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.

Thanks everyone! I went to our local camera store and got talked into the Canon S95; it was a little more than I wanted to pay, but its got some bells and whistles and is easy to use. I love it and look forward to seeing what I can do with it on my trip. I appreciate all the help.

Congratulation - it is a fine camera. It does not have much of a zoom, but it is capable of very fine photos, which afterall, is the bottom line. Enjoy it and your trip. Don't forget to buy a spare battery.

Thanks basingstoke2 - great pictures on your site!

I was just going to recommend the S95, congratulations on picking the best and the latest. What makes it superior is the larger digital sensor and the ring controls, far better than those point and shoot cameras without the DSLR bulk and weight. Mind telling us how much you ended up paying for your S95? I am still hunting for it as the local stores in my area either ran out or are still waiting for shipment.

$399; I could have probably gotten it for a little less at a Best Buy, but the people at my local camera store (Covington, Louisiana) spent alot of time going over the camera with me, and are always helpful when I have questions or problems. I haven't had time to do much with it yet, but it seems very user friendly.

No i've come to learn that 399 i's really the going price even at Best Buy since it's such a new release and in high demand.

I know what yo mean about a local camera store. Ours is so wonderful about explaining things and then helping with problems after I've used it. I use them even though at times, I might save a bit by going out of town to a big box store.

Hi guys...I am sure the Canon here is an excellent camera for $399 but I'm trying to figure out...I have a Panasonic DS-ZR1 I believe...cost me 1/2 the price...has more megapixels...has at least an 8x zoon which increases (not talking about a digital zoom) as the number of megapixels decrease. As the S95 is not a dslr, how would the pictures it takes be so much better than the excellent pictures I've been able to get with my Panasonic (and its Leica lens?) What, in all due respect to the more serious photographers out there, am I missing?

Thank you

(I've considered upgrading to the Panasonic ZR7 I think the model is which has a GPS included but it's still far cheaper than the Canon)...Again what's so special about this Canon?

Hi xyz123...you ask some good and provocative questions. First, both would be fine touring cameras that you could put in a pocket, but there are, as you note differences, so let's see what the key ones are. First, the difference in zoom capability. The ZR7 not only has a longer zoom, it also has a "wider" wide angle than the Canon - 25mm vs 28mm. Sounds like a small difference but in the field, the 25mm is more useful. Both have good lenses and both control lens distortion and chromatic artifacts, e.g., purple fringing, well. IMO, advantage ZR7. Second is the number of pixels and size of the sensor. The ZR7 has more pixels, than the Canon, but on a smaller sensor. Think of the megapixel "wars" like the auto industry horspower wars. More sounds better, but not always. More pixels should yield greater detail but more pixels is not necessarily better, especially on a small sensor. Crowded (and necessarily smaller)pixels create more noise, particularly at higher ISOs. All digital cameras have a built in noise reduction program and when there are more pixels, particularly on a smaller sensor the noise reduction program is usually more aggressive and that can result in the loss of detail. The ZR7 has a very good noise reduction program, but the Canon sensor/pixel ratio is inherently better, other factors being equal. For most folks' picture taking, 10mp is enough, unless you plan to make very large prints. You can make a very nice 11X14 print with a 10mp camera. Third is the maximum lens opening. The larger the opening, the more light can reach the sensor and the better the low light performance should be. In lens openings, a lower number is better. The Canon max opening is f2.0 and the ZR7 max is 3.3. The Canon is the clear winner here, particularly when combined with a less crowded sensor.

So, which camera is better? That comes down to what your needs are. For me, the longer zoom and especially the ultra wide angle lens of the ZR7 is more important, since although its inherent low light capability is theoretically not up to that of the Canon, it is still quite good.

Canon S95 (I'm assuming is the successor to the S90) and the Panasonic LX-5 are attempts to emphasize image quality over features.

So they have shorter zooms but at least on the Panasonic, wider apertures, which makes lenses more expensive.

They also keep the number of pixels down to improve low-light performance. The idea is fewer pixels but better-quality pixels.

If you want longer zooms but better low-light and overall image quality, you go to DSLR and give into physics.

All true scrb11 except the Canon is capable of a wider aperture (f2) than the Panasonic (f3.3). There really is no substitute for a larger sensor.

That's what I meant to say, the S95 and the LX-5 have wider apertures at the shortest focal length.

Yes that makes for more expensive lens to produce.

I wasn't aware of the sensor sizes but I didn't think there were standard sensor sizes for point and shoots in the first place, nothing like APS-C.

From what I gather, the superiority of the compact S95 (and the bulkier LX5) begins primarily with its (more expensive) larger sensor (1/1.7 vs 1/2.4 size) which renders better pictures than other point & shoot cameras including the ZR7. Secondly its faster lens (due to its larger maximum aperture lens - f2.0 vs the smaller aperture f3.3) which allows you to take beautiful detailed pictures in low light. This is where you get the oohs and aahs because your indoor, darker, shadow, and nightfall pictures look so amazing.

Technical talk aside, with the S95/LX5 you get significantly better quality images and, like in a DSLR, your subjects will pop out more from the background ( due to the lens' shallower focal depth) instead of the flatter pictures from the average point & shoot cameras. Unique to the S95 is the control ring around the lens for alternative focusing, aperture, exposure speed, etc. (a nice DSLR like feature)

On the other hand cramming more megapixel and zoom in the ZR7 is like cramming more cities into a shorter European trip: seeing 12/14 cities in 2 weeks vs 10 cities in 3 weeks. More cities but more blur. It's quantity vs quality.

I meant. " more cities more confusion/artifacts"

I'm learning alot from your comments! So, now the question is....... Considering that I mostly use cameras on an automatic mode, and am certainly a novice, priimarily using pictures as memories of wonderful trips, pictures of my friends I'm traveling with , some evening and museum low-lighting shots, hopefully some exquisite tuscany shots as we travel in the Chianti and Montepulciano areas, is this Canon 95s adequate for all my needs, or should I also take my Canon EOS XSI?

A DSLR with a larger sensor will give you sharper pictures, especially if you make large prints, even if it has fewer megapixels than a point and shoot.

It should also give better low-light pictures because you can boost the ISO setting and not get the speckly noise in the dark areas. But to take advantage, you have to shoot RAW and then post-process in something like Aperture or Light Room to get the most out of those pictures.

Also, a DSLR will give you access to lenses which are better quality and more versatile. So you can put filters on them (a circular polarizer is a good one for sunny shots outdoors) or get fast lens for using in low-light situations. All these are extras which could add cost and time and weight.

But in travel photography, you don't always want to lug that gear. Say you carry it around it all day and then go to the hotel, freshen up, and then go out for dinner. You're not going to want to carry DSLR and other gear. But a compact camera may be useful for snapshots or if you see something you didn't expect.

If you want to shoot sharp, clear pictures say of Siena's Piazza del Campo at night, with the Torre Del Mangia all lit up, you would want a DSLR with a tripod (though if you want to take snapshots of yourselves and friends in front of that scene, then a compact might be better because a flash will be needed which will result in less than optimal exposure for the background). Florence's Duomo isn't that brightly lit up from my recollection so you would also need a tripod to take a long exposure. Probably an interesting night shot might be from the Piazzale Michelangelo.

They say the best camera is the one you have, so camera phones are playing an important role. But the point and shoot should give you much better pictures than any camera phone, while not being that much more cumbersome to carry.

We have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 with 10x OPTICAL zoom and love it. We've had it for several years and have never been disappointed with our photos. It's compact, uses a dedicated battery and easy to use. The best feature is the optical zoom--newer models have 12 x optical zoom, I believe. The charger for the battery is small and compact as well.

I think scrb11 nailed it....if I were gpomg pm safaro. [erja[s a dslr. Now I do remember the days of lugging my slr and as time developed, things like automatic focusing became more and more prevelent but it was still a lug.

I really love my panasonic....a little case around my neck and the camera guesses right about setting 90% of the time or more. Of course if I were a serious photographer, that might be something I wouldn't like. Also this particular panasonic minimizes noise in low light at higher iso...I'm sure it isn't as good as a dslr, I don't question that. But oh is it much more convenient.......I run a slide show and the vast majority of my shots are very good to excellent and of course the nice thing about digital photography today...if you have a lousy shot, just delete it.

Italyn - for what you say your needs are, the Canon should be fine except for those few times you may want a long telephoto. With a bright f2 lens, your low light photos should be more than adequate. If you want to carry the DSLR, go right ahead, it will give you the potential for better photos as scrb says, but then there must have been a reason you went out and bought the S90. There are a few things that I would quibble a bit with scrb. You can use filters on a point and shoot. I keep a UV filter on my Panasonic FZ28 all of the time and use a circular polarizer a lot - it is perhaps my most useful tool. Get one for your S90, learn how to use it, and you will greatly improve your daytime photos. Also although RAW is great since it captures all of the data rather than compressing it like jpeg, I do not use it much since it is much slower, uses up much more card space, and frankly, the major manufacturers have brought jpeg to the point where you can get excellent results. The S90 is able to shoot in RAW if you want to. For me, the fatal flaw of the S90 is its lack of a viewfinder that you can bring to the eye - either optical or EV. I use that for most of my pictures and would not do without it.

I'm with Basingstoke. I bought myself a lovely digital camera for our trip to Europe, and dropped it six days in, messing up the screen at the back. I lifted it up figuring I could just use the view finder, only to discover that it didn't have one. Fortunately I had my old camera with me so I was OK, but I now think that viewfinders are an important consideration.