to learn more about different lenses, rather than about adjusting the lens
aperture, but you did cover both topics.

What does changing the ISO setting do? My guess is that it changes the
electronic bias on the CCD. (Which I must have read about 15 years ago
and haven't thought of since.)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

My Canon has ISO settings of 50, 100, 200, 400. I generally stick with 100 and for some reason I haven't spent much time trying 50 although I probably should for landscapes. 200 and 400 are way too noisy to do anything more than record an instant in time. You can not get good photographs in any conditions at 400. The noise is bad. I sometimes have to use 400 indoors to capture moving people and it's almost not worth it. Even outdoors, such as when photographing my children in sporting events, I still get a lot of noise at 400.

__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke

The Brain Science Podcast

This bit confuses me, since the front page of the link for the Panasonic clearly states that the difference between the Z5 and Z4 is that the Z5 "...records high definition at 30fps in 720p format..."

Did you misread that, or am I missing something juicy here?

Also, thanks a ton for all the information, I learned quite a bit from your content here.

__________________

Mak wrote:
Can you still even get Tri-X?

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.