kapoorsunny: Review: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR1 camera - The DMC-ZR1's very quiet, ultrawide-angle lens makes it an unassuming all-... link
about 34 seconds ago
Macphotoinfo: Review: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR1 camera link
about 55 seconds ago
KathrynAnderson: www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/LUMIX+Digital+Cameras/Stylish+Compact/DMC-FS15/Specification/1994157/index.html?trackInfo=true
about 3 minutes ago
fotoamade: Foto Trend: #2: Lumix DMC-FT1 (Adventure, 12 MP, 4x Optischer Zoom, Silber): Lumi.. link digital Fotografie
about 19 minutes ago
RevDerekW: @revsongbird Cnsmr rprts suggests Canon PowerShot SD1200 IS ELPH ($200), the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZR1 $240 and Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR $320
about 21 minutes ago
Follow us on Twitter ...
 |
Andy's new digital camera, photographed, ironically, by his iPhone. |
 | By Andy Tarnoff   Publisher E-mail author | Author bio More articles by Andy Tarnoff |
| Published Aug. 13, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. |
|
Buying a digital camera is this decade's version of buying a baseball glove.
Well, it is for me, anyway.
Back in the day (read: the '90s), I'd do as much exhaustive research as possible when picking out a new glove. I'd try a bunch on, knowing that in the store, they'd feel nothing like they would playing catch six months later.
And every time I'd buy a glove -- which was about three times, I think -- I'd feel instant buyer's remorse that it cost too much, felt too stiff for too long or it was a step backwards from my broken-in, old gamer that was literally falling apart at the seams.
That's kind of how I feel about digital cameras. In the last 10 years, I've owned six of them: a piece of junk from Epson that I bought in '99; a Kodak that I lost in a cab; a Minolta that died and I actually paid to get repaired until it eventually died again; a great Lumix that I dropped during the playoffs last year; a Fuji that was stolen out of my car last week; and a new Lumix I bought to replace it.
With the exception of that first Lumix, I've hated each and every one of them. The jury's still out on the new one, which arrived yesterday.
I'm far from a professional photographer, but I understand intermediate concepts in photography, and I need a decent camera for work purposes. So I'm always forlorn that my camera du jour is too bulky or lacks a good zoom or can't shoot crisp photos in low-light situations or doesn't offer manual control to adjust aperture settings.
In other words, I'm never happy.
The new camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX500, the first touch-screen offering from Lumix. I found it online for $210, which seems to be the sweet spot for a decent point-and-shoot. I really liked my old, five-megapixel Lumix with its Leica lens, and would probably still be using it if it wasn't dropped off a car hood while tailgating. But even that one didn't have many manual settings, and I spent most of my time suffering from camera envy.
This new camera does have good manual settings, but it also has a tiny joystick that might not work with my stubby fingers, and the touch screen is, well, touchy.
But enough about me. Whenever I bitch and moan about my digital camera, someone in the room always seconds my emotion. For one reason or another, they hate theirs, too. I suspect it's for many of the same reasons.
Believe me, I do tons of research every time I buy a camera (which at this pace, is about regrettably once every two years). Still, I'd like to hear if anyone has found something compact, powerful, versatile, durable and cheap.
For my money, this product doesn't exist.
|
13 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review. |
Recent Talkbacks ...
Posted by devidia on Aug. 14, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (report)
I'm still getting used to my Sony Cybershot digital camera. So far I like it. And TomSellecksMustache, do you have Tom Selleck's Detroit Tigers baseball cap, too??...The Ferrari??...
| Rate this: |
Posted by TomSellecksMustache on Aug. 13, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. (report)
I assume we're talking point and shoot cameras here. I have avoided purchasing a new one of these for about 7 years. The problem is that all of them have sensors that are too small. Some have nicer optics than others but its all moot when you're jamming 12 million pixels into "digital film" the size of your fingernail. It doesn't matter how many miniscule photosites it has. They're going to look mushy and respond slowly. My "point and shoot" is hands down too large for your tastes, that much I am sure of. It also is probably too expensive as well. The Sigma DP2 is a camera that many people do not like. While it has a max aperture of 2.8, it is a bit slow to focus. The catch here is its unique sensor. It contains the same sensor as the Sigma DSLR cameras. The image quality ends up being excellent. Although this is a controversial thing because it has a Foveon sensor instead of a Bayer Filter Mosaic sensor... I digress. Bigger is better, but I can't stick my camera in my pocket, unless its a shirt pocket.
| Rate this: |
Posted by LouManske on Aug. 13, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. (report)
Why didn't you just re-lace your glove?
| Rate this: |
Posted by cynthadeltorro on Aug. 13, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. (report)
The three digital camera's I have owned in the last 11 years have all been Canon Powershots from the ELPH series. I'm not an avid comparison shopper so when I find something that does what I need, I stick with it. They have metal bodies and since I drop my camera often it's an important feature for me. I also like the small size. I had the first Canon for 6 years when I finally managed to break it for good. The second Canon I just replaced last year because I wanted a bigger screen. I paid a little over $200 for it.
| Rate this: |
Posted by j_spectra on Aug. 13, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (report)
If you buy crappy cameras, you will always feel buyer's remorse. I've only bought two cameras in the last 10 years, both Canon. The price tag was a little heftier but they are both solidly built and performed wonderfully. Their long lasting value makes up for the steep intro cost imo. My older of the two cameras (Canon G3) still works fine but is only 4 megapixels and was a bigger camera. I only recently purchased my new ELPH for the smaller size and upgraded video features for youtubing and I feel great about the purchase. 14 MP, super tiny and discreet and works great. I use it alot for recording video at clubs and rock shows and the mic on it has a limiter so sound quality in really loud environments is still crystal clear with ZERO distortion. (You can even hear people talking around you in addition to the music whereas my old camera would just have distortion from the loud music.)
| Rate this: |
Show me the other 8 Talkbacks
Recent blogs/briefs by Andy Tarnoff
|
You can dance if you want to Monday I went to the wedding on Saturday night of one of my wife's best friends. The reception, ... |
|
Has Google's stance on neutrality gone too far? Nov. 25, 2009 The Web is buzzing about an offensive and crude Photoshopping of Michelle Obama that, ... |
|
I'm becoming addicted to the online bargain Nov. 23, 2009 There's something about the online bargain that has me hooked. Whether it's eBay, Craigslist ... |
|
When was the last time you saw these around the office? Nov. 18, 2009 Since starting OnMilwaukee.com in 1998, life has gone increasingly digital. And even within ... |
|
Advertising strategies that go in one ear and out the other Nov. 16, 2009 I'm probably more impressed than the average Joe when I see or hear good ads, and I'm ... |
| Top Clicks | Top Searches | Most Talkbacks |
|
|
