Recommend a good hybrid (UK)

I'm confused - I have a Canon Ixux 500 which produces perfectly
adequate point'n'shoot snaps. I used to have a Nikon D40 but found it
a bit big and heavy to carry around and didn't really "satisfy" me
when taking photos.

I bought my nine year old a second hand Olympus Trip 35 and took a
couple of snaps with it and there's something about "making " a photo
in 35mm that digital hasn't (yet) made me feel.

I don't want to go back to 35mm.

So - I've been looking around at some of the hybrids (like the Fuji
Finepix S9600) that are a little smaller than a DSLR but ought to give
me more control and a more "making not taking the picture" kind of
feel.

But - I wonder if anyone has any advise on what to buy? I'm in the UK
and would ideally want to spend under £250.00. Won't be producing
prints over 10x8, so 6MP or so ought to be adequate but of course,
more may be better.

Any ideas?

Thanks.

Bryan Anderson wrote:
I'm confused - I have a Canon Ixux 500 which produces perfectly
adequate point'n'shoot snaps. I used to have a Nikon D40 but found it
a bit big and heavy to carry around and didn't really "satisfy" me
when taking photos.

I bought my nine year old a second hand Olympus Trip 35 and took a
couple of snaps with it and there's something about "making " a photo
in 35mm that digital hasn't (yet) made me feel.

I don't want to go back to 35mm.

So - I've been looking around at some of the hybrids (like the Fuji
Finepix S9600) that are a little smaller than a DSLR but ought to give
me more control and a more "making not taking the picture" kind of
feel.

But - I wonder if anyone has any advise on what to buy? I'm in the UK
and would ideally want to spend under £250.00. Won't be producing
prints over 10x8, so 6MP or so ought to be adequate but of course,
more may be better.

Any ideas?

I went the same route and decided on a Panasonic DMC FZ18. Last
Christmas they completely sold out. There are hundred of reviews out
there, here is one; http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/panasonic-dmc-fz18.cfm

I'm pleased with it. The iso 100 and 200 modes are very good, so I tend
to keep it locked in those for the better stuff. The big zoom lens is
super impressive.

"Bryan Anderson" wrote in message
...

I'm confused - I have a Canon Ixux 500 which produces perfectly
adequate point'n'shoot snaps. I used to have a Nikon D40 but found it
a bit big and heavy to carry around and didn't really "satisfy" me
when taking photos.

I bought my nine year old a second hand Olympus Trip 35 and took a
couple of snaps with it and there's something about "making " a photo
in 35mm that digital hasn't (yet) made me feel.

I don't want to go back to 35mm.

So - I've been looking around at some of the hybrids (like the Fuji
Finepix S9600) that are a little smaller than a DSLR but ought to give
me more control and a more "making not taking the picture" kind of
feel.

But - I wonder if anyone has any advise on what to buy? I'm in the UK
and would ideally want to spend under £250.00. Won't be producing
prints over 10x8, so 6MP or so ought to be adequate but of course,
more may be better.

Any ideas?

Thanks.

A Canon G9 can be had for less than £270, if you're willing to go the extra
20 quid.
HTH
Deep.

In article ,
Bryan Anderson wrote:

I'm confused - I have a Canon Ixux 500 which produces perfectly
adequate point'n'shoot snaps. I used to have a Nikon D40 but found it
a bit big and heavy to carry around and didn't really "satisfy" me
when taking photos.

I bought my nine year old a second hand Olympus Trip 35 and took a
couple of snaps with it and there's something about "making " a photo
in 35mm that digital hasn't (yet) made me feel.

I don't want to go back to 35mm.

So - I've been looking around at some of the hybrids (like the Fuji
Finepix S9600) that are a little smaller than a DSLR but ought to give
me more control and a more "making not taking the picture" kind of
feel.

But - I wonder if anyone has any advise on what to buy? I'm in the UK
and would ideally want to spend under £250.00. Won't be producing
prints over 10x8, so 6MP or so ought to be adequate but of course,
more may be better.

Any ideas?

Sure. Check out the camera reviews on http://www.dpreview.com

Shawn wrote on Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:38:27 -0400:

I don't intend to be sarcastic but "hybrid" is a new term for me if it
describes a non-mirror digital slr. Has it been generally accepted?
There is a not very active r.p.d.zlr group that seems to cover them but
I would have thought that the existing r.p.d.slr-systems would be
enough. "Reflex" does not seem to require an analog mirror to me.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
Shawn wrote on Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:38:27 -0400:

I don't intend to be sarcastic but "hybrid" is a new term for me if it
describes a non-mirror digital slr. Has it been generally accepted?

On the dpreview forums the term "EVIL" camera (electronic viewfinder
interchangeable lens) has been used for a few years to describe this
type of camera in various discussions.
Phil Askley put up (on Tuesday, 5 August) the Olympus announcement about
the proposed Micro FourThirds system
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp, but
there still is no manufacturer defined term for this general type of camera.

There is a not very active r.p.d.zlr group

It's been dead almost since it was created.
Well to be more accurate, more like less than a few months after it's
creation all the original posting (there is still some cross-posting) to
it petered out completely.
Considering that the term "zlr camera" was coined by Olympus to describe
their IS series of fixed (non-interchangeable) zoom lens film SLR
cameras and used the same term to describe their fixed zoom lens DSLR
cameras (such as the D600L and E-20), there must have been some
resistance to using the same term for EVF digicams (or "bridge"
digicams) which are externally shaped and styled to vaguely resemble a
SLR camera (a good example is the Fujifilm FinePix S100FS) but have no
actual optical reflex viewfinder.

that seems to cover them but
I would have thought that the existing r.p.d.slr-systems would be
enough. "Reflex" does not seem to require an analog mirror to me.

There is no analogue of a mirror in a SLR camera (film or digital),
there is an actual mirror (or other reflective surface, such as a
beamsplitter prism as found in the Olympus E-10 and E-20) to redirect
the image onto the focus screen in the viewfinder.

dj_nme wrote on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:56:40 +1000:

James Silverton wrote:
that seems to cover them but I would have thought that the existing
r.p.d.slr-systems
would be enough. "Reflex" does not seem to require an analog mirror
to me.

There is no analogue of a mirror in a SLR camera (film or digital),
there is an actual mirror (or other reflective surface, such as a
beamsplitter prism as found in the Olympus E-10 and E-20)
to redirect the image onto the focus screen in the viewfinder.

Fair enough but I was, perhaps imprecisely, using "analog" in the sense
of a non-digital, mechanical method to direct the image to the eyepiece.
I don't how Olympus' semireflecting mirror would be classified.
..

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
dj_nme wrote on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:56:40 +1000:

James Silverton wrote:
that seems to cover them but I would have thought that the existing
r.p.d.slr-systems
would be enough. "Reflex" does not seem to require an analog mirror
to me.

There is no analogue of a mirror in a SLR camera (film or digital),
there is an actual mirror (or other reflective surface, such as a
beamsplitter prism as found in the Olympus E-10 and E-20)
to redirect the image onto the focus screen in the viewfinder.

Fair enough but I was, perhaps imprecisely, using "analog" in the sense
of a non-digital, mechanical method to direct the image to the eyepiece.
I don't how Olympus' semireflecting mirror would be classified.

The same as the Canon Pellix and EOS-1n RS, they're still SLR cameras.
Even if the lens can't be interchanged, as in the case of the Olympus
ZLR cameras.

dj_nme wrote on Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:11:02 +1000:

James Silverton wrote:
dj_nme wrote on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:56:40 +1000:

James Silverton wrote:
that seems to cover them but I would have thought that the existing
r.p.d.slr-systems would be enough. "Reflex" does
not seem to require an analog mirror to me.

There is no analogue of a mirror in a SLR camera (film or
digital), there is an actual mirror (or other reflective
surface, such as a beamsplitter prism as found in the
Olympus E-10 and E-20) to redirect the image onto the focus screen
in the viewfinder.

Fair enough but I was, perhaps imprecisely, using "analog" in
the sense of a non-digital, mechanical method to direct the
image to the eyepiece. I don't how Olympus' semireflecting
mirror would be classified.


The same as the Canon Pellix and EOS-1n RS, they're still SLR
cameras.Even if the lens can't be interchanged, as in the case of the
Olympus ZLR cameras.

No argument! I suppose the distinction might be between mechanical (eg.
moving mirror) and digital reflex cameras. I don't think there is a
digital viewfinder that fully compares with a mirror but it will happen,
I believe.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
dj_nme wrote on Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:11:02 +1000:

James Silverton wrote:
snip

Fair enough but I was, perhaps imprecisely, using "analog" in
the sense of a non-digital, mechanical method to direct the
image to the eyepiece. I don't how Olympus' semireflecting
mirror would be classified.


The same as the Canon Pellix and EOS-1n RS, they're still SLR
cameras.Even if the lens can't be interchanged, as in the case of the
Olympus ZLR cameras.

No argument! I suppose the distinction might be between mechanical (eg.
moving mirror) and digital reflex cameras. I don't think there is a
digital viewfinder that fully compares with a mirror but it will happen,
I believe.

Maybe.
Hopefully the Olympus Mu4/3 cameras will have something suitable?

The best EVF that I've used is on the Konica-Minolta Dimage A2, it
was/is 640x480 pixel (300k pixels, but marketed as 900K pixels by
counting the RGB sub-pixels) and even that really is nowhere close to
being useful for manual focus without the "focus zoom" trick that a lot
of this type of camera (bridge/EVF digicam) have.

A proper replacement for an optical TTL viewfinder (as found in a [d]slr
camera) would have to be of very high resolution.
Perhaps at least 1200k pixels (at least twice the linear resolution of
the A2's EVF) and maybe a lot more to be as good as an average SLR
viewfinder.