Now I have a question about cameras
 

I'd like to purchase a new digital camera before my late June trip to Italy. I want something that isn't too bulky. But I also might start taking photography classes at some point. So, I want something that could be taken seriously as a "real" camera, and if at some point I wanted to buy lenses, I could. Does this make sense?

On this forum I have read about the Canon Powershot S3, Canon sd700 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 Digital Camera. Also, if I am unable to take classes before my trip it's important that it can somewhat operate as a point & shoot. Or at least that I be able to figure out how to operate it!

Is this even possible???? Any recommendations?

I've been more than happy with my Canon Powershot S3, which I got to replace a Powershot G2 that I've had for some years. I was attracted to it by the 12x zoom and image stabiliser, which have been great. It is possible to set it to point and shoot with very good results but I've gradually been learning some of the additional functions to get the most out of the camera. I found it light enough to carry round and handle - I find my husbands SLR too heavy and bulky to use and often the results from the S3 are just as good.

My pictures on here from May 2006 onwards have all been taken with the S3 http://www.worldisround.com/home/mariahi/index.html

I have the Canon SD550 and love it! It's light, compact, although not at thin as the credit card size. Easy to use too.

Monica ((F))

We have a very nice Nikon digicam, unfortunately many years out of production. In my opinion, digital cameras with screw-on, changeable lenses tend to be high end. Some mid range cameras have screw-on wide-angle and telephoto adaptors (not perfect but these are one route to take).

I would recommend that you include a camera's optical zoom in your crtieria. I think more optical zoom is better. (Also understand that digital zoom is achieved by cutting the image resolution (pixels) and digital zoom does not really do you much good).

If you want to get into serious photography, and buy a future <b>system</b> with various lenses, external flash, etc, then you shouldn't buy any of those cameras.

Look into an entry-level dSLR like the Canon Rebel XT or XTi, or the Nikon D40 or D50. With a 18-55 kit lens, these cameras are not that bulky and not that expensive. All have full automatic mode that you can shoot more-or-less like a P&amp;S.

You'll be wasting your money on those cameras you mentioned as they really won't give you the fundamental controls to learn photography in the future.

Hi AP,

I don't think that the S3 would be a waste of money, as there are more than enough settings and manual controls to allow you to do almost anything, as well as simple point and shoot.

There's not much in the way of extra lenses that I think you would want as it goes from super macro to about 210 mm SLR equivalent.

((I))

An S3 will not be a waste of money for many people, but it will be for someone who wants to get into serious photography.

The OP said:

<i>and if at some point I wanted to buy lenses, I could.

A S3 is not for him.</i>

An S3 will not be a waste of money for many people, but it will be for someone who wants to get into serious photography.

The OP said:

<i>and if at some point I wanted to buy lenses, I could.</i>

A S3 is not for him.

There are so many cameras out there it must be pretty bewildering to know where to start - much of depends on how much money you want to spend. I only mentioned the S3 because the original poster did and don't think it would be a waste of money, even if AP wants to learn about photography.

My S3 has pretty much the same dials and options as my husbands Canon SLR and all the skills in learning how to use it (the kind of thing you might learn at the classes, not just which button to press) are directly transferrable, should I ever wish to use the SLR. My camera cost less than a third of the cost of his camera body alone - his last purchase of a zoom lense with image stabiliser (which gives him around the same zoom capability as the S3) actually cost more than my camera. He like to tinker with the more technical side of photography, while I prefer to concentrate on the more artistic - a lot of the time there isn't much to choose between the results.

- The S3 has an 35mm-equivalent focal length of 36-432mm. While excellent in the long-end, it's not wide enough for tight indoor shots or if you want to capture a tall building in short distance without having to stitch.

- It doesn't have a hotshoe for external flash. While Canon sell a external &quot;slave&quot; flash, that's not very powerful either. There's a lot to be gained with a good external flash if one's interested in that area. [With the S3's IS and pretty wide aperture, one actually don't need a flash to capture low light; the flash is for filling in backlit subjects and other effects.]

- You will never get the same control of a manual zoom with a electronic one.

- I don't think you can get depth-of-field preview with the S3 or similar cameras. That's extremely important to have to get control of how the picture will come out.

- It can't save an image in RAW, which allows one to have much wider latitude in post-shoot adjustment on the computer.

Let me make this clear. The S3 is a very nice camera with incredible features and very SLR-like control. Excellent value and I am sure it takes excellent pictures. I am just saying it's just not a camera to learn the basics of photography.

AP6380 - unfortunatley there is no perfect camera out there. Believe me, I've looked! After years of using film SLR cameras I moved to digital and went with the &quot;almost SLR&quot; types - not an SLR, can't change lenses - but can add wide angle (or telephoto) adapters, lots of zoom, great features, lots of manual control, and the look and feel of an SLR but slightly lighter. I've had an Olympus, Nikon, and Minolta. But now I have a Canon Rebel xti, which is a true SLR and there really is no comparison. It's not just the ability to change lenses, as others have said, the zoom available on many cameras (up to 12x) is so good you may never need to change lenses. But there are other things an SLR has that the non-SLRs don't. For one thing, there's no time lapse from when you shoot till when the camera records. This really can make a difference.

So really you need to try an SLR and one of the non-SLR &quot;prosumer&quot; cameras. See if you can borrow one, even for just an hour - and compare them.

But neither of the types of cameras we are talking about are very light weight or tiny. Compared to an older film SLR they are pretty light, but not compared to the the ultra tiny cameras out there. I also have a Canon SD700 which fits in my pocket. It's my back-up, and I bring it with me when I don't want the larger SLR.

AP6380 - I think you want two incompatible things: To me, your desire to take photography classes at some point would mean that you should go for a digital SLR. A colleague has recently bought a Nikon D40, and I am very impressed with it.

The problem is, that any digital SLR will not fit with the &quot;Not too bulky&quot; requirement.

I think I would look for a high end compact camera (I personally find the S3 to be slightly on the large side - I like something that fits easily into a coat pocket), that gives the user a great deal of control over the settings.

Once you have used this on your travels, and you decide you wish to go further with classes, then consider a digital SLR.

An S3 weighs about 410gm without battery. Nikon D40, one of the lightest and smallest dSLRs, with the 18-55 kit lens should weigh about 700gm or so with battery.

Does anyone else here use the Panasonic Lumix FZ5PP? (I have one and am just getting used to it...)

Hi ek,

I looked at it, but decided on the Canon.

((I))

&gt;I am just saying it's just not a camera to learn the basics of photography.&lt;

I respectfully disagree.

I think that it is a great camera for learning the basics.

If you then decide to become really serious, you can move up to an SLR.

Keep in mind that any SLR you buy today will be obsolete in 4 years. :)

((I))

ira - We just have to disagree.

I have no idea what you're trying to say about my dSLR going obsolete. A dSLR, and its accessories, have much longer lives than most P&amp;Ses. A lens or flash I buy today can be used on future cameras. I am still using a Canon lens I bought 13 years ago.

And I have not mentioned anything about cost in any of my replies. Getting into a dSLR system will definitely cost more than buying a S3 or similar. Photography is an expensive hobby, and seems like the OP is willing to go into it. It's not my duty to tell him about money.

But I'll stand firmly on my point that a dSLR is a much better tool to learn photography on.

AP, thanks for starting this thread! I'm ready to upgrade my three year old Nikon 4300 &quot;starter&quot; digital camera and have been wondering whether to choose the Canon S3 IS or a digital SLR so it is great to read several different opinions.

Maria's photos taken on her S3 are pretty persuasive. Her artistry came through with her previous camera and the quality in certain situations was very good but the quality of the S3 photos is definitely superior.

Ira's comments here and on another thread about the S3 have been pretty convincing too and I've test driven the S3 at my neighbourhood camera store. Best Buy has it on sale this week, at least in Canada. My main hesitation is that I have invested in extra cards and battery for my old camera that can't be used on the S3. At least some digital SLRs take compact flash cards.

CF and SD cards are so cheap now that it shouldn't even be a consideration, unless you have already lots of 4GB or 8GB cards.

If you like the S3, you should get it. At under $350, it's a tremendous value, if it suits your need.

Hi ek,
I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ5 Lumix, don't know about the PP bit though.

Its our first digital, got a bargain as it was last years model (made no difference to us). I have been using the simple mode and macro but now just starting to play with it more, getting ready for our first trip to Europe. I looked for ages, in the end I think I read too much and got too confused (not hard!). I wanted a 12x and didn't really feel comfortable with the very thin cameras, I wanted something to hold onto. I am more than happy with it and it fits into my handbag.