Last May I broke down a bought a digital SLR, a Canon, and I've been very pleased with it. NOw I'm thinking about replacing my smaller autofocus digital camera.
I currently have a Fuji FinePix 2650, 2.0 megapixels, and altho I'm pleased with the pictures, I['m not so pleased with the bulky size. I really want a camera that will literally fit in my pocket.
I'd like to move DOWN in size and UP in megapixels. I'd also like to use a camera that will accept my XD cards, which may limit me to a Fuji or an Olympus.
Has anyone down any recent shopping that might be helpful for me?
Read about the Canon SD80 at www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons80 I bought one as a Christmas present for my son. It is a remarkable little camera! I wouildn't preclude it on the basis of the type of card it uses insofar as flash cards etc are now so inexpensive.
Peter
Posts: 1366 | Location: Essex Fells, NJ and Longboat Key, Florida | Registered: 21 July 2002
Looks fabulous, and the lack of RAW doesn't bother me at all, but it does seem a bit more than I'm wanting to spend. I'll price it at several places to see what the "real" price is.
There are quite a few different Canon models, and if you don't need 8 megapixels, you can probably get one for a good bit less that will meet your needs.
One thing I really like about the Canons (in addition to good image quality) is that they are among the last of the compact digital cameras to include an optical viewfinder. Many of the manufacturers are taking that out as an economy move. But I find it is much better to have the choice of the optical viewfinder when shooting in bright light because the LCD can be hard to see. Also, you can turn off the LCD to conserve your battery.
Look at the Canon SD 450, for example -- it is under $300, and has 5 megapixel resolution. Both my son and my sister have that model and are very happy with it.
I agree, you shouldn't limit yourself by type of card. Costco, for example, has good prices on SD cards, which seem to be the current standard.
I really wanted a pocket sized digital camera. We have an Olympus that is a great camera, but too bulky for me. Last Friday we went to Circuit City, bought a Canon A410 Powershot 3.2 megapixels. I've been practicing with it and it is easy to use, makes great looking pictures AND fits in the palm of my hand.
Canon just announced the May release of a bunch of new cameras. One has a 3" LCD screen (SD630) and does not have an optical viewfinder. In my hands, that camera's screen would probably go kaput in no time. They are replacing my beloved S2IS with the S3IS, retaining the swivel LCD screen, but I'm content with the S2 with no plans to replace.
I'd suggest going to www.dpreview.com and looking at the timeline section for what is new on the horizon.
Posts: 780 | Location: Birch Bay, WA | Registered: 02 December 2002
I have a cute little Olympus Stylus Verve 4.0 megapixel that I bought just to have a little camera I could carry in my purse all the time. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't buy it because of the lack of an optical viewfinder. Even though it takes great pictures, and uses the same XD cards as my other Olympus, I think it was a mistake.
Framing the image to be snapped using the LED screen is a rather poor way to get the best of which the camera is capable. That is because it is very difficult to hold the camera steady with arms outstretched. That manner of holding the camera introduces camera shake. It is not too noticeable when printing small pictures, but those special photos that one would like to enlarge can be a disappointment as a result. This is especially true due to the shutter delay in most digital cameras. Using the optical viewfinder held steadily against the face is the way to go.
The LED screen is useful after the picture has been snapped to determine whether adjustments should be made for the shots in the same environment.
Also, not all pixels are of the same quality!
Peter
Posts: 1366 | Location: Essex Fells, NJ and Longboat Key, Florida | Registered: 21 July 2002
Well when you use the optical viewfinder on these small digicams (really any non-DSLR and even some DLSR's have this problem) you have to realize that what you're seeing only comprises of 60-80% of the shot that's being taken. The LCDs on digicams typically display 90+%.
The Canon A620 is a well regarded camera for around $300 (Buydig.com is generally the place to go for digicams in terms of price/service). Dpreview review here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/ The S80 gives you more manual control, but it's also $100 more. These are probably the best small form-factor cameras and generally the images will have greater resolution (detail) than the ultra-slim offerings.
----------------------------------- Pekorino, my food blog On The Road, Again [travel stories from 2005-2006]
Speaking of prices on SD cards, my husband just came home from Costco with a 1 gigabyte card for $49 (regularly $59, with a $10 off coupon good this week).
Yes I reqalize the shortcomings of an autofocus comaera, which is why I broke down and bought a digital SLR as well. It would still be nice to have something small enough to keep in my purse all the time.
I've NEVER been any good at "point and shoot"...just holding the camera up and taking the picture! I see others doing it all the time but for me, I need to steady the camera with my head!
And now that I've started looking, it seems as if every time I see some cute little camera and ask what it is, it turns out to be a Canon.
I just bought the Canon SD550 along with a 1GB of memory from Circuit city ($399 on sale for $339 and they honored the costco coupon - $42.99). I was considering the SD630 but didn't want to wait until May to buy it. Plus there were a couple of things taht the SD550 had over the 630.
The SD550 takes great pictures, is lighter than my A70 and had a nice 2.5" LCD screen. I tested some photos on my husband and no red eye! There's even a feature to take photos of kids and dogs - you know how fast they move and it has worked well with my dog Lucy (who always looks a me with, "What, you're taking another photo of me!")
What I'm seeing now that we're in the states is that the newer cameras are not only getting smaller, but the LCD screen is getting bigger.
My goal now is to find the smallest camera with the most megapixels for uner $300....all the while knowing that in 6 months (or less) there will be smaller, better, cheaper...
Most megapixels doesn't mean anything. The resolution difference between a 6MP and a 10MP camera is small and it means nothing in terms of better quality images.
----------------------------------- Pekorino, my food blog On The Road, Again [travel stories from 2005-2006]
Most megapixels doesn't mean anything. The resolution difference between a 6MP and a 10MP camera is small and it means nothing in terms of better quality images
I have to disagree with that. Certainly, more megapixels doesn't mean everything, and there's a lot of other factors to consider in terms of image quality. However, more MP does offer the ability to crop and to make larger enlargements. Now this may not matter to someone taking snapshots, but its just not accurate to totally dismiss megapixels as a factor of quality. I just upgraded from a 6 MP camera to a 10 MP camera and the difference in cropability (if that's a word) is huge.
Yes, If I can crop an image, I can essentially increase the "zoom" factor of a digital point and shoot yet still have the ability to enlarge to 9X12, even 11X15 with no second thoughts.
My point was that MPs do nothing to reduce vignetting, noise, purple fringing, and all the other things that make your photo look poor. These things should be the priority over megapixels, assuming you want photos that look good In many cases more MP on compact digicams results in worse image quality, because those extra pixels are crammed onto the same size sensor (2/3"), resulting in smaller pixel pitch and thus reduced image quality (smaller pixel pitch generally directly equates to increase in noise).
With your budget and desire for a compact you're looking at max 8MP anyway, and from 6 to 8MP is around a 10-15% difference in image size (generally 6mp is around 3000x2000 and a 8mp is 3250x2450). The difference in print size at high quality, or crop size on yoru computer, is rather neglible (10-15%), meaning you should focus on how good the photos will look rather than how large they can be. And a 6MP camera can do 11x15's with ease.
----------------------------------- Pekorino, my food blog On The Road, Again [travel stories from 2005-2006]
Is there anyway of reducing the glare on the digital screen??? We have a Olympus 770, which I like alot, (very happy with the 10X zoom) however, I find the screen very annoying in that many times I can't see $*&#! And the view finder distorts images and is not nearly as sharp as in a regular SLR. Added to that is the fact that I now need glasses and again the end result is that I can't see $*&^! Any ideas??
My point was that MPs do nothing to reduce vignetting, noise, purple fringing, and all the other things that make your photo look poor. These things should be the priority over megapixels, assuming you want photos that look good
Absolutely, that's why I said that MP is only one factor to consider. But all other things being equal (and, as you point out, they usually aren't) more "good quality" MPs does give certain advantages--that was my point. I would certainly rather have a 6MP camera with fantastic image quality than a 12 MP camera with lousy IQ
FYI, Costco has the Canon SD600 6MP Elph for $319.99 right now, compared to amazon for $333.94. Has the 2.5" LCD screen plus the viewfinder that the SD630 with a 3" screen does not. I might order this one just to keep in my purse; as much as I love my S2 IS, it's just big and a tad heavy.
I have had 3 Sony digitals and the best was the very first one--a DSC75 I think! I suspect because it had the best lens--although all have been Carl Zeiss. But--it was more clunky than the newer ones. Now, I am in the market again as I don't like the latest one I bought--a Sony W1. I actually downgraded options in order to get a larger screen--mistake.
Both Sony and Canon (out in May/June)have a 12x digital zoon--which sounds good. But is it?
Question of someone who knows: How much weight would you put on the power of digital zoom? Thanks
Topic Closed
In many cases more MP on compact digicams results in worse image quality, because those extra pixels are crammed onto the same size sensor (2/3"), resulting in smaller pixel pitch and thus reduced image quality (smaller pixel pitch generally directly equates to increase in noise).