Consumer digital camera suggestions?

[Kickaha]

Well, I'm finally graduated, and entering the world of real paychecks again. One of the first items on my list is... a new camera. (My current camera is a QuickTake 200, if that gives you any idea of why I might want to upgrade. Rebranded Fuji DX-7, 640x480, no flash. Still works like a champ, but I'm hoping for something a bit... nicer.)

The problem is... I haven't a clue where to start really. My wife and I would like to keep the cost low (under $300 would be nice), and we don't really need much in the way of 'pro' features. Just a good simple camera that takes good shots, that's all. 5MP seems like more than enough resolution for my tastes, and I'm positive we could get by with 3. I don't care about 'on camera editing', or integrating with a color printer, or any of that crud. I'll be using it with iPhoto, and printing but rarely. I don't need interchangeable lenses, I don't need MPEG movie capture, and I don't need anything more than PHD action (Push Here Dummy - ie, single button click and take.)

So I ask you all - what are your recommendations? The topics I've seen that I'd like to get some feedback on:

Recovery time: the Canon A410 has a *10 sec* time between shots. My QT200 is faster than that by far. I'd like to have sub 2sec if possible. I don't care if I see a nice preview of it on screen, I just want it to dump to storage quickly so I can take the next one. I'll review and delete later.

Batteries: The Canon A*** line all use AAs, which is kind of nice for in-the-field moments of 'oh crap, the battery is dying'. What's the life like on most batteries?

Storage media: Most of the time, I'll most likely just USB the sucker in to iPhoto, but of course extra storage media never hurts. Opinions on SD/MemoryStick/etc?

[Brad]

I've had nothing but bad experiences with sub-$300 Canon digital cameras (mine, my aunt's, a friend's). The recovery time is pretty bad (but not 10 seconds!:err: ), white balance is iffy, and low-light photos are downright terrible.

I usually end up taking pictures like mad, five to ten times as many as I should, just so I can end up with a handful of good shots. I attended a friend's senior recital at ECU, took about 100 pictures, and came away with about a dozen that were usable after heavy touch-ups in Photoshop.

[chucker]

I on the other hand have had nothing but great experiences with Canon digicams, although their price tags were more in the $300-500 range.

[ShadowOfGed]

I on the other hand have had nothing but great experiences with Canon digicams, although their price tags were more in the $300-500 range.Maybe I'm picky, but I was less than pleased with the image quality out of my PowerShot G5, by Canon. I've still got it, but it has issues with chromatic aberration, graininess, and low-light pictures.

I'm now looking to upgrade to a digital SLR, since I prefer the SLR style lenses, but I love the convience of digital photography, and I've seen great pictures out of my dad's digital SLR, even when it's in fully-automatic mode.

Just my thoughts. Sure, they're expensive, but if you get a good one, it will probably last you many, many years (like the 25-year-old Canon film SLR my parents had), or so I'd hope. Yeah, they're bulky, but my family just took a trip for Thanksgiving, and it wasn't *too* bulky.

Anyway, I hope you find one that takes good pictures and suits your needs. :)

[chucker]

I don't think it's fair to compare compacts and SLRs.

Either way, I strongly recommend Kickaha to read dpreview.com (http://dpreview.com/). :)

[GSpotter]

I would look at the Pentax Optio WP (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/optiowp_pg5.html) (I don't have it myself, so I cannot tell from experience). The camera has one interesting feature: it's waterproof. So you can take pictures from places where other cameras won't be usable. And according to the review, the rest of the camera doesn't seem to bad, either.

[ShadowOfGed]

I don't think it's fair to compare compacts and SLRs.

Either way, I strongly recommend Kickaha to read dpreview.com (http://dpreview.com/). :)True, true. I was just sharing my experience with a semi-compact (it's about the same size as a normal 35mm), but as I said, maybe my frustrations are due to me being OCD about stuff. SLRs are just where I wound up when trying to find better image quality.

The smaller CCDs in compacts will always be a distant second to SLRs in quality, so getting really sharp, low-noise pictures will always be more difficult, but it's still something Kick might like to be warned about. ;)

Also, dpreview.com is indeed an excellent site. :)

[Kickaha]

Yeah, I have a number of friends who are into the higher-end digital photography stuff, so they all have $1k+ SLR bodies with multiple lenses. I don't need that. I don't even want that. I want a small, compact camera I can whip out of my pocket, snap a shot, and tuck it away again.

[sonichart]

I use a Sony DSC-T1. It's the camera featured in the commercial with Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) and all the girls fumbling with purses and cameras. I love the design-- the photo quality is adequate-- and ultra compact.

I use the Sony for parties, bars, small gatherings etc. Even the movie mode worked GREAT for shooting video at an outdoor concert (we were pretty close). The biggest complaint about this camera is the effective distance of the flash. It isn't very long. Maybe 10ft-12ft. This is not meant to be a long distance low-light camera. It's for sunny, or upclose and personal shots.

Then, for my "real" camera-- I have a Canon DSLR Digital Rebel with some fancy pants lenses.

The user who posted www.dpreview.com is correct. Definately look at that site-- LOTS and LOTS of good information there.

-phil

[ShadowOfGed]

Yeah, I have a number of friends who are into the higher-end digital photography stuff, so they all have $1k+ SLR bodies with multiple lenses. I don't need that. I don't even want that. I want a small, compact camera I can whip out of my pocket, snap a shot, and tuck it away again.Alright, then you might look at Sony cameras, they have very good lenses from what I understand. My family had good experiences with them, at least. My dad's old 3MP Sony still feels like it took clearer pictures than my 5MP PowerShot G5.

:confused:

Also (I may be wrong), it might be beneficial to get a 5-6MP compact, but only shoot at about 3MP. This way, the CCD has almost twice as much data as it needs, so it can use some of that to reduce noise in the resulting 3MP image. My brother shoots his 5MP camera at 3MP and seems to get decent pictures, so I think the image processors are smart enough, but you might want to do more research on that. Oh, and his camera is a compact Sony, but I don't know the model.

Hope that helps. :)

[sonichart]

quick links:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/

and

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start;sid=RmurUl48Kmaqmh2yVs2hWREs2akXi54Tuow=?Cat egoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_Cyber-shotDigitalCameras&Dept=cameras

You might still be able to get a T1, but I think there are better options out there in the T7 and T5. Looks like a T9 is on its way toward the end of January 2006 as well.

-phil

[kretara]

I have a Canon PowerShot sd200 that I picked up for $170 from Dell. Its picture quality is more than adequate for me (I just take pictures of my kids), the camera is really small (think pack of cards small) and the battery (proprietary :no: ) lasts for 1-2 weeks at about 25 shots per week.
The downsides. The memory card that is included is something like 8mb. I bought a 512mb card for $30. Perhaps the worst downside is the redeye. From what I have been told all these "mini" cameras have redeye issues.

For the price, I'm more than willing to live with the redeye.

[ezkcdude]

Digital cameras are evil, but if you have to get something, get a Canon point and shoot.

[chinesebear]

I absolutely love my canon S410...4 MP, but it has the proprietary battery. On the plus side, i've had it for over a year, taken more than a thousand pictures and have only had to recharge the battery 4 or 5 times. I love the small size...i can fit it in my pocket. that was a key for me. small, good lense quality and good quality pictures. since that was last years model and i got mine for $329, you should be able to find it for around the same place. I'd say buy a camera from a good camera company and you'll be happy. :)

oh, for the record, i don't use the screen when taking pictures. i prefer the viewfinder and it saves a ton of battery life

[cyrusmekon]

I just bought myself a small point and shoot from Olympus. Heres a review from dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021711oly_stylusverves.asp

Great little camera, no complaints and weather proof (to a degree).
Battery life is good .Uses a Li ion battery. I did by a spare one mind you. Managed to get a 1Gig Xd card cheap when i bought the camera.

http://tinypic.com/i2loc0.jpg

[MCQ]

I haven't had any problems with my Canon S400... but then again I'm not that picky about digital cameras.

I recommend www.dcresource.com for reviews - find them a little easier to read than dpreview, though they're also very good. I would pay attention to the flash ranges and battery life on some of the compact digital cameras if you're looking to go that route... some are (considerably) weaker than others.

[Ichiban_jay]

I totally recommend the Casio S-500. I cannot believe how they packed so much features into a camera that is less than half a inch think.

I have the Carbon colored one (they come in carbon, orange, and white). Quality heavy feel and amazingly small and thin size, everyone is absolutely amazed at how small this thing is.

http://www.aphoto.ru/model/casio/img/casio-ex-s500.jpg


http://www.gadgetspy.co.uk/wp-content/photos/casio_exs500.jpg

From dpreview.com:
"
-5 mega pixel CCD makes for high resolution picture taking
Miniaturized digital camera with a retracting 3X optical zoom employing high density technology resulting in a 77 cc volume just 16.1 mm thick (thinnest point: 13.7 mm)
-Uses the EXILIM Engine image processing module, which includes the Anti Shake DSP MPEG-4, VGA(640×480 pixels), 30 frames/second enables high quality movie taking
Super life battery allows up to 200 pictures per charge, based on CIPA standards
-Movie can be shot continuously for 1 hour and 20 minutes
1 hour of movies can be taken in “Normal” mode using a 1GB SD memory card
-Once powered on, the camera is ready to take pictures in approximately 1 second
-After the shutter is snapped, picture is taken almost instantaneously with an approximately 0.008 seconds release time lag
-High-speed picture playback of approximately 0.1 seconds interval
-Continuous shutter function enables photos to be taken in approximately 1 second intervals, limited to available space on memory card
-Digital interface TFT LCD 2.2 inch screen for easy viewing
-AF assist light function allows for perfect focus in dark places
-Beautiful color body is brilliant and smooth, due to a special “electrical coating” process enhancing the look and feel of the stainless steel body"

If you don't mind slightly thicker cameras, the Casio Exilim cameras are also very good, go up to 7.2 megapixels and 2.7" screens (Exilim Z-750) at 1" thickness. Still much thinner than most bricks on the market these days, really makes me wonder why other camera manufacturers can't do this.

http://www.techtoysforless.com/images/z750-front_back.jpg

[usurp]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007MVHZS.01-A1NDBS7YGOPBD6._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I would recommend the Canon Powershot A520. Its a 4MP camera but its loaded with options and features. Best thing is that it currently costs only $179 on Amazon (I got it 2 days ago for $174). With a 256MB memory card and a Canon case the total price came up to $198 with shipping. It got some great reviews on stevesdigicams.com and other sites.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007MVHZS

Note: My brother has the older A70 I think and he loves it. Even when he got the Nikon D70 he still uses the Canon for everyday use.

Note 2: I am not a Canon fan, I prefer Nikon any day but when it comes to price and features the Canon wins over Nikon in the affordable cameras department.

[AWR]

Oh, now I'm confused. I had tentativly decided on upgrading to Canon 7.1 MP SD 550 (750 in Europe) (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd550/). But a number of posts include reasonable other options, where the quality might be good enough and at a better price. That 7 MP Casio, in particular, but the PowerShot too.

Spoiled for choice these days, but suffering from its inherent consequences. Grrrrrr.... :lol: :) :lol:

Edit: just looked at the PowerShot 620, which seems to be a substantial upgrade from the 520 and is deemed 'Highly Recommeded'. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/page14.asp

Suffer, suffer, suff

[Electric Monk]

The Fuji Finepix Z2 and the Sony T-9 are other comparable cameras. The Z2 has a really high ISO (1600) and the T-9 has image stabilization, which is a first on a camera that size.

I was looking at the SD 550 myself, but for the features it's not worth it. A little bit smaller gets you the Z2 or T-9 with standout features the SD-550 lacks, a little bigger gets you the Fuji Finepix F11 which makes for some fantastic photos for a camera that size. Notably the sensor it (and the Z2) use is really nice.

And if you're sticking with Canon and small the SD 450 doesn't lack much from the SD 550 at a much more reasonable price and is smaller. Lacks the 7 megapixels, but anything over 4 isn't needed for most things.

[scubaski]

Here in the UK, the independent consumer magazine Which? just published a review of some 80 cameras of up to 5Mp. out of 7 top buys 3 are Canon. the smallest size camera recommended is the Canon Powershot SD300 which weighs only 150g. it is currently reduced from $350 to $244 on Amazon!

I bought this camera a few months ago and am very happy with it. Image quality is as good as the bigger cameras and I find that the small size is very practical. You can take this camera anywhere, just clip it to your belt or slip into a pocket.

[AWR]

The Fuji Finepix Z2 and the Sony T-9 are other comparable cameras. The Z2 has a really high ISO (1600) and the T-9 has image stabilization, which is a first on a camera that size.

I was looking at the SD 550 myself, but for the features it's not worth it. A little bit smaller gets you the Z2 or T-9 with standout features the SD-550 lacks, a little bigger gets you the Fuji Finepix F11 which makes for some fantastic photos for a camera that size. Notably the sensor it (and the Z2) use is really nice.

And if you're sticking with Canon and small the SD 450 doesn't lack much from the SD 550 at a much more reasonable price and is smaller. Lacks the 7 megapixels, but anything over 4 isn't needed for most things.

I'll look into those. Thanks.

The link I provided says that the sensor on the 550 is a major step up from that on the 450, for what it's worth. :D

[DMBand0026]

<Image removed>
I would recommend the Canon Powershot A520. Its a 4MP camera but its loaded with options and features. Best thing is that it currently costs only $179 on Amazon (I got it 2 days ago for $174). With a 256MB memory card and a Canon case the total price came up to $198 with shipping. It got some great reviews on stevesdigicams.com and other sites.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007MVHZS

Note: My brother has the older A70 I think and he loves it. Even when he got the Nikon D70 he still uses the Canon for everyday use.

Note 2: I am not a Canon fan, I prefer Nikon any day but when it comes to price and features the Canon wins over Nikon in the affordable cameras department.


I'll second that recommendation. I have that very same model and have been nothing but impressed with it. I got mine from Amazon as well. I got a 256mb card from Tiger direct for 5 bucks after rebate. Great shots, 4 megapixels, a lot of features (some you may never need, but some you may feel like exploring), okay battery life (considerably longer if you don't use the LCD). It's a very good camera overall.

[Kickaha]

I should have known I was opening floodgates. :D

Thanks all! I'm going to start compiling lists and cross-referencing the research and over thinking it and finally just throwing up my hands in disgust and picking one at random. :D

[MCQ]

I should have known I was opening floodgates. :D

Thanks all! I'm going to start compiling lists and cross-referencing the research and over thinking it and finally just throwing up my hands in disgust and picking one at random. :D

Or you could just go straight to taking the recommendations off this thread and just do the random choosing. Save all the time doing research. :D

[Windswept]

...and finally just throwing up my hands in disgust and picking one at random. :D
Eh. You *say* you do that, but I'm not buyin' it. :D :p :)

(O' perfectionistic one. ;) :p )

[Kickaha]

I'm surprised you didn't comment on the event of my making a list. :D

[Matsu]

I have a 3MP Canon A75. The sensor is limited, it doesn't really like low light, but with the flash and manual controls and easy control menus, I find it quite a good little point and shoot. The new models have only gotten better from what I understand. In terms of control they are logical and have what I think are the best menus for point and shoot cameras. Our Fuji and Sony (P&S) camera menus are not as logically laid out as the Canon. We tried a Casio Exlim, I forget which, it had 5MP. I sent it back because I found the lack of manual controls and the menu options just plain awful, as well as poor indoor image quality. But these are all somewhat older models.

For about 350 you could get into a Fuji F10. It also lacks true manual control, but it has the best small image sensor available right now and can actually take a decent ISO 800 pic. If you want to shoot a lot of pics in the pub, this is the camera for you, especially if manual control is not a priority. An F11 model with the same sensor but better manual control and aperture and shutter priority is also available. no viewfinder, LCD only. Not sure this model is available outside Japan yet. User reports seem very favorable, but this costs about 100USD more.

[Windswept]

I'm surprised you didn't comment on the event of my making a list. :D
OMG! It didn't even register. :lol:

Well, actually, it *did* register, in that I pictured you compiling all this information, and I did picture you making lists; but I guess I got sidetracked by the image of you throwing up your hands and picking *at random*. My ass! Not in a million years would you REALLY do that about anything more important than ordering an effing sandwich. So nyah! hahaha :lol: :p :D

[Ichiban_jay]

If you have a Casio store near you like I do in Arizona Mills Mall, they sell refurbished digicams for cheaps. People actually get put on long waiting lists to try to get them.

I got my Casio s500 for $160, perfect scratch free condition. They let me open up the boxes and examine which one I wanted. Retail price of $400 dollars.

[AWR]

I should have known I was opening floodgates. :D

Thanks all! I'm going to start compiling lists and cross-referencing the research and over thinking it and finally just throwing up my hands in disgust and picking one at random. :D

I feel your pain. :lol:

Now camera heavyweights like Matsu are chiming in with interesting option (Fujifilm F10), which I've never even considered. This is getting absurd.

I feel torn with every prospect: this ones got EVERYTHING, but A and B. This one's got EVERYTHING too, but C and D. I know I can't decide weather A and B or C and D are more important to me until it's too late. This one costs USD 50 more, but has better battery life, but the mechanism for charging that battery is stu-pid....

Dorian, speak now (while we prepare our final analysis) or forever hold your peace. ;)

[Shades of Blue]

I'm looking to get a small point-and-shoot camera, maybe in the neighborhood of the Canon Powershot A540. My question is, how important is image stabilization? Will it vastly improve my photos to the point where it'd be worth finding a camera that had it (the Powershot A540 does not)? I notice a lot of blurring on many of the pictures I take now, although I'm sure that has more to do with the fact that I'm clueless about how to take nice pictures.

Also, do digital video cameras take still pictures that are comparable in quality to point-and-shoot cameras? Could I take a frame from a digital movie and have a high-quality regular photo?