If I was to upgrade to a better camera rather than my Samsung S850 compact, which, in the Fuji range would you guys recommend?

The reason I ask is that my local Cash Converters/Pawn Shop has quite a large selection of Fuji cameras in their window at the moment, with prices starting from £59.99 and they look rather nice - all boxed with full instructions. The trouble is, I don't know which one would be the better buy, or if they've been put up for sale because they should be avoided! I suspect, as there's so many, that a local camera dealer may have gone out of business and is looking to recoup some investment? Seems too much of a coincidence for so many Fuji owners to suddenly need to get their hands on a bit of cash.

I've found that my camera has its limitations (only to be expected I suppose), and I'd really like to get a camera where I could add filters. I walk by the river every day, and I've seen some lovely fish cruising whilst wearing my Polaroids, but I can't get any pictures as all I get is the reflection off the water. I asked in the shop and found that there's no way of using polarised filters with my compact camera.

I know I'm probably trying to run before I can crawl, but any help would be appreciated!

Janet

Guests - this sponsored link will vanish when you log-in. Click here to register for free.

Janet
If you look here: https://secure.fujifilm.co.uk/shop/consumer...ameras/view-all

Fuji Uk offer a range of refurbished cameras with warranties at a decent range of prices it may be a safer option than Cash Converters

This post has been edited by Tony U: Jun 22 2009, 07:28 PM

We see this one so often, the poster very quickly realises they need flexibility, modern compact do an amazing job, I have 3!!! But when it comes to serious picture taking, I still reach for the DSLR. I hate being that predictable but its true. The problem starts in my mind with budget on the one hand, advise on the other and the middle ground of sensibility with out prejudice, and all at a budget?

Janet, you will be asking the same question in a few months time. Keep your money mounting, enjoy your compact. My feeling is that you really want the flexibility of a DSLR. So, should the question be; how much will a DSLR cost me at entry level, and which camera?

I only have experience of Nikon, I can hear the Canon camp tapping away already I'm biased, but the Nikon D40 plus its 18-55 lens is still a peach. I use the D40X which has a similar operating system, its a hybrid, part compact, part DSLR, but because I use both types I get along with it just fine, you are buying into a lens system that has received some criticism, 'cant use old lenses'. Nikon are committed, D40-40X-60-5000, its the new world of affordable, usable Nikon, in the same way as they have committed to the C-MOS sensor. I see Nikon as the one to beat for the foreseeable future.

HSM (hi speed motor) lenses are the way to go, Nikon are moving into the 21st century, the brand is supported by Sigma, Tamron, Tokina . . . and they are available 'used' at the right price.

So thats the negatives out of the way. Positive, New D40 from Amazon £230, with 18-55 lens, is that in budget? if not, keep saving, the down side only 6m mega pixels, prints up to A4 no problem, a little larger some will say. Nikon D60, 10m mega pixels, £370, print A3, do you print A3? menu a little more DSLR, less compact . . . is it a worry? Then there is the question of additional lens cost. Or a bridge camera, it has it all?? . . . the only bridge I have seen that produces a picture I would like is the Panasonic that Nurse Judy has, top pictures. Then again the new breed of compact is something else, so are the prices!!!

It does not matter which way you jump, there is always a compromise, save the money, remember, 'a better camera will not take a better picture', work on the 'eye'.

I say again, go the rout you are proposing and you will be itching to do it all again in no time

A humble opinion, not answering the question but anticipating the question 6 months on?

SW

This post has been edited by Sutton Warrior: Jun 23 2009, 09:52 PM

I really think the 'do you print A3' question, is missing the point of more pixels. The real question to ask is do you like to crop and enlarge areas of your pictures without losing resolution ? The simple answer is almost certainly yes, and that's why more pixels is (generally) better and gives the photographer more versatility.

I would suggest you look at the canon EOS. My old camera is the 300d and whilst only 6M is more than capable for 99% of what I use it for. As I've posted before I'm planning on upgrading it when funds permit, but I picked mine up on ebay for I think 200 pounds or so a couple of years back, and you'd probably get them for a fair bit less than that now.

In summary though, get what you fancy. All makes use slightly different menu systems etc but you will soon get the hang of whichever model you get.

Rob.

Yes, that's exactly it.

I'm going to have another look at them today on my lunch break, and I'll make a note of what models they are. Alll of them are under £100, which is probably my maxiumum budget for something that I really don't need!

I think SW's probably right though, and I should hold on, learn to work with the one I've got and try to develop an "eye".

Off to work now. Thanks for all the help guys!

Janet

Are you right about the cropping Rob? Large mega pixel counts on compacts or, any camera, boasting 10 million pixels. Look closely at the spec., ods on, compacts will only be, at best, 180 pixels per inch A3'ish print size. The 6mp D40 type DSLR will have 300ppi, smaller potential print size A4'ish but a much finer image . . . to crop if so desired. Think hard on that one, its 'pixels per inch' that determines crop size/quality and 'total megapixels' that determines practical print size . . . I'm no Einstein but I think thats works out about right?

My advise is wait, high megapixel compacts have small censors, trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, and assuming I'm right? marketing gurus get us to think that a large MP count is the 'bees knees', when in truth, 6mp or 10mp both at 180ppi = the same basic picture quality

Janet, its early days with the compact, and Christmas is only 6 months away, get that 'eye' working and the legs zooming . . .

SW

This post has been edited by Sutton Warrior: Jun 24 2009, 05:43 PM

I'm not sure either of us are right but it appears that sensor size and quality are more important than anything else, and in general terms, DSLR's do I think use bigger sensors than compacts.

I found the following of some use, but I think I'll rely on geek reviews of cameras I'm looking at rather than trying to figure it all out for myself.

Beyond megapixels

Rob.

I think the reviews are good for evaluating usability and processing in their various forms with respect to cameras. However, regardless of sensor size, the more pixels per inch, potentially the finer the image will be. No different to news papers pictures and fine quality images in books. In the simplest of terms, its down to the number of 'dots per inch', less dots the courser and lacking in detail will be the picture.

The way processing is don in the camera, that is another story, wont go there cos we get into JPEG, RAW and all that (rap So, lets keep it simple, the 'more pixels per inch' the better, the 'bigger the sensor' the better, and if you are into big prints, the more 'mega pixels' the better.

Like you say Rob, trying to work it out any further than that, I dont think it will help the cause at this time.

However, a word of caution to anyone, in simple term, more 'mega pixels' on their own does not = better pictures, regardless of what the glossy adverts say . . .

SW

DPI is a printing thing not to be confused with camera sensors.
if only firms would realise big isnt better in terms of pixels smaller is ,more but smaller is better than big but many.
Fuji have a very nice "refurbed" bit on the website its where i got my E550

This post has been edited by chesters1: Jun 25 2009, 05:13 PM

As Chesters says pixels per inch is a printing thing. I don't quite follow you when you say 300 dpi for example (except I do know what it stands for). A digital image is as big as you want it to be and a 'dot' is equivalent to a pixel is it not ? All other things being equal more dots per inch = more pixels per inch = more MP. Now in my simple brain, the image therefore is a product of the resolution, or the number of sensors the camera has to pick up the images. Smaller sensor size generally = lower quality for the same amount of pixels and then other things like software processing, quality of the glass etc all come into play.

Apologies Janet for the thread hijacking, I'm just trying to get my brain in focus


Rob.

This post has been edited by RobStubbs: Jun 25 2009, 08:00 PM