Is this: http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/consumer/digital/digital-cameras/d-slr-long-zoom/finepix-s8100fd-119771 a better camera (for photos) than this: http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/consumer/digital/digital-cameras/d-slr-long-zoom/finepix-s2000hd Not fully understanding i flash shutter speed ISO sensitivity (F3.5（Wide) - F5.4 (Telephoto) and load of other parameters (that seem better on the first) myself TIA MArk
the 2000HD has a wider lens, which means it has a smaller max aperture... so will take wider pics (good for landscapes etc) where as the other one will perform better in low light situations as it has a smaller f. number I'm no expert but seems six of one and half a dozen of the other.... both good camera's though
^ What he says. Depends what you plan on using it for, of course. The HD will do video, but the FD has the better lens, so if aiming for photographs, that's the one I'd chose. Seems to be the same camera with slightly different specs. Fuji make good cameras, so you'd probably be OK with either. Couldn't see the prices on those links - is there much difference between the two?
Based purely on lens specs the S8100 looks better - the lens is faster (F2.8 - F4.5 v. F3.5 - F5.4) and has a larger zoom range (4.7mm - 84.2 mm v. 5.0mm - 75.0 mm). Of course this doesn't take into account the actual quality of the lens; usually the further you push the zoom range the more distortion you'll get at the extremes. Best bet is to hit google for some reviews - I tried a few favourite sites but couldn't find owt..
Thanks for the replies. The 2000HD is 20 - 30 quid dearer, but has a much better video function, 1280 x 720 and a Hi Def output, instead of the normal compact cameras 640 x 480 which is also what the S8100FD has This is the major attraction of the 2000HD. The 2000HD ia new so there prob won't be many reviews yet. It's just that i wasn't sure how much the apparently better Camera specs like lens and shutter specs on the S8100FD will effect (enhance) picture quality I can well imagine the I flash is worth having on the 8100FD. The 8100FD shutter speed is TWICE as fast 1/2000 sec as opposed to 1/1000 sec for the 2000HD which seems quiet a difference to me. The ISO 3200/6400 are limited on the 2000HD to: 5M pixels or lower (Number of recorded pixels) Are these specs important for pic quality i wonder? Landscapes don't interest me. I just want a step up from the compact camera, which is limited by the optical zoom, flash and video quality. with a viewfinder to extend battery life.
What type of things are you wishing to shoot?? as 1/1000th of a second is fast enough for everything but the really quick action shots etc... even then it would do ok. High ISO pictures will be low on quality anyway, but the 2.8 aperture lens will enable you to take better pictures in low light. I would base that decision on how important the video is?? As that has the bigger difference in quality etc...
Nikon also do an SLR that does video. I'm always dubious of things that try to be everything. I'd want a proper video camera if I were interested in doing video. I suspect that some of these hybrids are jack of all trades, master of none. If you're interested in moving onto more serious photography, have you considered one of the low-end SLRs? Or perhaps buying second-hand, to see if you like it/get on with it?
I agree with Stella; if you want a box to take pictures with, don't bother with Video. This seems like a classic example of the photographic feature set being compromised for the sake of video. I see the 8100's are going for about 180; 150- 250 would buy you a decent second hand entry level DSLR (Canon 350D/400D, 20D, Nikon D40/D50/D60). New models start at around 250-300 (Canon 1000D/400D, Nikon D40X, D60). A DSLR will give you far better quailty and more control than a bridge camera like the Fuji can. On the down side you're then on the slippery slope of purchasing additional lenses..
No, because i've heard it costs lots of time to learn, which i don't have and also i don't want to take chances with my shots. I want DSLR quality but point and shoot ease and relibility Something as good quality as my old 35mm Olmpus mju 1, but with a more manly flash and zoom. I've been advised that the better non-slr cameras are no good to me (like the panasonic fz28) as the only real better thing is that they are more manually adjustable like an SLR. So had arrived at one of these two models. I know what your saying about the videos, but i have a camcorder but never take it. But have taken loads of good flim clips lately on my compact digital.
You'll never get SLR quality without and SLR, and just because they have manual settings doesn't mean you can't leave them alone and use the auto functions instead
^^^ in terms of carrying around though, SLR is a fair bit bigger than the 'in-between' camera's like the above. When you see those pictures of the guys surfing taken with a panasonic compact, I think they are worth a look if you don't want to just buy an SLR and leave it on Auto. Also, my Sony A300 cost 290 including the lens
I'm confused now..... The SLR's are too big and only have 3x zoom. The panasonic tz5 seems good though, leica lens, 9x zoom which is prob enough to be useful without stretching the camera too much (i'm guessing most compacts with 20x zoom aren't much good at/near the zoom limit anyway) , nice vid Q, the only dissadvantages are battery pack and no viewfinder. http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/479303/index.html If the tz5 had a viewfinder i would have bought it, I've seen some bad reviews concerning picture quality though. for not much more you get the fz28, which although bigger seems to have no bad press...... SLR price teritory though. I wasn't aware you could use an SLR on auto i'm guessing some do the auto better than others..... maybe i'll get a tz5 for big light and video situations and an 2nd hand SLR for low light and flash work. what's the best old/cheap DSLR then? will need flash too...
SLRs come with a pop-up flash. Although it is not ideal (think harshness/red eye) it is OK until you later decide to buy a real flash gun. I'm a Nikon fan, so couldn't tell you about Canons, but you wouldn't go far wrong with either make. Try looking on fleaBay for a Nikon D40 (some at 250-ish) or a D60. If you stick to either of these brands, you can use your lenses on your next camera when you decide to upgrade. Have you got any mates with an SLR. Try getting one of them to take you out one afternoon, and letting you have a play with theirs. Although, SLRs are big and a pain to carry around, you will never get halfway such decent pictures on a compact. And yes, most SLRs have an automatic mode, so until you feel comfortable using it manually, you can still take lots of photos. (It took me a while to start using aperture and speed priority.)
just to throw this is, when I was looking just before xmas there was some silly cheap deals on SLR's... not just the base models, the A300 I got it supposedly the 3rd in the range and should have retailed at around 418 including the standard lens, I got it for 290, you could also get an olympus 410/420 for the same price..... even my mate at olympus couldn't beat the price.... As for what's best, Nikon/Canon/Sony its all good stuff, no clear winner really from the countless reviews I read. Sony's look the best though ha ha
I got told you don't get red-eye with a pop-up type flash Only the FiL, but he has the top of the range Canon, so probably not representative? for what i'm looking at... That's interesting. With 35mm i was really impressed with the picture quality of my compact Olympus mju 1. I bought it on the strength of other peoples photos where i was shocked at the quality, and for such a small thing. I've not really been so lucky/impressed with my two Olympus compact digitals tho. I think i'll get a Panasonic tz5 (for vids and portability) and am looking at 2nd hand DSLR's now... Thanks for the help guys.
^^^ last xmas I bought my GF one of those olympus compacts that are waterproof and shockproof etc and it's not that great, sometimes takes a good picture sometimes it's awful. Wish I had got her a cybershot of panasonic Lumix
Most modern SLRs have a little light that comes on before the flash goes off. The theory is that when someone has a bright light shine in their eyes, their pupils contract, so by the time the flash goes off, the pupils are smaller, so less flash gets in. It is when the flash light is reflected back from the retina that red eye occurs. It is a relatively simple matter to get rid of red eye in PS or Elements. In fact, some can do it in camera.
Yeah, some of my photos are a pale and the colour is washed out. Flash is useless (2m max) and drains the battery, but without it the colours are all wrong, it makes white into yellow. Outdoors with good light it does ok. It just doesn't work without the flash, here's the same thing with flash (correct colour) and without flash http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii216/mark25_photos/without.jpg?t=1232656158 I've just noticed it needs the flash, but i try not to use the flash becuse it is so limited. it's not even altering the shutter speed if the flash is on/off i hope the tz5 is going to be a lot better.
i heard because the flash wasn't next to the lens with a pop-up, the angle meant you got no red-eye anyway. I guess that angle is always greater with a proper flash as it's even further away from the lesn less reflection to the lens maybe...
A 35mm compact is still using the same size film as a 35mm SLR, so the only things that are different are the lens and controls. Digital compacts have far smaller sensors than DSLRs which brings all manner of issues regarding poor light sensitivity, image noise and general quality. Entry / mid levels SLRs are APS-C, decent compacts are usually 1/1.7". Yeah, the closer the flash to the lens axis the more light is reflected directly back into the lens from the back of the eye (full of blood vessels hence red). The issue of the colours with and without the flash is a colour temperature problem; flash has a higher colour temperature than tungsten (normal bulbs) so the latter appear yellow by comparison. The camera should set the white balance according to the situation, but auto white balance is often crap. On SLRs you can set it manually and alter it afterwards if you shoot raw format The amount of "zoom" an SLR can supply is governed by it's lenses. I have an equivalent of 40x zoom with mine, but it takes up a whole camera bag In your situation I'd probably plump for a used Canon 20D and a new 50/1.8 lens; should get change out of 300 for the lens and a good, well looked after low mileage camera off ebay...
