Travel Zoom Camera- Sony Vs. Panasonic? -or anything else?

If you are looking for any alternative, go for cannon else go with Sony.

existperturbed wrote: ↑If you are looking for any alternative, go for cannon else go with Sony.

Sorry, which Canon?

IceBlueShoes wrote: ↑Sorry, which Canon?

Canon powershot SX400,SX500, SX530, SX520, ELPH 135
U have so many options with canon.

existperturbed wrote: ↑Canon powershot SX400,SX500, SX530, SX520, ELPH 135
U have so many options with canon.

While I thank you for your suggestions, neither of those cameras are travel zooms.

The SX's are too big and ELPH only has an 8x which is the same my current ZR1 has.

Again suggestions for a travel zoom are greatly appreciated.

That Sony HX90V must be just about here....

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/s ... hx90vA.HTM


I've used a Canon SX220HS (14x zoom) for a couple of years (an RFD buy as my budget at the time was $200) as my camera to haul with me on business trips. I also use it for recording 1080i video of my kids playing sports indoors in gyms and arenas. I wouldn't buy the same camera again - would probably want something with 30fps or 60fps video at 1920x1080. There is something about the 24fps 1920x1080 in playback that I find odd. I also find the camera slightly too large for what I want.

I believe the Canon SX610HS is the latest successor to the SX220HS and the SX700HS is the successor to the higher end SX280HS.

Nikon has the S9900 travel zoom.

I do like the Panasonic Lumix series of travel zooms but the reviews I've seen on the ZS50 were so so.

Aside from review sites, also check out the comments on Amazon and BHphoto for camera idiosyncrasies.

Check Flickr for image samples....

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... xt=sx710hs

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... text=hx90v

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... text=s9900

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... &text=zs50

.

existperturbed wrote: ↑Canon powershot SX400,SX500, SX530, SX520, ELPH 135
U have so many options with canon.

SX270 is 20x zoom IS and picture quality is pretty good (Digic 6 processor works well). Small package. Carry a spare battery and it's good for a day of a lot of shots.

Maybe it's just me but the picture quality looks comparable for all.

I guess it's cam size vs RAW file capabilities?
Is having RAW file abilities really that big of a deal?

NewsyL wrote: ↑That Sony HX90V must be just about here....

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/s ... hx90vA.HTM


I've used a Canon SX220HS (14x zoom) for a couple of years (an RFD buy as my budget at the time was $200) as my camera to haul with me on business trips. I also use it for recording 1080i video of my kids playing sports indoors in gyms and arenas. I wouldn't buy the same camera again - would probably want something with 30fps or 60fps video at 1920x1080. There is something about the 24fps 1920x1080 in playback that I find odd. I also find the camera slightly too large for what I want.

I believe the Canon SX610HS is the latest successor to the SX220HS and the SX700HS is the successor to the higher end SX280HS.

Nikon has the S9900 travel zoom.

I do like the Panasonic Lumix series of travel zooms but the reviews I've seen on the ZS50 were so so.

Aside from review sites, also check out the comments on Amazon and BHphoto for camera idiosyncrasies.

Check Flickr for image samples....

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... xt=sx710hs

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... text=hx90v

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... text=s9900

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=rel ... &text=zs50

.

First shots...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... -pocketabl

If you want to do pixel peeping comparisons, Imaging Resource has an excellent tool for this....

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM


.

Here is what I'm thinking for myself for $329

Nikon COOLPIX S9900 Wi-Fi/GPS 16.0MP 30x Optical Zoom Digital Camera - Black

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/nik ... 2ef94aen02

It's 7 times optical. Digital zoom is poor compared to optical.

robertz wrote: ↑It's 7 times optical. Digital zoom is poor compared to optical.

??? are you referring to the Nikon S9900?

The S9900 is 30X Optical. Without a doubt.

Doh!

NewsyL wrote: ↑First shots...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... -pocketabl

If you want to do pixel peeping comparisons, Imaging Resource has an excellent tool for this....

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM


.

Looks good to me but im still unsure about the whole raw vs jpeg argument. Then again I'm not going to be printing out pictures and this is just a "hobby" on trips so maybe it's not that big of a deal for me.

Hopefully a full review will be out soon.

the advantage of RAW comes into effect if you’re doing editing.

With JPG, the camera processes the picture for you based on what it thinks is the ideal setting. With RAW, it records the settings and you can choose different settings that are more optimal. It also keeps more bits of data around (the full bits of the sensor. JPGs have to be converted to 8 bits)

If you have a picture where parts of the pictures are washed out or too dark, shooting in RAW gives you more bits to work with so you can extract more detail from those areas. With JPG, that detail may be lost forever because the camera truncated those bits out of the picture after it converted to JPG

If you’re just looking to capture the moment, then RAW is overkill. If there are any pictures that you think you want to keep or if the lighting conditions are challenging, then you are better off shooting in RAW so you have more control of the final product.

So sometimes I just shoot in JPG, but if I’m shooting pictures I know I want to keep, I’ll set it to RAW

Maybe think of it this way: The image is ALWAYS captured by the camera / sensor (every & any digital camera) as RAW data. However, cameras that DO NOT offer saving RAW files (captured 14 bit raw data), have the internal camera computer / software EDIT & Convert the raw data & permanently bake it into, an 8 bit sRGB Jpeg. The camera processing is based on what the manufacturer thought was the best jpeg processed "look" of any scene vs. what YOU later think is the best processed look. Cameras that offer saving the captured raw data as a 14 bit RAW file, allow YOU to Edit the raw data later, in your computer software (not in your camera), to get YOUR desired effects & so you would be working with ALL the 14 bits of raw data capable of being captured (sort of, still depends on video card, display bits & software capability & editing colour space used). Some cameras, such as my P&S, offer to save both the RAW file AND the camera processed Jpeg (& of 3 optional Jpeg sizes), but this uses more SD card memory space, as 2 files are recorded for every image.

Think of the benefit of RAW over Jpeg as; when the camera raw capture goes from 14 bits of raw data to 8 bit Jpegs (6 bits only if edited on laptops), then the camera's computer / software has effectively thrown out nearly half the captured colour & tonal exposure raw data & also further discarded more data & colour information when compressing the converted data into a compressed Jpeg & into the smaller sRGB colour space. How much compression & ever more discarded bits depends on the Jpeg size that you choose in the camera's capture / recording set up. With RAW data, the camera doesn't discard any information, it lets you do that later IF you choose to if & when you output a file as a compressed Jpeg.

So if you are not interested in learning to or skilled with, nor have the hardware nor software for editing a raw file, nor have a calibrated display, then you may as well just go with a camera that captures Jpegs only & so the manufacturer settings for how the camera will process the Jpegs. Most of the time, the results will be "good enough". And even in Jpeg Mode, there is still often A LOT that you can do as a photographer when capturing the scene by using various camera controls, if offered or allowed, such as Av, Tv, M, EV compensation, etc., to give you a better file, vs. just leaving it to Program or Auto Everything Modes.

To me, it sounds like "good enough" is the way for you to go, as you do not have the knowledge or stated desire, nor the calibrated display & your stated output or end use of the images is only to ever look at the images on a computer monitor, likely also not calibrated & of who knows what quality. You can still edit or manipulate Jpegs later, just as stated above, you will have less data to work with than with a RAW file & in extreme exposure situations, having the RAW data may or may not save an image. But if you put lipstick on a pig (poorly exposed RAW File), then it'll still be a pig, just a tiny bit different or better looking. ESPECIALLY with tiny sensor point & shoot cameras, it can be argued that keeping every bit of data helps but tiny sensors already do not capture much raw data anyway, so there often really isn't much capture quality worth saving. Sort of like, is the glass half full or half empty?

I owned the ZR1 and it was a good camera but dust getting in the lens/sensor ruined a number of my pictures on my trip. I got Panasonic to fix the issue and I sold it right after it was properly cleaned up. This makes me worried about the ZR50 as I don't want to spend $$ to have the same issue again.

Patiently waiting for the FZ300 this September.

existperturbed wrote: ↑Canon powershot SX400,SX500, SX530, SX520, ELPH 135
U have so many options with canon.

You didn't really express any reason why other than there's a lot of them.

projectmoonlightcafe wrote: ↑You didn't really express any reason why other than there's a lot of them.

Not to mention none are travel zooms