Looking for a Recommendation...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mlehman0@gmail.com, Jan 25, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:

    -Under $200 USD
    -At least 2.0 MP
    -SD/MMC
    -Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    excellent example.
    -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)

    It would also be very cool to have an Optical Zoom. I realize that
    many entry-level cameras have only a crappy digital zoom, and this is
    OK. But if you can find one that meets these criteria and has the
    optical zoom, thats Right-on! The reason I have SD as a requirement is
    that I already have a 512 MB SD card, and I'd like to not have to buy a
    new card unless I have to.

    Well, everyone, thanks very much in advance if you can help me!

    Mike
     
    , Jan 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)


    Not many digicams (in fact none that I know of) have internal
    chargers. Most people don't want that. Cameras tend to use external
    chargers so you can use one battery in the camera while charging
    another with the charger. You want something like an ipod (that
    becomes unusable once the battery wears out) least of all.

    You basically get to choose between (removable) proprietary lithium
    ion batteries and AA's. IMO you're better off with AA's, and the
    Canon A410 (about $150) is probably a good bet for you. It has 3mp
    and a 3x optimal zoom.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. miles Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    > find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:
    >
    > -Under $200 USD
    > -At least 2.0 MP
    > -SD/MMC
    > -Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    > excellent example.
    > -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)
    >
    > It would also be very cool to have an Optical Zoom. I realize that
    > many entry-level cameras have only a crappy digital zoom, and this is
    > OK. But if you can find one that meets these criteria and has the
    > optical zoom, thats Right-on! The reason I have SD as a requirement is
    > that I already have a 512 MB SD card, and I'd like to not have to buy a
    > new card unless I have to.



    Look at any of the Kodak easyshare series cameras such as the C330.
    That one is 4mp, 3x optical, uses SD cards, while it can use AA's these
    cameras are designed to use Li-Ion rechargables that charge using Kodaks
    docking station.
     
    miles, Jan 25, 2006
    #3
  4. mrsgator88 Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    > find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:
    >
    > -Under $200 USD
    > -At least 2.0 MP
    > -SD/MMC
    > -Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    > excellent example.
    > -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)
    >
    > It would also be very cool to have an Optical Zoom. I realize that
    > many entry-level cameras have only a crappy digital zoom, and this is
    > OK. But if you can find one that meets these criteria and has the
    > optical zoom, thats Right-on! The reason I have SD as a requirement is
    > that I already have a 512 MB SD card, and I'd like to not have to buy a
    > new card unless I have to.
    >
    > Well, everyone, thanks very much in advance if you can help me!
    >
    > Mike


    I just got my dad the Kodak V530. Its 5mp, uses SD cards, and the battery
    will charge in the camera. The lens is covered when turned off (not like
    the A340 though - the lenscap is in the barrel), and it has an optical zoom.
    Its priced at $229, but should be under $200 soon enough. Its also pretty
    fast.

    However, I'd still consider a camera that takes AA's. My Kodak cx6445 can
    take non-rechargeable lithium AA batteries. I think I paid $20 for a pack
    of 12 or 16 of them. I can get at least a couple hundred pictures from a
    pair. It may take a couple of years before I have to buy more. BTW the
    camera was $183 new (you can find them on ebay for less now), has a lens
    cover and takes SD cards. Its 4mp and takes very nice pictures.

    Steve
     
    mrsgator88, Jan 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Tony Cooper Guest

    On 24 Jan 2006 18:09:41 -0800, wrote:

    >Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    >find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:
    >
    >-Under $200 USD
    >-At least 2.0 MP
    >-SD/MMC
    >-Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    >excellent example.
    >-Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)


    I'm sure you have a reason, but I'd avoid the internal rechargable
    batteries in favor of a camera that takes four AAs. My daughter has a
    Sony with the internal charger, and when the batteries go down she's
    out of business until she can recharge with her AC adapter. (She does
    have a spare battery, but they are very expensive)

    Rechargeable AAs work fine. If they do go flat, you are seldom far
    from a place that sells non-chargable AAs for temporary use.


    I can't see any possible advantage to internal rechargeable.



    --


    Tony Cooper
    Orlando, FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    > find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:
    >
    > -Under $200 USD
    > -At least 2.0 MP
    > -SD/MMC
    > -Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    > excellent example.
    > -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)
    >
    > It would also be very cool to have an Optical Zoom. I realize that
    > many entry-level cameras have only a crappy digital zoom, and this is
    > OK. But if you can find one that meets these criteria and has the
    > optical zoom, thats Right-on! The reason I have SD as a requirement is
    > that I already have a 512 MB SD card, and I'd like to not have to buy a
    > new card unless I have to.
    >
    > Well, everyone, thanks very much in advance if you can help me!
    >
    > Mike
    >

    Check out the Kodak C3x0 line of cameras. They should meet your needs.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Ron Hunter Guest

    Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On 24 Jan 2006 18:09:41 -0800, wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    >> find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:
    >>
    >> -Under $200 USD
    >> -At least 2.0 MP
    >> -SD/MMC
    >> -Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    >> excellent example.
    >> -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)

    >
    > I'm sure you have a reason, but I'd avoid the internal rechargable
    > batteries in favor of a camera that takes four AAs. My daughter has a
    > Sony with the internal charger, and when the batteries go down she's
    > out of business until she can recharge with her AC adapter. (She does
    > have a spare battery, but they are very expensive)
    >
    > Rechargeable AAs work fine. If they do go flat, you are seldom far
    > from a place that sells non-chargable AAs for temporary use.
    >
    >
    > I can't see any possible advantage to internal rechargeable.
    >
    >
    >

    One advantage, they are MUCH smaller than 4 AA's, which may be an
    important factor to some, and MUCH lighter, of course.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 25, 2006
    #7
  8. miles Guest

    Tony Cooper wrote:

    > I'm sure you have a reason, but I'd avoid the internal rechargable
    > batteries in favor of a camera that takes four AAs. My daughter has a
    > Sony with the internal charger, and when the batteries go down she's
    > out of business until she can recharge with her AC adapter. (She does
    > have a spare battery, but they are very expensive)
    >
    > Rechargeable AAs work fine. If they do go flat, you are seldom far
    > from a place that sells non-chargable AAs for temporary use.


    The Kodak rechargable batteries are about $22 or less. Some of the
    Kodak cameras can take both AA's or the rechargable pack and can be
    charged in the camera using an AC adapter or a docking station. When
    traveling I got tired of having to bring a lots of AA's or always
    stopping by a store to buy more. I can get 200 pictures on a charge so
    it works great for me.
     
    miles, Jan 25, 2006
    #8
  9. mrsgator88 Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tony Cooper wrote:
    >> I can't see any possible advantage to internal rechargeable.
    >>

    > One advantage, they are MUCH smaller than 4 AA's, which may be an
    > important factor to some, and MUCH lighter, of course.


    Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current" model P&S
    still take 4 AA's? I suspect the OP hasn't looked at camera's in quite a
    while. They've come a long way from the likes of my Kodak DC210+ (4 AA,
    short battery life, 1mp, and no lens cover, and therefore almost never
    used).

    Steve
     
    mrsgator88, Jan 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:51:39 GMT, "mrsgator88" <>
    wrote:

    >"Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>> I can't see any possible advantage to internal rechargeable.
    >>>

    >> One advantage, they are MUCH smaller than 4 AA's, which may be an
    >> important factor to some, and MUCH lighter, of course.

    >
    >Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current" model P&S
    >still take 4 AA's?


    Just glancing through Canon's current models, the PowerShot A-620
    (7.1) takes 4 AA batteries. Didn't look for any others.


    --


    Tony Cooper
    Orlando, FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 25, 2006
    #10
  11. mrsgator88 Guest

    "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:51:39 GMT, "mrsgator88" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current" model P&S
    >>still take 4 AA's?

    >
    > Just glancing through Canon's current models, the PowerShot A-620
    > (7.1) takes 4 AA batteries. Didn't look for any others.


    A quick look through www.Steves-Digicams shows quite a few. I stand
    corrected.

    Steve
     
    mrsgator88, Jan 25, 2006
    #11
  12. bugbear Guest

    mrsgator88 wrote:
    > "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:51:39 GMT, "mrsgator88" <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current" model P&S
    >>>still take 4 AA's?

    >>
    >>Just glancing through Canon's current models, the PowerShot A-620
    >>(7.1) takes 4 AA batteries. Didn't look for any others.

    >
    >
    > A quick look through www.Steves-Digicams shows quite a few. I stand
    > corrected.


    Hang on. Are you sure this is USENET?

    You're not meant to concede a point
    in a polite way just because
    of a few petty facts!

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Jan 25, 2006
    #12
  13. SMS Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi, I'm in the market for a new-ish digital camera. Can you help me
    > find the right one? I'm looking for a camera with these features:
    >
    > -Under $200 USD
    > -At least 2.0 MP
    > -SD/MMC
    > -Some sort of Lens covering system. The Fuji Finepix A340 is an
    > excellent example.
    > -Internal Rechargable Battery system (no AA's, etc.)


    Not many cameras charge inside the camera anymore. Canon's G2, 23, and
    G5 could do this (or charge outside), but they dropped this on the G6.

    Unfortunately, at the price level you're looking at, you're unlikely to
    find something with a Li-Ion battery, as these are found on higher-end,
    more expensive cameras. AA batteries are used at the low end in order to
    lower the cost to the manufacturer.

    Kodak has some models that can charge the batteries inside the camera,
    but they are not great cameras.

    > It would also be very cool to have an Optical Zoom. I realize that
    > many entry-level cameras have only a crappy digital zoom, and this is
    > OK. But if you can find one that meets these criteria and has the
    > optical zoom, thats Right-on! The reason I have SD as a requirement is
    > that I already have a 512 MB SD card, and I'd like to not have to buy a
    > new card unless I have to.
    >
    > Well, everyone, thanks very much in advance if you can help me!


    You'd best give up the idea of an included rechargeable battery, and get
    the Canon A520 for $170. The Kodak V530 is $210. The one bad thing about
    the V530 is that it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, which you should
    always have.

    If you want the features you're looking for, other than the price, get
    the Canon SD450 at $300.

    While it makes sense to try to avoid AA batteries, at $200 you're not
    going to be able to achieve this. You won't regret spending the extra
    money to get a Li-Ion battery and charger. See "http://batterydata.com"
    for more details on this subject.
     
    SMS, Jan 25, 2006
    #13
  14. Ron Hunter Guest

    mrsgator88 wrote:
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>> I can't see any possible advantage to internal rechargeable.
    >>>

    >> One advantage, they are MUCH smaller than 4 AA's, which may be an
    >> important factor to some, and MUCH lighter, of course.

    >
    > Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current" model P&S
    > still take 4 AA's? I suspect the OP hasn't looked at camera's in quite a
    > while. They've come a long way from the likes of my Kodak DC210+ (4 AA,
    > short battery life, 1mp, and no lens cover, and therefore almost never
    > used).
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >

    I agree. Somehow the idea of the lens being uncovered when the camera
    is not in use has never seemed a good thing to me. I LOVE the automatic
    lens covers in current P&S cameras. The ones you have to remove, and
    lose are about as bad as no lens cover (which tends to become no lens
    cover rather quickly).
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter Guest

    bugbear wrote:
    > mrsgator88 wrote:
    >> "Tony Cooper" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:51:39 GMT, "mrsgator88" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current"
    >>>> model P&S
    >>>> still take 4 AA's?
    >>>
    >>> Just glancing through Canon's current models, the PowerShot A-620
    >>> (7.1) takes 4 AA batteries. Didn't look for any others.

    >>
    >>
    >> A quick look through www.Steves-Digicams shows quite a few. I stand
    >> corrected.

    >
    > Hang on. Are you sure this is USENET?
    >
    > You're not meant to concede a point
    > in a polite way just because
    > of a few petty facts!
    >
    > BugBear

    I believe the trend is to smaller, lighter, cameras which will render
    the 4AA models scarce as time goes by. The newer cameras usually
    require less current than the older ones, so the 4 AA versions will
    probably disappear in another couple of years. So, if you like the
    larger, heavier, models, better buy one now.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter Guest

    miles wrote:
    > Tony Cooper wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sure you have a reason, but I'd avoid the internal rechargable
    >> batteries in favor of a camera that takes four AAs. My daughter has a
    >> Sony with the internal charger, and when the batteries go down she's
    >> out of business until she can recharge with her AC adapter. (She does
    >> have a spare battery, but they are very expensive)
    >>
    >> Rechargeable AAs work fine. If they do go flat, you are seldom far
    >> from a place that sells non-chargable AAs for temporary use.

    >
    > The Kodak rechargable batteries are about $22 or less. Some of the
    > Kodak cameras can take both AA's or the rechargable pack and can be
    > charged in the camera using an AC adapter or a docking station. When
    > traveling I got tired of having to bring a lots of AA's or always
    > stopping by a store to buy more. I can get 200 pictures on a charge so
    > it works great for me.


    I have the Kodak rechargeable pack, and a dock, so the camera is always
    ready to go, but for longer trips, I also carry spare sets of
    rechargeable NIMH AA cells, and a couple of sets of disposable lithium
    AAs. Never been left without power yet....
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 26, 2006
    #16
  17. gpsman Guest

    gpsman, Jan 26, 2006
    #17
  18. Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    : I agree. Somehow the idea of the lens being uncovered when the camera
    : is not in use has never seemed a good thing to me. I LOVE the automatic
    : lens covers in current P&S cameras. The ones you have to remove, and
    : lose are about as bad as no lens cover (which tends to become no lens
    : cover rather quickly).

    This is even a bigger problem with SLRs, IMHO. Back when I was using a
    film SLR I either had to go without a lens cap or try to come up with some
    way to tie the cap to the lens. Generally this required a string and some
    kind of elastic band that connected the cap to the lens. But I was always
    getting the dangling string caught on things or was driven to distraction
    when in even a slight breeze the dangling cap would bang against the
    tripod leg. So when I found the "keeper caps" on B&H I was in heaven.
    Personally I am using the ones that secure to the lens with a filter.
    Since I am one of the "always have a UV/haze filter on the front" folks
    this works fine for me. And I like that with a flick of a finger the cap
    hinges down out of the way (spring loaded) while giving me full use of the
    filter threads. And when I flip it closed again it seals solidly to keep
    out dust and moisture.

    I know this is not overly helpful to the OP, but I thought the viewpoint
    might mesh with the perspective being discussed. Of course, if the P&S
    camera with a non-closing lens has a filter thread it might be a potential
    line of research to see if such a cap is made to fit that sized filter
    thread. Such a cap would definately reduce the "where do I put this cap
    while shooting" question, and would remove the "just leave the durn thing
    at home" impulse. IMHO

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Jan 26, 2006
    #18
  19. SMS Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > mrsgator88 wrote:
    >> "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>> I can't see any possible advantage to internal rechargeable.
    >>>>
    >>> One advantage, they are MUCH smaller than 4 AA's, which may be an
    >>> important factor to some, and MUCH lighter, of course.

    >>
    >> Both my P&S (Kodak and Sony) only take 2 AA. Does any "current" model
    >> P&S still take 4 AA's? I suspect the OP hasn't looked at camera's in
    >> quite a while. They've come a long way from the likes of my Kodak
    >> DC210+ (4 AA, short battery life, 1mp, and no lens cover, and
    >> therefore almost never used).
    >>
    >> Steve
    >>

    > I agree. Somehow the idea of the lens being uncovered when the camera
    > is not in use has never seemed a good thing to me. I LOVE the automatic
    > lens covers in current P&S cameras. The ones you have to remove, and
    > lose are about as bad as no lens cover (which tends to become no lens
    > cover rather quickly).


    I have an old Canon G2, which came with a lens cover that attaches with
    a short bit of cord. I don't see how I'd lose it. One less motorized or
    mechanical thing to go wrong. I wouldn't want this on an ultra-compact
    though.
     
    SMS, Jan 26, 2006
    #19
  20. SMS Guest

    Randy Berbaum wrote:

    > This is even a bigger problem with SLRs, IMHO. Back when I was using a
    > film SLR I either had to go without a lens cap or try to come up with some
    > way to tie the cap to the lens. Generally this required a string and some
    > kind of elastic band that connected the cap to the lens. But I was always
    > getting the dangling string caught on things or was driven to distraction
    > when in even a slight breeze the dangling cap would bang against the
    > tripod leg. So when I found the "keeper caps" on B&H I was in heaven.
    > Personally I am using the ones that secure to the lens with a filter.
    > Since I am one of the "always have a UV/haze filter on the front" folks
    > this works fine for me. And I like that with a flick of a finger the cap
    > hinges down out of the way (spring loaded) while giving me full use of the
    > filter threads. And when I flip it closed again it seals solidly to keep
    > out dust and moisture.


    The problem with the hinged lens caps is that if you're using a hood
    they don't flip down out of the way.
     
    SMS, Jan 26, 2006
    #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. msnews.microsoft.com

    Looking for a WPA bridge recommendation

    msnews.microsoft.com, May 28, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,217
    msnews.microsoft.com
    May 28, 2005
  2. bjrugg

    re:Looking for a WPA bridge recommendation

    bjrugg, Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
    bjrugg
    Jun 29, 2005
  3. Pasquale
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,041
    Pasquale
    Jan 23, 2004
  4. dtedrick
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    833
    dtedrick
    Jun 29, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,416
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page