Digital bridge camera advice please

[wmrcomputers]

I have decided to treat myself to a new camera soon. I want something fairly automatic for holiday snapping etc., but with a little flexibility to play around if I have the time to spare. Not wanting to spend a fortune, I've decided to go with a bridge camera. There are 4 I've been looking at...

FUJIFILM S8650 - £90
16MP, 100-6400 iso, 36x opt, 25mm ccd, 1/4 to 1/1500, Apeture 2.9-6.9

POLAROID IE4038 - £100
18MP, 100-3200 iso, 40x opt, cmos, 1/4 to 4, 3.1-5.8

NIKON L330 - £90
20MP, 80-1600 iso, 26x opt, 22.5mm ccd, 1/1500 to 1, 3.1-9.9

KODAK AZ421 - £130
16MP, 80-3200 iso, 42x opt, 24mm ccd, 1/2000 to 30 secs

Here are my thoughts so far based on what I've read up. Please correct me if I'm wrong and answer what you can.

1. CMOS can show more noise on enlarged prints than CCD - so forget the Polaroid camera?
2. I understand that a higher iso allows a higher sensitivity to light. Realistically when could going above the lowest 1600 iso limit above (such as the 6400iso) benefit me?
3. Aperture I don't understand much at all. Which is better and again when would this possibly be of use to have a wider range?
4. Shutter speeds make some sense to me. I'm not likely to be taking high speed sports shots, but then the night-time effects of car lights etc would be nice to play with (obviously needing the Kodak camera). Other than that reason, can anyone give good examples of why I should pick one camera over another?
5. The actual MP ratings not as important as the other figures are. True?

I know there are some photography fanatics aboard the forum so I'm hoping you'll all be kind enough to help me to make an informed decision. Your time will be massively appreciated!

 

[photography_bloke]

I don't know a great deal about bridge cameras, I've never used one myself, but I can say:

1 - they can yes, although it will probably only be really noticeable on images taken in low light. I'd still forget the Polaroid camera though, as they aren't as good as they once were and the reviews I've seen of it aren't too favourable

2 - A High ISO will help in very dark conditions when you aren't able to use a flash - I have been known to go as high as 8000 in some situations, although if you are able to use a flash you'd be able to get away with a lower ISO. High ISOs do produce a lot of noise though.

3 - The aperture partly controls the amount of light coming into the camera (allowing correct exposure), and also controls the depth of field (basically whether or not objects well behind or in front the focus point are in focus or not). In most cases the ranges mentioned above will be fine for general use. A wider range will help control exposure in darker or very bright conditions if you want to use specific shutter speeds (say, you need to use a faster shutter speed to capture a moving subject in slighter darker conditions)

4 - For most general shots you'd probably be using speeds in the 1/60 to 1/250 range, so they should all be ok. Although yes, you would need the Kodak if you wanted to take longer exposure shots in low light - bit surprised that's the only camera which will go over 1 second exposure time

5 - True, the actual MP count doesn't really make much of a difference these days, unless you want to print a banner to go on the side of a building!

Looking at your list, I'd say that the FujiFilm is probably the best all rounder, although if the light trail type images are something you'd really like to try obviously that forces your hand a bit

Hope that helps If you'd like any more info let me know

 

[Laurie61]

I would agree with pb's comments, I have had a quick look around and found this just to complicate your choice a bit.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3776142.htm#pdpFullProductInformation

 

[Kickstart]

Hi

Pretty much agree with the above, but just to put it in to other terms.

1) CMOS vs CCD. The actual implementation is probably going to be far more important than the theoretical benefits of one over the other

2) Depends on the light. Using it in a dim room without a flash high iso can greatly help. But probably more important rather than the ISO level is how much 'noise' there is at higher ISO. For example my first dSLR had noise that was (to me) getting unpleasant by ISO 400, despite going up to ISO 1600. Having a good max ISO is a great help when you want to image and have no choice but to not use the flash, or when the flash would struggle (large room in the dark for example).

3) The aperture figures will probably be the max aperture. In simple terms it reflects the size of the hole through which light has to pass to get to the sensor (it is expressed as the F number which is a ratio to the length of the lens ). The smaller the F number the more light getting in so better in low light, but also the smaller the depth of field (which is good for throwing the background out of focus to highlight your subject). There will also be a comparable min aperture figure.

4) Shutter speed not only helps with high speed images (for cars or bikes at speed you tend to use a relatively slow shutter speed and pan, so the subject stays sharp but the background appears to have moved in relation to the subject - and the wheels are blurred). But for long exposure shots on the figures given there the Kodak does look to be the only real option.

5) MP count is a nice headline figure. But don't get too hung up on it. I have seen large prints (~A2 size) from images taken by cameras of under 3mp. Higher MP count tends to give smaller more tightly packed individual sensors, which tends to give more noise (like using higher ISO). I wouldn't worry about the difference between 16mp and 20mp (highest mp count camera I have is ~12mp).

All the best

K

 

[wmrcomputers]

@photography_bloke and @Kickstart thank you both for giving some very good explanations. I knew I'd find some good advice here.
@Laurie61 I had already considered that camera also, but the 30 second exposure time of the Kodak vs the 15 seconds for the Canon one you've listed made my shortlist it down to the Kodak as they were the same price.

My step daughter has just today treated herself to the £90 Fujifilm one I mentioned. I must say quite an impressive camera for £90. Another consideration I'm contending with now is whether or not to go for one that takes AA batteries vs a built in Li-on battery. Obviously the rechargeable would be nice for simplicity, whereas the standard AA powered one's give you the ability to carry as many as you need. Do any of you have any advice regarding the kind of lifespan from Li-ion cameras? If it would cover a days general shooting on holiday (to be recharged at night) then that would be okay, but I'd hate to be going flat after just 20 or 30 shots.

 

[John Marwood]

It sounds trite but, iPhone it

 

[wmrcomputers]

iPhones, like any phone, have the same downfall as compact digital camera's. No space for a quality lens with depth for movement either. Even cameras with a massive megapixel rating are only good enough for "spur of the moment" shots. If you want to blow it up big, canvas print it or anything else they're not suitable for decent pictures as far as I'm concerned.

I know one person who thought an iPhone would cut it for wedding pictures. The B&G relied on friends and family to supply them with better pictures to keep for their memories. I can remember them begging for copies on Facebook and the "i told you so" comments.

 

[John Marwood]

http://www.olloclip.com/

 

[photography_bloke]

I know one person who thought an iPhone would cut it for wedding pictures.

Please tell me you're joking!!

 

[Kickstart]

[Another consideration I'm contending with now is whether or not to go for one that takes AA batteries vs a built in Li-on battery. Obviously the rechargeable would be nice for simplicity, whereas the standard AA powered one's give you the ability to carry as many as you need. Do any of you have any advice regarding the kind of lifespan from Li-ion cameras? If it would cover a days general shooting on holiday (to be recharged at night) then that would be okay, but I'd hate to be going flat after just 20 or 30 shots.

I fully understand your position. However I have never had a problem with battery life on any of my dSLR taking a silly number of shots (27000 one weekend......), with a charge lasting a massive number of shots. The OE batteries have very long lives although they do cost more than a set of rechargeable AA batteries.

And more important with most cameras you can easily buy a reasonably priced spare battery. 7 day shop are pretty good for batteries.

As to mobile phone cameras. They are very useful for snaps and the quality has greatly improved. But the sensors are tiny which probably greatly contributes to how horribly noisy the images are when conditions are very slightly challenging. OK, not an iPhone but a recent smartphone, but this photo was taken at about 4pm by a fairly bright window - nowhere near good light but not that bad. OK as a snap but it is horribly noisy.

All the best

Keith

 

[Laurie61]

It varies from camera to camera but dedicated Li-on batteries will usually give several hundred photo's and some video with a single charge even on compact/bridge camera's.

 

[Jonah]

Don't go for a camera with AA batteries. They will drain really quickly and you will spend a lot of money on them.

 

[photography_bloke]

I'd echo that - Li-ion batteries are definitely the better choice

Mine generally last a few days to a week, and that's on a DSLR using a lens with Image Stabilisation (which does eat up the power). My Dad takes his little point and shoot camera on holiday and typically doesn't have to recharge it for the whole 2 weeks

 

[wmrcomputers]

Guys, you all rock! Okay so that brings me down to the choice of either the Kodak mentioned in the original post, or the canon SX400 that laurie mentioned. Difficult to choose as there are only 2 reviews for the kodak and they aren't very positive, but it's early days for it to have many reviews yet. The canon has a few excellent reviews but only 15 seconds shutter compared to the 30 seconds on the kodak one.
Here's the side by side comparison if any of you can give me some "for and against" arguments. For what it's worth, the Canon is usually £260 and is half price which makes me think it's possibly a wiser choice, but how much difference will that extra 15 seconds make on the Kodak for light trail pictures / storm photographs etc?

 

[wmrcomputers]

Also the optical zoom is far greater as is the maximum ISO on the Kodak.
The original price and the brand name are pulling me towards the Canon, yet everything else pulls me towards the Kodak.

 

[number9]

you'll need extremely steady hands to be using at the full zoom range of either camera.
are you likely to be taking any pics of wildlife from distance, or celeb life
most light effect pics or storm pics would be at the wider angle end of the cameras, so don't worry about the zoom end.
15 seconds will still give you 'trail' light effects, especially around towns, this is 3.2 seconds long for example.
i'd go to the shop that has both and try each in my hands, the Kodak is a bit chunkier than the canon, will it be too big, or the canon feel small? see where the controls are and if they feel comfortable to use with 1 finger on the shutter button.

 

[Laurie61]

Without trying either it is a bit of a blind bodge choosing one or the other , on one hand the Canon is a respected camera manufacturer whilst Kodak got out of making there own kit several years ago and it's now made by JK imaging and badged Kodak. I would expect the Canon to have a decent lens fitted for its original £250 selling price ?
The Kodak's spec is better though and does have Aperture/shutter priority, full manual as well as Auto control with the canon only having Auto. If you want to experiment with long exposure full exposure control would make it a lot easer.
So on balance I might be tempted to forgo the Canon and try the Kodak.

 

[wmrcomputers]

Appreciate your thoughts, both. @Laurie61 , where did you find that the canon only had auto vs the full manual control on the Kodak?

 

[Laurie61]

Appreciate your thoughts, both. @Laurie61 , where did you find that the canon only had auto vs the full manual control on the Kodak?

There is some info here - http://www.canon-europe.com/images/PowerShot SX400 IS_Specification Sheet_EM_FINAL_tcm13-1169481.pdf

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1096666-REG/kodak_az421_bk_16mp_pixpro_az421_digital.html

If you look at Shooting/exposure modes offered the Canon does not offer PASM which the Kodak camera apparently does. The Canon gets by with exposure compensation and various 'scene' modes.

http://www.itsjustlight.com/photography-course/pasm-camera-exposure-modes/

 

[Kickstart]

but only 15 seconds shutter compared to the 30 seconds on the kodak one.

Do either have a 'bulb' setting? Using this the shutter is open as long as the button is pressed, so in effect as long as you want (you will need a remote shutter release).

On a dSLR I have landed up using bulb setting for over 20 minute exposures (body cap converted to pinhole 'lens')

All the best

Keith