Author Topic: Digital Camera recommendation (Read 652 times)

Silat · « **on:** December 02, 2006, 02:04:29 AM »

Can anyone recommend a digital camera for around a max of $200.
Basically a good point and shoot with some zoom and a bigger screen to see what your shooting at:)
Also it should include SILATS TEEN SQUELCH HACK....................
Thanks

Mark Luper · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2006, 08:18:37 AM »

Tigerdirect.com has a good selection Silat. I just bought one as a gift for my future step-son and his wife. It is the Fuji's Finepics A 400. It cost me $110 plus shipping. It has a view finder, something I prefer in digital cameras, plus a decent sized viewing screen. The reason I like view finders are because they are much easier to see your subject with when in bright sunlight plus the fact that I'm a bit old fashioned and am used to using a camera with a view-finder. It is 4.1 megapixel, 3X lens zoom with 3X digital zoom available.

It's worth a look.

Nilsen · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2006, 08:34:28 AM »

Spot on Mark. Cameras with only an lcd screen and no peephole are not worth looking at.

eagl · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2006, 08:43:12 AM »

go to http://www.dpreview.com for in-depth reviews of many many cameras.

john9001 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2006, 08:44:46 AM »

go to a store that sells cameras, play with all the cameras, buy the one that you like.

most all cameras are good, but some have this , some have that, you need to find the one that feels comfortable to use for you.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2006, 09:01:45 AM »

For $200 I could only recommend a second hand camera if you can find one.

If you could find a Canon EOS300D for example, you'd be fine.

Golfer · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2006, 10:44:11 AM »

For less than $100 more you can purchase something top shelf that will do everything you ask.

The Canon SD(###) elphs are good pointy clicky cameras. I use a Canon Powershot A630 because it looks like a camera in the traditional sense and uses 4AA batteries. When these are the Energizer e2's they last for freakin ever!

eskimo2 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2006, 02:55:47 PM »

The Canon 530 is going for around $130 on sale. Pick up a 1 gig card for $20 to $35 and you are set.

Affordable 5.0 Megapixel digital camera with high-quality Canon 4x Optical Zoom lens
Compact, lightweight body that's easy to bring along wherever you go
New ISO 800 reduces image blur and expands low-light shooting ability
DIGIC II Image Processor and iSAPS Technology for superior image quality, faster operation and lower power consumption
16:9 Widescreen for full-screen viewing on widescreen TVs and computer monitors
Record your movies in VGA (640 x 480) Movie Mode with sound
Print/Share Button for easy direct printing and downloading, plus ID Photo Print and Movie Print with Canon CP and SELPHY Compact Photo Printers

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=12914

Mark Luper · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2006, 05:45:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Spot on Mark. Cameras with only an lcd screen and no peephole are not worth looking at.

I did say I prefered them and really do. I did, however, also want a small pocket sized camera I could carry around easily. I bought an Olympus 720WS (I think that's right, at work right now) that is 3 1/2"X2 1/2"X 3/4" and it only has a 2 1/2" LCD screen on it. I got it also because it was water proof to 10 ft. and shock proof to 5 ft. It really takes nice pictures but it will mainly be used indoors or in protected areas where I can see the LCD better.

Mark

Silat · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2006, 09:08:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
go to http://www.dpreview.com for in-depth reviews of many many cameras.

Thanks guys..
Ive perused dpreview and was just wondering what the owners of DC's recommended. This is for a friend. She needs the view port and the LCD.

Silat · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2006, 09:13:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
For $200 I could only recommend a second hand camera if you can find one.

If you could find a Canon EOS300D for example, you'd be fine.

She wants a smaller camera:)

Max · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2006, 09:31:12 PM »

Silat, last Christmas I got Mrs. Max a Canon PowerShot SD500 - 7.1 MP
Think I paid $350. Wal-Mart has 'em for $297. It has an enlarged LCD screen or whatever ya call it plus a look through thingie, which I prefer. It takes great pics and best of all, has a rechargeable battery with charger included.

Size wise it's about 3.5"x 2" x 1" It does not include a teen squelch device, sorry

eagl · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2006, 06:26:06 AM »

If you want pure opinion, here's one -

The "last year" 5mp models shoot just as good pictures as this year's 7mp models. That's because the 7mp are crammed into a sensor the same size as the 5mp ones, but they still haven't solved the sensor noise issue so with a 7mp you get a very high resolution picture that has a lot of noise. It's the equivalent of using higher ISO film. They then apply noise reduction algorithms, which blurs the image so you might as well have just used lower resolution to begin with.

Basically if you see 2 similiar cameras, one 5mp and one 7mp, don't pay any more for the 7mp one because the image quality isn't any better and it might even be worse.

FWIW the best images from a point and shoot small digital camera I've ever seen came from my Mom's original kodak, with a 2ish mp sensor. Clean images, better low light performance, overall a much better picture unless you're making big prints (over 8x10).

For image quality, there is no substitute for lense size/quality and sensor size. Above 5mp and sensor resolution really doesn't help at all and might hurt image quality.

Debonair · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2006, 02:59:07 PM »

my Nikon P&S's optical viewfinder has teh paralax & generally misleading framing indications:noid

i h8 it

Silat · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2006, 03:23:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
If you want pure opinion, here's one -

The "last year" 5mp models shoot just as good pictures as this year's 7mp models. That's because the 7mp are crammed into a sensor the same size as the 5mp ones, but they still haven't solved the sensor noise issue so with a 7mp you get a very high resolution picture that has a lot of noise. It's the equivalent of using higher ISO film. They then apply noise reduction algorithms, which blurs the image so you might as well have just used lower resolution to begin with.

Basically if you see 2 similiar cameras, one 5mp and one 7mp, don't pay any more for the 7mp one because the image quality isn't any better and it might even be worse.

FWIW the best images from a point and shoot small digital camera I've ever seen came from my Mom's original kodak, with a 2ish mp sensor. Clean images, better low light performance, overall a much better picture unless you're making big prints (over 8x10).

For image quality, there is no substitute for lense size/quality and sensor size. Above 5mp and sensor resolution really doesn't help at all and might hurt image quality.

Thanks Eagle. You verified what I thought:)