I hate dragging around my SLR, and I am looking for a good digital that can fit into a pocket. It doesn't hafta be super small, but it can't be another SLR. I am looking for something in the $100 to $250 range, and has a 5X zoom. Other things I would kinda like would be a fast shutter speed, be able to take pics in low lighting, and hopefully be able to use AA or AAA type batteries, so that if I run out, I can go to the corner store to get them. Do any of you guys have digital cameras? Are you happy with them?
played with my daughter's cheapo canon. It's good and friendly. $130 price point, whatever model that is... I'm a Nikon bigot, and bought a Nikon point and shoot digital about 4 years ago. Wouldn't get another Nikon based on that experience. but maybe they were all crappy 4 years ago.
First, I strongly recommend a rechargeable battery system. You can buy extra batteries and external chargers that work both at home and in your car for less than $10. The problem is the camera's pull so much power that regular batteries just do not last long enough to be worth it. You'll spend a fortune in batteries and have to lug multiple sets around. I like the Casio Exilim series as taking good pics, being very small and feature laden. I have a slightly older EX-S770 that is a 7.1 megapixel and has a dock to connect to the computer or printer. I like this feature better than the cable connecters. You also charge the battery at the same time.
dunno, the canon seems to get good life from a standard set of alkalines. Lithium ion rechargeables seemed to have a short shelf life and then they lost half their capacity in the 2nd year. And I'm lugging 2 batteries, and the charger around rather than just an extra set of AA's. If you're using it daily rechargeables make sense, but if it's going to get light use over long periods stick with disposable alkaline batteries.
I WORK for Nikon, but I don't like Nikon's digital cameras too much. The CoolPix line is a little too user-unfriendly.
Canon's not bad. Oh and I don't work for the division of Nikon that makes or sells cameras, so I am not the best expert on the subject. I just know that the CoolPix line is technically good but not very user friendly. This is the Nikon business I am into: http://www.nikonprecision.com/
well my main complaint was the wait time between taking a picture and the picture actually taking and being able to take the next one. The latency problems were probably more the speed of flash memory and effected all cheap digitals (althought 400 at the time was kinda pricey). Daughter's cheapo canon is fun fast and takes good pictures and videos.
What model Nikon did you have? The one you didn't like? I had a CoolPix 2500 and a CoolPix P3. The P3 was much better, but yeah, there IS a latency between pictures that is irritating.
For a compact i would go with Canon. One mate has a powershot G9 and another an ixus 80. Both are very very good, the colours are absolutely stunning. The powershot has the loong zoom, the ixus is small and light. Just depends what you want
Coolpix 4300 circa 2003. I can almost live with the time to write to flash memory, but if you do what it's intended for, pointing and shooting, there's a couple second delay between pushing the shutter release and the thing actually taking the picture. Unless you push it half way and stage the shot. I've got more action shots of my feet that way...
The latency can be due to a few issues. I've had an old Hewitt Packard do what you mentioned above Steve244. The problem was it took AA batteries, and when those were low, you got that delay. Another thing is how much light there is in the room. If there isn't a lot of light, the camera can struggle with getting enough light into the lens to take the picture. From the reviews I read online, this problem can be solved with using the flash. On some cameras, they've stuffed so many megapixels into the picture, that it has a hard time writing it to the JPG, and that ends up either leaving a lot of compression artifacting, or the pictures turn out like shit. One solution some people have done to solve this is turn down the quality of the pictures. So if your camera is 8 megapixels, turning it down to 6 megapixels per picture solves a lot of their "shitty picture" problems. The problem is, it seems a lot of the cameras out there are doing more megapixels than they can actually process. This is because people are impressed with megapixels. If they advertised it as a 6 mp camera for $300, and another company advertised theirs as 8 mp for $300, most people will go for the 8, even if it's pushing the camera's processing powers. Getting a fast memory card also helps in some of the delay between taking the picture and writing it to the card.
I have a Nikon CoolPix L12. Today I found the setting that cuts the delay between shot to shot in half. It never occurred to me that there would be a setting for this. It has ISO 1600, which is nice, but if I'm inside and don't want flash, I have to dig into the settings and change the lighting mode. Otherwise I wond up having to colour-correct every image. It's a pain in the butt. Also, when the usb port broke, I emailed Nikon to ask if it was worth fixing. They never bothered to reply.
Welp, I've bought it. I went with the Sony Cybershot DSCW150. It's an 8.1 megapixel camera, with a 5X zoom. I did quite a bit of research before buying, and here are my notes, in case anyone is also looking for a camera: I went with that one, because the others all seemed to have problems with the memory resetting itself if you turn it off. Not good if you are in a place that does not allow flash. The Cybershot was a little bit more expensive, but you do get a lot of extra features with it, and it seemed like the least annoying camera to operate. All the "cons" I went to test out, and they don't seem to be true if you take the photos on the second highest megapixel setting. In my opinion, it seems to be the best 5X zoom camera under $300 out there. I got it for $260 at Best Buy. So far, I am pretty happy with it.
Ok, shit! I gave the new camera a go today, taking the gf out around town. When I took the pictures, it looked great on the camera screen, but after coming home and uploading them to the computer, I was not happy with the quality of the pictures. Here is an example of a few pictures I took: As you can see, the images suffer from severe grainyness! That's so gay! I came home and played around with the ISO settings, but the pictures, compared to my parent's old Canon Powershot, were just inferior. I found the Canon had a much better Auto mode, and took pictures with better default settings. When you're out and about, you don't wanna be messing around with settings all the time to get a perfect shot. I am gonna return the Sony tomorrow and look for a Canon or Nikon.
Man, I'd never buy a Microsoft camera. The thing would take 60 seconds to take a picture and would somehow need security patches. [action=Kyle]is writing from his current primary OS, Mac OS 10.5.[/action]
No, I returned the camera and got a Canon Powershot SX100. It was $10 cheaper ($249.99cdn) and it has a 10X zoom! So far, it seems to take pretty good pictures. I'll have to run it through some tests later today. The only sort of bad thing about it is it does seem a bit bulkier than the other cameras I was looking at. But the 10X zoom is pretty damn nice. It's by no means a monster like the Canon Digital Rebel xTi I have, but I can't slip it into a shirt pocket like that Sony, and putting it into my front pants pocket makes it seem like I am very glad to see you.
Sanyo's pretty good. The only problem I have with it is the tendency for it to show these little red and blue specks on the image. I'm not sure how to get rid of that. It's a 7.1 MP. J.
I know this isn't what you're looking for but if you're going to be picky then go ahead and shell out some bigger bucks. My wife and I got a Canon EOS Rebel about a year ago and haven't regretted spending a lot on it. It's got high resolution and good shutter speed. It'll take multiple pics in a row when you hold down the button - I forget what the rate is but it's pretty high. The battery life is good and it accepts all Canon lenses for when you're ready to upgrade.
Man, it's hard to fit the optics of a camera that isn't going to take utterly shit pictures in anything wallet-sized. The Sonys are usually pretty damn small, but as you've seen, the picture quality suffers. Of course, I usually wear cargo pants, so bulkier cameras are a little less...forward ...in my pockets.
LOL! I bought cargo pants yesterday to go with the camera, believe it or not. Which flies in the face of the cool kids, who are all wearing $300 designer Se7en jeans. Maybe I'll grow a mullet next.
Nah man, mullets are way too hot in the summer. It ain't a party in the back if it's all sweaty and clinging to your neck.
what would Nikon do with portable closets??? I was reading this site, http://www.portableclosets.org, and portable closets are in no way related to Nikon.
