The best all-in-one solution would be something like what I had in London - an entry level DSLR (I strongly recommend Pentax K100D ;-)) with the Pentax/Tamron 18-250mm lens. Or the Sigma 17-70mm lens, which doesn't give you as much reach but is a very nice general purpose lens.
No lens change needed. :-D
Which is something purists wouldn't say, as the image quality of such a zoom lens means that certain compromises have been made, but it'll beat a superzoom camera by a huge margin in anything but absolutely ideal light conditions. And you can easily use it on auto (or P mode where you can still change some things but which is essentially auto) - 99% of the time there wouldn't be any need to change any settings really.
Of course, this combination weighs a bit over 1 kg and doesn't come too cheap (the bodies of entry level DSLRs are not expensive compared to better compacts, but e.g. the Pentax/Tamron 18-250mm lens is likely going to be around 500 euros). On the other hand, you get much better image quality (especially in less than ideal light) and better dynamic range.
For anything smaller, my top suggestion is the Fuji F31 (er, yes, I am recommending the cameras I have myself ;-) with the good reason that I did think it through when I got mine), which may not be available any more; if not that, then either the F20, F40 or F50 (the latter two are newer and more readily available but not quite as good any more).
For medium-size with a bit more reach, and still decent... I'd probably go for the Canon G9 for the luxury option or the Canon A650 IS, which should be priced more reasonably (they have the same sensor and same lens though). Neither is really what I'd want at this stage, but if I didn't have a huge pool of cameras at home already, then the 6x zoom and decent optics+sensor would be a good combination.
One thing most compacts have issues with is very slow shot-to-shot performance with flash. The two aforementioned Canons should be relatively decent. The Fuji F31 has a terrific battery and is much better (not that flash is usually needed at all with it). Any Canon that only uses 2 AA batteries is going to have problems with that, and most other compacts as well.
DPReview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) has excellent reviews, which might well be worth checking out.
I suppose the question is really what your priorities are! Mine are very clearly good low light performance without flash, since - apart from mid-summer - 90% of my photos will be taken in low light (and I don't just mean night). With anything less than DSLR, there will be a loss of image quality (but you would win in convenience and price).
I wouldn't suggest ultra-compacts, especially those with non-extending lenses. They're convenient and handy for snapshots, but they really involve too many compromises for my taste.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 10 January 2008 18:45 (UTC)No lens change needed. :-D
Which is something purists wouldn't say, as the image quality of such a zoom lens means that certain compromises have been made, but it'll beat a superzoom camera by a huge margin in anything but absolutely ideal light conditions. And you can easily use it on auto (or P mode where you can still change some things but which is essentially auto) - 99% of the time there wouldn't be any need to change any settings really.
Of course, this combination weighs a bit over 1 kg and doesn't come too cheap (the bodies of entry level DSLRs are not expensive compared to better compacts, but e.g. the Pentax/Tamron 18-250mm lens is likely going to be around 500 euros). On the other hand, you get much better image quality (especially in less than ideal light) and better dynamic range.
For anything smaller, my top suggestion is the Fuji F31 (er, yes, I am recommending the cameras I have myself ;-) with the good reason that I did think it through when I got mine), which may not be available any more; if not that, then either the F20, F40 or F50 (the latter two are newer and more readily available but not quite as good any more).
For medium-size with a bit more reach, and still decent... I'd probably go for the Canon G9 for the luxury option or the Canon A650 IS, which should be priced more reasonably (they have the same sensor and same lens though). Neither is really what I'd want at this stage, but if I didn't have a huge pool of cameras at home already, then the 6x zoom and decent optics+sensor would be a good combination.
One thing most compacts have issues with is very slow shot-to-shot performance with flash. The two aforementioned Canons should be relatively decent. The Fuji F31 has a terrific battery and is much better (not that flash is usually needed at all with it). Any Canon that only uses 2 AA batteries is going to have problems with that, and most other compacts as well.
DPReview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) has excellent reviews, which might well be worth checking out.
I suppose the question is really what your priorities are! Mine are very clearly good low light performance without flash, since - apart from mid-summer - 90% of my photos will be taken in low light (and I don't just mean night). With anything less than DSLR, there will be a loss of image quality (but you would win in convenience and price).
I wouldn't suggest ultra-compacts, especially those with non-extending lenses. They're convenient and handy for snapshots, but they really involve too many compromises for my taste.