Which camera?

Geoff

VIP Member
tripleplay905 said:
The HP has more megapixels nd a higher resolution limit, Also more zoom. Same movie resolutions.
Yes it does have more megapixels, it has a higher digital zoom, but lower optical zoom. The panasonic has 6x Optical and the HP has 3x Optical.
 

The_Other_One

VIP Member
Resolution isn't everything. Panasonic camera's are some of the best, particually the larger ones. I don't know as much about the compact ones, but it does have a better CCD. The zoom is better on the panasonic(don't even look at digital zoom), aperature's a bit better with the Panasonic... The HP has a longer shutter time, but normally that's not needed.

I'd personally go with the Panasonic. I've not read reviews on that one, but they are almost always top of the line. And at 5MP, you usally don't have any problems printing a 8x10.
 

suprasteve

New Member
well for some reason newegg hasn't been working for me for a couple days so I can't really point to a specific camera, but I would suggest looking at canon's or sony's, they are both nice, of the two I'd lean towards canon though
 

The_Other_One

VIP Member
Cannon's are great. Sony's are good, but not as good as some other brands.

Probably the best brands now are Cannon and Panasonic. I know when you compare the two brands with their compact ultrazooms, the Panasonic wins by a good bit. Never the less, both are great cameras.
 

Geoff

VIP Member
Thanks guys, i knew that megapixels mattered but i also know that you cant compare a camera just on that. (its like comparing an amd to intel on their speeds). And i knew that the panasonic had a better zoom, but i wasnt sure if the fact that the HP made up for it with its better quality LCD and higher MP's.

I was leaning towards the Panasonic though, since its slightly cheaper and has a really good zoom (especially for the price).
 

The_Other_One

VIP Member
I wont say if you're right or wrong to see what others think ;)

The 3.2 was my old Minolta Dimage Xt. The 5.0 was my Casio EX-Z50. Both were super compacts(IE easilly fit in your pocket)
 

shupola

Active Member
another thing you might want to consider if you are going to take a lot of pics is what kind of batteries they use. from experience, i know that AA batteries are a pain when used in digital cameras. i would much rather have one with a rechargeable batterey, such as the hp. the panasonic does have a better zoom(optical), and costs less, but the hp has the advantage of a rechargeable battery. if you dont care to sacrafice the extra zoom, i would go with the hp because it also have longer battery life, as well as more buit in memory(i know its not much, but more in case you dont have a card handy.)
 

shupola

Active Member
The 3.2 was my old Minolta Dimage Xt.

i have the dimage z-10. its not a compact by any means:p. it takes great pics and has 8x optical zoom.
B0002J6M6A.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


i couldnt find anywhere that sells them. may have been discontinued
 

The_Other_One

VIP Member
shupola - Good call...My old Casio could get 400+ shots with it's rechargable battery. I NEVER saw it go below 50%! My current camera uses 2AA's, and it's pretty bad sometime. I have recently, though, gotten some really nice rechargable batteries and it's lasted quite a long time. I've not used it on say a vacation, but I've not had to charge them since christmas ;) My old ones, the low battery light would come on after 2 pics!

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0002XNPQG.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
^ Casio EX-Z50
http://pcweb.mycom.co.jp/news/2003/03/03/10al.jpg
^ Minolta XT

The minolta was a tiny bit smaller, but not by much. The neat thing, though, was it DID have optical zoom :D If you don't beleive me, find specs on it. And I'll go on and spill the beans. The first pic was taken with the 3.2 Minolta. The second was with the Casio! The 3.2 did a much better job, didn't it? I have a pic of Big Ben both times I was there and it also looks better from the 3.2MP!
 

shupola

Active Member
The_Other_One said:
And I'll go on and spill the beans. The first pic was taken with the 3.2 Minolta. The second was with the Casio! The 3.2 did a much better job, didn't it? I have a pic of Big Ben both times I was there and it also looks better from the 3.2MP!

that would have been my guess. konica-minoltas are great cameras. like i said i couldnt be more happy with mine(except the batteries(AA's)). my g/f sister has a cannon, 3.2mp(same as mine) and we took comparative shots and imo mine was much better; better quality, brighter flash, etc.

back to you geoff - you might want to consider konica-minolta if it fits your budget and size preference.:)
 

Geoff

VIP Member
Mr.Suave said:
wow i can barely tell the difference..i always thought the more mixels the better, but not anymore.

ill guess: the 1st one is the 3.2MP and the 2nd is the 5MP

btw wat camera did you take the pix w/?
There is a huge difference, but you cant notice it on such a small picture. If they were 11x14's then you could easily see the difference.'


shupola said:
another thing you might want to consider if you are going to take a lot of pics is what kind of batteries they use. from experience, i know that AA batteries are a pain when used in digital cameras. i would much rather have one with a rechargeable batterey, such as the hp. the panasonic does have a better zoom(optical), and costs less, but the hp has the advantage of a rechargeable battery. if you dont care to sacrafice the extra zoom, i would go with the hp because it also have longer battery life, as well as more buit in memory(i know its not much, but more in case you dont have a card handy.)
The Panasonic takes AA batteries, and the site says on average it can take 255 pictures with a pair. The HP has a rechargable one, and it takes around 200 on average.
 

shupola

Active Member
There is a huge difference, but you cant notice it on such a small picture. If they were 11x14's then you could easily see the difference.'

well, what size pics will you be taking most?

The Panasonic takes AA batteries, and the site says on average it can take 255 pictures with a pair. The HP has a rechargable one, and it takes around 200 on average.

compare the cost of AA batteries with that of plugging one in. say the rechargable will go through 100 cycles(just for example). cost=nothing if you dont pay the electric bill. 200AA batteries=average cost(4 pack)=3bucks=$150 for 200 batteries.

of course you could get rechargeable batteries, but then you would have to hassle with taking them out to recharge them.
 

The_Other_One

VIP Member
I know the pics are small, but there's a difference in quality. The minolta just picked up much more than the Casio did. I'm just trying to prove that just because the resolution is better, the pictures won't be better...
 

Geoff

VIP Member
shupola said:
compare the cost of AA batteries with that of plugging one in. say the rechargable will go through 100 cycles(just for example). cost=nothing if you dont pay the electric bill. 200AA batteries=average cost(4 pack)=3bucks=$150 for 200 batteries.

of course you could get rechargeable batteries, but then you would have to hassle with taking them out to recharge them.

I see your point, but the downside is, if you go out someplace and forget the charger, then your out of luck. I would rather go with the "AA" batteries since you can find them anywhere.

And thanks again for all your suggestions, i am most likely going to get the Panasonic. But first im going to test them out at a retail store.
 
Top