I have concluded that my Fuji Finepix 6900 is deficient in low-light capability and is too much of a battery hog.

What cameras should I consider for the following requirements:

Minimum 6x optical zoom; 10x or 12x would be better.

Enough light-gathering capability that I can shoot in, say, an office environment at f 4 or f 5.6 at 1/125 second.

Enough battery life that I can leave the camera on for an hour and take 100 pictures.

Auto focus and auto exposure, but able to override them manually.

Macro focusing.

Integrated strobe powerful enough to be useful at 20 feet.

Non-proprietary memory card and non-proprietary USB cable.

No fancy features, such as automatic three-stage bracketing with user definable exposure differentials, or movies, or custom color balance, or user-programmable exposure modes, etc. The Fuji has all of this, at the expense of a 130 page instruction manual and no fewer than 24 separate buttons, switches, knobs, rings, rockers, and controls on the exterior of the camera.

$500 or less would be nice. I have no objection to buying a used one.

Any ideas?

tanstaafl.

Off the top of my head, one of the Panasonic FZ series (FZ3, 5 or 7) has most of those criteria i.e. 12x zoom, fast f2.8 lens, good battery life, SD card for storage, auto with manual overrides for most things, macro etc.

However the flash is pretty weak on them, also the LCD/viewfinder does not 'gain up' in low light, except the FZ7.

Have a look here for the FZ3, or here for the FZ5, or here for the FZ7.

If you want a flash hotshoe you will have to go for the FZ10 upwards.

Build quality of the FZ10 is very good (I have one) so I assume the other FZs are well built too.

For low-light shooting, there's some consensus that the recent Fuji cameras (notably, the Fuji F30) have excellent performance. The only way you're going to do better is to get a D-SLR. (Larger sensors == lower noise at high ISO.)

Photo trivia: every time you double your ISO, you also double your flash range. So, regardless of the camera, cranking up the ISO will give you more flash range. Flashes are rated in their "guide number", which equals the distance (in feet) times the f-stop at ISO 100. (Guide numbers are also reported for meters, for the rest of the world...). If you want more flash range, then you either want a wider aperture, or a higher film speed.

Inevitably, the real problem is that a flash can only get one target at the correct illumination. Anything closer gets blown out and anything farther away goes dark. The "real" answer, for indoor, nighttime shooting, is to shoot without a flash at all. This is where the high ISO can be a real winner. (Or, if you want to do indoor illumination properly, you need to either bounce light off the ceiling or have multiple 'slave' strobes. It gets complicated very quickly.)

f-stop is the size of the aperture -- the hole in the back of the lens. Larger f-numbers imply smaller apertures. Unsurprisingly, the smaller the f-stop you want, the bigger your lens has to be to be able to gather all that light, and the more money you pay. The good thing about f-stop numbers is that they're totally standardized. If you took the same picture with 100 different lens with different magnifications but the same lighting, you'd be guaranteed to get the same exposure.

I assume there are some fine introductory books out there. I learned all the jargon through doing it rather than through reading anything in particular. The magic of any non-professional D-SLR is that they've got idiot modes, so you can gradually teach yourself what it's all about when and if you're going to be in a situation where it matters.

I only ever really had to figure out the f-stop thing when I had a manual-only Sunpak flash way back when. You had a knob you could twist to say how much power you wanted. They had a calculator wheel gizmo where you'd dial in your f-stop and/or film speed and it would tell you the distance that would be in proper exposure.

The place where most people worry about f-stop numbers is when trying to control depth of field. Smaller f-stop numbers yield less depth of field, getting that creamy out-of-focus blur of the background behind your subject. Also, longer lenses have shallower depth-of-field than shorter lenses, even at the same f-stop. This is part of the never-ending debate between cropped and "full-frame" sensors on D-SLRs.

I don't have a web link to offer, but the long-time number-one learning guide is Photography, by Upton,Stone,London (and others, depending on the edition).

This was the explanation of f-stops that finally allowed me to "get" it.

For F-stops, the biggest hinderance to understanding is the somewhat obscure appearance of the numbering scale -- kinda like learning tennis without knowing that the scoring system was (apparently) derived from using the minutes-hand of an old fashioned clock for keeping track of the score (15 .. 30 .. 40 .. etc..).

With F-stops, the sequence is: 1, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, ..

Which just happen to the be the (approximate) square-roots of successive powers of two, in hommage to the inverse-square rule for how light spreads out over distance.

[EDIT]
Oh, and the actual F-stop numbers are actually fractions (or ratios), with the above numbers on the bottom. So 1:1, 1:1.4, etc.. or 1/1, 1/1.4, etc..

So the biggest F-stop (widest lens opening) is f1, or 1:1 or 1/1. Near the other end of the scale is f22 (tiny pinhole of a lens opening), which is short for 1:22 or 1/22, which lets in only 1/512th the amount of light as f1 does (22 is approximately the square root of 512).
[/EDIT]

Cheers

And larger format cameras and view cameras often have f64 or f128.

The bigger the f number, the smaller the aperture opening, which means the more parallel the light entering the camera is. The more parallel the light, the longer the "depth of field", which means that the foreground and the background will both be in focus.

When you see a portrait with the background out of focus, this usually indicates a "wide open" aperture (low f number), resulting in a "shallow" depth of field.

The disadvantage of a big f-number (small opening)? You need more light since the cross-sectional area of the opening is smaller.

I have to admit that I don't really take any pictures in full manual mode, but on my Fuji 602 the "portrait" preset gives you a wide aperture and a shorter shutter speed, so you get that blurry background effect. It's really good, eg - http://public.fotki.com/altman/2002_the_album/california_2002/100_fujidscf0255.html

Problem is, my 602 takes such nice pictures I'm afraid of upgrading it because I'm worried I'll be disappointed. My Canon S70 (7MP vs 3 "real" MP of the 602, and with admittedly a much smaller lens) takes totally awful pictures in comparison - they just look blurry. Then again, I do have the waterproof case for it and have used it down to 30m taking pictures of whale sharks so it's good for something

I've been regularly tempted by the Panasonic FZ series - bigger zoom, very light, image stabilisation - but havn't quite taken the plunge yet. I'd like something that was fairly decent at big ISO numbers, but really can't be arsed to carry a full DSLR around. The 602's LCD eyepiece is just fine for me, and is, obviously, "through the lens" viewing. It's higher res than the LCD on the back, too.

tbh, the 602 seems to take pictures that compare well to many DSLRs - it's just nowhere near as flexible. That and it won't take any CF apart from a 1GB microdrive without corrupting the FAT on it, which is where it really shows its age. The VGA movie mode is still excellent, it was one of the first that could do this.

Hugo

Panasonic FZ series (FZ3, 5 or 7)

Looks good -- except for the low-light capability (or lack thereof). DPReview complains quite strongly about noise at low light levels, going so far as to say that the really high ISO settings are "unusable." Their complaints applied to even the flagship FZ30.

My two biggest complaints with my Fuji are lack of low light capability and battery life. I'll need a solution to both of those issues before changing cameras.

Thanks for the links!

tanstaafl.

Really sounds like you could use a D50 too.
ISO1600 is very usable, good built in flash.
And for really low light, you could get the 50/1.8 lens for about 99$ (i'm thinking about buying that one too, together with the 70-300g, allready have the 17-55 kit lens) or even the 50/1.4

The site where i learned most basic slr stuff:
http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/light

Quick aside, Tony, what camera did you end up with? I just got a Canon SD630, and I adore it. I had a Canon G2, and never took it anywhere because it was too bulky. This one I'm carrying everywhere with me, the screen on the back is enormous (3"), and the startup time is unbelieveable (about 1.5 seconds). I know it's not a pro camera, but I want something portable that I can take anywhere.

"I think noise at low light levels means the camera firmware is being allowed to "push" the low light sensitivity past what the CCD can realistically deliver well."

That is true but also manufacturers also decide whether they are going to capture the image with noise or process the image in the camera for noise reduction. Some do and some don't. Typically, you are most concerned about noise during poor lighting conditions with action (movement of the subject). You can post process the images with noise reduction software that works well (much better than in camara noise processing) but it does reduce the detail some. I have never been as concerned about noise levels in action shots beause typically the action transcends the noise.

Theres a Canon Ixus 800 with image stabilization. Looks very nice too but only 6MP. Linky

I have the Ixus 500 and my dad has the Ixus 700 - lovely photos and no problems at all.

Not sure what these models are called in the US.

Yeah, I just looked and DPReview says the SD700 also has image stabilization. Interesting! I'll have to check that model out.

Edit: Darn that whole naming thing. The Ixus 800 and the SD 700 are the same camera.

Edit 2: HEEE. They had to make the Canon bigger to fit the image stabilization and the 4x zoom. The SD 700 is the same size as my Lumix in thickness and height.

So your SD400 is the Ixus 500? What was the flaw that causes the LCD to break? Should I be extra careful with mine?

Wow, all that stuff about the broken screen is scary, especially since the SD630 has what has to be one of the largest screens I've ever seen on a camera. Still, I'm keeping it pretty secure. It's being held in my old Treo 600 belt case, and never hold it without the wrist strap on. Given what you've said about the screens on the SD series, I'm amazed that Canon doesn't really have cases for the camera. It certainly doesn't come with one, which I find surprising. Oh well, I'm going to enjoy it. I still love the camera. The only two things I don't like are the need to remove the battery to charge, and the fact that it doesn't act as a mass storage device (which really bugs me). I would love to connect the camera directly to my PMP, which has USB host, and transfer files for backup, but I can't.

I cant decide between the panasonic fz7 and canon s2 / s3.
That is all.

Happy b-day eliceo and Katamari rocks

Me too (the next two weeks, in fact). Definitely up for some geek activity, or at the very least some beer!

Hugo

I'll chime in here and agree. I've printed 4MP images at 12x18" (around 150dpi) and they look fantastic. Furthermore, when you see a beautiful image on your computer monitor, you're probably only looking at 105dpi.

Sure, if you stick your nose directly into a print (or your monitor), you'll see the pixels, but from any normal viewing distance, these prints look just fine. What extra resolution is really good for is either huge enlargements (i.e., wall-sized prints) or allowing you to radically crop down an image and still have something useful.

If you gave me a choice of a 12MP camera that gave 10 bits per pixel of useful signal (i.e., you could push it two stops, after which you just got noise), versus a 6MP camera that gave 14 bits per pixel (i.e., an exposure range from ISO100 through ISO6400), I'd take the latter in a flash. (Somewhat ironically, the present high-ISO leading camera is the Canon 5D, which is both excellent at high ISO and is 12MP.)