Which digital comact camera should I buy for a trip to Italy?
 

I am going to Italy in October (one week in Rome, one week in Tuscany), and would like to buy a compact digital point and shoot camera. I will be taking mostly outdoor pictures. though I would like a camera that takes decent shots in lower lighting. Macro capability would be nice. Manual settings are not necessary. The three I am considering are the Canon Powershot SX210 IS, Nikon Coolpix S8000, and the Panasonic Lumis ZS5. Any suggestions on any of these or others that would be in the $250 range?

You can't go wrong with Nikon. My daughter used an S3000, about $150. For low light set the ISO to 1600. Outdoor use ISO of 100 to 400. Read the instruction manual and bring it with you.

I have the Cannon SX120IS and find it perfect for what you want. No doubt the 210 would be an excellent choice. I also recommend using two lithium AA batteries. They will be all you need. It's a great camera.

I never like cameras that take AA batteries... I have had better luck with ones like Panasonic with dedicated battery packs.

I have the slightly older ZX4 and love it.

Whenever I get a new camera I go on eBay and buy a second battery pack so I always have a reserve.
They rarely cost more than 10 bucks.

So 3 replies... 3 opinions. That tells me it will be hard for you to go wrong... go to the store and handle them to see which one seems to 'fit' you best and go with that one.

Rob

I also prefer a camera with a rechargeable lithium battery pack and also bought a second battery.

I chose a Panasonic Lumix because I could figure out the options without glasses! It takes excellent pics in good light, it's small and lightweight and has a good zoom ratio, but my husband said it's slower than his Canon. Photos in low light are difficult and usually require changing settings and experimenting a bit. My camera is already at least two years old, so I would assume a new model is 'better' than mine.

I vote for the Nikon Coolpix - just bought our granddaughter one (S3000) for her birthday and she loves it! I myself carry a Pentax Optio in my purse.PamT

I would recommend Canon S90. I bit more expensive (320) but, as far as I can see in reviews, far better camera especially in low light situations.

Looking at the various review sites, it is clear that the Panny and Canon outperform the Nikon, particularly in the all important category of image quality. There is not much to choose from between the Panny and the Canon. The Canon has a bit longer optical zoom and the Panny is better for wide angle. Personally, I would prefer the Panny simply because its zoom is long enough for almost all situations and having the better wide angle performance is a plus. IMO a solid wide angle is more useful than an ultra long zoom - you can get more of a scene especially when there is not much room to step back. The Panny has a bit better low light performance too.

Thank you all for your help! I'm definitely going to choose one with a rechargable battery pack, and I like the idea of buying a second battery. I'll go to a store and handle all three, keeping in mind all you've pointed out in terms of pluses of each. I'll also check out the Canon S90.

Just a small aside....I've gotten second batteries for my compact Canon on ebay for absurdly low prices and they are every bit as good as the camera manufacturer's batteries which can cost as much as $50.

Most reviews rate the Panasonics and canons ahead of the Nikon. Probably the biggest difference in price comes from the lens i.e. is it wide angle to telephoto...does it have a 3.3 times zoom or a 4 or a 5 (cheaper range) to as much as 8 times or 10 times with some of the panasonics.l

I ended up choosing a canon since I have the ability to time stamp my pictures a feature I happen to like...many of the pansonics can time stamp the picture after the fact but you have to reduce the size of the picture to 3 megapixels while with the canon you can time stamp the pictures at all siezes.

To some not a big deal...I guess it's a matter of preference.

Canon S90 or the recently introduced Panasonic LX-5 (or the older LX-3) have lenses with wide apertures on the low end of the zoom.

Or you could look at a DSLR. Either new or even used DSLR will outperform any point and shoot in low-light because of the bigger sensor.

When you take pictures inside cathedrals, it will make a difference.

Why do people not like AA batteries. I use rechargeable ones--3 sets. IF something happens and I am suddenly confronted with no battery, I can buy some.
I have an old (now) Canon IS3, and have loved it for its optical zoom capabilities, and the rotatable view finder--a wonderful feature for composing many types of pictures from low level to crowd from above.
Date is on the pictures when they are downloaded with the information with all the properties of the picture.
So another opinion.

cameras with AA batteries tend to be bulkier.

It comes down to personal preferences in the end. Both the Canon and Panasonic are capable for the casual traveler. Neither can match DSLRs, but do have advantages in terms of ease of carrying around. I mostly use a Panasonic FZ28, and have an extra battery that I bought over the internet that is every bit as good as the original and get 400+ pictures on a charge - however, I rarely use a flash because its low light capability is really quite decent. If you want to see that, look at my photo web-site www.flickr.com/photos/basingstoke2/sets. In the Italy collection, there is a photo taken in Rome at night at an ISO of 3200, and also two taken in a market in Bologna after dark. All were shot with available light - the ones in Bologna surprise people when they learn they were shot after dark. I made very nice 11X14 prints of both and they have excellent detail and no noticable noise at that enlargement. There are also interior shots of the cathedral in the York set, also shot with available light after dark as well as some night time exterior shots. Another photo that shows the capability of the camera in low light is a daytime shot that is indoors in a fairly dim area. It is the one in the Stratford upon Avon set of a docent doing a cooking demonstration at Mary Arden's farm and was shot at an ISO of 400 (or perhaps 800) - again, it makes a good print. Although, these were all shot with a Panny FZ28, it shares the processing engine with the ZS5 and has a similar lens, so the ZS5 should give comparable results.

Technology marches forward. Qute frankly for most of us, the pictures produced by these "cheap" point and shoot cameras are very very good and most of us really don't need a dslr given the price differential and as noted the ease of carrying a compact point and shoot.

Cameras with AA batteries (a lot of the old Canons, Kodaks) do tend to be bulkier and the trend is to more compact. This trend also means there is usually no optical view finder on the cameras..you have to look at the lcd screen which sometimes can be overwhelmed by strong light on the loer end cameras.

If yuo stick to any of the newer name brands, it is really hard to go wrong as the market is so competititive, one stinker might tarnish the name of the producer and be very constly indeed.

Just another thought...one of the nice things about digital photography today is you can take the same shot 3 or 4 times with different settings and instantly see the results or when you download the pictures into the computer and if 3 of the shots well stink, then a push of the button and p[oof it's gone. I can't believe it was not so long ago that we used film and had to wait a couple of days to see our pictures and if we brought a lot of fils, say 5 rolls of 36 expoure, that's 180 shots. I can take 180 shots in 2 days with my digital at 8 megapixels or more, and throw about 80% of them and be able to say nothing ventured nothing gained.

I too like the Canon S90. May want to read up on it on Ken Rockwell's site or on DP review.

I have Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10 with its GPS function. It records the GPS location and place name of every shot you take - so handy when reviewing your photos after your trip, when so many pictures of buildings look alike! Plus 12x superzoom and excellent picture quality even in low lights. The only drawback is it's rather bulky and heavy, but if you can live with that, I recommend wholeheartedly.

We learned very quickly that our digital Canon with a 3x zoom kept us from getting a lot of very nice shots that we wanted. I wouldn't go anything less than 20x. Our photo memories are soooooo much better since we got our Canon SX-10IS a few years ago.