Help, I am looking for a camera to take to Yellowstone next summer. I currently have a Canon sx110. It is a fine camera. I need the loooong zoom that these two cameras provide. I have been to Yellowstone before and the cool stuff is always far from where I am standing!!!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o> Any of you camera guys have any thoughts on these two cameras? They seem to be comparable. I am just a basic camera guy. I don't do fancy things, not a pro ETC. Any thoughts about these or others cameras would be helpful.<o></o> Thanks<o></o> Russ<o></o>
I'm looking at both of those also. Here's a review of the Nikon Nikon Review And one for the Canon Canon Review I'm leaning toward the Canon because I own an older S2 and the controls and menus are similar. The extra zoom is nice but it comes at a price in that the lens is slower (doesn't let as much light through). The Canon has more programmed shooting modes for us amateurs, also. But the big seller for me is the hotshoe. I wish it had 16 megap. like the Nikon. Maybe I'll wait for the next version. Eric
Just to confuse the issue, you might look at the Panasonic FZ-200. Another competent superzoom. f2.8 lens over the full range of 25 to 600 mm (35mm equivalent) focal length.
When I was using film, the nicest, most professional and least snapshot-like photos I ever took were with an external flash on my Nikon F3. When you learn to use a good external flash capable of swiveling and bouncing light, you stop getting that deer-in-the-headlight effect indoors and you can fill shadows in, outdoors. Very rewarding for me. Having a hotshoe will let me do that. That may not be important to you. It's a deal killer for me. Eric
I was a huge fan of Canon's G9. Then my wife stole it. Now, I'm looking at Nikon's P7100 vs. Canon"s G15. The Nikon is going to get the nod. These cameras are as good as it gets in any but the most demanding hands. As far as choosing a camera, do so with you hands. See how it feels in YOUR hand. Don't even look at the label. Nikon and Canon are both top choices. Lyle
So far there has been some very good advice. I hope to go see some cameras soon. Best Buy and Micro Center usually have a good selection. I doubt I will but there but I do want to hold both cameras. I do want the super zoom. That is very important to me. Russ
My pick in the superzoom arena would be the Fujifilm X-S1. I've been incredibly impressed with my X10, which shares the same larger-than-typical sensor, but with a brighter/shorter lens. The color rendition and low light performance with the EXR sensor is fantastic. 24-624mm equivalent F2.8-5.6 lens. Metal body, metal lens barrel, built like a proper camera. The zoom is a proper mechanical ring on the lens, not a rocker switch. Electronic viewfinder with 100% coverage, and a tilting rear LCD screen It would have my full attention if I were in that market.
That Fuji is nice and I like the way the zoom works, but it is half the power (624mm vs. 1200mm) of the Canon that the OP is considering. It is quite a bit faster, though. Another feature of the Canon I like is the fully articulated rear screen. I only use that screen to review pictures and while shooting on a tripod. When it's not being used you can fold in towards the camera so that it's protected from being scratched or smudged. Mine looks as good as the day I bought it many years ago. Eric
Anybody planning to shot at 1200mm equivalent of anything better invest in a decent tripod. You can barely get away with 600mm equivalent, handheld, with modern image-stabilization sensors. Keep in mind that 1/focal length is a reasonable guideline for shutter speed to avoid blur from the motion of your hand.
There's also a lot of mirage/heat waves if you're shooting something far away with a 1200mm lens. You're right. The OP should invest in a tripod or at least a monopod. Eric
Went to Costco and they actually had both cameras side by side. The bad part is neither one would power up. Both unplugged. They both felt OK in my hands. The Nikon did had rubber in part of the grip that was a nice touch. It would have been nice to see both work. I will keep looking. I do plan to get a pod of some sort to stead the camera. Thanks for the advice on that. Russ
I have an earlier version of a TrekTech Monopod, like their cheap one and it is nicely built. Not as stable as a real tripod but much handier. http://www.trek-tech.com/products/trekpods.html?gclid=CPL1uvbXz6YCFQqAgwodvnNOHw
Manfrotto's least expensive offering I've had one of their fancier ones for as long as I can remember, but you might want to try a basic version to see if you like it. Honestly, I think lugging around a tripod/monopod cramps my style, but I'm not as steady as I once was so I've been using one as of late. Eric
I wouldn't touch the Nikon or the Canon, you give up more quality as you go longer on the zoom range and 42-50 is extreme. The superzoom game became one of constant one-upmanship where the #X mattered more than quality. Mucka I understand you want a long zoom but 600 is a very long zoom, 1,200 is bordering on absurd for such a camera. When you were there last time what camera did you use? Another vote for the Fuji, this is their market historically
