italynovice

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.

basingstoke2

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.

italynovice

Thanks basingstoke2 - great pictures on your site!

DAX

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.

italynovice

$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.

DAX

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.

irishface

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.

xyz123

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?

basingstoke2

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.

scrb11

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.

basingstoke2

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.

scrb11

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.

DAX

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.

DAX

I meant. " more cities more confusion/artifacts"

italynovice

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?

scrb11

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.

marlene_

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.

xyz123

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.

basingstoke2

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.

cferrb

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.