Compact Camera Recommendation?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by zenographer32xc@yahoo.com, Dec 1, 2007.

  1. Guest

    What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.

    Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.

    Thanks so much!
     
    , Dec 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I don't have good knowledge of the currently available cameras, but I
    can offer some general suggestions.

    Think about the kind of photos you now take or want to take.

    Some people take a lot of photos of the family at home or vacations. In
    general this kind of photography favors a wide angle lens. Some people will
    photograph a lot of sports, this favors telephoto lenses.

    A 5X or a 10X zoom does not tell you or me if that lens tends to handle
    telephoto or wide angle well. It just means it has a large range, but that
    range can be telephoto or wide angle. If you are taking a photo of people
    around a table, telephoto is worthless as it is if you want to take a photo
    of a mountain. Even though the mountain may be far away, it is big so you
    need a wide angle. If you are in the stands at a football game and you want
    to photograph your son or daughter, a telephoto is important.

    People also often forget that we all have different hands. A camera
    that fits my hands may prove to be rather awkward in your hands.

    It pays to get the camera into your own hands and actually take a few
    photos with it. It should feel comfortable to YOU.

    Consider the view finder. Can YOU see it well. If not pass on that
    camera. Check it out in a dimly lit area and in sun light.

    Good Luck

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    > FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    > camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.
    >
    > Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.
    >
    > Thanks so much!
    >



    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AAvK Guest

    <> wrote in message news:...
    > What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    > FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    > camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.
    >
    > Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.
    >
    > Thanks so much!
    >



    The Fujifilm digital cameras that have the super CCD HR do produce pictures with the
    lowest "image noise" when sensor sensitivity is set to higher ISOs, than any other brand
    out on the market. That includes Canon, Nikon and Olympus, and Sony. With a Fuji you
    can set it to 800 and 1600 ISO and gain faster shutter speeds, and still get print quality
    shots. But it must be a camera with a *Super CCD HR* in it, not all Fuji cameras have
    them. You'll probably want to kick extra for the f50fd, which does 12 megapixels, less
    than an inch thick so it's pocketable. It also has image stabilization via CCD shift, and
    "i-flash", and "face detection 2" which is done by a hardware chip, very effective.

    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/digitalcamera/showcase.jsp

    Good luck,

    --
    Giant_Alex }<)))*>
    not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
     
    AAvK, Dec 1, 2007
    #3
  4. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    > FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    > camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.
    >
    > Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.


    First, I would say that while it's OK to keep your choices to the "$200
    range" or whatever, it's most likely a mistake to demand "7-10 MP." If
    you're looking for an inexpensive pocket-sized camera you probably don't
    really need 7 to 10 megapixels.

    Realistically, how are you going to view the images? If you're going to have
    4x6 prints made at a Wal-Mart machine or something like that, or view them
    on a computer monitor, you don't need anything more than 2 MP. If you're
    going to e-mail them to other people you don't even need that much. Since
    nowadays you almost certainly couldn't find a new camera with as little as 2
    MP even if you wanted to, I would forget about setting any lower limit on
    resolution if I were you.

    Using a much higher resolution than you really need in a pocket-sized camera
    is likely to give you *poorer* image quality, not better, if there's any
    noticeable difference at all. This is because cramming more pixels into the
    very tiny sensors inevitably produces more electronic "noise." Manufacturers
    apparently make these too-high-resolution models because too many consumers
    think more megapixels means better pictures, and will choose them over
    equally good or better models with lower resolution. Manufacturers will make
    whatever customers want to buy, whether it makes any sense or not. The huge
    tailfins on cars of the late '50s is just one example of this.

    There are so many good pocket-sized digital cameras on the market today that
    as long as you buy a major brand you probably won't go terribly wrong.
    Practically all of them will give you very good image quality and as a
    casual user you'd probably never be able to tell the difference between
    them. I'd look for differences in other areas, such as the type of battery
    the camera uses. Do you want one that uses AA cells that are available
    everywhere, or a Li-Ion type which allows a smaller and flatter camera
    design?

    I'd insist on a camera that takes SD memory cards, because they are the
    standard and are often available cheap, on sale and/or with rebates. For
    this reason I'd avoid any Olympus or Fuji models that use xD-Picture cards.
    Personally I like small cameras that have an optical viewfinder as well as
    the LCD monitor, rather than one large LCD that takes up most of the back of
    the camera, because the LCDs can be extremely hard to use in bright
    sunlight. But other people apparently don't mind that and prefer the larger
    LCD. This is something that unfortunately you'd have to judge by your own
    experience, and can't take someone else' word for.

    My own preference would be for something in the Nikon Coolpix line or the
    Canon Sureshot line. I like Nikons better generally, but for a pocket-sized
    camera I'd probably pick a Canon as long as it has an optical viewfinder --
    which Nikon unfortunately has abandoned in its most recent very small
    models.

    Go to a store, look at and handle the different models and see what feels
    good to you. Your nearest Wal-Mart probably has shelves full of 'em and a
    good selection. Decide whether you want a simple camera for easy snapshots
    or a more advanced model with a lot of features -- and try to be realistic
    about this. Don't assume that you'll "grow into" a more advanced camera. If
    you don't have real interest in the technology you'll probably never use the
    advanced features. Actually even the simple cameras today may have more
    features than you'll ever use.

    Anyway, you can always buy another camera later. Almost all of us do. ;-)

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 1, 2007
    #4
  5. "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > My own preference would be for something in the Nikon Coolpix line or the
    > Canon Sureshot line.


    Oops. Make that Canon PowerShot.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 1, 2007
    #5
  6. iws Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    > FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    > camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.
    >
    > Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.
    >
    > Thanks so much!
    >

    Of the cameras you listed, Consumer Reports tested all but the Olympus. The
    Sony was best of those three by a considerable margin. It bested the other
    two in all four primary test categories: picture quality, battery life,
    shutter lag and next shot delay. In fact, the Sony came in second in the
    ratings of all the sub-compacts in the test (only the Sony DSC-N2 was
    better.) CR also rated the Samsung L77 a "Best Buy".

    As others have stated, you really need to assess your own needs and how the
    camera feels. I'd echo the comment suggesting wide-angle capability trumps
    telephoto in many situations. I also believe that an optical viewfinder is
    an advantage in many situations. I like the swing out LCD on my Canon A620
    but that's not a pocket camera.
     
    iws, Dec 1, 2007
    #6
  7. wrote:
    > What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    > FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    > camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.
    >
    > Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.
    >
    > Thanks so much!
    >


    Avoid the DSC-W80, poor image quality.

    Avoid the FE-280, no optical viewfinder.

    Avoid the NV-10, very noisy, and many other issues, including no optical
    viewfinder (it's been replaced by the NV-11 which is likely no better).'

    You didn't specify which Optio, but none of them are outstanding.

    Get the Canon SD800IS, but it's a bit more at $240. Wide angle lens, and
    optical viewfinder are two main advantages of it.
     
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Dec 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington says...
    > I'd insist on a camera that takes SD memory cards


    The type of memory card a camera uses couldn't be more irrelevant, given
    that memory cards are dirt cheap these days.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <47519bdb$0$84165$>, SMS ???? ?
    says...
    > Avoid the FE-280, no optical viewfinder


    Who cares about an optical viewfinder, which anyway on a compact will be
    a tiny hole? It's better having a nice big screen and a viewfinder would
    limit the screen size.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > Neil Harrington says...
    >> I'd insist on a camera that takes SD memory cards

    >
    > The type of memory card a camera uses couldn't be more irrelevant,
    > given that memory cards are dirt cheap these days.


    Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. While other features are certainly more
    important there is something to be said about memory cards, too.

    With CF and SD you are getting a card that is manufactured by many companies
    and that is so popular that even years from today you will be able to get a
    replacement card.
    With proprietary formats like memory sticks or similar you never know when
    the _only_ manufacturer will simply stop producing them or even worse may
    shut its doors all of a sudden.

    And with SD you got the 2GB pain. Of course not unsurmountable, but with
    cards larger than 2GB at least you need to make sure that they actually work
    on your devices.

    So, while I wouldn't base my selection of camera on the type of the memory
    card it is still one small factor in the overall decision that might tip the
    scale one way or the other.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Dec 1, 2007
    #10
  11. ray Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:11:58 -0500, zenographer32xc wrote:

    > What compact camera (7-10 MP, $200 range) like Sony DSC-W80, Olympus
    > FE280, Samsung NV10, Pentax Optio--I hope these give you pocket-sized
    > camera type I'm looking for--take the best image.
    >
    > Please don't limit to the ones I've listed.
    >
    > Thanks so much!


    IMHO - you stick the same sort of camera (DSLR, EVF, compact) within the
    same price range, from a well known brand - and there isn't much
    difference. You might try for one of the major brands online store - see
    if they have some refurbs - you can either save money or step up a bit.
     
    ray, Dec 1, 2007
    #11
  12. nospam Guest

    In article <Njm4j.1157$QS.1075@trndny03>, Jürgen Exner
    <> wrote:

    > With proprietary formats like memory sticks or similar you never know when
    > the _only_ manufacturer will simply stop producing them or even worse may
    > shut its doors all of a sudden.


    it doesn't even need to be proprietary. how many cameras these days
    use smart media cards? there even were 'smartmedia versus compact
    flash' debates several years ago.

    > And with SD you got the 2GB pain. Of course not unsurmountable, but with
    > cards larger than 2GB at least you need to make sure that they actually work
    > on your devices.


    most cameras are sdhc now and handle 4 gig and larger without a problem.
     
    nospam, Dec 2, 2007
    #12
  13. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, Neil
    > Harrington says...
    >> I'd insist on a camera that takes SD memory cards

    >
    > The type of memory card a camera uses couldn't be more irrelevant, given
    > that memory cards are dirt cheap these days.


    There are still plenty of cameras around and in use that take SmartMedia
    cards. Have you seen any of those cards around "dirt cheap these days"? But
    not so many years ago they were what were used in most cameras (other than
    Sony) that didn't take CompactFlash. And xD cards are not as big a part of
    the market today as SmartMedia was then.

    I think it's very likely that xD cards will go the way of SmartMedia sooner
    or later. There is simply no point to the xD card. It's not used by any
    other camera maker than Olympus and Fuji as far as I know, and it's not used
    by any other kind of device I've ever heard of -- whereas SD cards are also
    used in all sorts of devices from MP3 players to GPS receivers.

    I think there are already signs that Olympus and Fuji are having second
    thoughts about the xD card, e.g. making cameras with second slots for a
    different type card.

    Even if you don't mind paying substantially more for a memory card that has
    no advantage over SD and that's harder to find in stores already, why saddle
    yourself with a camera that uses such cards when they may become essentially
    extinct?

    Olympus and Fuji both have made some very nice cameras (I own older models
    of both as a matter of fact -- that use SmartMedia), but it seems to me
    their development and adoption of xD cards was a really dumb move.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <47519bdb$0$84165$>, SMS ???? ?
    > says...
    >> Avoid the FE-280, no optical viewfinder

    >
    > Who cares about an optical viewfinder, which anyway on a compact will
    > be a tiny hole? It's better having a nice big screen and a viewfinder
    > would limit the screen size.


    That nice big screen with no viewfinder often becomes a horror to try to use
    in bright sunlight. I agree that the optical viewfinders on small cameras
    leave a lot to be desired, but it sure is nice to have them to fall back on
    when you can't see what's on the LCD.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > That nice big screen with no viewfinder often becomes a horror to try to use
    > in bright sunlight. I agree that the optical viewfinders on small cameras
    > leave a lot to be desired, but it sure is nice to have them to fall back on
    > when you can't see what's on the LCD.


    And I still laugh (inside) and shake my head when I see people holding
    a digital camera at arm's length trying to frame a shot with the LCD.
     
    Mr. Strat, Dec 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <Njm4j.1157$QS.1075@trndny03>, Jürgen Exner
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> With proprietary formats like memory sticks or similar you never know when
    >> the _only_ manufacturer will simply stop producing them or even worse may
    >> shut its doors all of a sudden.

    >
    > it doesn't even need to be proprietary. how many cameras these days
    > use smart media cards? there even were 'smartmedia versus compact
    > flash' debates several years ago.
    >
    >> And with SD you got the 2GB pain. Of course not unsurmountable, but with
    >> cards larger than 2GB at least you need to make sure that they actually work
    >> on your devices.

    >
    > most cameras are sdhc now and handle 4 gig and larger without a problem.


    While the technical quality of sensors continues to improve, dividing a
    small sensor into more pixels tests the limits of the technology. That
    being the case, it is probably better NOT to buy the highest pixel
    count. Therefore, the issue of large card sizes is really rather
    unimportant. I have a 4mp camera, and with a 1GB card, I can store 1400
    pictures. This is a rather ridiculous number, already. What do I need
    with a 2GB (let alone 4GB) card? Ok, they cost only $20, but WHY do I
    need one. If you have an 8mp camera, then a 2GB card is probably more
    that you really need. I find the question of whether or not a compact
    camera will handle a card over 2GB to be rather a matter of curiosity,
    rather than one of value.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Ron Hunter Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <>, Neil
    >> Harrington says...
    >>> I'd insist on a camera that takes SD memory cards

    >> The type of memory card a camera uses couldn't be more irrelevant, given
    >> that memory cards are dirt cheap these days.

    >
    > There are still plenty of cameras around and in use that take SmartMedia
    > cards. Have you seen any of those cards around "dirt cheap these days"? But
    > not so many years ago they were what were used in most cameras (other than
    > Sony) that didn't take CompactFlash. And xD cards are not as big a part of
    > the market today as SmartMedia was then.
    >
    > I think it's very likely that xD cards will go the way of SmartMedia sooner
    > or later. There is simply no point to the xD card. It's not used by any
    > other camera maker than Olympus and Fuji as far as I know, and it's not used
    > by any other kind of device I've ever heard of -- whereas SD cards are also
    > used in all sorts of devices from MP3 players to GPS receivers.
    >
    > I think there are already signs that Olympus and Fuji are having second
    > thoughts about the xD card, e.g. making cameras with second slots for a
    > different type card.
    >
    > Even if you don't mind paying substantially more for a memory card that has
    > no advantage over SD and that's harder to find in stores already, why saddle
    > yourself with a camera that uses such cards when they may become essentially
    > extinct?
    >
    > Olympus and Fuji both have made some very nice cameras (I own older models
    > of both as a matter of fact -- that use SmartMedia), but it seems to me
    > their development and adoption of xD cards was a really dumb move.
    >
    > Neil
    >
    >

    I agree that xD cards are probably a white elephant.
    "Smartmedia" cards were a really bad format in the first place. The
    first time I saw one, I knew they weren't long for the market. First,
    they weren't 'smart', having no controller onboard, and they were just
    too flimsy, physically. Worse, the capacity couldn't grow because the
    controllers in the older cameras limited them to whatever capacity was
    available when the controller in the camera was built. BAD BAD BAD.

    SD cards are the current most common cards in many devices, and seem to
    be due to stay around for quite a few more years. The are physically
    robust, and seem quite reliable, small, and easy to deal with (provided
    you don't drop one in the grass). I only wish they would mold a
    'fingernail groove' into the top of the cards. My camera either pops
    them out too little to get a good grip on them, or shoots them across
    the room. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Ron Hunter Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <47519bdb$0$84165$>, SMS ???? ?
    >> says...
    >>> Avoid the FE-280, no optical viewfinder

    >> Who cares about an optical viewfinder, which anyway on a compact will
    >> be a tiny hole? It's better having a nice big screen and a viewfinder
    >> would limit the screen size.

    >
    > That nice big screen with no viewfinder often becomes a horror to try to use
    > in bright sunlight. I agree that the optical viewfinders on small cameras
    > leave a lot to be desired, but it sure is nice to have them to fall back on
    > when you can't see what's on the LCD.
    >
    > Neil
    >
    >

    Currently, the under $200 market leaves one with VERY few choices if an
    optical viewfinder is on the 'essential' list. Sad to say, lousy
    picture-taking posture is the norm, and when manufacturers see that a
    feature isn't used by most of their customers, it is likely to disappear.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 2, 2007
    #18
  19. Ron Hunter Guest

    Mr. Strat wrote:
    > In article <>, Neil
    > Harrington <> wrote:
    >
    >> That nice big screen with no viewfinder often becomes a horror to try to use
    >> in bright sunlight. I agree that the optical viewfinders on small cameras
    >> leave a lot to be desired, but it sure is nice to have them to fall back on
    >> when you can't see what's on the LCD.

    >
    > And I still laugh (inside) and shake my head when I see people holding
    > a digital camera at arm's length trying to frame a shot with the LCD.


    Yep, ME TOO. Then they wonder why their pictures have motion blur....
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, Neil
    > Harrington says...
    >> I'd insist on a camera that takes SD memory cards

    >
    > The type of memory card a camera uses couldn't be more irrelevant,
    > given that memory cards are dirt cheap these days.


    Provided SD or CF is chosen (although my preference would also be for SD).

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 2, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Adam Del-Monte

    Compact camera recommendation please!

    Adam Del-Monte, Apr 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
    Adam Del-Monte
    Apr 13, 2004
  2. Mike Henley

    Okay... compact film vs compact digital ..

    Mike Henley, Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    823
    Anoni Moose
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. Rick S.
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,243
    Ron Hunter
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. Lee Chen
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    534
    Lee Chen
    Dec 1, 2004
  5. Akilesh  Ayyar

    Compact or Ultra Compact? And then which one?

    Akilesh Ayyar, May 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    363
Loading...

Share This Page