What camera to buy for Christmas?

[Duffer]

If you are looking for a new camera to use when sailing you might be interested in the latest reviews in PCPro (Feb 2012 - yes I know). They give top marks to the Panasonic FZ150, a bridge camera which has 25-600mm zoom lens, 12 megapixels and full HD video (1080p/50). It has very effective image stabilisation and you can plug in an external mike (reduces wind noise). It weighs 536g and costs under £300 if you shop around online.

If you want something a bit smaller and cheaper they recommend the Nikon S9100 compact with 25-450mm zoom, 12mp and full HD (1080p/30). It weighs 214g and costs around £180. It comes with a 2 year warranty. Others to consider are Panasonic TZ20, Sony WX10 and Fuji F550EXR.

If you prefer a camcorder, have a look at the Panasonic SD80 and SD90. You can plug an external mic into the SD90 which reduces wind noise. They have large optical zooms and excellent stabilisation.

IMHO you want a good zoom range and good stabilisation for use on board. A DSLR with a similar zoom will cost over £1000. Any of the cameras mentioned will give better results than a budget compact.

What cameras would you recommend? Given the convergence between cameras and camcorders, which format do you prefer?

 

[jwilson]

If you are looking for a new camera to use when sailing you might be interested in the latest reviews in PCPro (Feb 2012 - yes I know). They give top marks to the Panasonic FZ150, a bridge camera which has 25-600mm zoom lens, 12 megapixels and full HD video (1080p/50). It has very effective image stabilisation and you can plug in an external mike (reduces wind noise). It weighs 536g and costs under £300 if you shop around online.

If you want something a bit smaller and cheaper they recommend the Nikon S9100 compact with 25-450mm zoom, 12mp and full HD (1080p/30). It weighs 214g and costs around £180. It comes with a 2 year warranty. Others to consider are Panasonic TZ20, Sony WX10 and Fuji F550EXR.

If you prefer a camcorder, have a look at the Panasonic SD80 and SD90. You can plug an external mic into the SD90 which reduces wind noise. They have large optical zooms and excellent stabilisation.

IMHO you want a good zoom range and good stabilisation for use on board. A DSLR with a similar zoom will cost over £1000. Any of the cameras mentioned will give better results than a budget compact.

What cameras would you recommend? Given the convergence between cameras and camcorders, which format do you prefer?

I borrowed a Panasonic bridge camera early this year for a wedding, playing with it for a few days before. I think it was the FZ150. Quite impressed with everything except the RAW file quality, but in JPG it was OK. At least you can have it against your eye and steadyish and look through the viewfinder so the long zoom was usable - unlike a long zoom on a LCD-only compact held at arms length with one hand whilst the other shades the sun from the LCD.

If you want video use a camcorder, not a camera.

 

[Lakesailor]

I think it was the FZ150. Quite impressed with everything except the RAW file quality, but in JPG it was OK.

That's interesting. What was the problem with RAW files?

 

[Waterdiddy]

I recently bought the Fujifilm F600EXR and I am impressed with it. It has a high megapixel count, does HD video at full resolution and is small enough to stick in a pocket when I don't want to lug my DSLR, extra lenses and bag around on a brief visit to shore.

It has plenty of features and is relatively cheap for its specs.

Problems? - Sure, no viewfinder makes you do the tourist stance, lol, but on the whole I can live with that.

Waterproof housings are around for it and they too are fairly inexpensive (compared to those for my DSLR) and if it all gets sopping wet, I havent killed my Canon (I'd never forgive myself that)

Pete

 

[Duffer]

I borrowed a Panasonic bridge camera early this year for a wedding, playing with it for a few days before. I think it was the FZ150. Quite impressed with everything except the RAW file quality, but in JPG it was OK. At least you can have it against your eye and steadyish and look through the viewfinder so the long zoom was usable - unlike a long zoom on a LCD-only compact held at arms length with one hand whilst the other shades the sun from the LCD.

If you want video use a camcorder, not a camera.

It may have been the earlier FZ100 - the new FZ150 is meant to be better, in particular the image quality.

 

[photodog]

That's interesting. What was the problem with RAW files?

He needed to do something too them.......


BTW, just so we are all clear... Bridge cameras are the work of the devil.

Too big for a compact, too small to have a decent lens....

Too complex to be reliable... Not simple enough to be useable.

 

[jwilson]

That's interesting. What was the problem with RAW files?

Noisy as hell. The camera is obviously doing a lot of tailored cleaning up in creating the JPGs. I could not equal the camera's own JPG when opening in Photoshop. I suppose If I'd spent long enough I might have found the settings that were as good as the camera's JPGs, but i had other things to do.

I always use RAW if I can, but ended up using JPG on the Panasonic. I really liked it's burst mode, with five or six shots every time you push the button for a second it gives you a chance to find one frame where everyone has their eyes open.

All my own camera stuff is geared to very wide angle boat interiors and exteriors in packed boatyards, hence borrowing the FZ150

 

[Marmalade]

currently in love with the Fuji X100 - wouldn't recommend it as a sailing camera though. The X10 (again Fuji) is a better bet, although I'll stick with my Canon 7d and a variety of lenses for sailing when possible.

 

[photodog]

currently in love with the Fuji X100 - wouldn't recommend it as a sailing camera though. The X10 (again Fuji) is a better bet, although I'll stick with my Canon 7d and a variety of lenses for sailing when possible.

I came within inches of buying a X10 today.....

But actually its a bit of a dissapointment... the build quality feels a bit cheap... and the lens is not as robust as you would like... and worse the viewfinder is almost unusable... (Especially if you wear glasses...) The real kicker comes when you pick up the x100 and realise just how nice that machine is.... right up their with my old M4p's ... a very nice viewfinder and the build is great.... Plus it is exactly the right size. The X10 is noticably smaller and as a consequence just feels too bitsy.... and the lack of a ability to see were you are focusing in the finder is a real killer...

Combine that with fuji's **** raw processing software... and the fact that there is no plugin yet for Photoshop.... and the camera is a non-starter.

I had thought that this would have been a great breakthrough machine that I could actually use as a replacement for the Leicas... but alas no! And the X100 only has the 35mm lens.. I prefer a 28 or 90 on my rangefinders....

So, thumbs down on the X10 I am afraid....

 

[Lakesailor]

Noisy as hell. The camera is obviously doing a lot of tailored cleaning up in creating the JPGs.

I think that is the story with panasonic.
As RAW files are supposed to be the unadulterated file it sounds like they are running the chip at or beyond it's capacity. Too many pixels in a small area create all kinds of problems.
Their software has often been accused of over-processing an image (leaving little room for post production) and this indicates why.

 

[Marmalade]

I came within inches of buying a X10 today.....

But actually its a bit of a dissapointment... the build quality feels a bit cheap... and the lens is not as robust as you would like... and worse the viewfinder is almost unusable... (Especially if you wear glasses...) The real kicker comes when you pick up the x100 and realise just how nice that machine is.... right up their with my old M4p's ... a very nice viewfinder and the build is great.... Plus it is exactly the right size. The X10 is noticably smaller and as a consequence just feels too bitsy.... and the lack of a ability to see were you are focusing in the finder is a real killer...

Combine that with fuji's **** raw processing software... and the fact that there is no plugin yet for Photoshop.... and the camera is a non-starter.

I had thought that this would have been a great breakthrough machine that I could actually use as a replacement for the Leicas... but alas no! And the X100 only has the 35mm lens.. I prefer a 28 or 90 on my rangefinders....

So, thumbs down on the X10 I am afraid....

I'm in two minds about the fixed lens on the x100. I started off getting frustrated but have come to appreciate it. As to whether a slightly longer lens would have been better - a matter of preference I suppose. As a walk around camera though it's great. I'm disappointed if the X10 is cheaply built...

 

[photodog]

Its not in the same league as the X100..... but I dont use or own any other small cameras... so I dont know what the standards are! I was disapointed with the quality though.... they have had to build it down to the price...

That 35mm lens is the kicker for me on the x100..... On the Leicas I used to leave the 90 on one and the 28 on the other.... I had a 35 as well... and it was probably the nicest lens of the lot... but I rarely used it...

I would like to see them do a X100w with a 24mm f2.8 and a x100p with a 85mm f2.... both in black....

I would buy both and be a chuffed guy!

Its just that rather mediocre 35mm's that puts me off the x100... I cant justify spending £720 ex vat for a bit of kit which I would rarely use...

 

[Duffer]

I'm in two minds about the fixed lens on the x100. I started off getting frustrated but have come to appreciate it. As to whether a slightly longer lens would have been better - a matter of preference I suppose. As a walk around camera though it's great. I'm disappointed if the X10 is cheaply built...

The Fuji X100 has a fixed 35mm lens and costs aound £850. The lens makes it useless for sailing and at that price you would be better looking at DSLRs. The X10 costs £450 and only has a 4x manual zoom so again you can do better.

I don't think I have ever read a more glowing review in PCpro for the new Panasonic FZ150 (£300) and the Nikon S9100 does very well at just £180.

 

[Cantata]

I agree with the OP that bridge cameras are a very good option for pics when afloat. I've never bothered with RAW anyway. I started with a Panasonic (an FZ7, probably the great-great-grandad of the FZ150) which I found excellent so long as the light was strong. Now using a Fuji S200EXR which has a much better lens and low-light capability, drawback being it's rather heavy and needs two hands - the Pana could be used one-handed as it's light and has a power zoom, handy when sailing on my own.
Had pics from both cameras published in books and mags but I will freely admit that a pro with a DSLR will get far better results. Perhaps not when helming a boat lurching around all over the place, though!

 

[Evadne]

Disappointing to hear opinions on the X10, I have been thinking of one but couldn't justify the X100. Apparently the X1 (Leica) is the one to get . SWMBO has a Canon G11 which she rates very highly, the main drawback being the smallest stop on the lens at f8, and lack of info in the viewfinder. The results are great, though.

 

[Duffer]

I agree with the OP that bridge cameras are a very good option for pics when afloat. I've never bothered with RAW anyway. I started with a Panasonic (an FZ7, probably the great-great-grandad of the FZ150) which I found excellent so long as the light was strong. Now using a Fuji S200EXR which has a much better lens and low-light capability, drawback being it's rather heavy and needs two hands - the Pana could be used one-handed as it's light and has a power zoom, handy when sailing on my own.
Had pics from both cameras published in books and mags but I will freely admit that a pro with a DSLR will get far better results. Perhaps not when helming a boat lurching around all over the place, though!

Well said. I guess all cameras are a compromise between price, performance and functionality but they are improving all the time. If a compact superzoom does everything you want for £200 buy that. If you want a bit more functionality without the bulk or expense of a DSLR try the £300 FZ150 with its 24x optical zoom and manual overide. If you are a pro or a real enthusiast with deep pockets spend £2k on a DSLR and a range of lenses. Personally I would rather spend that sort of money on a new jib...

Regarding the convergence of still and video cameras, when I watched the Americas Cup round in Plymouth it would have been very helpful to have one camera that could do both functions well rather than carrying both and switching from one to the other. Until now I would have agreed with Photodog that you are better off getting both but these latest cameras appear to do both still and full HD video very well, so why not? I am not sure which format will win: video cameras are easier to use single-handed but the perception is that still cameras have better image quality so the format may win for that reason. Are you more comfortable taking video on a DSLR type camera or stills on a video camera?

 

[photodog]

Re; Stills video convergence.... It really depends upon how good a result you want.... I use three cameras for video... a Canon XF300, a Canon 5dmk2 and a Canon 7d....... I also shoot some video for fun on my Iphone and my wifes Ixus.

Using DSLR's for video can produce exceptional results... but you need to be carefull about how you use it, and the audio quality can be poor unless you have a good external mike or a decent audio recorder such as a Zoom..
The real kicker is that Video cameras are built with functionality for shooting video, and stills for taking pictures... and that functionality is different in many instances....

So if your serious about taking good video then you either need gear to adapt your DSLR to shoot video.. (A better tripod, follow focus knowb, audio gear, continuous lighting...) or a video camera...

If you want to do it for a bit of fun... then whatever!

As I have said before though... HD is about resolution and is not a guarantor of quality... so the camera may have a small chip which means more noise.. or it may not use a particularly good codec which may compress stuff too much or be difficult or not compatible across platforms, it may record at a lower bit rate which means less depth in colour... etc etc...

So its about your standards.... Taking good video on a stills camera such as our 5dmk2 is much more difficult than taking good video on the XF300... but the 5d can do much better quality video largley as a result of the excellent large chip and low light capabilites...

 

[reginaldon]

You all seem to have a lot of problems, I don't get with my Kodak Brownie!

 

[snooks]

If you're in the market for a camera for sailing with, check out the waterproof compacts out there. I have 6 on test at the moment, all waterproof to over 5 metres and they look normal, well most do

Much easier to fit in the pocket of your foulies, and that can handle being dropped and dunked

If you're taking a camera on the water, unless it's weather proofed be careful, the salt gets to the electronics in the end

 

[flaming]

If you're in the market for a camera for sailing with, check out the waterproof compacts out there. I have 6 on test at the moment, all waterproof to over 5 metres and they look normal, well most do (

Having a camera in your pocket at all times sometimes pays dividends. And the waterproof ones can take an ok pic....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64511158@N06/5873428111/