Sorry if this is OT...

Can anyone suggest me digital camera within the budget of 10k-12k?? Is more MP better or, more zoom? or, how much MP/ zoom is sufficient? I basically want to shoot sceneries, family photos, occasions etc..

the glass the sensor the processor holds bigger value than the number of mp on that rectangular piece.are you inclined towards a specific manufacturer only?when you say family i relate that to low light to a extent...two options..the fujifilm f60fd or the panasonic LX-3..the latter on the costlier side.

Nah, I don't have any biases towards any camera maker, coz I don't have any idea 'bout them. Anything which suits my requirements, i.e. produces decent photos. I've read that 7-8 MP is fine enough... so, am confused how much zoom is sufficient...

There's a lil change in budget, due to some additional plans, so I require suggestions for cameras under 8k-10k range..

Do you have any idea about Samsung S1060? 10.2MP and 5x optical zoom?
The Best Point and Shoot Digital Camera from Samsung TechWin

^^Yesterday one of my friend bought a Samsung S860(8.1mp,3x optical zoom).At 6000 bucks it's a steal as we got a 2gb sd card, battery charger and pouch all bundled in one.Damn Cool camera considering the price.Never knew Samsung is so good in producing digicams.The night shots are much better than the budget as well as the mid range cameras from Sony.

Colour reproduction during daytime is decent as it's just an entry level camera.The S1060 with it's superior image processing software would definitely be better and should be considered as an option.Also take a look at the Canon A590IS, very good camera for it's price.

By the images posted on the site, the quality seems manageable for the price and compactness.... so I guess I'd go for this one (S1060), than getting more confused with other models?

Well, comparing these two is like comparing apples to oranges They are not really in the same league... made for different applications.. the 70-200 2.8 is used mostly for sports & weddings, whereas, the 100-400 is primarily for wildlife & birding. Usually you'll find both in the kits of serious enthusiasts.

Personally, I don't really like the 100-400L.... its a very OLD design... push pull zoom function, 1st generation IS offering only 1.5 stop stabilization, very bulky and in spite of all these compromises, its still pretty expensive! I feel, this lens will soon be updated by canon.

My ideal choice for this range would be 70-200 f/4 IS + 400 f/5.6 L + 1.4x TC.

that would result in a spread something like this:

70-------------200 f/4
98-----------------280 f/5.6
400 f/5.6
560 f/8

I've used both of these briefly and was totally blown away! The 70-200 f/4 IS is believed to be the sharpest zoom made by canon... excellent 4stop IS system, awesome bokeh and lightweight!. The 400 5.6L is one heck of a lens... Its razor sharp, extremely fast AF and all this in a very lightweight package! There's one drawback though, no IS

One of my friends recently bought the 40D + 400 5.6L... so the other day I was at his place, we set up the 40D+canon 2x TC+400 5.6L on his monfrotto 190B, hooked up the setup to his notebook, and turned on live view to PC, manual focused with 10x live view on the laptop screen and took a couple of shots of the moon... man, was i smitten! Just imagine, 1280mm effective FL, precision manual focus on a laptop screen at 10X magnification

I too would go with Vicky's advice...

I've used the 100-400 quite a bit and its quite bulky. Buy it ONLY if you NEED that range. I'm currently using the 70-200 F4L IS wiht 1.4x TC.. works very well and is a light package to carry around.

I'd buy the 70-200 F2.8 L IS if i really needed that extra light. I honestly dint think that I'll need the 1 stop advantage. Not to mention the extra weight of the lens and cost.

@Vicky & SKSy: Thanks for that insight. The 70-200 f2.8 is one heck of a lens, I agree, but getting the "IS" version is surely out of my budget!

P.S: After all these seemingly fruitful discussions, I am still confused between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400L..

Any idea how much would 70-300mm nikkor lens cost, and btw what is vr version ?? need this ranganatittu is calling me this winter ..

I need a wide angle lens badly it will be used mainly for landscapes any leads ????

I would suggest that you really look at getting the 70-200F4L IS along with a 1.4x TC if you need the extra range.

The lens by itself is very highly rated and gives excellent photos. Unless you are willing to carry along a big 70-200/2.8 lens with you or you really need the f2.8 max aperture, it is better to get the f4 version. The f4 versions are significantly smaller and lighter, something to consider if you are going to be travelling with your camera kit.

-- no1lives4ever

Well.. when you use diopters/close up lenses like the raynox, you reduce the focal length of the lens mounted on the camera. But then even with a 1.5x on a 400mm lens, you will get some serious macro shots.. With higher magnifications, keeping the subject in frame and the camera steady will be a major nightmare..

I have a 52mm Nikon 3T diopter which i have used a bit with my 70-300G Nikkor. The working range is great and the combo gives decent results..

-- no1lives4ever

@aryan, someone's suggestion about the 70-200 and the 2x teleconverter is also a pretty decently feasible solution.

You can compare the image quality of the teleconvertered 70-200 2.8 with the 100-400 here. Use mouseover on the image to switch between the 70-200 2x tele'd and the 100-400, both at effective 400 mm setting.

The teleconverter adds a lot of haze and CA, but should be better at stopped down apertures, but then again, the stopped down apertures are actually toooo slow for low light use.

However, do take care that the f4 70-200 will not be so good with the 2x tele as the aperture will go to f8 and at that the canon consumer camera bodies will not autofocus. 2x tele will be fine with the f2.8 only. Also, the 1.4 teleconverters might be worth a shot, it has lesser distortions and CA than the 2x.

read more about the 2x teleconverter here. Given below are more links to zillions of cam and lens and teleconverters and other stuff reviews. Pretty decent Canon Reviewer.

PS. Achtung: reading more and more reviews will leave you more and more confused

EDIT1: No1's suggestion about the 70-200 F4 lens is worth taking a look at. This lens is quite a bit sharper than the 70-200 2.8 with both at their widest apertures. At comparable apertures they are even I guess. You will be able to get a 70-200 f4 IS for perhaps the same price as a 70-200 2.8 Non IS. Also, once again, for the fast vs. long debate, go through your S3IS images and check what all focal lengths ya used in 35 mm terms, and then see what lens you would use(remember to apply the 1.6x crop of your camera - the 70-200 will act as a 112 - 320 effectively).

17-85 Exposed - FM Forums

just check out with a camera shop what fuji is offering in your price range.also with canon.