• Gizmodo
  • bestmodo
  • lifehacker
  • kotaku
  • Profile logout login

#canon#communityremix

Gizmodo

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #whitenoise,
  • #dealzmodo,
  • #broken,
  • #iphoneapps,
  • etc.

New York, 1:20 AM
Tue Dec 15
70 posts in the last 24 hours

FR | IT | DE | SP | JP | AU | BR

Gizmodo Team

Tip your editors:

Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter

Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter

Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter

Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz

Chris Mascari

Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob

Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner

Interns:
Don Nguyen

Kyle VanHemert

Heroes and Friends

Comment Account Questions:

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
9515 Subscribers
Gizmodo
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of madog madog
    12/11/09

    In reply to The Best Point and Shoot Cameras for Every Purpose
    Anyone have any recommendations for a low end (cheapish) digital camera that takes quick pictures?

    Useless information/rant follows if you're bored (all I have is free time at the moment):

    My mom has one that is ready to snap photos just a few seconds after it's turned on, but requires nearly 15 seconds to take another. I borrowed that one because my wife's camera takes 10-15 seconds to power up, and also takes too long in between photos (I have gone through different modes and settings). Then, my camcorder takes decent photos as quickly as you can take them, but there is no flash and it's something I don't want to always carry with me.

    I never realized how slow they were until I tried taking spur-of-the-moment pictures of my baby ("I formed babby").

    I hate this need for splash screen startups, or automatic picture review after one is taken (I also don't like how people, especially my wife, feel they need to review every single photo immediately after. You were just there!), and know I don't need a 30 megapixel camera with three displays and YouTube, Facebook, or other built-in fad support.
     Reply
    madog was starred madog was unstarred
    Image of madog madog
    12/11/09

    @madog: They may not literally take 10-15 seconds, but when you're trying to take pictures of a babys smile or something, 7 seconds can feel like an eternity; and the moment may be gone by then.

    I also don't know anything about cameras so I don't know if they specifically rate that or have categories for a digital camera that works as fast as one from 15 years ago that took pics as fast as you could wind the film.

    Any information about it would be greatly appreciated!
     Reply
    Edited by madog at 12/11/09 5:01 PM madog was starred madog was unstarred
    Image of FigNinja FigNinja
    12/11/09

    @madog: This site has really good reviews:

    [www.dpreview.com]

    They often give list how long all those things take for a given camera. The forums are really helpful, too.
     Reply
    FigNinja was starred FigNinja was unstarred
    Image of che-che che-che
    12/11/09

    @madog: i bought the kodak easy share m1033 for like 130 bucks if not less.

    really good for snapshots and keeping in your pocket. i like it. i keep it in my car. has a good battery life. if i need it i got a usb car adapter so it will charge on the drive to the event. it holds up pretty good. takes good photos.

    is that cheap enough.
     Reply
    madog promoted this comment che-che was starred che-che was unstarred
    Image of che-che che-che
    12/11/09

    @madog: oh! and it does start up fairly quickly around 3 seconds. and if you are taking regular snapshots, no long exposure and all that bull. its pretty instant.
     Reply
    madog promoted this comment che-che was starred che-che was unstarred
    Image of LatimerAnaxibia LatimerAnaxibia
    12/11/09

    @madog: There are a couple options but specifically I'd look at the Canon SD 1200 IS. It's got the digic IV processor, a fast lens, and it runs around $150 right now. Not too fancy in the spec department (3x zoom range, 10mp, SD movie ability) but it's a solid little camera.
     Reply
    madog promoted this comment LatimerAnaxibia was starred LatimerAnaxibia was unstarred
    Image of Gene Gene
    12/11/09

    @madog: Second the Canon SD1200. I'm sure others are good too, but Canon's always made very snappy compacts.
     Reply
    madog promoted this comment Gene was starred Gene was unstarred
    Image of madog madog
    12/12/09

    @Gene @LatimerAnaxibia @che-che @FigNinja: Thanks for the info guys! I appreciate it. I'll definitely check out that site/forum and that Canon/Kodak. And yes, while $30 for one would be awesome, I'd expect to pay around $150 for a decent one these days.

    With all of the different models out there with bonus novelty features and smile recognition and volume knobs that go to 11, it can be confusing to find a decent, simple camera that does what it's supposed to well.

    (tried to promote all replies in case this multi-reply doesn't work as I'd imagine it to. Hopefully others find this useful too!)
     Reply
    madog was starred madog was unstarred
    Image of podspawn podspawn
    12/12/09

    @madog: Canon A1100. On sale for $129 if you look around. Amazing photos. I bought 10 for a photo class I teach to school kids and I've been blown away by the results.
     Reply
    madog promoted this comment podspawn was starred podspawn was unstarred
    Image of TonyWonder TonyWonder
    12/11/09

    In reply to The Best Point and Shoot Cameras for Every Purpose
    These descriptions sound like something Rod Roddy would say while running down the items on the Showcase Showdown..."all this and more could be yours on the Price Is Right!"
     Reply
    TonyWonder was starred TonyWonder was unstarred
    Image of John_001 John_001
    12/11/09

    @TonyWonder: That man's voice is cemented in my childhood memories. Much like Robert Stack... Both passed away. R.I.P.
     Reply
    TonyWonder promoted this comment John_001 was starred John_001 was unstarred
    Image of TonyWonder TonyWonder
    12/11/09

    @John_001: same... remember his insane outfits? and how red in the face he use to get? Lets hope he's doing tons of blow off strippers asses in heaven... thats what he deserves
     Reply
    TonyWonder was starred TonyWonder was unstarred
    Image of newgalactic newgalactic
    12/08/09

    In reply to The Best Camcorders You Can Buy on Every Budget
    When I worked at Circuit City in college (1999), we were given a statistic that the average camcorder user uses their camcorder for 12 hours a year. Remember that when you consider dropping $800 on a camcorder.
     Reply
    newgalactic was starred newgalactic was unstarred
    Image of Eugenia Eugenia
    12/08/09

    In reply to The Best Camcorders You Can Buy on Every Budget
    I highly disagree with what's concluded in this article.

    The Flip (and Kodak Z-series) cameras are the worst digirecorders one could buy. Want good portable P&S video? Get the Canon SX200 IS digicam that records at 720/30p. Not only you will get exposure compensation AND locking for $300, but you get enough color and other settings to even emulate the movie look! And all that at high h.264 bitrate: 24 mbps! Beats the completely automatic, highly compressed Flip/Kodaks any day.

    As for the high-end camcorder, I don't agree with going with the Panasonic one. The best camcorder in that range is the Canon HF-S10/S100. It has more detail than the TM-300, and more manual controls and ports -- at the same price.
     Reply
    Eugenia was starred Eugenia was unstarred
    Image of lpranal lpranal
    12/08/09

    @Eugenia: the sx200 is nice, but it costs twice as much. Yes, the money may buy you oodles of features / better optics, and is probably a much better value... but "budget" is not the word I would use at that price point, speaking as a broke-ass graphic designer.
     Reply
    lpranal was starred lpranal was unstarred
    Image of mullingitover mullingitover
    12/08/09

    @Eugenia: Seconded. I have the Powershot 780IS and it's a wicked good HD video recorder. It's only $199.

    The focusing lens is what makes it totally outclass the flipcam-style recorders. It's also *tiny!*Bonus: Canon makes a really solid underwater case that'll let you shoot down to something like 150 feet with full controls available.
     Reply
    Eugenia promoted this comment mullingitover was starred mullingitover was unstarred
    Image of frigg frigg
    12/08/09

    @Eugenia: I was strongly considering the HF-S100 but Camcorderinfo compares it with the TM-300 on a number of fronts and makes a compelling case for the Panasonic, concluding:

    "TM300 has the edge in performance, clearly beating out the HF S100 in low light, noise, stabilization, and still performance; the Canon has only a slight edge in bright light color, video sharpness, and motion"

    I'm not sure what port the Canon has that the Panasonic doesn't - is it an important one?
     Reply
    frigg was starred frigg was unstarred
    Image of Margatron Margatron
    12/08/09

    @Eugenia: I agree with the heart of your argument, that a more comprehensive review of certain cameras at certain price levels should have been done.

    It's a very easy argument that currently Cannon makes some of the leading sensors on the market and another easy argument that everyone looking to do semi-pro filming (ie 1300$ and up) should stay far away from Panasonic. I say redo this article as a weeklong special with that level of research.
     Reply
    Margatron was starred Margatron was unstarred
    Image of Ninety-9 Ninety-9
    12/08/09

    In reply to The Best Camcorders You Can Buy on Every Budget
    My vote is still on the Kodak Zi8. Currently priced at $150 for a 1080p pocket camcorder, and it's got all the cool little things that makes us gadget people all giddy.
     Reply
    Ninety-9 was starred Ninety-9 was unstarred
    Image of Demonbird Demonbird
    12/08/09

    In reply to The Best Camcorders You Can Buy on Every Budget
    Why buy the Mino HD when you can get a JVC Everio MS120, a traditional camcorder, for $20 more?
     Reply
    Demonbird was starred Demonbird was unstarred
    Image of ninjamurf ninjamurf
    12/08/09

    @Demonbird: Because you don't WANT a big honkin' camcorder? And you would prefer something you can drop in your shirt pocket?
     Reply
    Demonbird promoted this comment ninjamurf was starred ninjamurf was unstarred
    Image of Demonbird Demonbird
    12/08/09

    @ninjamurf: It's not much bigger than that, has a lot more features, and I'm pretty sure that would be an awkward thing to put in your shirt pocket.
     Reply
    Demonbird was starred Demonbird was unstarred
    Image of Nick Nick
    12/08/09

    In reply to The Best Camcorders You Can Buy on Every Budget
    i like this idea of co-opting articles from niche sites. is this just a christmas season sorta deal?
     Reply
    Nick was starred Nick was unstarred
    Image of Joe Stoner Joe Stoner
    12/08/09

    In reply to The Best Camcorders You Can Buy on Every Budget
    If you're looking at spending $1300 on a consumer video camera, I really have to recommend taking a look at the previous generation of pro (or cheap documentary) cameras, specifically the Panasonic Ag-DVX100B. Yes, it's only SD, but it's really good SD (using 3CCD instead of CMOS for the sensor). And sound quality is terrific - with a pair of XLR inputs, you can't compete on sound with any of these consumer models, and if you've ever shot video only to find the audio was terrible, you know how important sound is to good video. Also worth mentioning is the real 24P mode. Instant dramatic effect.

    It's since been replaced by the $5K AGX200, which shoots in HD, but a quick search on ebay shows that they are out there (don't be fooled by the "buy it now" listings - they're priced too high and there's a reason they're still listed).
     Reply
    Joe Stoner was starred Joe Stoner was unstarred
    Image of TheCrudMan TheCrudMan
    12/08/09

    @Joe Stoner:
    It's been replaced by the HVX-200, the HPX-170, and the HMC-150 actually....actually in many ways the HMC-150 is the actual successor. There is no AGX200 to my knowledge. The HMC-150 at $3500 is a freaking amazing camera...same body, etc, as the much more expensive HPX-170 but it lacks P2 recording which for most people isn't a big deal, p2 actually being a detriment for independent filmmakers on a budget. HMC-150 also has the best implementation of AVCHD in any camera ever.

    That said, I also highly recommend the Panasonic Lumix GH1.
     Reply
    Joe Stoner promoted this comment TheCrudMan was starred TheCrudMan was unstarred
    Image of Joe Stoner Joe Stoner
    12/08/09

    @TheCrudMan: Yeah, HVX-200 is what I meant. And we opted to get a 160GB firewire drive instead of using P2 cards since they're just too damn expensive.
     Reply
    Joe Stoner was starred Joe Stoner was unstarred
    Image of MDIFILM MDIFILM
    12/08/09

    @Joe Stoner: well, p2 cards prices droped, and from my distributor, they said the firestore doesn't work well and they aren't doing well since p2 cards prices dropped (We have 4 hvx200 cameras)
     Reply
    Joe Stoner promoted this comment MDIFILM was starred MDIFILM was unstarred
    Image of Joe Stoner Joe Stoner
    12/08/09

    @MDIFILM: We never had any issues with the firestore... but it's great that the prices have dropped on P2 cards.
     Reply
    Joe Stoner was starred Joe Stoner was unstarred
    Image of CommentingpointlesslyisMeh CommentingpointlesslyisMeh
    12/07/09

    In reply to New Canon EOS 5D Mark II Firmware to Pack 60fps HD
    This is where I am slightly confused (read very). I know that 60fps in a game is extremely smooth. I also know that movies in the theatre are done at 24fps which gives them a great feel visually. Home HDTV's support 24fps now. And almost all of our dig cams do 30fps....so, if you record at 60FPS, wouldn't the image start to look slower, not just smoother? I mean at what point does the image change from looking normal to moving in slow motion? I'm guessing not at 60fps..lol. In any case, how would this allow for "half-speed" motion? I'm missing something here obviously.
     Reply
    CommentingpointlesslyisMeh was starred CommentingpointlesslyisMeh was unstarred
    Image of burningsensation burningsensation
    12/07/09

    @CommentingpointlesslyisMeh: The faster the framerate, the smoother the motion. Slow motion (or fast motion) is produced by playing back the video at a different rate from what it was recorded at. If I have a video recorded at 60fps, and I play it back at 60fps, it will be at normal speed (and look nice and silky smooth). If I take that same video and play it back at 30fps, it will appear to be in slow motion (half speed).
     Reply
    CommentingpointlesslyisMeh promoted this comment burningsensation was starred burningsensation was unstarred
    Image of CommentingpointlesslyisMeh CommentingpointlesslyisMeh
    12/07/09

    @burningsensation: @darthlambchop: @PiltdownMan:

    All great replies. that had really been annoying me. I do understand now. So if something is recorded at 30fps but played back on a 60hz screen then frames are added in between which makes things look a bit smoother but doesn't change speed of video. On the other hand, take a 1000 fps water drop and play it at 60hz and it looks super slo mo. I think I get it now. Thanks all!
     Reply
    CommentingpointlesslyisMeh was starred CommentingpointlesslyisMeh was unstarred
    Image of Bokusatsu_Tenshi Bokusatsu_Tenshi
    12/07/09

    In reply to New Canon EOS 5D Mark II Firmware to Pack 60fps HD
    Photography/videography question here (I'm currently learning, so excuse my ignorance):
    - I'm looking for something that can take videos with very small/shallow depth of field which can be manually and smoothly controlled (dramatic effect). Stuff that the Canon 5D Mark II and apparently the 7D can also do, as seen on these Florent Porta videos:
    [xspblog.com]
    [xspblog.com]

    Are dSLRs the cheapest way to go?
    Considering I'm also interested in testing (in the probably distant future) the effects of different lens types on video (and stuff like tilt-shift), unless there's a very cheap camcorder alternative, I'm thinking of selling my Canon XSi to get a 5D Mark II or 7D.
     Reply
    Bokusatsu_Tenshi was starred Bokusatsu_Tenshi was unstarred
    Image of Sandeep Murali Sandeep Murali
    12/07/09

    In reply to New Canon EOS 5D Mark II Firmware to Pack 60fps HD
    If they can maintain the same bitrate, this would be a very interesting development.
     Reply
    Sandeep Murali was starred Sandeep Murali was unstarred
    Image of Hospitals in Hawaii? Hospitals in Hawaii?
    12/03/09

    In reply to The Touchscreen DSLR Is Finally Upon Us
    What the hell is wrong with buttons? They serve their purpose wonderfully and I don't have to get my grubby paws all over my nice LCD screen. Sure, my iphone is cool and all except for the fact that the right 1/3 of the touchscreen has the temperament of a 14 year old girl. But for SLR's?

    What about surf and other water photographers who rely on those buttons in the water housings we use? The touchscreen would be useless in those situations.
     Reply
    Hospitals in Hawaii? was starred Hospitals in Hawaii? was unstarred
    Image of The5thElephant The5thElephant
    12/03/09

    @Hospitals in Hawaii?: While I generally agree with you, I think this would make it a lot easier for beginners to learn how to use things like aperture and shutter-speed.

    For some reason the combination of pressing a button and turning the wheel simultaneously eludes a lot of amateur photographers. I know so many people who have DSLRs but keep them on automatic everything because they try to learn the buttons once, get frustrated and give up.
     Reply
    The5thElephant was starred The5thElephant was unstarred
    Image of Kaiser-Machead Kaiser-Machead
    12/03/09

    In reply to The Touchscreen DSLR Is Finally Upon Us
    I try hard not to revert back to the primitive ways of the anti-new-fangled-gizmo curmudgeon, but fuck this. After being very close to some die-hard photogs and observing how they capture their subjects, having to fiddle about with a DSLR that relegates a lot of the tactile controls to the display itself would seriously screw with their dynamic. My sister, for example, can navigate the controls of her cameras without taking her eye out of the viewfinder. It allows her to see the results of what she's doing with minimal obstruction of any interface. I can't speak for everyone in this matter, obviously, but in the examples I know of, I just don't see this working.

    Considering a number of people take pictures in all sorts of weather conditions (like biting cold), I see some of them avoiding this like the plague.
     Reply
    Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred
    Image of archercc archercc
    12/03/09

    In reply to The Touchscreen DSLR Is Finally Upon Us
    I wouldnt be surprised to see this go to the consumer ones first. I pretty much only turn on the display to chimp an exposure and turn it right back off.

    I wouldnt imagine it would be very easy to use the touchscreen with your eye to the viewfinder so I doubt this will be the end of buttons and dials. Like said, maybe for the cheap consumer models.
     Reply
    archercc was starred archercc was unstarred
    Image of szrimaging szrimaging
    12/03/09

    In reply to The Touchscreen DSLR Is Finally Upon Us
    No way would this ever work on the pro models. If the current screen on there became touch sensitive while leaving all the buttons, it would work.

    My bet is only the entry level rebels and other consumer cameras would go all touchscreen, while the pro bodies get touch screen and buttons.
     Reply
    szrimaging was starred szrimaging was unstarred
    Image of szrimaging szrimaging
    12/03/09

    @szrimaging: I should add, that this would work awesome in combo with live view. Being able to zoom in and tap on the exact spot in the frame that you want to focus on would be amazing for studio photographers.
     Reply
    szrimaging was starred szrimaging was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gizmodo account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.