Canon S2 is or Sony H-1....or new models coming?

[tanglovers]

Hi All,

I have been doing alot of searching on here and reading reviews on both of these cameras online like dpreview.com and similar sites.

I want a good all around camera. I know SLR is the way to go but I have very little camera experience and want to spend around $500 or less. I honestly am not so sure I would like the SLR since you have to set everything and do not know if I have the experience to do this.

Canon is releasing the S3 IS in May, it is a 6.0 megapixel and I think slightly larger screen. Sony is releasing the H-5 in June and has a larger screen and 7.1 megapixel.

Any comments on these cameras? I have read both are good all around. I would also like to take some macro shots of the tank. I have heard different reviews say one is better then the other and vise-a-versa. What does the 2.0 cm macro focus on the sony mean compared to the 10.0 cm macro focus of the canon? Does this mean how far from the camera lens the item can be? I would imagine for in tank shots either would be sufficient....we have a 2' wide tank so 5 inches is not a big deal.

Also seems like the canon has more options and white balance controls. Are these options/features of the canon useful/needed? Seems like both cameras can be suited with wide angle and telefotal lenses if desired.

I was a staples today handling both the S2 and the H-1 and I like the feeling of the S2 better then the H1. I do not want to buy a camera purely on this alone though. The guy there knew very little about either as far as specifics so was disappointed in that aspect.

Any opinions/suggestions are appreciated. I want this camera to last a long time. Like I said not looking to take the best of the best macro shots but want to take nice shots to accurately represent the color and polyp extension of our corals to show fellow reefers what we have.

Also how important is the increased megapixel and screen size of the new models coming out? Do these new models have any features/changes that would be nice to have? Just thinking with new models being released the potential for getting a close out deal on the previous model is high.

Thanks!

 

[PL-Reef]

I just recently bought the S2 for the same reason, and am still learning as I go. You can also buy a macro lense for it, which I personally haven't done yet, but plan on it shortly. The higher the pixels just means the bigger an image you can print, I don't ever plan on going higher then 8x10, so 5.0 is fine for me, it's all in what you want. I love my Canon, though I have no experience with the other, so I can't help you there. I think the white balance helps with the tank photos if you want a more 'real' shot, I have a 14K pheniox bulb so my shots have alot of blue in them, with the white balance you can kill the blue if you want, though I tend not too. I'll post a macro shot I took with it for you to see, though I'm sure someone with more experience could do better, but it gives you an idea. Hope this helps.

someone else here provided me with this website too, lots of good information

http://www.ximinasphotography.com/lessons/

 

[gregr]

A dslr is out of the price range but they all have something akin to an automatic mode- even professional models.
Both of the cameras you're looking at seem to be very good- I'm sure you'd be able to get excellent pictures from either one.

What does the 2.0 cm macro focus on the sony mean compared to the 10.0 cm macro focus of the canon? Does this mean how far from the camera lens the item can be?

Exactly. Without actually using each camera or reading an in-depth review I can't say which one will get you the closest close-ups but I can say with good confidence that they will both do very well in the macro department.

Are these [white balance] options/features of the canon useful/needed?

Useful? Possibly. Needed? Not really- most situations will be handled by one of the presets and in tricky situations (14 or 20K lighting, mixed lighting etc.) the manual wb setting should do the trick.

Also how important is the increased megapixel and screen size of the new models coming out?

The higher the megapixel rating the bigger you can print theoretically. At 6mp you can get 16x20 prints without too much interpolation and that is a huge print- especially if you add a matte and frame.
Lcd size is another matter. We get/got along fine with smallish lcds but I used a Canon 5D the other day- it has a nice big lcd and I loved it. Either way- it's merely a way to review and frame your photos-- it doesn't have any direct impact on the quality of the actual images.
According to the specs the Sony doesn't have the flip/twist lcd (although it's bigger and has better resolution). I'm a huge fan of flip/twist lcds- they help a lot.
To know if the new models have really significant improvements I'd want to read an in-depth review and I couldn't find any yet
hth,
Greg

 

[zapata41]

i ahve the s2 and in super macro mode your min focus distance is 0cm. i can take pics of fuzz on the tank glass. i would get the S2 since the price should come down quite a bit once the S3 comes out. also the only feature i would like to see on the S3, something that would make me see the S2 and get the S3, is if it had RAW shooting mode. other than that i cant complain about the s2, once i learned how to use it i was able to take those awesome shots.
oh and the S2 takes great movies.

here is a good pic from the S2. htis coral is very hard to capture since it has multi colors in it and sits right under the MH. i have taken lots of pics of this coral to try and capture the color. pic would be better with a tripod but havent bought one yet.

Tim

 

[zapata41]

and this pic,

these should show that the S2 is a very good camera. i ahve some macro shots that are just awesome also.
here is a actinic super macro shot.

Tim

 

[tanglovers]

Thank you for the replies and opinions.

Here is a side by side comparison of the S2 and S3. The main thing I see different is screen size, higher resolution, increased megapixels. I have heard the S2 screen is small but I am not sure the slightly larger screen is enough on its own to get the S3. I am not planning on blowing up the pictures I take beyond 8x10 so I do not think the extra megapixels is needed. The higher resolution though intrigues me and is the main thing I am wondering if makes the S3 worth while.

The pics above from the S2 in supermacro mode though are quite nice! Any accessories at all used to get these pics?

What is RAW mode for picture taking? Also what is the ISO rating? The S3 has a 800 setting where the S2 only goes to 400.

Thanks!

 

[zapata41]

yeah the iso on the S3 is higher but i never really take mine out of the 50 or 100 setting. i sometimes will put on the 10x macro lens i have for the S2 and shoot with it. cant use macro mode with the lens though because i really dont wanna take pictures of particles on the lens. but when i do take pictures of non reef stuff with it, not much in the reef is close enough to the glas to focus on with the lens and super macro, the non reef pics turn out awesome.

for extras i have a few filters, wide andgle and telephoto lens and 10x macro.

overall i really like the camera.

RAW mode just mean that you can adjust the white balance in post processing

Tim

 

[tanglovers]

Hi Tim,

Did you get this all as a package? What kind/brand of lenses do you have? I am looking for this camera to be a good every day use camera as well and have been looking at other lenses for it.

Also, what do you think about the increased resolution of the S3? What about the increased screen size? Think this are worth while items or not significant.

Thanks

 

[zapata41]

ehh i dont really notice the screen size anymore. my friend has a kodak with a huge screen which is nice but the layout on the menus and buttons suck IMO. the lenses i have, the macro is an opteka and the other two and the filters came in a camera package, but the lenses, besides the macro, seem to be pretty much the same from manf. to manf. For everyday use i erally like this camera, i use it whenever we go to the beach and outings, take really really nice pictures. for the reef pics it is a little more challenging since the subject is harde to capture. I think the resolution increase is nice but solely worth it to upgrade from the S2 to the S3, no way.

Tim

 

[doox00]

I have the Canon S1 and really like it, but looking for something that does better macro shots. This one only does so so shots realy close, could be user error also, as I do not know much about cameras. I was thinking of selling the S1 and going with an S2, but still researching.

 

[tanglovers]

Is there that much difference between the S1 and S2. at dpreview.com, I see the S1 has lower megapixel and resolution but macro distance is the same. I do not know much at all about cameras just curious.

 

[doox00]

I have read that the way they measure macro distance now is pretty much useless.. that is without zoom.. Here is an article on it.

http://www.reef-life.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=9

 

[Hobster]

Have you looked at the new Sony DSC H-2? Pretty much the same as the H-5 but less MP and less $$$.

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INT...sstyle-dcc_DIDigitalCameras-catpfeature-DSCH2

 

[clkwrk]

I had both the canon S2 and Sony h-1 for a week and in the end I like the sony better.It produce crisper pictures and allowed me to get a 3x zoom on close corals while the s2 had to be zoom out to get pics. I will try and dig up pictures from both of them .

In the end I took them both back and stuck with my sony w5 which took better pics than the other 2. The main difference that made the sony w-5 better than the h1 was that the w5 had a zeiss lens and the h1 didn't.