Small digitial camera recommendations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by szeik@hotmail.com, Oct 12, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Hi,

    My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    situations.

    A friend of hers has a Nikon that takes good pictures so I've been
    looking at the slim Nikon digital cameras. The CoolPix 4200 seems to
    get good reviews. I just saw it at Sears for $229.

    I'd appreciate any feedback on this camera and/or recommendations for
    other cameras.

    Thanks,
    Steve
     
    , Oct 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Last week I bought a Nikon 7900 for my wife - in-camera red eye removal plus
    lots of assist modes.

    As with all Nikons, low light focus tends to 'hunt' quite a bit, but
    otherwise a great little camera.

    Stewart

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    > problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    > use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    > situations.
    >
    > A friend of hers has a Nikon that takes good pictures so I've been
    > looking at the slim Nikon digital cameras. The CoolPix 4200 seems to
    > get good reviews. I just saw it at Sears for $229.
    >
    > I'd appreciate any feedback on this camera and/or recommendations for
    > other cameras.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Steve
    >
     
    Stewart Vane-Tempest, Oct 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    > problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    > use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    > situations.
    >
    > A friend of hers has a Nikon that takes good pictures so I've been
    > looking at the slim Nikon digital cameras. The CoolPix 4200 seems to
    > get good reviews. I just saw it at Sears for $229.


    I've got a 4200. Nice little camera and I'm happy with the pics &
    movies it produces. I'm no photo expert though. Make sure you buy a SD
    card for it (I've got 512Mb) and she'll be happy.

    --
    Paul
     
    Paul, Oct 12, 2005
    #3
  4. Steve H Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    > problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    > use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    > situations.
    >
    > A friend of hers has a Nikon that takes good pictures so I've been
    > looking at the slim Nikon digital cameras. The CoolPix 4200 seems to
    > get good reviews. I just saw it at Sears for $229.
    >
    > I'd appreciate any feedback on this camera and/or recommendations for
    > other cameras.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Steve
    >

    Steve:

    Ditto for the 4600. Available for about $200, less if you look around.
    4 MP and uses AA NiMH batteries. I used a 3100 for about 3 years before
    it was damaged and I replaced it with the 4600.

    Steve
     
    Steve H, Oct 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Matt Ion Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye.


    There is no such thing. Many camera have features designed to help
    mitigate red-eye, usually pre-flash to dilate the pupils, and some have
    built-in software red-eye removal, but the phenomenon itself is a factor
    of the eye, not the camera.

    Red-eye is caused by the light of the flash going stright into the eye
    and reflecting straight back to the lens off the retina. Pros get around
    it by moving the flash further away from the camera, which reduces the
    chance of the light reflecting straight back into the lens. Pocket
    cameras where the flash is attached and very near the lens axis don't
    have this option.

    Most photo-editing software, including that bundled with most cameras,
    have very good red-eye removal tools.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0541-1, 10/12/2005
    Tested on: 10/12/2005 8:33:51 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 12, 2005
    #5
  6. salgud Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    > problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    > use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    > situations.
    >
    > A friend of hers has a Nikon that takes good pictures so I've been
    > looking at the slim Nikon digital cameras. The CoolPix 4200 seems to
    > get good reviews. I just saw it at Sears for $229.
    >
    > I'd appreciate any feedback on this camera and/or recommendations for
    > other cameras.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Steve


    I looked at the Nikon's when I bought my Canon. My biggest problem was
    that they do more "color enhancemment" in-camera than what I wanted (I
    prefer true colors, and to do the "enhancement" on my computer), but
    your wife will probably never notice.
    As for buying it at Sears, I would question that. I've been screwed by
    them so many times, I stopped shopping there years ago. I don't know of
    a more deliberately out-to-screw-the-customer outfit than Sears. I'd
    definitely buy from a reputable online company before I'd buy from
    Sears (check www.resellerratings.com). I originally bought my camera,
    card, card reader, batteries and charger from highly rated (9.5 or
    above) sellers, and when I had to cancel or send back stuff, I had no
    problems.
    Wherever you buy it, I suggest you take your wife to a store to handle
    it and take a couple of test pics before you make the purchase. I know
    I'm not supposed to say so these days, but with women, you never know.
    She might not like the color of the strap, or the way "that little
    doohickey on the side is". Things a guy would never notice.
    Hope this helps in your world.
     
    salgud, Oct 12, 2005
    #6
  7. On 12 Oct 2005 07:35:12 -0700, wrote:

    >My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    >requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    >problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    >use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    >situations.


    Red eye is primarily caused by having the flash close to the lens. So
    asking for "small, no red eye," is a bit like asking for "small, big".
    If no red eye is really the biggest requirement you should be thinking
    in terms of a camera with a hot shoe and a separate flash unit - unless
    someone here can think of something that's skipped my attention. And a
    separate flash unit is pretty close to a necessity for "great pictures
    indoors".

    --
    Stephen Poley
     
    Stephen Poley, Oct 12, 2005
    #7
  8. salgud Guest

    Stephen Poley wrote:
    > On 12 Oct 2005 07:35:12 -0700, wrote:
    >
    > >My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > >requirement is no red eye. Our current film camera has red eye
    > >problems. She wants a digital camera that is small, no red eye, easy to
    > >use, and takes great pictures indoors and outdoors in most lighting
    > >situations.

    >
    > Red eye is primarily caused by having the flash close to the lens. So
    > asking for "small, no red eye," is a bit like asking for "small, big".
    > If no red eye is really the biggest requirement you should be thinking
    > in terms of a camera with a hot shoe and a separate flash unit - unless
    > someone here can think of something that's skipped my attention. And a
    > separate flash unit is pretty close to a necessity for "great pictures
    > indoors".
    >
    > --
    > Stephen Poley


    One of the reasons I chose the Canon A520 was that if I have a problem
    with red-eye, it has an available external flash. But I wouldn't
    recommend this camera to most beginners, unless they could just ignore
    the plethora of options available on it.
     
    salgud, Oct 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Jeremy Guest

    > On 12 Oct 2005 07:35:12 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >>My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    >>requirement is no red eye.


    Some cameras offer red eye reduction flash mode--the flash pre-fires several
    times quickly, to get the subjects' iris' to close, before the final flash
    shot is taken. It may help a bit, but it is not perfect.

    Kodak Gallery/ OFOTO, as part of their "Perfect Touch" service, can now
    identify and eliminate red eye in prints. Otherwise, you'll need to learn
    how to deal with red eye in your editing software. You might try to avoid
    situations where flash is used. That will definitely stop red eye problems.
    It may not always be a practical option.
     
    Jeremy, Oct 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Bill Guest

    Matt Ion wrote:

    >> My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    >> requirement is no red eye.

    >
    >There is no such thing. Many camera have features designed to help
    >mitigate red-eye, usually pre-flash to dilate the pupils, and some have
    >built-in software red-eye removal, but the phenomenon itself is a factor
    >of the eye, not the camera.
    >
    >Red-eye is caused by the light of the flash going stright into the eye
    >and reflecting straight back to the lens off the retina. Pros get around
    >it by moving the flash further away from the camera, which reduces the
    >chance of the light reflecting straight back into the lens. Pocket
    >cameras where the flash is attached and very near the lens axis don't
    >have this option.


    Bingo.

    >Most photo-editing software, including that bundled with most cameras,
    >have very good red-eye removal tools.


    As a matter of course, I have disabled all red-eye reduction features on
    both of my digital cameras. My subjects, both humans and other animals,
    appreciate the lack of nasty lighting that distracts them from the
    moment.

    I use an external flash on my digital SLR so it's not usually an issue.
    But when I happen to have a photo with red-eye, a quick edit in
    Photoshop (or almost any other photo editor) gets rid of it quickly and
    easily. It works much better than red-eye reduction, and I can make any
    other quick edits while I'm there.
     
    Bill, Oct 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Matt Ion Guest

    Bill wrote:

    >>Most photo-editing software, including that bundled with most cameras,
    >>have very good red-eye removal tools.

    >
    >
    > As a matter of course, I have disabled all red-eye reduction features on
    > both of my digital cameras. My subjects, both humans and other animals,
    > appreciate the lack of nasty lighting that distracts them from the
    > moment.


    It also adds to the "shutter lag" - the shutter must wait several
    seconds for the red-eye reduction light or pre-flash before tripping.

    Some cameras also use this as a focus-assist function in low lighting
    conditions...


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0541-1, 10/12/2005
    Tested on: 10/13/2005 12:20:40 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 13, 2005
    #11
  12. ASAAR Guest

    On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:31 -0700, salgud wrote:

    > One of the reasons I chose the Canon A520 was that if I have
    > a problem with red-eye, it has an available external flash. But I
    > wouldn't recommend this camera to most beginners, unless they
    > could just ignore the plethora of options available on it.


    Does the A520 have a PC terminal or hot shoe? I didn't think it
    had either one. I also thought that Canon's external flash for the
    A520 and most of the other Canon PowerShot cameras was wireless,
    needing the camera's built-in flash to be triggered. Even if this
    is the case, it would help reduce redeye, especially if the camera's
    flash output can be reduced, which shouldn't be too difficult.
     
    ASAAR, Oct 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Lin Chung Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye....



    Sony P150
    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_p150-review/index.shtml
    3/4 down the page:
    "Ready for a big surprise? There was absolutely no redeye in our flash
    picture test! I was shocked... so shocked that I repeated the test several
    times, but the result was always the same. Well done, Sony!"

    In January this year, P150 was superseded by P200.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscp200/

    --
    Lin Chung
    [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
     
    Lin Chung, Oct 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    , Oct 13, 2005
    #14
  15. HerHusband Guest

    Steve,

    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye. She wants a digital camera that is small,
    > no red eye, easy to use, and takes great pictures indoors and
    > outdoors in most lighting situations.


    Red eye is caused by the camera flash reflecting off the retina in the
    eye. There are basically three ways you can eliminate the red eye effect.

    1. Have the subject look away from the camera.

    2. Move the flash off to the side, so it's not a direct reflection to the
    camera.

    3. Use a camera that can take pictures in lower light without using the
    flash.

    The first two options aren't always convenient, so I looked for a camera
    that could take pictures in low light without the flash. I chose the Fuji
    F10. It's small, fast, and does well in low light.

    For those times when you need a flash, red eye reduction flashes can help
    by dilating the subjects pupil before taking the picture. But, it's very
    distracting and adds more delay to taking the picture.

    Anthony
     
    HerHusband, Oct 13, 2005
    #15
  16. <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > My wife wants a small easy to use digital camera. Her biggest
    > requirement is no red eye.


    Small = flash near lens = redeye. I suggest you find appropriate software
    to remove it.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Oct 13, 2005
    #16
    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. Starlover

    Digitial TV

    Starlover, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    514
    Starroamer
    Oct 30, 2004
  2. Andrew McDonald
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    394
    Andrew McDonald
    Jul 31, 2003
  3. denton

    Canoscan FS 2710 vs prosumer digitial?

    denton, Dec 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    381
    denton
    Dec 16, 2003
  4. The Brane

    Need Help Printing Digitial Images of Text From a Book

    The Brane, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    270
    Mark Grebner
    Jan 18, 2004
  5. Tim

    Digitial printing from a Magicgate?

    Tim, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    326
    mcgyverjones
    Feb 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page