Cameras and photography

[RedSidedSPR]

Yeah. I don't even pay attention to the megapixels anymore. I mean, would rather have a 14.0 than 5.0, but you know.

I had no idea about the 720 1080p stuff.. Good to know...
When you read the customer, (i.e. amateur) the S8100 (1080p) has amazing video, but than the real reviews (CNET etc) say it's not worth buying the camera for the video...

I really will probably end up with the S6000... no matter how many cameras look at, theres always something that makes me not want it. Can't find many cons to the S6000.

[ConcinusMan]

Me neither. And as long as it's still available, it only gets cheaper (to a point) with every new model that comes out. Quite frankly, you can't really go wrong with any of the Nikon models available. Just choose one with the features you need, and within your price range. Ignore the megapixel rating. It's pretty much irrelevant beyond 8 megapixels. You won't even notice a difference between 12 and 16 so there's no need to pay more for the higher rating.

Higher optical zoom is worth paying more for though. Definitely.

[RedSidedSPR]

Yeah, I'm liking all the nikons... 8.0 megapixel or higher is fine with me.

The S6000 isn't displayed etc anymore, which led me to the s1800 and others, which are sweet! But... $200 more..

Thanks

[ConcinusMan]

The S6000 isn't displayed etc anymore

ORLY? nikon coolpix s6000 - Google Search

[RedSidedSPR]

I don't know what that was for... I obviously wasn't clear again.

I meant not displayed at Walmart and Best Buy like the new coolpix's.

Was just saying that when I'm looking at cameras in person, I see other coolpix"s I like (S8100) but still end up liking the S6000 best... Except for the 8100.. loving that one.

[ConcinusMan]

Well of course it's not at the store.(where you will pay more for it anyway) Too many newer models to fill the space.

I'm still trying to figure out why the 8100 specs say "30-300mm" but the face of the camera itself says "5.4-54.0 mm"

The zoom on that thing is outstanding. Better than mine. And holy crap, the macro capability blows mine away. My macro specs: Approx. 1.2 in. (3 cm.) to infinity. the 8100: Approx. 0.4 in. (1 cm.) to infinity. In other words, even when the lens is only 1cm away from the subject, it can still focus on it. Lower megapixels but I doubt you would even notice the difference.

Definitely a nice camera. Essentially the same, but with better zoom and macro.

[RedSidedSPR]

I know WHY it's not displayed... Not saying it's weird and unfair. Saying that is what led me to the S8100 WHICH IS BEAST.

Macro. Yeah baby. You said it, 0.4.. holy crap.

1080p video.... eh... It gets good, and bad reviews. But it records slow motion.

Pop-up flash gets in the way but reduces blur, and obviously is awesome....

Great camera both of them... I see no cons to s6000 but have found several flaws in the S8100... But the macro, man.........

[guidofatherof5]

Sony SteadyShot DSC-W190 12.1 mega pixel
Sony Handycam HRD-UX5 4 mega pixel Stills
Olympus Stylus 1030 SW 10.1 mega pixel
Canon Digital EOS 6.4 mega pixel

[chris-uk]

Any photos you see from me will have been taken with my Canon G9 (although I crop and resize any before posting online, you don't want a 4000x3000 pixel picture on the forum) - all the features of an SLR except interchangeable lenses, but pocket sized. And in macro it can focus down to 1cm.
Biggest problem I have is getting the snake to hold a pose at the right angles for the best light.

[RedSidedSPR]

I got a new camera for Christmas (we also got a 32" LED TV and Bluray player but let's not get carried away) amazing flash and low light photos, something my camera lacked, couldn't take any good shots without sunlight. 0.4 inch macro. 0.4 INCH WHAT?!! Can't get much closer. I can litterally set the lens against something and have it focus.

And full 1080p video!

Consider this a teaser for what's to come.