# Camera shopping



## Stratelier (Jul 14, 2009)

My old camera (a Canon Powershot A590IS) fell victim to a splashdown while I was out looking for some nature shots.  Canon Factory can't repair it, so I need a successor.

But what?  There are too many options available?

First off, the 590 is one feature above your ordinary compact point-and-shoot:  _it has manual controls and focus_.  You don't find many cameras like that below $150, at all. Consumer Reports mag also rated it a "CR Best Buy".  Unfortunately the model's been basically discontinued by Canon and all online retailers (except Amazon.com, with its high reatil markup) are sold out.

So I'm looking at models to replace it.  I'm partial to Canon cameras, and I'm using that to narrow down my starting search.

So far I have two possibilities, but I can't choose between them.  Any help?

Option number one is a Canon Powershot SX10IS.  It's a megazoom camera, a.k.a. I-cant-believe-it's-not-a-DSLR.

Option number two is a Canon Powershot G10, a high-end compact.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...modelid1=17624&modelid3=17630&modelid22=16336

How do they differ?  Well, the SX10 has this going for it:
- Cheaper ($400 versus the G10's $500), and my local store actually has them in stock too.
- Runs on standard AA batteries (G10 uses a built-in battery/charger, which helps explain the difference in price).
- Megazoom lens from wide-angle (28mm) to telephoto (560mm).
- Swivel LCD display.
- Excellent image quality through ISO 400 (G10, up to 200) (according to CR magazine)

And the G10:
- Smaller/lighter than the SX10, can hold and operate in one hand like any other compact.
- Better aperture at maximum telephoto (f/4.5 versus the SX10's f/5.7)
- More megapixels (14.7 versus 10).  Since I've generally taken shots at 3~5 MP, this offers more fudge factor when using digital zoom.
- Slightly faster shutter (up to 1/4000 sec, SX10 goes up to 1/3200)
- RAW image capture.
- Optical viewfinder.
- A few more custom control modes (C1, C2, two custom white-balance points)
- Optional remote control

Beyond that they have many of the same capabilities (live historograms, macro shots close as 1cm, etc.) and either one of them are an obvious step up from my older camera.  I'm kinda leaning towards the G10 (despite its higher price and lack of standard batteries), but it's a tough decision to make.


----------



## ZentratheFox (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm diggin the SX10 IS. Even has the image stabilizer, which is a huge plus in my book. I dunno if it's worth the extra $100, though, just to be able to shoot RAW. The Megapixels don't really matter that much to me... Do you plan on doing editing?

Good call on the Canon brand, too. <3 My Rebel T1i.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 14, 2009)

Agreed on the Canon brand - excellent image quality.  I would spend the extra cash for the RAW image capability.  That's one thing... (okay one of many things) I dislike about the Sony Cybershot H2 that I have - no ability to get raw images.  When you start editing photos in a very detailed sense, compression, even a little, can really ruin dark areas.


----------



## Raithah (Jul 14, 2009)

Apparently there's a [CHKDK] port for the [SX10] - in case you're skipping over this post quickly, let me boldly iterate.

*It lets you shoot in raw with the SX10.*

My knowledge with cameras in the artistic sense is limited to aiming at something and pressing the button a lot, so I won't bother recommending one model over the other.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 14, 2009)

http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/se...tId=1006268&navigationPath=32090n100455n47385 is the one I'm contemplating for the Australia trip in the fall.  Sleek and relatively well equipped.  Mydad just bought one, and I'm impressed.  Not much bigger than a RIM, tonnes of features and a better price point than that website suggests.

Raithah, thanks for the CHKDK port link, I need to check that out.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 14, 2009)

Not to derail the thread, but I think this is something that might be worth discussion. With regard to RAW, I've never really understood what the big deal is in comparison between RAW and formats like TIFF/PNG, which are lossless and also support extended bit depths (up to 16-bit per channel/48-bit for PNG, 32-bit per channel/96-bit for TIFF) but also offer (lossless) compression. I've heard arguments that there is extended data that gets lost during rasterization/conversion to conventional formats, but for the most part, you'll end up rasterizing it anyway, and there isn't much you can do differently with it. What's more, consumer screens are stuck with something close to the sRGB colour gamut (and printouts will necessarily use the CMYK colorspace, which varies from printer to printer (entry-level printers suck)). So what, exactly, is the difference there, in the end, between shooting RAW and shooting to a lossless rasterized format? The raster conversion quality of the camera versus PC software?


----------



## pixthor (Jul 14, 2009)

If you were to get a camera. You should get a Kodak EasyShare M863. I just got one for my birthday. I love the thing already. Good quality. Mine came with a 1GB SD card. You can get one on ebay for pretty cheap. Same thing with amazon. Unless you are a professional photographer who shoots weddings.


----------



## Ceuper (Jul 14, 2009)

Dude, if you're going to spend $500, *just get a Canon XS *(or 1000D, if you prefer)*.* I own one and I would never, ever regret the purchase. It's the entry level DSLR, one step below the XSi, but the two cameras are nearly identical (they use the same body, sensor and lens, but the XSi takes images of slightly higher resolution and has a larger LCD... doesn't make a difference and it's $100 cheaper). You can get a XS with a kit lens for $600 if you look around, and the advantage of having a DSLR is so worth it. You can equip different lenses and the image quality is amazing. It's also really easy to use and I swear I've had to charge mine about 3 times in 6 months (that's with fairly regular usage, too). 

Also, RAW is very worth it. You will have a hard time going back after using something like Photoshop's RAW conversion tool. 

Here are some images I've taken with mine:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8203/docked.jpg
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8148/terncatch.jpg (300mm lens)
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7197/bluejayflight.jpg
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2051/momr.jpg

Be careful when comparing the specifications of different cameras. The features may make it sound great and all, but the actual quality of the images is what matters in the end, regardless of the image resolution. I have never had a problem with capturing a shot with my XS, except in very low light situations, but I'm planning on buying a 50mm f1.8 lens to fix that issue.


----------



## Keowolf (Jul 14, 2009)

I've owned a G10 in the past, and although I loved the thing, I eventually sold it because I felt like it was more trouble than it was worth to obtain an image comparable to even what any of my SLRs could do.



Stratadrake said:


> And the G10:
> - Smaller/lighter than the SX10, can hold and operate in one hand like any other compact.


That was one of the main reasons to choose the G10 over other cameras, that it was feature-rich in a solid metal body. One-handed control is fairly easy, unless you need to adjust things like exposure compensation.


Stratadrake said:


> - Better aperture at maximum telephoto (f/4.5 versus the SX10's f/5.7)


Keep in mind that the SX10 IS's optical zoom is equal to 560mm on a 35mm camera, while the G10's is equal to 140mm, so you're only losing less than a full stop for the added zoom.


Stratadrake said:


> - More megapixels (14.7 versus 10).  Since I've generally taken shots at 3~5 MP, this offers more fudge factor when using digital zoom.


A downfall of the G10 is how many megapixels it packs into its small image sensor. Even shooting bright subjects at ISOs like 200, you'll be able to see noise when cropping. Additionally, because of the megapixels, you must ensure that you're correctly exposing your photos when using ISO 800 and 1600, or their quality will be disappointing. I almost always had to overexpose by at least a little bit to prevent noise from becoming too much of a problem.


Stratadrake said:


> - Slightly faster shutter (up to 1/4000 sec, SX10 goes up to 1/3200)


A small issue, but useful when you do need those high of shutter speeds.


Stratadrake said:


> - RAW image capture.


I exclusively shoot in neutral modes in RAW, so this was another big reason that I chose the G10. I had to adjust my G10 images more than from my digital SLRs, so I'm glad RAW functionality was enabled.


Stratadrake said:


> - Optical viewfinder.


Compared to an SLR, the G10's viewfinder is a joke. Its coverage is less than 80%, and displays a strong tunnel effect. You'll always be using the LCD screen to frame your photos.


Stratadrake said:


> - A few more custom control modes (C1, C2, two custom white-balance points)


I admit, I never used the custom functions, and if I accidentally choose an incorrect white balance, it can be corrected later if you shoot in RAW.


Stratadrake said:


> - Optional remote control


Never used this, haha.

As 'Ceuper' has recommended, if you're going to spend so much on a point-and-shoot, you should also look into a digital SLR. I strongly recommend the EOS 20D a starting SLR; it's faster than things like the XSi, and is built with quite a bit better quality, namely because it has a metal body instead of plastic. It has a smaller LCD screen and less megapixels than some SLRs of today, but the LCD screen is fine for reviewing, and less megapixels will result in cleaner images. And a 10 megapixel image is physically only marginally larger than 8 megapixels (link).

Once you venture into SLRs, though, what lenses you use will decide how your image ultimately turns out, followed by what mode you shoot in. Some people will indefinitely use their 18-55mm kit lenses and shoot in the green 'Auto' mode for as long as they own their digital SLRs, but doing so will not enable you to obtain images much better than what a point-and-shoot can turn out. Even investing in a bottom-end 'L' lens, like, the 70-200mm f/4, can really separate your pictures from others. That lens is really sharp, even if you always shoot wide-open at f/4 all the time. And popular portrait focal lengths, like 135mm and 200mm, are able to be used, even on a 1.6x crop body.

*Condensed version:*

I'd suggest looking into at least an EOS 20D, and putting the best glass you can reasonably afford on it. If money is tight, the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens is fun, and teaches you about depth of field control.


----------



## hitokage (Jul 14, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Not to derail the thread, but I think this is something that might be worth discussion. With regard to RAW, I've never really understood what the big deal is in comparison between RAW and formats like TIFF/PNG, which are lossless and also support extended bit depths (up to 16-bit per channel/48-bit for PNG, 32-bit per channel/96-bit for TIFF) but also offer (lossless) compression. I've heard arguments that there is extended data that gets lost during rasterization/conversion to conventional formats, but for the most part, you'll end up rasterizing it anyway, and there isn't much you can do differently with it. What's more, consumer screens are stuck with something close to the sRGB colour gamut (and printouts will necessarily use the CMYK colorspace, which varies from printer to printer (entry-level printers suck)). So what, exactly, is the difference there, in the end, between shooting RAW and shooting to a lossless rasterized format? The raster conversion quality of the camera versus PC software?


This is what Wikipedia has to say about using the Raw image format:

[SIZE=+1]*Benefits*[/SIZE]

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that support raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:


 Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying the gamma curve, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.

 Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction

 JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats are typically either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the raw file.

 Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent".

 Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.

 The color space can be set to whatever is desired.

 Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.

 The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the color gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts.

 Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in less visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 15, 2009)

ZenthraTheFox said:
			
		

> I dunno if [Powershot SX10] is worth the extra $100, though


Actually it's the G10 that's more expensive -- however, if you discount the proprietary batter/charger (the two of which total about $100 by themselves!) then the cameras themselves are about the same cost as each other.

Far as I'm concerned the biggest difference is a superzoom lens and swivel LCD display (selling features of the SX10) vs. a lighter camera that can be held/operated in just one hand.  Considering that both are quite capable of doing the kinds of shots I've taken with the 590, the deciding factor is probably going to end up being something stupid and superficial.

Y'know, like what colors they're made in or if they have rubber grips. 



			
				Ceuper said:
			
		

> Dude, if you're going to spend $500, just get a Canon XS (or 1000D, if you prefer). I own one and I would never, ever regret the purchase.





Keowolf said:


> I've owned a G10 in the past, and although I loved the thing, I eventually sold it because I felt like it was more trouble than it was worth to obtain an image comparable to even what any of my SLRs could do.


For you, yes, but I have no SLR to call my own and thus nothing to 'step down' from.

Our store currently does stock the XS and XSi (too bad they aren't hooked up to their AC adaptors or I'd actually be able to test them out).  The former was on clearance, even, (I could've purchased it for $350 after all discounts combined) but I'm guessing they only had the display model left because it was there yesterday, gone today.

And yeah, anyone who aims for professional level work will have to use an SLR eventually, but for now that might be . . . I dunno, overshooting?  No pun intended....



> Keep in mind that the SX10 IS's optical zoom is equal to 560mm on a 35mm camera, while the G10's is equal to 140mm, so you're only losing less than a full stop for the added zoom.


Yes, I've already learned the hard way with the 590 that my minimum F-stop varies more or less linearly with the zoom level.  The G10 has the same telephoto lengh (140mm) as the 590, and that's easily accommodated most of the shots I've taken already.



> Compared to an SLR, the G10's viewfinder is a joke. Its coverage is less than 80%, and displays a strong tunnel effect. You'll always be using the LCD screen to frame your photos.


True, but so was the 590's (its viewfinder was on the order of about 70% coverage).  I'd have to take a look at the display model to be sure but I seem to recall that the SX10 has no optical viewfinder -- just the swivel display and Live View.

I remember one time my batteries were low on the 590 and I was still able to take dozens casual shots just with the optical viewfinder.



> And a 10 megapixel image is physically only marginally larger than 8 megapixels.


Yes, I am already aware that megapixels are an two-dimensional measurement instead of linear.



> I'd suggest looking into at least an EOS 20D, and putting the best glass you can reasonably afford on it. If money is tight, the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens is fun, and teaches you about depth of field control.


I had a photography class back in high school (35mm film SLR, no zoom, darkroom experience; fun stuff really) and never forgot about how each of the exposure controls has secondary effects (motion blur, depth of field) on your shot.  That's one thing I need manual controls for, in bright outdoor lighting auto shots tend to pick high apetures and that can really ruin your macros when there's too much in focus at the same time.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 15, 2009)

hitokage said:


> This is what Wikipedia has to say about using the Raw image format



Yyyyeeeeah, I read that, but that (predominantly) is comparing RAW to JPEG, so many of the selling points of RAW can be had in other lossless formats such as TIFF/PNG/BMP/etc. It also goes into the concept that the camera's internal processing isn't as good as a computer's and RAW necessarily has a wider gamut (which gets clipped anyway once you process the image - You're not going to get colours very far outside of sRGB to show up on a screen (and therefore, you're not going to use them), and you're not going to squeeze much more out of a printer, either). I suppose I see it sort of like if someone started arguing that compressing audio to FLAC causes a quality loss, or that using a $500 link cable for digital audio reduces "noise". I don't see any reason as to why it should be so.


----------



## Raithah (Jul 15, 2009)

Runefox: Just a guess, but I'd say it's because very few cameras on the market implement TIFF or PNG - the two cameras listed above don't, and extrapolating from available data, no other camera does either.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 15, 2009)

Raithah said:


> Runefox: Just a guess, but I'd say it's because very few cameras on the market implement TIFF or PNG - the two cameras listed above don't, and extrapolating from available data, no other camera does either.



I've seen many pro-sumer cameras shoot to TIFF and some I've seen can shoot to BMP, as well, so it's not that they can't or don't (though I've never seen nor heard of one shooting to PNG, for some strange reason).


----------



## Raithah (Jul 15, 2009)

Aah, I've got it. Google says it has to do with the colours, or rather, how they're stored. You've already touched upon why storing it outside of the sRGB colourspace is unimportant, how no monitor can display it and how no printer could print it - but what about in ten years? Your FLACs are mathematically lossless and are absolutely perfect replicas of what is given to you in digital format, so if you kept your CD for another decade and compared it to the FLAC, played on any sound system, they'll sound identical. However, if you take a pair of photographs in RAW and TIF formats, then inspect them after sufficient advances in display/printing technology have occurred, there will be minor differences. Extremely minor, so minor, in fact, that you'd be hard pressed to find any human being on planet Earth that could discern them, but who knows. Why do you store music losslessly? So it's timeless or so that future You doesn't have to work with degraded resources.

But then again, that's just my guess, and I'm no photographer.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 16, 2009)

Well, the thing is that in this case, PNG/TIFF/etc _are_ lossless, and so will still look the same on the super-wide gamut displays of twenty-years-from-now-land (or maybe not?). From what I've read in this thread and on Wiki, it seems to boil down to, again, the processing of the RAW data for rasterization. But it still seems like it's a little superficial, since you can apply that sort of processing after the fact. I suppose the extra colour information allows for slightly more accurate processing but... Well, I've yet to get a clear, concise reason as to why RAW is so awesome that it would potentially be worth an extra $100 or so in choosing a camera to shoot with.

I'm no photographer, either - I'm much more at home with a keyboard than a camera. But knowing the advantages and disadvantages of current image formats, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the RAW bit, especially since TIFF can be expanded to up to 32-bit per channel (96-bit per pixel) and floating point colour depth, which... Well, which should really encompass enough of that gamut.


----------



## hitokage (Jul 16, 2009)

I had also noticed that the Wikipedia article was lacking in the way you mentioned about it comparing it to JPEGs and ignoring TIFFs. It boils down to it offers things that mostly only pros will want. It's main benefit is probably the fact the camera does no processing. Another feature that is ideal is the one regarding the color space as it means you don't have to convert from one color space to another - you can choose what you need ~ sRGB for images on the web, CMYK for print production, and YIQ/YUV/YPbPr/YCbCr for television/video.

I found this on the Adobe website - it's from a press release announcing their DNG format (which is a standardized version of Raw):
"Serious photographers want to store raw files in long-term image archives, because â€” unlike standard JPEG's and TIFF's â€” these files represent the pure, unaltered capture." and "Professional photographers and other creative professionals are moving to raw camera workflows because of the outstanding creative control they get over digital images," said Bryan Lamkin, senior vice president of Digital Imaging and Digital Video products at Adobe. 

There was also this:
"The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard, and already the basis of many proprietary raw formats." This to me is saying that Raw is based on a version of the TIFF format. The TIFF option on cameras is the regular TIFF format which includes the things pro photographers don't want.


----------

