A good and sexy point and shoot

[Haro!]

I know many here in AN are tech and gadget savvy. So I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good AND sexy point and shoot digital camera. It would be a gift from my dad so price isn't really a concern. I just need some recommendations.
So far I've only considered the Leica C-Lux 2 (because it looks better than the C-Lux 3)

[Gray]

I know many here in AN are tech and gadget savvy. So I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good AND sexy point and shoot digital camera. It would be a gift from my dad so price isn't really a concern. I just need some recommendations.
So far I've only considered the Leica C-Lux 2 (because it looks better than the C-Lux 3)

Well, are you looking for a low-end, simple camera? Or a higher end point-and-shoot bridge camera? If you want some real power in a camera, but want to stay within the point-and-shoot demographic, i'd go with the Nikon P80.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-Camera/26114/COOLPIX-P80.html

http://www.ubergizmo.com/photos/2008/4/nikon-p80.jpg

[Haro!]

Well, are you looking for a low-end, simple camera? Or a higher end point-and-shoot bridge camera? If you want some real power in a camera, but want to stay within the point-and-shoot demographic, i'd go with the Nikon P80.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-Camera/26114/COOLPIX-P80.html

http://www.ubergizmo.com/photos/2008/4/nikon-p80.jpg

I am looking for something smaller, that takes decent enough pictures. I want to be able to tuck it away into my bag or jacket pocket so that I can use it when I don't expect to. I'm majoring in sustainable urban planning and design so occasionally I'll see some detail that catches my eye while walking around and not expecting it, but would like to get a picture for future use. So I would prefer something for those types of moments.

[Gray]

I am looking for something smaller, that takes decent enough pictures. I want to be able to tuck it away into my bag or jacket pocket so that I can use it when I don't expect to. I'm majoring in sustainable urban planning and design so occasionally I'll see some detail that catches my eye while walking around and not expecting it, but would like to get a picture for future use. So I would prefer something for those types of moments.

Then I would probably go with a Nikon Coolpix S630

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-Camera/26156/COOLPIX-S630.html

http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Digital-Camera/COOLPIX-S630/ColorVariants/26156-COOLPIX-S630/Views/353_26156_S630_34l.jpg

http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Digital-Camera/COOLPIX-S630/ColorVariants/26156-COOLPIX-S630/Views/353_26156_S630_back.jpg

[Nakey]

I know many here in AN are tech and gadget savvy. So I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good AND sexy point and shoot digital camera. It would be a gift from my dad so price isn't really a concern. I just need some recommendations.
So far I've only considered the Leica C-Lux 2 (because it looks better than the C-Lux 3)

Well clearly price isn't a concern, given you're looking at Leica already...

I'd take the C-LUX3 over the C-LUX2, but i'd take the D-LUX4 far and away over the C-LUX3

And then i'd rather have the Panasonic LX3 over the D-LUX4 because i'd rather have AU$750 in my pocket and a Panasonic badge on my camera than pay double the price for the same camera just because it's got the Leica Red Dot and reputed "Leica JPEG processing" (which doesn't mean jack to me as i'd shoot RAW anyway...)

Every Leica digital camera that isn't an M or S series has an identical cheaper Panasonic equivalent. Even down to the V-LUX Bridge (FZ50, i think) and Digilux 4 (L1 FT mount DSLR).


Haru, i havn't been impressed with Nikon's P&S lately. Really, i havn't been impressed with anything from Nikon under a mid-range DSLR since they took off Screwdrive AF on the D40. On the bridge superzoom front, i'd take the Canon SX1 over that nikon. And if full manual firepower is what you want, the Canon G10 and LX3/D-LUX4 beat it in droves.

Let me add though, that i'd rather have good image quality out of an ugly camera (EG: Fuji F30) than good looks with crap Image Quality (some of the Canons and Kodaks). And while this goes up to a point (i don't like Canon's G10, as an example), i think the Panasonic LX3/Leica D-LUX4 is a nice match of both. less so for the leica due to it's price.

It's up to you though. Would you rather people gawk at your camera for the few seconds it's out? Or gawk at the quality of your photos forever, after the camera itself is long gone. As a photographer, i'd know what i'd pick.

And i'd also rather would sacrifice lens range for lens speed. the less i have to use flash, the better. and while that Nikon P&S that Haru! pointed out has almost 3x the range of the LX3/D-LUX4, the lens is slower on the wide than the LX3's is by a 1 2/3 of a stop (probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but that's an epic arseload of light). you always sacrifice image quality when you go for a longer focal range.


EDIT: One more thing about teh D-LUX4, is the accessories you get with it, making it look like a mini M8. And if snobbery is what you're after, a D-LUX4 with the viewfinder and body grip is one step away from the King of Digital Camera Snobbery: a Leica Digital Rangefinder.

[Gray]

Haru, i havn't been impressed with Nikon's P&S lately. Really, i havn't been impressed with anything from Nikon under a mid-range DSLR since they took off Screwdrive AF on the D40. On the bridge superzoom front, i'd take the Canon SX1 over that nikon. And if full manual firepower is what you want, the Canon G10 and LX3/D-LUX4 beat it in droves.

I am a bit biased twords Canon because i've had some bad expirences with a couple of thier models, and i've always taken great pictures with a Nikon. While I am not very fond of any P&S Series, (I use a Nikon D700 DSLR) I have handled a Nikon P80 out in the field before and was pretty impressed with its 18x zoom capabilities and quality of the pictures. The camera faultered in some of the higher ISO ranges but for the most part it was a good expirence. The Wide-Angle zoom was espically pleasing for landscapes. Though it is definatly a bridge camera, and you've got to be willing to actaully read the manual and learn how to use the camera properly to get the best performance out of it, so its on the higher end of P&S cameras.

EDIT: That and I always thought the Canon SX1 looked like a camcorder with the way the LCD works and the fact it shoots video in 1080p with Stereo sound :lol:

[Nakey]

As far as bridges go, it's not bad (there's far worse. Kodak. 'Nuff said). but there's certainly better for the money. Personally, i'd look at the Fuji's first (especially the manual zoom ring ones). And while the SX1 had most of the stuff that make me like it (E-TTL flash was a big one), The recent firmware that introduced RAW mode made things much much better. If they made a bridge with i-TTL CLS and RAW, i'd be all over that.

as far as P&Ses go, it's taken the LX3 to make me think about replacing my F30. the G10's too big and heavy (too much noise at high ISOs too), and for everything it has, it's just the perfect photographer's P&S. Sure, i'm getting a new P&S in the next month, but that's for snorkeling (Fuji J15 in 3M waterproof case)

Speaking of the D700, i got to play with one for a few hours in the company of Nikon Australia, Sigma Australia and Tamron Australia (and their lenses). Oh dear god. i jizz in my pants

though not as much when i got to play with the D3X (and a Nikkor 500mm F4) the next day :D

EDIT:
EDIT: That and I always thought the Canon SX1 looked like a camcorder with the way the LCD works and the fact it shoots video in 1080p with Stereo sound :lol:

you're just jealous that the D90 has 5 minutes of 720P video with no AF and lots of frame tearing, and Canon have 1080P, AF, 12 minutes and no frame tearing :P


i'll say this though: between playing with the nikon bodies, and my Pentax body in repairs, that D90 is looking quite sexy....

[Gray]

As far as bridges go, it's not bad (there's far worse. Kodak. 'Nuff said). but there's certainly better for the money. Personally, i'd look at the Fuji's first (especially the manual zoom ring ones). And while the SX1 had most of the stuff that make me like it (E-TTL flash was a big one), The recent firmware that introduced RAW mode made things much much better. If they made a bridge with i-TTL CLS and RAW, i'd be all over that.

as far as P&Ses go, it's taken the LX3 to make me think about replacing my F30. the G10's too big and heavy (too much noise at high ISOs too), and for everything it has, it's just the perfect photographer's P&S. Sure, i'm getting a new P&S in the next month, but that's for snorkeling (Fuji J15 in 3M waterproof case)

Speaking of the D700, i got to play with one for a few hours in the company of Nikon Australia, Sigma Australia and Tamron Australia (and their lenses). Oh dear god. i jizz in my pants

though not as much when i got to play with the D3X (and a Nikkor 500mm F4) the next day :D

EDIT:


you're just jealous that the D90 has 5 minutes of 720P video with no AF and lots of frame tearing, and Canon have 1080P, AF, 12 minutes and no frame tearing :P


i'll say this though: between playing with the nikon bodies, and my Pentax body in repairs, that D90 is looking quite sexy....


I haven't had the pleasure of using a D3X. I took several DSLR cameras for a test drive, but in the end opted the save my pennies for a D700 after a I used one that a friend had. I didn't have alot of time with the camera, however it was amazing in the short time I had my hands on it, and after doing more research I knew it was the camera I wanted. Unfortunatly I am not rich enough to be able to keep multiple cameras around, thats why I decided early on the spend the big bucks and get something I could stick with. I think if I won the lottery a D3X would be one of the first things i'd spend the money on :lol:


P&S cameras are good if you want a no hassle camera to take to birthday parties, or if you go on vacation and arn't concerned with more than just snapping pics left and right. Bridge cameras make a balance between the power of a DSLR and the ease of use of P&S, so I think some of the higher-end models can be good for people who really want to get into photography.

[Nakey]

I haven't had the pleasure of using a D3X. I took several DSLR cameras for a test drive, but in the end opted the save my pennies for a D700 after a I used one that a friend had. I didn't have alot of time with the camera, however it was amazing in the short time I had my hands on it, and after doing more research I knew it was the camera I wanted. Unfortunatly I am not rich enough to be able to keep multiple cameras around, thats why I decided early on the spend the big bucks and get something I could stick with. I think if I won the lottery a D3X would be one of the first things i'd spend the money on :lol:

Honestly, wouldn't bother. It is, without question, a sexy beast. However, it's really suited for high-res modeling shoots where the extra high-ISO noise of the sensor isn't seen (what with monolights everywere that you'd be shooting at ISO100 anyway...). the D700 + Grip makes the best compromise. good ISO performance, fast shooting, D3 speeds with the grip.

the D3X's compeditors are really the 1DsIII, and cameras & Backs from Phase One, Sinar, Leaf, and Hasselblad. sexy (and the output from a P60 is orgasmic), but kinda impractical for day-to-day shooting.

you says you're not rich. i shoot pentax. your D700 body is probably worth more than my K200D and all my glass....

P&S cameras are good if you want a no hassle camera to take to birthday parties, or if you go on vacation and arn't concerned with more than just snapping pics left and right.

Bridge cameras make a balance between the power of a DSLR and the ease of use of P&S, so I think some of the higher-end models can be good for people who really want to get into photography.

you also get the extra weight and heft. and bad high ISO performance compared to even an entry level Oly FT body (and as far a DSLRs go, they're considered pretty bad...)

That's why the canon G series and Panasonic LX series were well received. power and full manual capability of a DSLR (hell, the G10 still has E-TTL), with the size of a compact (or, in the case of the G10, not that much bigger). Also better optics than those folded superzoom optics (seriously, barrel and pincushion distortion everwhere makes me cry twin waterfalls...)

[Haro!]

Well clearly price isn't a concern, given you're looking at Leica already...

I'd take the C-LUX3 over the C-LUX2, but i'd take the D-LUX4 far and away over the C-LUX3

And then i'd rather have the Panasonic LX3 over the D-LUX4 because i'd rather have AU$750 in my pocket and a Panasonic badge on my camera than pay double the price for the same camera just because it's got the Leica Red Dot and reputed "Leica JPEG processing" (which doesn't mean jack to me as i'd shoot RAW anyway...)

Every Leica digital camera that isn't an M or S series has an identical cheaper Panasonic equivalent. Even down to the V-LUX Bridge (FZ50, i think) and Digilux 4 (L1 FT mount DSLR).


Haru, i havn't been impressed with Nikon's P&S lately. Really, i havn't been impressed with anything from Nikon under a mid-range DSLR since they took off Screwdrive AF on the D40. On the bridge superzoom front, i'd take the Canon SX1 over that nikon. And if full manual firepower is what you want, the Canon G10 and LX3/D-LUX4 beat it in droves.

Let me add though, that i'd rather have good image quality out of an ugly camera (EG: Fuji F30) than good looks with crap Image Quality (some of the Canons and Kodaks). And while this goes up to a point (i don't like Canon's G10, as an example), i think the Panasonic LX3/Leica D-LUX4 is a nice match of both. less so for the leica due to it's price.

It's up to you though. Would you rather people gawk at your camera for the few seconds it's out? Or gawk at the quality of your photos forever, after the camera itself is long gone. As a photographer, i'd know what i'd pick.

And i'd also rather would sacrifice lens range for lens speed. the less i have to use flash, the better. and while that Nikon P&S that Haru! pointed out has almost 3x the range of the LX3/D-LUX4, the lens is slower on the wide than the LX3's is by a 1 2/3 of a stop (probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but that's an epic arseload of light). you always sacrifice image quality when you go for a longer focal range.


EDIT: One more thing about teh D-LUX4, is the accessories you get with it, making it look like a mini M8. And if snobbery is what you're after, a D-LUX4 with the viewfinder and body grip is one step away from the King of Digital Camera Snobbery: a Leica Digital Rangefinder.

Nakey, I think it is awesome that you reply to me as if I'm a rational human being. Thank you. However...

The Panasonic suggestion is great but the D-Lux 4 looks better. On the one more thing, I am thinking of getting a Leica rangefinder, well M8.2, eventually, so the accessories for the D-Lux aren't that big of a selling point for me. I'm just waiting for a slow semester to take a photography course, possibly in my second to last semester.
I have noticed that a few of the ugly point and shoots I've had have actually taken some of the best pictures. Case in point a Fujifilm something-or-another which looked downright hideous, but I took some of my best pictures with. I still don't want an ugly camera because, if its ugly chances are I won't want to take it out and use it.

[Soluzar]

Nakey, I think it is awesome that you reply to me as if I'm a rational human being. Thank you. However...
Self-mockery is the best kind of mockery. :D

[The Million Dollar Prons]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Studijskifotoaparat.JPG

Here you go

[Nakey]

Nakey, I think it is awesome that you reply to me as if I'm a rational human being. Thank you.
Yeah.. i must be getting soft.. this IS you after all... Still, someone's going to read this and go "oh. i must have a leica P&S" and waste their money on a C-LUX3. Same reason there's idiots fapping over Canon red ring when all their got is a 1000D + 18-55 II

Like the macbook thread. your money. your way to spend it. i'm just not that stupid with mine.

On the one more thing, I am thinking of getting a Leica rangefinder, well M8.2, eventually, so the accessories for the D-Lux aren't that big of a selling point for me. I'm just waiting for a slow semester to take a photography course, possibly in my second to last semester.

The chances of anyone going to those classes owning a RF, let alone one of the 4 DRFs out there are fairly slim. God help you if they, stupidly, teach you machine gun techniques (seen this happen more times than i want to know). A class with a teacher who's taking advantage of the limitless amounts of storage in digital photography, you will suffer in it.

BTW, the D-LUX4's optional optical viewfinder IS useful. Apart from saving you batteries, you get used to addon viewfinders when the M8.2's inbuilt ones don't suit.

I have noticed that a few of the ugly point and shoots I've had have actually taken some of the best pictures. Case in point a Fujifilm something-or-another which looked downright hideous, but I took some of my best pictures with.

Fuji cameras have some of the best IQ out there. Always have, always will. it comes from a company who still make their cameras, and who still make film

i don't particularly care about the looks of the camera (as i said, photographer. i would rather a good looking photo than a good looking camera)
I still don't want an ugly camera because, if its ugly chances are I won't want to take it out and use it.

i don't know if that qualifies as snobbery, vanity, narcissism or measurabation...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Studijskifotoaparat.JPG

Here you go

Not until i can find a decent scanning back for it.

I'd rather just pano a bunch of RED EPIC Monstro 617 sensors....

[tenshi_a]

If you want a camera which you think looks good, fits in your pocket, and you don't care about the quality of the shots, there's the iPhone; have you heard of it? :P

[Nakey]

If you want a camera which you think looks good, fits in your pocket, and you don't care about the quality of the shots, there's the iPhone; have you heard of it? :P

you really must not care one bit about your shots then. I have 4 year old SE phones which take better shots than that pile o junk...

EDIT. no.. wait.. i must be getting soft. yeah, Haro, why aren't you looking at an iphone? It does actually suit you, mac fanboy and all...

[tenshi_a]

you really must not care one bit about your shots then. I have 4 year old SE phones which take better shots than that pile o junk...

EDIT. no.. wait.. i must be getting soft. yeah, Haro, why aren't you looking at an iphone? It does actually suit you, mac fanboy and all...

Haha, see? Now you understand what he wants. I realised; he doesn't really want a camera from a camera shop, he wants a camera from an accessories shop. You're giving him rucksacks when he wants handbags. ;)

[Nakey]

Haha, see? Now you understand what he wants. I realised; he doesn't really want a camera from a camera shop, he wants a camera from an accessories shop. You're giving him rucksacks when he wants handbags. ;)

Hey, what do you expect? i'm an ugly geek who has photography as a passion. it's not like the looks of anything are a top priority for me. i personally detest anything that sacrifices function for form.

That being said, I still maintain C-LUX3 or D-LUX4.

And if he wants handbags, why the hell even look at the rucksack that is the M8.2? I personally think it looks butt ugly (Hell, i'm yet to see a RF that looks good). it's not even going to get him the "omg thats a fully sick camera" snob status either with most people. Most average people will wonder what's wrong with the camera when it doesn't autofocus and that you have to use the viewfinder, and most camera geeks would either decry that it uses a noisy Four Thirds Sensor and not a FF35 sensor, not that they'd know what to do when they get their hands on it (the look of the Leica guy's face when i picked it up and got it ready for shooting without asking him for help was priceless).

[Old Ape Face]

I think I will side with Nakey on this one.

A sexy looking camera is one thing, but what good is a sexy looking camera when no one is going to actually be looking at the camera in any pictures you take?

Unless taking any pictures at all isn't the point of this in which case you're wasting money on just a novelty item.

And then if you take pictures of you and your sexy camera you're just going to look very silly with it anyway.

And to finish my Post, sexy looking pictures speak louder than the sexy looking camera.

If you really want to be sexy, make the sexiest best quality picture. Cause that's what everyone will be looking at most likely.

[Hara!]

I have a Canon PowerShot SD1000. They're sexy, cheap, and they take great pictures.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2918/canonsd1000pl3.gif

http://www.cameratown.com/assets/news/large/Canon_Powershot_SD750_SD1000.jpg

[Gibb]

I didn't read the thread, but get a Canon Powershot.

I currently have a Kodak 12mp point&shoot and it's a piece of trash. It takes far worse photos than my Mom's Canon 6MP point&shoot from 3 years ago.

Another friend of mine just picked up a Canon Powershot and it takes incredible photos, almost SLR quality.

[Hara!]

I didn't read the thread, but get a Canon Powershot.

I currently have a Kodak 12mp point&shoot and it's a piece of trash. It takes far worse photos than my Mom's Canon 6MP point&shoot from 3 years ago.

Another friend of mine just picked up a Canon Powershot and it takes incredible photos, almost SLR quality.

You see what I mean? These cameras are great.

[Nakey]

You see what I mean? These cameras are great.

... until their sony based sensors fail.... like a whole bunch did. also, noisy sensors and questionable rigidity. i've seen far too much powershots fail after 2 years.

Like nikon, i'm not impressed with a lot of Canon's stuff under the 450D. they do have their good points though. they're nice and stupidproof (well, haro's a mac user, so stupidity is implied..), they look semidecent to pretty good (for the narcissist in Haro)...

... Actually, i take that back, they'd be good for Haro.

Personaly, i wouldn't touch anything but the top end powershots for IQ and reliability reasons. Or i'd spend less money and get something else...

[Haro!]

I wouldn't get an iPhone because 1) I'm an SE brand ***** when it comes to phones and 2) the camera, while decent compared to cameras on other people's phones would be no substitute for a stand-alone camera.

I think the Canon point and shoots are good enough in terms of the picture quality and ease of use, but their design doesn't catch my eye.

I'm still torn between the C-Lux and D-Lux. The C-Lux is so sexy in a simple way but the D-Lux looks sexy in a functional looking way (just sort of reminds me of something Dieter Rams would do, or old school Sony products)

[Nakey]

2) the camera, while decent compared to cameras on other people's phones 4 years ago would be no substitute for a stand-alone camera.

fixed, and as an SE brand w****, you should know that.

[Haro!]

fixed, and as an SE brand w****, you should know that.

Eh, not necessarily. Most people are carrying phones like the touchsreen phones on Verizon and/or Sprint, if not the cheaper variety, and most of those don't take better pictures than the iPhone. I've seen some pretty nice iPhone pictures. SE phones more often than not have better cameras than the iPhone, and well many other phones. My T700 while thinner than most phones I see classmates/co-workers with, takes AWESOME pictures compared to them.

Edit: Just for clarification, I am referring to the Sony Ericsson T700, not the Cybershot camera of the same name.

[Nakey]

whether most people have it or not, the K750, a 4 year old phone, completely and utterly ****s over the iphone's camera. Same with the Sharp 702. Even the N90 have better image quality.

that they're all 3-4 years old, with image quality that rivals proper P&S cameras with the same MP count, and 4 years later a POS from apple can't keep up. that's pathetic.


no really. oh look, they've also released OS V3.0. WITH STUFF PHONES FROM 3 YEARS AGO HAD. seriously... it took THIS LONG for bluetooth Music to appear.. on a Music phone? Utterly retarted, and so are much of it's users...

Anyway, back onto cameras, and the 500D's been announced.. hmm....