pupchic

I want to upgrade my camera to a higher end point and shoot. I have an old Canon A610, which has been great, but it's time to move on. I've looked at a variety of cameras, been in to hold a few as well. We take lots of outdoor scenery shots (will be going to the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone), family photos, and my husband, an avid cyclist and baseball enthusiast likes to take photos at races and ball games. We want it to be manageable in size, but also versatile. I think a decent amount of zoom would serve us well. Oh the choices are mind boggling! I was not as attracted to the similar level Nikon (though I generally love Nikon) due to the fact that I think you have to charge it with the battery in the camera, and the way the LCD screen flips out was less attractive and seemed a bit flimsy. The Lumix were of interest though I've heard some talk about issues with the proprietary batteries and some concern about the jpeg photos. I'm not familiar with taking RAW photos. Is it complicated to learn? Lots of questions, I know. Would appreciate any thoughts!!

thursdaysd

You could usefully spend some time on dpreview.com. I just replaced my Panasonic Lumix with a Nikon S9100 Coolpix and so far have been pleased. I'd have bought another Lumix, but the reviews for the new model weren't encouraging. I don't want all the pixels on the S9100 (files are too big) but love the 18x optical zoom.

pupchic

Thanks for the thoughts. I've spent a great deal of time on dpreview, cnet and other review sites. I have definitely determined after lots of reading that I am not going to trouble myself at this time with raw photos. Perhaps that's next time! I am leaning to the Sony based on reviews from pros and users. I love the flip screen on the Canon and appreciate the flash horseshoe, but for photo quality it seems the Sony wins pretty much hands down. Will see if I get any other good thoughts. Thanks!

qwovadis

My wife the pro swears by

Sony Alpha

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SLTA33L-T...ent-Technology

Nikon

Olympus

3 best series of quality in that order based on budget...

www.sourthernartgallery.com

takes nice pics macro and landscapes.

Personally pretty clueless just use a pocket cam

Got a great picture of a baby llama at MP once

but I pretty much totally suck at it...

So happy hunting,

qwovadis

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-...gle-Black/dp/B... - Cached

She says Coolpix probably best value pocket digital on

www.amazon.com

pupchic

Thanks. I am really looking in the market between the pocket digital and SLR. Looking for more features, but not to go to SLR at this point.

Eschew

If you have been happy with the Canon, stick with the brand. The SX-10 is not a bad camera, especially with the very long zoom. Only challenge is the max 1600 ISO is fairly low so it is not very usable in darker situations. The camera also does not focus fast enough on sports shots (especailly under dark lighting). The video function on the other hand, works better in darker lighting.

You may want to look at the new SX-150. the zoom is less but is still fairly long and is more usable. I wouldn't call neither of them "near SLR" and the feature sets are just quite standard.

I use dpreview.com as a starting point when I look for cameras. You may want to check their web site out.

You might want to consider a compact point and shoot with a longer zoom like the SD4500. It maybe a better choice than the sx-30, and cheaper too. It can go up to ISO 3200.

pupchic

Thanks everyone for their thoughts. I went with the Sony HX100v, took it to Quebec City and absolutely love it! One of the main reasons I went with it as opposed to the Canon was the constant recurring commentary on dpreview and other sites regarding picture quality, especially in lower light situations. So far so good! We will see how the WY photos turn out in Oct!

DeniseRose

If you shoot photos in RAW you will have to learn photoshop or other program that will allow you to process the picture (it's kind of like a negative) It's not a bad idea if you want to edit your photos, but jpegs allow you to basically take your pics and go. If you ever move up to a digital SLR then definitely shoot in RAW.

pupchic

Thanks! I think that will be another step up the road for me because as your email suggests it takes extra skills. I really appreciate your confirmation that RAW is like a negative. That's what I came to believe through research, but it's always good to get a confirmation! Really enjoying the new camera and looking forward to using it in Jackson Hole, GTNP and Yellowstone beginning on Sat!

basingstoke2

pupchic - came to this thread late. Your HX100 doesn't shoot RAW, so that is not an issue for you. I bought one about a month ago to replace my Lumix FX28. Loved the Lumix but it needed repairs and the cost did not pay. I looked long and hard as you did and settled with some misgivings on the Sony, particularly because it has no RAW capability and more important for me, doesn't accept filters. Both make little sense to me since it is already processing from RAW, just not keeping it. Also, how much extra would it have cost to thread the barrel for filters? That said, I have been happy with it and am still learning to use its myriad of features. Photos are a bit softer than the Lumix but I can compensate for that. It is fast and does far better than the Lumix did in low light and the Lumix was was not bad at all. I think it would be a better camera if they did not cram 16 megpxls on that small sensor. Because of its capabilities, I moved from a Sandisc Ultra to a Sandisc Extreme SD card and there is a noticeable difference. I like the built in instruction capability that is screen accessible - a good thing since there is no small paper manual to carry around. I also bought an extra aftermarket battery that works well and an out of camera charger - another thing that could have been included.

WillBrown

I really like Canon's mostly because of their warranties. It also sounds like it would be a great option for the kinds of photos you will be taking.

basingstoke2

The Canon SX30 is a nice camera but it has some drawbacks. It does well at low ISOs but the photos deteriorate as the ISO goes up - it lists available high ISOs but noise becomes excessive starting at 400 and gets worse from there. Like the Sony, the Canon does not support RAW.

Re-reading the OP, with the visit to the parks, the Sony panorama feature could be very useful. Basically you put it in the panorama setting and pan the camera. You will get a beautiful wide screen shot. It works both side to side and up and down. The Sony also has what might be the best movie mode of any of the point and shoots. A very nice feature of the movie mode is that you can easily take stills at the same time as the movie.

pupchic

Thanks everyone. Basingtoke2 - I'm curious about the differences you noticed in switching SD cards. Could you explain? Also, one of the main reasons I ended up with the Sony over the Canon was reading so many complaints about the noise at ISOs of 400 and higher. It was the one complaint I saw over and over and over again no matter what reviews I read. That was a concern.

And the Sony's reviews were, across the board, superior. I've loved the Canon I've had and really was stumbling over switching, but for what I wanted, glad we went with the Canon. Should I go to a digital SLR I expect I'll seriously look at Canon again. I don't think Sony competes as well in that market.

I appreciate the camera feedback and took some wonderful photos in Tetons and Yellowstone. I am thoroughly enjoying the Sony camera though also still learning all of its capabilities. My husband really enjoyed taking some great panoramic shots and we took some great video of moose, buffalo etc. And you are right about the stills in the movie mode though, again, we are learning many things! We had lots of fun experimenting on our trip.

I'll post a trip report soon! Not sure how I can post photos, but I would do that as well. Those golden aspens - wow...they were in full swing and gorgeous!

basingstoke2

About the extreme vs ultra card, the difference is in the writing speed of the card. Everything works more quickly.

One problem that I am having though is that I just uploaded the contents of my card to iPhoto - it is 8 gig so has a lot of stuff, and iPhoto will not read the movies - just ignored them. Everything else was fine. Does anyone have an idea of what might be going on?

pupchic

I apologize for my own ignorance - if it writes more quickly what does that mean for me?

As for the iphoto, I am not sure. Could it be a compatability issue with MAC? Perhaps there is a download available on the sony website to get your movies off? Also, have you tried a sight called www.dpreview.com? They have different forums as Fodors does and you can ask questions. The folks are pretty sophisticated for the most part I've found. Perhaps post your question there?

basingstoke2

In a camera like the HX100 the card writing speed can make a difference. That is because the Sony has the capability of a very high burst rate and is also capable of very high frame rates in the movie mode. Combine this with all the data being recorded from its 16.2 mp sensor and you can have an awful lot that card has to write in a frame. The faster the card can write, the faster it can move for e.g., in burst, one picture to the next and the less likely the camera's buffer will fill up which would increase picture to picture time. In short, a higher speed card allows you to take advantage of the full capabilities of the camera. The manual specifies a MINIMUM of a class 4 card.

I spoke with Sony tech help last night and it seems that the problem lies with my computer. I looked at a number of forums including dp but did not find much discussion of the subject.
I'll go over to the apple store and see if they concur.