• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Need a new Digital Camera

N

nitrobass24

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - December 2009
2FA
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
10,477
Im not sure if this is right place or not, so Mods feel free to move.

What I need is a new digital camera.
I dont need the best of the best as im no photographer, i just wanna take some avg pics.

I would prefer that it uses standard AA or AAA batteries opposed to some proprietary bullshit.
Doesnt need to be extra small, but I dont want something huge.
I dont know much about photography or cameras so I dont really know, what questions to ask.

Some guidance would be appreciated.
 
You don't want them to use AA/AAA batteries... that will just get annoying.

If I was you I would pick up any of the Canon Powershot SD series. They are all really nice, and not to expensive. All of them come with a nice small battery and a wall charger for it.
 
I guess im just a lil gun shy on the proprietary batteries, because I have a Nikon S9 and I can get like 25 pics, and the battery dies.
I have bought 4 of those damn things.

This last summer when I was at the Vatican, I burned through all my batteries and ended up taking pictures with my Blackberry.
 
I have had 3 Canon SD Powershots and put usually 300 or so pictures though on one battery charge. No need to worry about them. Check out their reviews on dpreview.com.
 
criccio said:
You don't want them to use AA/AAA batteries... that will just get annoying.

If I was you I would pick up any of the Canon Powershot SD series. They are all really nice, and not to expensive. All of them come with a nice small battery and a wall charger for it.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with AA batteries? I have a PowerShot S5 and I love the fact that it uses AAs. I have a couple sets of 2650mAh rechargable batteries (not very expensive, especially compared to the price of some camera battery packs), and it's nice knowing that if I'm out, taking a ton of photos and if for some reason I can't plug in my charger, I can still grab some regular old AA's at basically any store, gas station, etc.
 
PC_User said:
What's your budget?

http://www.costco.com/Common/Catego...nDesc1&lang=en-US&ec=BC-EC10604-Cat83&topnav=
Click to expand...

P!rate said:
Budget would definetly help.
Click to expand...

Well im not really sure, its flexible.
Definately not anything over $600
If I can get what I need/want for 200 then thats great if it needs to 400 then thats fine too, etc. but $600 MAX.

Jerome36 said:
What's wrong with AA batteries? I have a PowerShot S5 and I love the fact that it uses AAs. I have a couple sets of 2650mAh rechargable batteries (not very expensive, especially compared to the price of some camera battery packs), and it's nice knowing that if I'm out, taking a ton of photos and if for some reason I can't plug in my charger, I can still grab some regular old AA's at basically any store, gas station, etc.
Click to expand...

That was kind of my theory, I was thinking I can still grab those AA lithium batteries and get great life out them.
 
Your requirements are not narrow enough, so maybe there isn't anything special you need from a camera aside from AA batteries. I would also suggest you hit up dpreview to check out cameras and their forum for information. Propreitary batteries have very long shots per charge. If you go AA, you should get rechargable batteries and a charger to go with it as regular AA don't last as long. But it's of course convenient to keep buying AA and throwing them out (not environmentally good to do).

There are a few things you might want to consider. 1 is physical size. 2 is low light capability. 3. optical zoom. You can FORGET about pixel count, the race for more pixel is actually a step back in pixel quality (more pixel = more noise). There are only a handful out of the hundred+ models that are good at low light. I'm not in the point and shoot field (I'm a DSLR user) so you'll have to research that yourself. Many models now have lens stabilization (physical) system, this is good to eleminate hand shake, especially in low light situations. Then there's the issue of zoom power, forget about digital zoom, as that's like zooming on your computer. You want physical optical zoom. That should help you narrow it down a bit. I have an old Canon point and shoot that has a swivel LCD screen. I purposely bought it for that feature, and I can get creative using it. Something to think about if you're that type of photographer.
 
Well I think if I'm gonna get something I might as well get something good.

DSLR would be great if I could find one that is not enormous.
Ideal would be small enough to put in my girlfriends purse.
Also low light capability is a must, I didn't really think about that before.
 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8942362&type=product&id=1215217299053

This has a rechargable battery but it lasts a long time. The USB cord for data transfer to your pc is also the charging cord. You can either charge it straight from your computer or from the wall adapter that comes with it. My wife and I bought one just the other week and it's been great...really good pictures and from the sounds of it basically what you're asking for since you're kind of just looking for an average non professional type of camera.


We also got a 4GB SD card and it holds something like 1500-2000 pictures on it for only $20. Although it looks like it's $25 now...but still worth it in my opinion.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8554799&type=product&id=1188561943631
 
i understand op's want for AA's. it doesn't mean anything if your battery that holds 600 pictures wast hung on the charger the night before because you forgot.

i would use the sanyo eneloops too. those can be charged on normal nimh chargers, and they do no lose their charge when the camera is not in use. they will still hold a considerable amount of flashes, and you really never have to worry about recharging because any old set of AA's can be found anywhere...

and im not sure if they make them, but a camera that could charge the AA's while theyre still in the camera would be extremely nice.
 
Low light...really means you have to crank up the ISO of the camera. Only a handful of the hundred+ models can do it. Of course going to DSLR... even the bottom rung, will be a HUGE step up in high ISO performance. This is because their sensors are much bigger. I'm a Nikon person, so I would suggest you look at the cheapest Nikon and see what it's going to cost (the low end DLSR are pretty small and light IMO). I think it's the D40x or the new D5000 with a swivel LCD. All DSLR have a optical viewfinder, most compacts do not (some Canon ones do). LCDs are hard to see in bright sunlight. Canon also makes DSLR. I would pick up either one of the two brands for DSLR as they dominate the market.

Another option is the Sigma DP1 or DP2. It's the size of a point and shoot, but it has a DSLR size sensor in it. Hence it's pretty good at high ISO (though not as good as Canon or Nikon DSLR due to a different sensor technology (albeit the same size sensors). The drawback is that it is a fixed focal lens. I believe it is around $600, not too sure.

Another option yet, is the semi DLSR/ point and shoot. They looks like mini DSLR with bulging grips and a lens that is fixed to the body (one piece). they usually spot a huge zoom range. Look for ones that have real physical optical image stabilization (not digital). You gain significant zoom range, but pay for the extra bulk... they use the same small sensors as point and shoots. For me, I think this is too middle of the road, neither the advantage of a small P&S or a slightly larger low end DSLR with much better image quality.

I should also add, the small your print, the less you're giong to notice the noise that you will see on your monitor. If you just print 4x6, or if you just output to the web in small sizes.. might as well save your money and get a point and shoot. Whatever you do, try not to use throw away AA. Rechargables propreitary or AA are fine. Save the environment.
 
Last edited:
Low light... what exactly do you want this camera for ;);)?

Seriously, like the OP said, that is going to limit your choices significantly and you are going to pay a lot more for such a camera.

I suggest you do a search and read reviews on which cameras excel in that category.

You aren't going to find a "cheapy" that does a really good job at low light....

BTW, just came across this - looks like a good deal:

Nikon D40 Digital SLR Camera Kit

$449.99 - $100 (with code 68564) = $349.99 with free shipping.

http://www.staples.com/office/supplies/p16_Nikon-D40-Digital-SLR-Camera-Kit_171238_Business_Supplies_10051_true_SEARCH

Don't know if that would fit the bill....
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I couldn't resist adding my 2 cent here:

Olympus E-420

I understand that the OS is looking for something simple & efficient.
But if you want "more" / "better" quality, then a DSLR would be the answer.
Just in case anyone is interested though.

I bought the DSLR (above) about 2 months ago and was shocked about the big difference in picture quality to the crap I was using before.
I mean, please don't get me wrong. It all depends what your intentions are.
If your appreciate really good, sharp, crisp, high quality pictures .... DSLR.

cheers
 
wow, $350 for a D40 kit, that's sooo cheap. I bought a point and shoot Canon G1 back in 2000 for... almost 1K, it was and is pretty slow and poor, but it's still workin. No offense to other brands, but stick with Nikon or Canon for DSLR, they have the majority of market share... that means they have the most support for lenses, accessories, and software. Plus loads of used equiptment for it as well. Just a critical mass/user base issue. One more thing, lithium Ion batteries last and work better in the cold vs AA. The shot life should be in the few hundreds, more than you're going to take in a day for sure.
 
Canon 40D with battery grip. I get over 1000 pics/charge without using the flash. $1200 or so with the grip.
 
exe said:
wow, $350 for a D40 kit, that's sooo cheap. I bought a point and shoot Canon G1 back in 2000 for... almost 1K, it was and is pretty slow and poor, but it's still workin. No offense to other brands, but stick with Nikon or Canon for DSLR, they have the majority of market share... that means they have the most support for lenses, accessories, and software. Plus loads of used equiptment for it as well. Just a critical mass/user base issue. One more thing, lithium Ion batteries last and work better in the cold vs AA. The shot life should be in the few hundreds, more than you're going to take in a day for sure.
Click to expand...

Ha, I just sold my Canon G2 on eBay for $60. I think that it was around $1K when I bought it, too! Scary stuff.

I replaced it with a Sony DSC-W290, and couldn't be happier. Doesn't take regular batteries, though.
 
Not yet.
Im still doing research.
Im not in any hurry to buy one, i just am not happy with what I have so....
 
I think the Canon SD series are amazing little cameras. Probably will do everything you want, fast, good color representation, insane battery life. I've used quite a few over the past 5 years or so... SD450, SD550, SD700, SD880... probably a few more... and they have all performed very well.
If you want a little more quality vs size and are willing to spend a bit more I would take a look at the Canon G10. It will take a really good shot in auto mode most of the time but the real beauty is how much manual control you get in such a small package. I bought a G10 before going to New Zealand last fall and took thousands of pictures on it while I was there. Best camera I've ever used short of a DSLR in the $1k area.
You won't find a lot with AA or AAA batts these days and I don't think you should try... I typically get several hundred pictures and 10-45 minutes of video on my G10 per charge. Canon's new Digic4 chip is very power efficient.
 
nitrobass24 said:
Not yet.
Im still doing research.
Im not in any hurry to buy one, i just am not happy with what I have so....
Click to expand...

Ah

Sorry for the question. You just sounded eager to get a new one asap there. :p

Did suggest a Canon camera a few posts back, but do like the Kodak brand as well.

Currently have a simple point and shoot C330 4MP one. By all means, I'm not a professional photographer and just approve the quality of bud pictures.

It seems with any brand that the more expensive you go, the more features it includes. :confused:
 
One thing you mentioned is 'low light'. This means you will either need to use a flash, some sort of 'nightshot' / IR photography, or a camera with a very good f-stop (or else you will have very blurry pictures if there is any movement). Most non-SLR cameras have very tiny sensors and lens systems, so their low-light abilities are very limited. You usually have to accept some sort of downside... crappy depth of field, blurryness, or grainy/noisy ISO settings. The 'just under SLR' category USED to have some decent cameras for low light, but since they have become more and more budget oriented, almost all of the cameras in this category use smaller CCD's borrowed from the smaller cameras which tend to be more popular. Also, cameras with heavy zooms tend to make low-light applications even harder. Cameras lines like the Canon G10 and Nikon P90, L100, P6000, P80 etc... have rather crappy results in low light because of the above mentioned.

There is one camera on the market which is an exception... The Panasonic LX-3. It has the best low-light performance of any non-DSLR camera because it uses a huge, slightly more expensive sensor (which means much better quality), and a less 'extreme' zoom. If you want a 10-24x zoom, look elsewhere, but if most of your pics are going to be in the 1-20 foot range anyways (I found I rarely use more than 5x zoom on my 12x camera before), check it out. It makes stellar photos.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08072102panasoniclx3.asp
 
undertheradar, the crappy results you mentioned I would attribute not to cost cutting, but primarily to trying to squeeze even more mega pixels on the same small sensor. More pixels = crappier pixel quality (for the same generation sensor). Just a law of physics in regards to signal/noise ration.

All the points you make are accurate and need to be considered. I have a strong suspision the OP probably doesn't understand most of it, and would probably be better suited getting an all auto camera, including auto ISO. That LX3 sounds good on paper, but I'm put off by the 400 pound price, which would be $600 bucks.Might as well buy the cheap DSLR .. plus the wife is carrying it anyway lol.
 
exe said:
All the points you make are accurate and need to be considered. I have a strong suspision the OP probably doesn't understand most of it
Click to expand...
That would be correct. I dont know shit about cameras. I know i push the button on the top right and it takes a picture.
 
Well, just like with computers, if you 'dont know shit' about cameras, you are pretty much stuck going by other people's opinions. Since you are here at [H], I will assume you have an interest in the more technical aspects of consumer electronics, and so I would suggest that you get a quick education on some of the terms I have tossed out there. It shouldn't take you long at all, since there are sites like dpreview.com which are dedicated to that sort of thing, and already have basic articles to explain the things I mention. Trust me, if you can understand computer stuff, camera stuff is very easy. Its all just geometry and optics.

exe, one of the main ways a camera maker can cust costs is by reducing CCD size, just like reducing die size/process on a proc. Thats why my EOS 5D Mk2 costs almost 2x as much as the 50D. In order to reduce the cost of the once 'semi pro' cameras to reasonable levels (people now want them for $300-500 at most, when not so long ago I paid $1200 for my Nikon CoolPix 5000), the CCD's have been borrowed from lesser cameras and dressed up with larger bodies, higher zooms, etc. You are correct that 'more and more pixels' has resulted in part of the problem with image quality, but CCD/frams size is the other part (what we are getting at here is pixel density after all, which is the ratio of pixels to area). But, if you increase the CCD size regardless of density, you will see lower light capacity (since the CCD will have more light crossing it). The 'larger the eye', the 'darker you can see', not to mention other benefits like depth of field (being able to take a picture where more of the subject is in focus).

In this comparison, I think this sums it up (this is about the Canon G10, but I think you can see how it applies to many in this group): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/page2.asp

"But look a little closer at the images and you'll see that they suffer from all the same problems as every other small sensor camera, and that you're essentially buying a sheep in wolf's clothing. This is a serious, feature-laden camera that simply can't deliver on what external appearances might promise. It's a joy to use, everyone who uses it loves it, and it's solid enough to double as a weapon should anyone be foolish enough to try to take it from you. Just don't expect the results to be in a different league to any other half decent camera on the market, because they aren't."

The Panasonic Lumix is also included in that review....
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/page6.asp

I know there are many people who have invested (both in money and opinion) in more popular cameras like the Canon G10, so when I say 'it isnt all that' they get offended, so Ill let the review speak for me...

"It's hard to get away from the feeling that the LX3 is a thoroughbred amongst the other cameras in the group, with it's high quality build, compact design, excellent image quality and fast 24-60mm zoom; the extra wide angle opening up a whole new world of creative opportunity for the compact camera user. Sure, it doesn't have much in the way of a telephoto, but if that's what you're after the LX3 won't be on your list anyway."

I purchased the LX3 (even thought I have the uber-5D) because I wanted something more compact for situations where I didnt want a tank hanging around my neck, or where I didnt want $4000-5000 in equipment on me. The thing is, when I visited some place like a nightclub or the Georgia Aquarium where I didnt want to use a flash, yet I wanted to take lower light pictures that were clear... cameras like the G10 fall on their faces. The LX3 takes perfect pictures in these situations though.

If you are looking for a camera with great performance in low light/high ISO... look what they have to say...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/page13.asp
 
I hear you on the price though... I got mine for $450 when it came out... since then the price has gone up due to it being so unique.

J&R still has it for the least...
http://www.XXXXXXX/panasonic/pe/PAN_DMCLX3K/

Here, check out 'depth of field' in the optics section:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Depth_of_Field_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_Multiplier_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Lenses_01.htm

^^^... do you really think they make the smaller sensors with higher quality optics to 'compensate' for the smaller sensor? Lol...

For 'low light', F-stop is the main consideration...
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Aperture_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Exposure_01.htm

Most non-SLR cameras with hgh zooms tend to have a higher minimum aperture... I would try to get something at least as low as 2.2, if not 2.0. A camera with a F-stop of 2.8 for instance, will suck in lower light because its aperture cant open far enough at a given distance (since opening the aperture than the sensor means you will just lose the outside of the image)... so you want a larger sensor so you can have a larger aperture to go with. To compensate, a camera has to extend its exposure time to get enough light on the sensor... so in lower light if the aperture cant open far enough, the exposure time goes up... this means motion will be blurred. Some cameras use 'image stabilization' or a higher ISO to compensate, but these are electronic methods to correct inferior optics, and so things like 'digital noise' appear in the image.

Sorry to toss this all at you, but Im trying to empower you through information so you can make your own decision based on facts, not other people's opinions.
 
Last edited:
undertheradar, I'm a full frame user as well with a D700. I was even impressed with the current generation reduced frame D300 but not the D200. Anyway, I think we'd both love a 1.5x frame sensor in a P&S. Which leads me to ask you, what are you using for a P&S yourself? And what is your opinion between the Pani you suggested and a Sigma DP1 or DP2?
 
I have many P&S from over the years... A Nikon Coolpix 5700 (Total POS that I hate), a Sony DSC-T5 because it fits in a shirt pocket, and the Panasonic LX3 (if I want a zoom, Im gonna use the SLR).

The Sigmas are a unique product... like the LX3. The thing that kills the Sigmas for me is their lag time... after the 5700, the Sigmas just put me off... snapshots are impossible. Not to mention, the low light performance of them isnt as great as you might think... I think the Panasonic trumps them for 'brightness'... go figure. Its not like I tried them side by side. But I remember the lag... that killed it for me.
 
Hey nitro, I'm actually in the hunt for a new digital camera as well. Specifically, I am hunting for a compact camera that uses AA batteries (for the convenient purchase convenience when traveling and you forget the charger)

Consumer Reports has high marks and recommendations for Canon A590is (compact category) and Canon SX110is (zoom category) and the best prices I've found for both are Newegg and Amazon.

As for a larger camera, I'll get a DSLR in the future.
 
I personnally suggest the Panasonic Lumix DMCZS1K. Great optical zoom (12X), nice point-and-shoot easy setup, big screen (2.7 inches). I know several people who bought the precendent generation and they are overall satisfied with their purchase.
 
Ok well I have been reading some reviews and such.
I think ive come down on the price a bit. I dont really want to spend more than $400.

I have been looking at the
Nikon S630
Canon SX110
Lumix LC3


Ive been reading through some of the glossary and trying to learn this camera stuff, but im a little confused on how to compare these.

Ok so Im leaning towards the Canon, and the Nikon due to price, I read the review on the Lumix and i konw its a great camera I just dont know if I am willing to bite.
On the Canon and Nikon im not sure how to compare them. So the both have relatively the same size CCD 2.3/2.33 respectively, and but the Canon has a Lower pixel rating(does this mean that the image quality will be better compared to the Nikon?) and a higher Zoom and lower iso, where the Nikon does 16:9 pics, and has a higher ISO.
Between these two cameras how can one really decipher what will have better image quality? I mean taking the random portraits is not what I am too worried about. But when I am at a museum and cant use flash I NEED something that will give me a good photo that isn't blurry.
 
Since you have narrowed it down to just 2 or 3, I would suggest just going to a store that has them and comparing them in person. At this point, getting your hands on them would be a good next step. I will look into the 3 you mentioned and see if there is anything to note or that would make me pick one over the other.
 
Megapixel count means next to nothing at this point, once you get beyond that just start looking at reviews and take note of the many things mentioned in this thread... You'll see similar concepts on the reviews, performance at different ISO levels, flash performance, etc. That Nikon model you listed is noticeably smaller than the Canon, though they're both pretty small, one has a 10X zoom and the other is 7X. Not sure the Canon would fit comfortably in a pant pocket though, the newer SX200 model is a lil' thinner... That Canon does use AA batteries though, the Nikon uses a rechargeable.

I'm not sure there's an exact Canon counterpart to that Nikon model, their more compact SD models usually have a 4X zoom at most... Though the ones with the 28mm wideangle lens are particularly nice for panorama shots and the like. I bought my SD870 a year ago over other Canon models exactly because of that. I had noticed it was soon replaced by the SD880 and even that model is no longer available, for pete's sake, camera models seem to be refreshed more often than video cards these days, I guess the 960 is the replacement to both... Not the 970, yeah, the naming scheme makes little sense. Won't even get into the Europe vs US Canon naming scheme situation.

Viewfinders seem to be omitted pretty often amongst these compact models these days. When I got mine I had the option of going with the SD850 instead which had a viewfinder but a smaller 2.5" screen (think it was lower res too)... The bigger 3.0" screen is much nicer to have imo, though I went with the SD870 instead mostly because of the wideangle lens. If I upgrade mine anytime soon I think I'll go w/that SX200, I like it's HD video recording and 28mm lens, and the fact that the flash pops up (oughta help reduce red eyes, if only a lil').

P.S. The reviews at places like dpreview will give you a pretty good idea of battery life too... I had a Canon A80 that used 4 AA batteries before I had this SD870. I thought I might miss the fact that at any time I could replace the batteries if I ran out of juice but frankly the rechargeable battery on this compact lil' camera lasts a loooong time. Something like 450+ shots. I've left it inside the camera for 2-3 months at a time w/o using it too and picked it up and used it for two or three nights w/o the battery having being drained, so they're even pretty good at retaining their charge over a long period of time. I can't say the same (at all) for rechargeable AA batteries. You can always buy a second rechargeable pack to reduce the chance that you'll forget to re-charge it. I dunno about other brands but the Canons come with a neat lil' compact charger for the battery.

Though dpreview doesn't seem to review the compact models as promptly after they launch as they used to, there's several other good places to look into though.

P.P.S. Take all extra features into account btw... There's stuff I thought I'd never use, like video recording, and I've ended up using it to great effect. Many of the newer compact models (and some of the DSLRs) will even record video at 720p res. I've gotten great lil' clips of my cousin's 2-year old daughter that no one else would've grabbed because no one would've thought of bringing along a video cam at those times.
 
Last edited:
Oh and visit your local stores and take note of clearance prices... As I mentioned, Canon/Nikon and others seem to be refreshing camera models more often than ever, and sometimes the model on the way out will be offered at a great price to clear it out. A couple months after I got my SD870 for like $260 (w/a Circuit City 10% online code IIRC), it was selling for like $170 at Best Buy because the SD880 had just come out. Online stores tend to sell out much quicker so you don't see these deals there.
 
Ok well after going to the store and playing with the cameras I have narrowed it down.

The panasonic....nice but I dont want to spend that much.
The canon I did not like the way it felt, just something was weird.
The Nikon I liked it, but its hard to tell how it will perform in non-optimal conditions....its pretty lit up in Best Buy.

While I was there I also really liked this Nikon Coolpix L100. I cant really tell what to think about it though. The lens is obviously much larger but it uses the same CCD size, and has less pixels. Also it seems that it doesn't have as high an ISO setting, as the S630.

Size is not really a factor between these two. Its really which one will take better pics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top