Technology Need advice on buying a new digital camera

[THEV1LL4N]

ive found the Panasonic Lumix FS9, FS10 and FS12 all for varying prices, but around the same cost.

Here is what ive gathered:

FS9 - £119, 12MP, 5x optical zoom, ISO rating = 1600
Buy PANASONIC DMC-FS9EB-K | 12mp digital camera - Specification | Comet

FS10 - £130, 12MP, 5x optical zoom, ISO rating = 1600
PANASONIC Lumix DMC-FS10 Compact Digital Camera buy online | Currys

FS12 - £99, 12MP, 4x optical zoom, ISO rating = 1600
PANASONIC Lumix DMC-FS12 Compact Digital Camera - 12.1 mp buy online | Currys

Can you guide me in thje right direction about these masta?

Also, how would you rate Casio's? Ive seen a great offer at a new Best Buy store which is opening up, so may be interested in that if it is good.

It is the Casio Exilim H10 SKU - £120, 12MP, 10x optical zoom.


Is there a noticeable difference between 4x and 5x optical zoom?

 

[masta247]

Is there a noticeable difference between 4x and 5x optical zoom?

Very little. Most of all 4x is more than enough for most everyday situations. If it comes to difference I have a camera with 6x optical zoom and a friend of mine has a very similar one with 4x zoom and while I can zoom in a bit further it's not a big difference. I never need it.


That Casio camera is inferior to Panasonics. Overall Casio cameras are not great.
review:
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/casio_ex_h10_review/conclusion/
Only 3.5 out of 5 for picture quality

Panasonic DMC-FS12 seems to be the best deal.
Paradoxally though DMC-FS10 and FS11 are newer. The difference between FS12 and FS10 is bigger optical zoom and slightly higher video recording resolution on FS10 while FS12 is slightly smaller and a bit slimmer. Except of that they're the same on paper. Display, battery etc - all the same.
Considering the price difference and the fact that you can have FS12 for 99 pounds I'd go for it.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Thanks man, you've been a great help. I knew i could count on your advice!! I think i'm going with the Panasonic FS12 as it meets all my needs and is still in the budget. Hopefully Dixons Tax free have this in stock so i can get it even cheaper than £100, but that'd be around £95. Either way, its not much but still better.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Update: Im happy with the camera but the picture quality comes out pretty shit a lot of the times with bad colours and the pictures are quite 'grainy'. is this anything to do with the ISO settings?

I usually put the camera flash on Auto, and the ISO on Auto. I sometimes take pictures with the Intelligent Auto feature and sometimes without. So far, by comparison, the Kodak Easyshare one i had before took better photos.

I have the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS12

 

[masta247]

Update: Im happy with the camera but the picture quality comes out pretty shit a lot of the times with bad colours and the pictures are quite 'grainy'. is this anything to do with the ISO settings?

I usually put the camera flash on Auto, and the ISO on Auto. I sometimes take pictures with the Intelligent Auto feature and sometimes without. So far, by comparison, the Kodak Easyshare one i had before took better photos.

I have the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS12

Grainy = high iso. During dailight take pictures with Iso at about 80,100. Try not to go above 200.

That Panasonic is a lower mid-end compact but definitely should be better than your Kodak, it gets favorable reviews.
I can't find any full sized samples but here are some pictures taken by that camera so you can compare the quality with yours:
lumix fs12 - Flickr: Search
Right click - size. To me most look fine. They do get grainy with higher ISOs but all compacts do.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

wow, had no idea that high ISO's produced grainy pics. so this means either 1 of 2 things.

keep it on auto and let the camera decide which is best. or, change it according lighting conditions.

I looked at some pics's proeprties and it said the flash was on auto mode but didnt flash - so i thought it mustve been on full auto with little 'natural' light. (natural being room lighting not camera flash or sunlight).

i put the max setting on ISO-1600, maybe its about time i experiment in different settings.

masta, you are like... all knowledgeable.

Thank you.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

p.s. what did you type to find those pictures.

ive tried searching for some more using terms like 'sample pictures' and taken picutres/photos'.

Also, some of those using seem too good to be from the FS12.

sunny day | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[masta247]

I had trouble finding pics from your camera on Google so I performed a search on Flickr.

Users claim that they were taken with FS12 and they don't look fake so I guess they were taken with FS12.
Iso at 1600 is too much for basically any camera. You shouldn't go above 200 on a compact. 400 is a total max imo and it'll already be grainy.

Auto is usually rather good but it might sometimes boost your iso and shutter speed above needed levels and pictures might turn out to be too grainy and blurry.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

so the IS0 1600 is pretty much an overkill so to speak?

 

[masta247]

so the IS0 1600 is pretty much an overkill so to speak?

Yes, lol. More Iso doesn't mean better. Actually lower isos are better as long as pictures aren't getting too dark.
Even at night if you're willing to play with manual settings it's always better to extend the shutter speed and remain at ISO no higher than 200. At least for still images. Most compact cameras don't have manual shutter speed setting though. So just limit your highest iso to 200 and you should be good.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

hey man, you the man, man.

edit: i shall try this.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Here are some shots i took with the Panasonic DMC-FS12 camera:

you'll find them lower down at the bottom of the page:

HTC G1 Android 2.2 smartphone boxed all accessories on eBay (end time 03-Mar-11 14:43:00 GMT)