Camera Suggestions needed!

[ShooShooBaby]

i've finally managed to get my ex-boyfriend to pay me back for my camera that he broke, and so i'm in the market for a new one! i have some specific things in mind - can anyone think of the perfect camera (for me)??

- price: $250 or under, preferaby. will pay up to $300 for something exponentially better than the others though.
- i'd prefer it be somewhat compact and lightweight. my previous camera was a sony cybershot, and while it had a lot of other problems, i liked the size a lot. i like to be able to keep it in my messenger bag on a daily basis, and pack it in my purses at night.
- optical zoom
- takes decent mirror shots. i'm a total camwhore and like to document my outfits
- low on the blurriness. my last camera was horrid for blurry pictures! i'd like to be able to take action shots (particularly dancers) but that's not THAT necessary. but really, if i'm taking pics of people just standing around, they should not be blurry!!
- i should also add, i would rather have these other preferences than a camera with like, 200453465898 megapixels. my last camera was 6.0 and was just fine for my needs.

soooooo, what do you suggest?

 

[Quigley Brown]

This is what I carry around when walking the dog/riding the bike. I've always been a Canon man, but this is a very nice camera for the price (and it just seems to coming down on a daily basis).

Please don't think this to be a Best Buy ad, but just to show you the model.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8266191&st=canon&type=product&id=1170290185723

 

[ShooShooBaby]

wow, that looks great for my needs. i'm not trying to do high-quality art photography... just want my snapshots to look good! wow, it has a pet mode?! oh, the cat will be thrilled.

but the question remains.... will it do mirror-shots?

this will definitely be going on my list of possibilities.

 

[Lancealot]

Back in Feb. I picked up a Kodak Z712. It has 7.1 megapixels and a 12x optical zoom. It takes escellent pictures very clear and it has optical image stabilization. I attached the link below to Kodaks website it's got the full run down on the specs. The only problem you may have is the size.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/131/10689&pq-locale=en_US&KNC-V4Z533964240

 

[ShooShooBaby]

my dad is really happy with his easyshare. but until i have my own paparazzi or personal photographer to follow me around, i really need something less bulky thanks for the suggestion!

 

[adamjaskie]

I was pretty happy with my Canon Powershot A75. Note that it didn't survive being dunked in a lake, but I got quite a bit of service out of it before then. I'm not sure what they have in that line at the moment, but they seem to come out with new models fairly often. It might be a bit bulky for your needs, though.

Most of the issues with mirror shots are going to be caused by the flash. If you can get enough light to take the picture without the flash, you should be fine. You might be able to use a bit of cardboard to reflect the flash onto the ceiling, too; that should provide enough light to illuminate you without having direct light reflecting from the mirror and right back into the lens (which is what you're having a problem with when mirror pictures get washed out).

Alternatively, try framing the shot such that you cannot see the camera (or at least the flash portion of the camera) in the viewfinder. That should help. Or use the self-timer and forget the mirror; you can get some nice little pocket-tripods these days for digital cameras.

Blurriness has to do a lot with light-gathering ability. Look for a camera with a lower aperture number on the lens (f2.8 rather than f3.5, for example), which will allow more light to reach the sensor. More light means you can use a higher shutter speed, which will freeze action a lot better. That's assuming the blurriness is due to movement rather than lack of focus, of course. Some cameras are rather slow to focus, especially in the dark, so you have to be patient and let it focus before trying to take the picture. It almost always works best if you aim the camera and push the button halfway to let it focus, then wait for just the right moment to push the button the rest of the way and snap the picture.

I haven't had a lot of luck taking pictures at dances with the smaller point-and-shoot cameras. Even some lower-level DSLRs have trouble when it's dark and people are moving quickly, especially with slow kit lenses.

 

[Pilotguy299]

there are oh so many choices...

but what I do suggest is that if you have it narrowed down to a couple of cameras, that you go to: http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

and take a look at the reviews. The nice thing about this site is that they follow the same process and format of their camera reviews, so it's easier to compare.

Anthony

 

[adamjaskie]

Another good site is http://www.dpreview.com/

 

[Mocheman]

I was going through the same process for my mom a few months ago. She wanted an easy to use fairly compact point and shoot with a large lcd screen, uncer $300. I tried a bunch of different cameras from a all the major brands. I have to say that most of them were not that impressive. I liked the pictures the Canon powershots take(I tried a few) but the build quality was a little lacking to me.

Anyway I settled on the PANASONIC DMC-TZ3S SILVER. It has a large 3 inch lcd display, image stabilization, metal camera body, and all the features you could want in a point and shoot (of course my mom won't use any of them). It also takes excellent pictures and has a good zoom range (10x optical) with a leica lens. I purchased mine through staples at the time because of their great return policy. I think for what it cost this camera was a steal. Here it is at newegg.com http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830180096

Whatever camera you decide on buying I would invest in a lcd glass screen protector which you can find at many camera shops. I bought mine from B&H.

Anyway, good luck and if you have any questions feel free to ask.

 

[Decodence]

- low on the blurriness. my last camera was horrid for blurry pictures! i'd like to be able to take action shots (particularly dancers) but that's not THAT necessary. but really, if i'm taking pics of people just standing around, they should not be blurry!?

You aren't going to find that in a P&S. Blurriness is caused by a long shutter speed. The long shutter speed is due to trying to properly expose the image. The issue being is that the sensor in P&S is not high quality or large enough to capture the image properly in a short period of time without jacking the ISO (sensitivity) through the roof, which will result in a grainy, horrible picture. Part of the issue is the lens on P&S is itty bitty, which doesn't allow enough light into the camera to begin with. If you want to take sharp pictures, without bright lighting, you are going to need a proper camera, not a P&S.

Edit: Having owned several P&S, and a middle-of-the road when new DSLR, the difference is night and day. With the DSLR, the body is the cheap part. Half my lens are more pricy than the body itself was. I also have quite a few lens, to swap depending on the conditions I am going to be shooting in, and the setting. Cons to taking good shots are cost (I've probably got 3-4k in body, glass, and accessories, which is pretty cheap considering the new D3 goes for $5k body alone, and any fx pro-quality glass will run you a minimum of $1300 to start, up to $10k for long, fast per lens.). Weight. The cam with a short, slow zoom is pretty light, but put on a long, or fast lens, and an external flash, and the weight doubles. Size. DSLRs aren't compact, and the long or fast glass only compounds the problems.

 

[adamjaskie]

The issue being is that the sensor in P&S is not high quality or large enough to capture the image properly in a short period of time without jacking the ISO (sensitivity) through the roof, which will result in a grainy, horrible picture.

It's more that the sensor is not high quality or large enough to produce a clear image at a high ISO. Sensor size has nothing to do with what ISO is required to record an image.

To clarify, a given scene only has a fixed amount of light for the camera to capture. There are three numbers at play here:

1. The amount of light that can pass through the lens, also known as the "aperture" or "f-stop". This is measured in the ratio of the focal length of the lens to the actual size of the opening, because the actual amount of light let through the lens depends on both of these factors. A 50mm lens at f8 lets the same amount of light to the film or sensor as a 100mm lens at f8. Each "stop" lets in twice as much light as the previous, so f8 lets in twice as much as f16, which lets in twice as much as f22.

Any lens has a maximum aperture, which is the LOWEST (it's a ratio, remember) f-stop that lens can use, and thus the most light it can let through. It also has a minimum, but you don't need to worry about that for most applications. In general, longer (higher focal length, more magnifying) lenses have smaller maximum apertures. Lenses with larger maximum apertures are more expensive and physically larger, so they are not going to be used in compact, inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras.

2. The amount of time for which the film or sensor is exposed to the light, also known as the "shutter speed". These are also usually arranged so that each setting is twice as long as the previous setting, more-or-less. 1/1000 sec is half the speed of 1/500 sec which is half the speed of 1/250 sec.

Higher shutter speeds will produce sharper images, because there is less time for your subject to move around during the picture. Lower shutter speeds will show motion blur, which you may or may not want (it can add interesting artistic effects, if you want to show movement, for example).

3. The ability of the sensor or film to capture light. In the days of film, this was known as "film speed". 100 speed film is half as sensitive to light as 200 speed film is half as sensitive to light as 400 speed film, and so forth. Digital cameras use the same scale for their sensitivity, so a digital camera set at ISO 200 will use the same aperture and shutter speed as any other digital camera set at ISO 200 or any film camera using ISO 200 film. Obviously, there are going to be some variations as far as how the camera's metering system measures and averages different parts of the image, but in general the same settings will produce an image of the same exposure. A trade-off of film speed (in both film cameras and the equivalent in digital cameras) is that higher film speeds provide lower contrast and more noise, all other things being the same.

In a digital cameras, as the size of the sensor increases, the amount of noise at a given ISO decreases. Most point-and-shoot cameras have a sensor the size of your pinky nail, if that. Higher-end cameras go up through postage-stamp size to the size of a frame of 35mm film (24x36mm) and even larger for some very specialized markets. Digital SLRs are generally in the range of postage stamp to 35mm film, depending on brand and model. Obviously, they can't fit a very big sensor into a small camera.

 

[DerMann]

This website was exceptionally helpful when it came to helping me select my camera. Even though I consider myself quite versed in camera technology, this service is useful, as it goes through the top reviewed cameras and selects the ones that suit your needs.

http://www.myproductadvisor.com/mpa/camera/inputSummary.do?referrer=ir

Hope this helps.

 

[ShooShooBaby]

thanks for the info, everyone! this definitely gives me a good jumping-off point in my search! :eusa_clap

 

[MK]

.

I really like Canon's approach. They are rugged, shoot well and most are a good size. Today I bought my third Elph in.....oh....perhaps eight years. The first one was film, so this is my second digital Elph. I had planned on buying the SD890 IS because of the 5X lens.....but when I saw it in person I decided it was too bulky. I ended up getting the SD790 IS. It is a 10 meg camera which is useful for me because I publish some of the photos I shoot.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

ShooShooBaby:

I like the Nikon CoolPix series. I bought the L11 last May, and my brother bought the next model up a couple months ago. I paid $165.00 for mine, with a 2GB card. My brother paid $135.00 for his, also with a 2GB card. His has more features and is thinner and lighter than mine. Since you're willing to go as high as $300.00, you can get a very impressive Point and Shoot. The newest CoolPix, the L18, is $139.00 plus card.

Since then, though, I've bought a digital SLR (Nikon D40x) and I love it. The CoolPix still gets regular use, and the SLR is where I get truly creative and have the most fun.

Any camera will do mirror shots: Autofocus is now achieved by the camera using contrast. The days of infrared are over.

Nikon CoolPix


Lee

 

[Edward]

The main difficulty I've always found with mirror shots has been reflection from the flash obscuring detail.... a large mirror near a source of natural light would help a lot. If you're looking for something that will take good self portraits, though, might I suggest an alternative approach: a camera with a good timer-delay function and a tripod? You'd have to experiement a little more with figuring out what is in shot, but it can produce excellent results. Paddy I know has posted a lot of great self takies using this method.

As to camera models, I'm currently looking at the Pentax Optio S10. It's 10MP, sturdy and very compact. The optical zoom is limited to 3x, though, if that's an issue for you.... I thought about going for something higher spec (and still may, if I ever decide to get a "serious" camera), but decided that as I'm primarily only looking for a snaps camera to replace my 3MP Konica, the convenience of something smaller is a higher priority. Everything I can find in the online reviews suggests that it punches well above it's weight relative to price - Amazon has it for about USD230.

 

[texasgirl]

I have a Canon Powershot and I really like it. Not sure about the mirror shots though. But the LCD screen flips out and you can turn it around, so if you take a picture of yourself with your arm out, you can see what your doing! Also, the timer is super easy to set up so I just use that.

I also like that it takes regular batteries instead of the those chargable ones that are a pain IMO.

I think this is the model I have, but there are several different ones to pick from.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=14108

 

[TheKitschGoth]

I have a Canon Powershot and I really like it. Not sure about the mirror shots though. But the LCD screen flips out and you can turn it around, so if you take a picture of yourself with your arm out, you can see what your doing! Also, the timer is super easy to set up so I just use that.

I also like that it takes regular batteries instead of the those chargable ones that are a pain IMO.

I think this is the model I have, but there are several different ones to pick from.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=14108

Those are wonderful cameras, not very compact though.

Um, basically, go for anything that isn't Kodak.

I'm a little out of date when it comes to cameras, I've banned myself from camera magazines/shops in a vague attempt to control my spending. But the cameras I used to recommend when working in a camera shop were..

Anything from the Canon Ixus/Elph range
Fuji Z or A series
Nikon Coolpix S series
Panasonic Lumix range

One of the advantages to Canon/Nikon/Panasonic is that they all take the same memory card, which is the standard now and so easier to get hold of. Fuji, Olympus and Sony take their own brand of cards.

Panasonic and Sony had the slimmest cameras with the biggest screens last time I looked.

Canon and Nikon were slightly better at low light situations.

Only thing to advise.. go have a play with the cameras before you buy, and be aware of how quick they focus and save the images. The last thing you want is a camera that lets you take one photo then makes you wait a few minutes before you take the next. Also ask about how long batteries last and the cost of spares.

 

[adamjaskie]

I suggest, if possible, finding a camera that takes some kind of standard battery rather than a proprietary battery pack. One thing I LOVED about my Canon Powershot A75 was that it used AA batteries. I usually ran with rechargeables, and had a spare set on me if I was going to be taking a lot of pictures, but it was great to be able to pick up a pack of Duracells at a gas station in a pinch.

 

[Twitch]

I got an Olympus FE 230 over a year and a 1/2 ago and have been pleased with it. It was $200 then. 7.1 megapixels, 3 x zoom and the most important "no shaky thing" stabilization. That works for sure. When we were in a horse drawn buggy bouncing all over the streets of Santo Domingo I was just pointing and guessing but the camera didn't let one be fuzzy.

You should find a decent camera in the price range you want in many brands as long as it has the stabilization setting.