Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
-
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.
-
Spot on Mark. Cameras with only an lcd screen and no peephole are not worth looking at.
-
go to http://www.dpreview.com for in-depth reviews of many many cameras.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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:)
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
my Nikon P&S's optical viewfinder has teh paralax & generally misleading framing indications:noid :noid :noid
i h8 it :mad: :mad: :mad: :furious :furious :furious
-
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:)
-
the theoretical limit of resolution AKA the Dawes limit shoes that two points cannot be shown seperately by a lens if they are not a certain distance appart based on the diameter of the lens.
according to these calculations a 114mm diameter lens will resove one arcsecond points, just barely & it scales linearly (57mm pwns over 2", 228mm gets you 0.5 arcseconds, etc. my little nikon P&S has a 17.4mm F/4.9, so it is 3.55mm across - about half as wide as your eyeball - and can get 32" resolution).
the scale of the image on the focal plane (on the chip) is the focal length divided by a radian (yielding arcseconds per mm)
my little nikon give 0.00008436mm per arcsecond on the chip )or about 3.3 degrees per mm of chip width.
if you know the chip size or the pixel size you can see pretty easy if you're overpixeled or not
my nikon P&S is carrying too many pixels if the pixels are smaller than 32*0.00008346 mm (about 0.0027mm - im just doing this math for the 1st time here...
27 microns OMFG thats HUGE! i used to works with a camera called an ST6 about 10 years ago that had 24mm pixels & people would say zOMG BIG PIXELS!!!1) i dont know how big the chip is so i dont know if its OK or not...
...i've found the n00bs working at camera stores dont generally have access to this info (pixel size or chip size) :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: an i cant find it on teh nikon's website:mad: :mad:
lol i think this is my 1st wall of text evar
-
Lew don't let all this new fangled camera stuff fool ya
(http://www.princeandpauper.com/kodakbrownie.jpg)